(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations, with amendments and interpretations"

FEDERAL 
MOTOR VEHiaE 

SAFETY 

STANDARDS 

AND REGULATIONS 

With Amendments 
and Interpretations 
^ Issued through May 1976 



March 1977 



U.S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 



--^i— '— ^o. 




^ Notional Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
1^ Washington, D.C. 20590 

^'^r" ov '''' 



'^o-^^^.^ 



0} 




6 



DOT HS-802 238 



FOREWORD 

This reference volume contains Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 
and Regulations, including amendments and interpretations, issued through 
May 1976. 

The volume is divided into three sections. The first section contains 
procedural rules and regulations. The second section contains the standards. 
The third section contains Rulings and additional regulations. 

Each section is sub-divided into Parts which correspond to the Part 
numbers appearing in the United States Code of Federal Regulations, as 
shown in the following examples: 

Part 551 — Procedural Rules 

Part 567 — Certification 

Part 571 — Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 

Part 575 — Consumer Information 

The arrangement of the Parts within a section consists of preamble ma- 
terial, followed by the applicable standard or regulation. To simplify the 
incorporation of amended material into the text, amendments are issued as 
full replacement pages, with each page having the same page number as the 
page it replaces. 

The page numbering system is designed to keep related materials to- 
gether, while permitting expansion of the material within a section. Each 
page number identifies: the Part, to which it belongs, the standard or regula- 
tion with which it is concerned, and the page number. For example, page 
one of Standard No. 108 is listed as PART 571; S 108-1. Preamble ma- 
terial (which is not amended) has the same numbering system, except that 
the abbreviation PRE precedes the page number (e.g. PART 571 ; S 108 — 
PRE 1). 

New standards, amendments, interpretations and other changes are issued 
bi-weekly as supplements to this document. These are loose leaf, pre-punched 
and distributed automatically to subscribers to this publication. A sample 
layout of a changed page with explanatory annotations appears on page iii. 



For sale by the Superintendent of Documents. U.S. Government Printing Office 
Washington, D.C. 20402 



Stock No. 060-003-90080-0 



Material enclosed in 
brackets represents 
amendments to 
original Standard 



Effective: January 1, 1968 



Effective date of 
Standard or amendment 




MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 203 
Impact Prot^cHon for the Driver from the Steering Control System — Passenger Cars 



51. Purpose anil scope. This standard speci- 
fies requirements f*r steering control systems that, 
will minimize chesV neck, and facial injuries to 
the driver as a resviltXof impact. 

52. Application. [This standard applies to 
passenger cars. However it does not. apply to 
vehicles that conform to the frontal barrier crash 
requirements (S5.1) of Standard No. 208 
(§ 671.208) by means other than seat belt as- 
semblies. (40 F.R. 17992— April 24, 1975. El 
fective: 5/27/75)]^ 

ring control 
steering mechani^ny 
hardwarje, inclSiuKiiAax 




53. D 

means tl 
sociated 
of a stei 
energy ab! 

54. Req 

S4.1 Ex- 
steering cohtrol 
block in ac 
Engineers JiCecom 
ing Wheel 
dure," Decer 




ovided in S4.2, when the 

em is impacted by a body 

with Society of Automotive 

ended Practice J944, "Steer- 

bly Laboratory Test Proce- 

965 or an approved equivalent, 



at a relative velocity of 15 miles per hour, the 
impact force developed on the chest of the body 
block transmitted to the steering control system 
shall not exceed 2,500 pounds. 

S4.2 A~^ype 2 seat belt assembly that con- 
forms to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 
shall be installed for the driver of any vehicle 
h forward control configuration that does not 
t the requirements of S4.1. 

S4^The steering control system shall be so 

^cted that no components or attachments, 

luding horn actuating mechanisms and trim 

hardware, can catch the driver's clothing or 

jewelry during normal driving maneuvers. 

[Interpretation 

The term "Jewelry" in paragraph S4.3 refers 
to watches, rings, and bracelets without loosely 
attached or dangling members. (32 F.R. 3390 — 
March 1, 1967)3 

32 F.R. 2414 
February 3, 1967 



Issue of Federal Register 
in which amendment was 
issued and effective date 
of amendment 



Issue of Federal Register 

in which Standard was 

originally issued 




Part of Code of Federal Regulations 
in which Standard appears 




Standard Number 



Page Number 



{Rev. 4/17/75) 



PART 571; S 203-1 

ill 



I 



SECTION I 

PART 520— PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERING ENVIRONMENTAL 
IMPACTS 



PART 551— PROCEDURAL RULES 

PART 552— PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING, DEFECT, AND 
NONCOMPLIANCE 

PART 553— RULEMAKING PROCEDURES 

PART 555— TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FROM MOTOR VEHICLE 
SAFETY STANDARDS 

PART 566— MANUFACTURER IDENTIFICATION 

PART 567— CERTIFICATION REGULATION 

PART 568— VEHICLES MANUFACTURED IN TWO OR MORE 
STAGES 

PART 569— REGROOVED TIRES 

PART 570— VEHICLE IN USE INSPECTION STANDARDS 



' < 



Effective: November 4, ]975 



PREAMBLE TO PART 520— PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERING 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

[Docket No. 73-32; Notice 2] 



The purpose of this amendment to Title 49 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is to add a new 
Part 520 establishing procedures for considering 
environmental impacts. 

A notice of proposed procedures on this sub- 
ject was published on December 21, 1973 (38 
FR 35018). Two comments were received on the 
proposed procedures : one, from the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, supported 
the proposal and considered it to be responsive 
to the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 (NEPA) and the NEPA guidelines pre- 
pared by the Council on Environmental Quality ; 
the second, from General Motors Corporation, 
had some objections which have been carefully 
considered in this issuance of final procedures. 
In view of some of GM's comments, the issuance 
of the Department of Transportation (DOT) 
Order 5610.1B, "Procedures for Considering 
Environmental Impacts," (39 FR 35234), and 
further consideration within the NHTSA, the 
final procedures have been slightly modified. 

Definitions. In order to differentiate a written 
environmental analysis submitted to the agency 
by its grantees or contractors from that under- 
taken by the agency itself, the meaning of the 
term "environmental assessment" has been 
changed from an internal agency evaluation pro- 
cess to an evaluation process external to the 
agency, and the term "environmental review" has 
been added to denote the written environmental 
analysis undertaken by the agency. 

AppUcahility. "Consolidation of statements," 
.section 520.4(f). allowing actions which have sub- 
stantially similar environmental impacts to be 
covered by a single impact statement or environ- 
mental review culminating in a negative declara- 
tion is included in this final issuance. 



GM commented that the increase in costs illus- 
tration used as an example for the project 
amendments exception in section 520.4(d) (5) 
(herein renumbered as 520.4(e) (5) ) is ambiguous 
and could also permit a circumvention of the 
initial environmental evaluation process. In re- 
sponse to this, the section has been revised to 
make it clear that only project amendments with 
no environmental consequences are excepted from 
the review process. The criteria for determining 
which project amendments are excepted is in- 
tended to match that for excepting minor agency 
actions (§ 520.4)e) (6)). 

Section 520.4(d) (6) of the proposed proce- 
dures was erroneously included and is accord- 
ingly deleted. 

GitideUnes. The general guidelines have been 
reworded, upon GM's request, to clarify that an 
environmental impact statement or negative de- 
claration is to be prepared for any of the three 
situations enumerated under this general cate- 
gory. 

Section 520.5(b), Specif c guidelines, has been 
modified to reflect GlVI's comments, revised DOT 
Order 5640.1, and further determinations within 
the NHTSA. Subparagraphs (7)-(12) have 
been added and the original subparagraph (7) 
has been renumbered as (13). The agency has 
determined that these additional classes of actions 
should be enumerated in order to better identify 
those typical areas of environmental concern the 
NHTSA's activities may impact. 

Research activities. In accordance with section 
4 of final DOT Order 5610.1B, proposed imple- 
menting instructions for assessing the environ- 
mental consequences of research activities will be 
prepai-ed by the Assistant Secretary of Systems 
Development and Technology', with the concur- 
rence of tlie NHTSA. Until these final proce- 



PART 520— PRE 1 



Effective: November 4, 1975 



dures are promulgated, however, the guidelines 
set forth on this subject in the proposed proce- 
dures will be followed. 

Procedures. The procedures subpait includes 
a number of additions and modifications. With 
respect to certain actions enumerated in Subpart 
A which may have an environmental significance, 
the official responsible for the action will prepare 
reviews that are much more comprehensive than 
the assessments proposed by tlie previous notice. 
He will conclude his review with a brief written 
report, to be included in the proposed or ongo- 
ing action, in which he will either recommend 
that a draft environmental impact statement 
(DEIS) be prepared to determine the environ- 
mental impact involved, or declare that the action 
would not have a significant effect on the quality 
of the environment. A review report that 
concludes with a "negative declaration" is not 
required to go through the extensive comment 
and review process provided for the DEIS, but 
it will be retained by the agency and made avail- 
able to the public upon request. 

Once an Associate Administrator, the Chief 
Counsel, or a Regional Administrator (in con- 
sultation with his Governor's Representative) 
determines, that an agency action under his juris- 
diction requires the preparation of a DEIS, he 
will transmit a "notice of int«nt" to prepare the 
DEIS to the appropriate Federal, State, and 
local agencies and publish the notice in the 
Federal Register. In addition, a schedule of 
procedures and review will be developed in each 
case to assure completion of the DEIS before 
the first significant point of decision in the pro- 
gram or project development process. Once the 



DEIS is circulated for review and comment, not 
less than 45 days in any case will be allowed for 
comment. A public hearing on a DEIS will be 
held when appropriate, and notice of the hearing 
will be issued in the Federal Register at least 
30 days before the hearing. Final environmental 
impact statements (FEIS) will be prepared and 
distributed as soon as practicable after the ex- 
piration of the comment and hearing process. 

In accordance with the final DOT order 
5610.1B, a new section 520.34 has been added, 
establishing procedures for the review of environ- 
mental statements prepared by other agencies. 

Four attachments having a direct bearing on 
the preparation of impact statements have been 
added to this issuance of the final rule and will 
be followed by this agency. 

Effective date: November 4, 1975. 

In consideration of the foregoing, a new Part 
520, "Procedures for Considering Environmental 
Impacts," is added as § 520 of Title 49, Code of 
Federal Regulations. . . . 

(Sees. 102(2) (A), 102(2) (C), Public Law 91- 
190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); sees. 2(b), 
4(f), Public Law 89-670, 80 Stat. 931 (49 U.S.C. 
1651(b), 16.53(f)); Executive Order 11514, 35 
FR 4247; 40 CFR Part. 1500; DOT Order 
5610.1B, 39 FR 35234; delegations of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.45, 1.51.) 

Issued on Nov. 4, 1975. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

40 F.R. 52395 
November 10, 1975 



PART 520— PRE 2 



Effective: November 4, 1975 



PART 520— PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 



SUBPART A— GENERAL 
Sec. 

520.1 Purpose and scope. 

520.2 Policy. 

520.3 Definitions. 

520.4 Applicability. 

520.5 Guidelines for identifying major actions 

significantly affecting the environment. 

SUBPART B— PROCEDURES 

520.21 Preparation of environmental reviews, 

negative declarations, and notices of 
intent. 

520.22 Maintenance of list of actions. 

520.23 Preparation of draft environmental im- 

pact statements. 

520.24 Internal processing of draft environmental 

impact statements. 

520.25 External review of draft environmental 

impact statements. 

520.26 Public hearings. 

520.27 Legislative actions. 

520.28 Preparation of final environmental impact 

statements. 

520.29 Internal review of final environmental 

impact statements. 

520.30 Availability of final environmental im- 

pact statements. 

520.31 Amendments or supplements. 

520.32 Emergency action procedures. 

520.33 Timing of proposed NHTSA actions. 

520.34 Review of environmental statements pre- 

pared by other agencies. 

Attachment 1 — Form and content of statement. 

Attachment 2 — Areas of environmental impact 
and Federal agencies and Fed- 



eral-State agencies with jurisdic- 
tion by law or special expertise 
to comment thereon. 

Attachment 3 — Offices within Federal agencies 
and Federal-State agencies for in- 
formation regarding the agencies' 
NEPA activities and for receiving 
other agencies' impact statements 
for which comments are requested. 

Attachment 4 — State and local agency review of 
impact statements. 

SUBPART A— GENERAL 
§ 520.1 Purpose and scope. 

(a) Section 102(2) (C) of the National En- 
vironmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 853; 
42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (C)), as implemented by Ex- 
ecutive Order 11514 (3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., 
p. 902) and the Council on Environmental 
Quality's Guidelines of April 23, 1971 (36 F.R. 
7724), requires that all agencies of the Federal 
Government prepare detailed environmental 
statements on proposals for legislation and other 
major Federal actions significantly affecting the 
quality of the hmnan environment. The purpose 
of the Act is to build into the agency decision- 
making process careful consideration of all en- 
vironmental aspects of proposed actions. 

(b) This part specifies National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) pro- 
cedures for conducting environmental assess- 
ments and reviews, and for the preparation of 
environmental impact statements on proposals 
for legislation and other major agency actions 
significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment. 

§ 520.2 Policy. 

The agency will strive to carry- out the full 
intent and purpose of the National Environ- 
mental Policy Act of 1969 and related ordei-s and 
statutes, and take positive steps to avoid any 



PART 520-1 



Effective: November 4, 1 975 



action wliich could adversely aflfect the quality 
of the human environment. 

§ 520.3 Definitions. 

(a) "Environmental assessment" is a written 
analysis describing the environmental impact of 
a proposed or ongoing agency action, submitted 
to the agency either by its grantees or contractors, 
or by any person outside the agency as part of 
any program or project proposal within the scope 
of activities listed in § 520.4(b). 

(b) "Environmental review" is a formal evalu- 
ation undertaken by the agency, culminating in 
a brief document (the environmental review re- 
port), to determine whether a proposed or on- 
going NHTSA action may have a significant 
impact on the environment. The review docu- 
ment will be included in the proposed or ongoing 
agency action, and either support a negative de- 
claration or recommend the preparation of a 
draft environmental impact statement. 

(c) "Draft environmental impact statement" 
(DEIS) means a preliminary statement on the 
environmental impact of a proposed or ongoing 
NHTSA action which is circulated for comment 
and review within and outside NHTSA. 

(d) "Final environmental impact statement" 
(FEIS) means a detailed statement which, pur- 
suant to section 102(2) (C) of the National En- 
vironmental Policy Act, identifies and analyzes 
the anticipated environmental impact of a pro- 
posed or ongoing NHTSA action. 

(e) "Negative declai-ation" means a statement 
prepared subsequent to an environmental review, 
which states that a proposed or ongoing NHTSA 
action will have no significant environmental 
impact and therefore does not require a draft or 
final environmental impact statement. 

§ 520.4 Applicability. 

(a) Scope. This part applies to all elements 
of NHTSA, including the Regional Offices. 

(b) Actimis covered. Except as provided in 
subparagraph (e) below, this part applies to the 
following agency actions and such actions and 
proposals as may be sponsored jointly with an- 
other agency: 

(1) New and continuing programs and proj- 
ects; budget proposals; legislative proposals 
by the agency ; requests for appropriations ; re- 



ports on legislation initiated elsewhere where j 
the agency has primary- responsibility for the ^ 
subject matter involved; and any renewals or 
reapprovals of the foregoing; 

(2) Research, development, and demonstra- 
tion projects; formal approvals of work plans; 
and associated contracts; 

(3) Rulemaking and regulatory actions, in- 
cluding Notices of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) ; requests for procurement (RFP) ; 
requests for grants (Annual Work Programs) ; 
and contracts; 

(4) All grants, loans or other financial 
assistance for use in State and Community 
projects; 

(5) Annual State Highway Safety Work 
Programs ; 

(6) Construction; leases; purchases; opera- 
tion of Federal facilities; and 

(7) Any other activity, project, or action 
likely to have a significant effect on the en- 
vironment. 

(c) Continuing actions. This part applies to 
any action enumerated in subsection (b) above, 
even though such action arise from a project or L 
program initiated prior to enactment of the N 
National Environmental Policy Act on January 

1, 1970. 

(d) Environmental assessments. Within the 
scope of activities listed in § 520.4(b), any 
person outside the agency submitting a program 
or project proposal may be requested to prepare 
an environmental assessement of such proposed 
action to be included in his submission to the 
agency. 

(e) Exceptions. 

(1) Assistance in the form of general reve- 
nue sharing funds, distributed under the State 
and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, 31 
U.S.C. 1221, with no control by the NHTSA 
over the subsequent use of such funds; 

(2) Personnel actions; 

(3) Administrative procurements (e.g., gen- 
eral supplies) and contracts for personal serv- 
ices; 

(4) Legislative proposals originating in 
another agencv and relatinjr to matters not 



PART 520-2 



Effective: November 4, 1975 



within NHTSA's primary areas of responsi- 
bility ; 

(5) Project amendments (e.g., increases in 
costs) which have no environmental signifi- 
cance; and 

(6) jNIinor agency actions that are deter- 
mined by the official responsible for the actions 
to be of such limited scope that they clearly 
will not have a significant effect on the quality 
of the human environment. 

(f) Consolidation of sfatements. Proposed 
actions (and alternatives thereto) having sub- 
tantially similar environmental impacts may be 
covered by a single environmental review and 
environmental impact statement or negative de- 
claration. 

§ 520.5 Guidelines for identifying major actions 
significantly afFecting the environment. 

(a) General guidelines. The phrase, "major 
Federal actions significantly affecting the quality 
of the human environment," as used in this part, 
shall be construed with a view to the overall, 
ciunulative impact of the actions, other Federal 
projects or actions in the area, and any further 
contemplated or anticipated actions. Therefore, 
an environmental impact statement should be pre- 
pared in any of the following situations: 

(1) Proposed actions which are localized in 
their impact but which have a potential for 
significantly affecting the environment; 

(2) Any proposed action whicli is likely to 
be controversial on environmental grounds; 

(3) Any proposed action which has unclear 
but potentially significant environmental con- 
sequences. 

(b) Specif c gfuidelines. "While a precise defini- 
tion of environmental significance that is valid 
in all contexts is not possible, any of the follow- 
ing actions should ordinarily be considered as 
significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment : 

(1) Any matter falling under section 4(f) 
of the Department of Transportation Act (49 
U.S.C. 1653(f)) and section 138 of Federal- 
aid highway legislation (23 U.S.C. 13R), re- 
quiring the use of any publicly owned land 
from a park, recreation area, or wildlife and 



waterfowl refuge of national. State, or local 
significance as determined by the Federal, State, 
or local officials having jurisdiction thereof, 
or any land from an historic site of national. 
State, or local significance; 

(2) Any matter falling under section 106 of 
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 
(16 U.S.C. 470(f)), requiring consideration of 
the effect of the proposed action on any build- 
ing included in the National Register of 
Historic Preservation to comment on such 
action ; 

(3) Any action that is likely to affect the 
preservation and enhancement of sites of his- 
torical, architectural, or archaeological signifi- 
cance ; 

(4) Any action that is likely to be highly 
controversial regarding relocation housing; 

(5) Any action that (i) divides or disrupts 
an established community, disrupts orderly, 
planned development, or is inconsistent with 
plans or goals that have been adopted by the 
community in which the project is located ; or 
(ii) causes significantly increased congestion; 

(6) Any action tliat (i) involves inconsis- 
tency with any Federal, State, or local law or 
administrative determination relating to the en- 
vironmental; (ii) has a significantly detri- 
mental impact on air or water quality or on 
ambient noise levels for adjoining areas; (iii) 
involves a possibility of contamination of a 
public water sujiply system; or (iv) affects 
ground water, flooding, erosion, or .sedimenta- 
tion ; 

(7) Any action that may directlj- oi- indi- 
rectly result in a significant increase in noise 
levels, either within a motor vehicle's closed 
environment or upon nearliy areas; 

(8) Any action that may directly or indi- 
rectly result in a significant increase in the 
energy or fuel necessary to operate a motor 

' vehicle, including but not limited to the follow- 
ing: (i) actions which may directly or indi- 
rectly result in a significant increase in the 
weight of a motor vehicle; and (ii) actions 
which may directly or indirectly result in a 
significant adverse affect upon the aerodynamic 
drag of a motor vehicle; 



PART 520-3 



Effective: November 4, 1975 



(9) Any action that may directly or indi- 
rectly result in a sio;nificant increase in the 
amount of hannful emissions resulting from 
the operation of a motor vehicle; 

(10) Any action that may directly or indi- 
rectly result in a significant increase in either 
the use of or the exposure to toxic or hazardous 
materials in the manufacture, operation, or 
disposal of motor vehicles or motor vehicle 
equipment. 

(11) Any action that may directly or indi- 
rectly result in a significant increase in the 
problem of solid waste, as in the disposal of 
motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment; 

(12) Any action that may directly or indi- 
rectly result in a significant depletion of scarce 
natural resources associated with the manu- 
facture or operation of motor vehicles or motor 
vehicle equipment; and 

(13) Any other action that causes significant 
environment impact by directly or indirectly 
affecting human beings through adverse im- 
pacts on the environment. 

(c) Research activities. 

(1) In accordance with DOT Order 5610.1B, 
the Assistant Secretary for Systems Develop- 
ment and Technology (TST) will prepare, 
with the concurrence of the NHTSA, proposed 
procedures for assessing the environmental con- 
sequences of research activities. Until final 
procedures are promulgated, the following 
factors are to be considered for periodic evalua- 
tion to determine when an environmental state- 
ment is required for such programs: 

(i) The magnitude of Federal invest- 
ment in the program; 

(ii) The likelihood of widespread appli- 
cation of the technology; 

(iii) The degree of environmental impact 
which would occur if the technology were 
widely applied; and 

(iv) The extent to which continued invest- 
ment in the new technology is likely to 
restrict future alternatives. 

(2) The statement or environmental review 
culminating in a negative declaration must be 
written late enough in the development process 
to contain meaningful information, but early 



enough so that this information can practically , 
serve as an input in the decision-making '^^^ 
process. Where it is anticipated that an en- 
viromental impact statement may ultimately 
be required but its preparation is still pre- 
mature, the office shall prepare a publicly avail- 
able record briefly setting forth the reasons 
for its determination that a statement is not 
yet necessary. This record shall be updated 
at least quarterly, or as may be necessary when 
significant new information becomes available 
concerning the potential environmental impact 
of the program. In any case, a statement or 
environmental review culminating in a nega- 
tive declaration must be prepared before 
research activities have I'eached a state of 
investment or commitment to implementation 
likely to determine subsequent development or 
restrict later alternatives. Statements on tech- 
nology research and development programs 
shall include an analysis not only of alterna- 
tive forms of the same technologj' that might 
reduce any adverse environmental impacts but 
also of alternative technologies that would 
serve the same function as the technology 
under consideration. Efforts shall be made to :^| 
involve other Federal agencies and interested 
groups with relevant expertise in the prepara- 
tion of such statements because the impacts 
and alternatives to be considered are likely to 
be less well defined than in other types of 
statements. 

Subpart B — Procedures 

§ 520.21 Preparation of environmental reviews, 
negative declarations, and notices of 
intent. 

(a) General responsibilities. 

(1) Associate Administrators and Chief 
Counsel. Each Associate Administrator and 
the Chief Counsel is responsible for determin- 
ing, in accoi-dance with Subpart A, whether 
the projects and activities under his jurisdic- 
tion require an environmental review, and for 
preparing all such reviews, negative declara- 
tions, and notices of intent. 



PART 520-4 



Effective: November 4, 1975 



(2) Regional Administrators. Each Re- 
gional Administrator, in consultation with the 
Governor's Representative, is responsible for 
determining, in accordance with Subpart A, 
whether proposed State activities in his Region, 
as stated in Annual "Work Programs, require 
an environmental review, and for the prepa- 
ration of all such reviews, negative declara- 
tions, and notices of intent. 

(3) Associate Administrator for PJnnning 
arid Evaluation. The Associate Administrator 
for Planning and Evaluation may request in 
accordance with the requirements of this order, 
that the appropiiate Associate Administrator 
or Regional Administrator prepare an envi- 
ronmental review or environmental impact 
statement for any proposed or continuing 
NHTSA action, or comment on any environ- 
mental statement prepared by other agencies. 

(b) Coordination. Coordination with appro- 
priate local, State and Federal agencies should 
be accomplished during the early stages by the 
responsible official to assist in identifying areas 
of significance and concern. Existing procedures, 
including those established under the Office of 
Management and Budget (0MB) Revised Cir- 
cular A-9o, should be used to the greatest extent 
practicable to accomplish this early coordination. 

(c) Applicants. 

(1) Each applicant for a grant, loan, or 
other financial assistance for use in State and 
community projects may be requested to sub- 
mit, with the original application, an en\dron- 
mental assessment of the proposed project. 

(2) Under 0MB Revised Circular A-95, 
"Evaluation, Review, and Coordination of 
Federal Assistance Programs and Projects," 
and DOT 4600.4B, "Evaluation. Review and 
Coordination of DOT Assistance Programs 
and Projects," dated February 27, 1974, a grant 
applicant must notify the clearinghouse of its 
intention to apply for Federal program assist- 
ance. The notification must solicit comments 
on the project and its impacts from appro- 
priate State and local agencies. Since it is the 
NHTSA's policy to assure that (i) interested 
parties and Federal, State, and local agencies 
receive early notification of the decision to pre- 
pare an environmental impact statement, and 



(ii) their conunents on the environmental 
ellects of the proposed Federal action are soli- 
cited at an early stage in the preparation of 
the draft impact statement, this early notifica- 
tion requirement may be met by a grant appli- 
cant by sending the notification to interested 
parties and agencies at the same time it is sent 
to the clearinghouse. 

(d) Consultants. Consultants may prepare 
background or preliminai-j' material and assist 
in preparing a draft or final environmental state- 
nient for which the NHTSA takes responsibility. 
Care should be exercised in selecting consultants, 
and in reviewing their work, to insure complete 
and objective consideration of all relevant project 
impacts and alternatives, particularly if the con- 
sultant may expect further contracts, based on 
the outcome of the environmental decision. 

(e) Environmental revieiv report. The en- 
vironmental review shall culminate in a brief 
written report of the same title, which shall be 
included in the proposed or ongoing agency 
action, and which — 

(1) Describes the proposed or ongoing 
NHTSA action, the environment affected, and 
the anticipated benefits; 

(2) Evaluates the potential environmental 
impact, including those adverse impacts which 
cannot be avoided, should the proposal be im- 
plemented or the action continued ; 

(3) Assesses the alternatives to the proposed 
or ongoing action and their potential environ- 
mental impact. 

(4) Evaluates the cumulative and long-term 
environmental effects of the proposed or on- 
going action; 

(5) Describes the irreversible and irretriev- 
able commitments of resources involved in the 
proposal's implementation or the action's con- 
tinuance ; 

(6) Identifies any known or potential con- 
flicts with State, regional, or local plans and 
programs ; 

(7) "Weighs and analyzes the anticipated 
benefits against the environmental and other 
costs of the proposed or ongoing action in a 
manner which reflects similar comparisons of 
reasonably available alternatives; and 



PART 520-5 



Effective: November 4, 1 975 



(8) Concludes with a nej^ative declaration 
or recommends tlic preparation of a DEIS. 

(f) Negative declarations. 

(1) If the responsible official judges that 
the environmental impact of a proposed or on- 
going action under his jurisdiction will not 
significantly affect the quality of the human 
environment, the following declaration will be 
included in the environmental review report: 

"It is the judgment of this agency, based on 
available information, that no significant en- 
vironmental impact will result from execu- 
tion of this action." 

(2) A DEIS may be changed to a negative 
declaration if the public review process indi- 
cates that the proposal or ongoing action will 
not have a significant effect upon the environ- 
ment. 

(3) An index of all negative declarations 
and a copy of each environmental review re- 
port shall be retained by the responsible official 
under whose jurisdiction it was prepared and 
shall be made available for public inspection 
upon request. 

(g) Notice of intent to prepare a draft en- 
vironmental impact statement. If the responsible 
official under whose jurisdiction an environ- 
mental review is prepared determines that the 
proposed or ongoing action could have a poten- 
tially significant, effect on the quality of the 
environment, he shall : coordinate with the Asso- 
ciate Administrator for Planning and Evaluation 
and the Chief Counsel, transmit to appropriate 
Federal, State and local agencies and have pub- 
lished in the Federal Register a notice of intent 
to prepare an environmental statement as soon 
as is practicable after the determination to pre- 
pare such a statement. 

§ 520.22 Maintenance of a list of actions. 

(a) The Associate Administrator for Planning 
and Evaluation shall be responsible for the prep- 
aration and maintenance of a list of actions for 
which draft or final environmental impact state- 
ments have been or are to be prepared. This 
list shall te on file with the Associate Admin- 
istrator for Planning and Evaluation and shall 
be available for public inspection in the Docket 



Section upon request. A copy of the initial list 
and its updatings at the end of each calendar 
quarter shall be transmitted by the Associate 
Administrator for Planning and Evaluation to 
the Assistant Secretary of Transportation for 
Environment and Safety (TES) and to CEQ. 

(b) If a determination is made that an en- 
vironmental statement is not necessary for a pro- 
posed action (1) which has been identified as 
normally requiring preparation of a statement, 
(2) which is similar to actions for which a sig- 
nificant number of statements have been pre- 
pared, (3) which the agency lias previously 
announced would be the subject of a statement, 
or (4) for which the official responsible for such 
proposal has made a negative detei-mination in 
response to a request from the CEQ, a record 
briefly setting forth the decision and the reasons 
for that determination shall be prepared by the 
responsible official. Such a record of negative 
determinations and any evaluations made pur- 
suant to § 520.21 which conclude that preparation 
of a statement is not yet timely shall be prepared 
by the responsible official, submitted to the Asso- 
ciate Administrator for Planning and Evalua- 
tion, and made available by the Associate 
Administrator for Planning and Evaluation in 
the same manner as provided in paragraph (a) 
of this section for lists of statements under prep- 
aration. 

§ 520.23 Preparation of draft environmental im- 
pact statements. 

(a) Planning stage. 

(1) Wlien a DEIS is to be prepared, the 
responsible official shall promptly initiate its 
preparation and develop a schedule in consulta- 
tion with the Associate Administrator for 
Planning and Evaluation, to assure completion 
prior to the first significant point of decision 
in the program or project development process. 

(2) The environmental impacts of proposed 
activities should be initially assessed concur- 
rently with the initial technical and economic 
studies. 

(3) Section 102(2) (A) of NEPA requires 
each Federal agency to utilize a "systematic, 
interdisciplinary approach" to plans and pro- 
grams affecting the environment. To assure 
that all environmental impacts are identified 



PART 520-6 



Effective: November 4, 1975 



^ and assessed, all relevant disciplines should be 

|p represented. If the necessary disciplines are 

not represented on the staff of the applicant or 
NHTSA, it is appropriate to use professional 
services available in other Federal, State or 
local agencies, universities, or consultino; firms. 
The use of the interdisciplinary approach 
should not be limited to the environmental 
statement. This approach should also be used 
in the early planning stages to help assui'e a 
systematic evaluation of reasonable alternative 
courses of action and their potential social, 
economic, and environmental consequences. 

(b) Form and content requirements. Attach- 
ment 1 of this order prescribes the form and con- 
tent requirements to be followed for each draft 
and final environmental impact statement. The 
DEIS must fulfill and satisfy, to the fullest ex- 
tent possible at the time it is prepared, the re- 
quirements established for final statements. 

(c) '■'•Lead agency'''. CEQ guidelines provide 
that when more than one Federal agency (1) 
directly sponsors an action, or is directly in- 
volved in an action through funding, licenses, or 

\\ permits, or (2) is involved in a group of actions 
" directly related to each other because of their 
functional interdependence and geographical 
proximity, consideration should be given to pre- 
paring one statement for all the Federal actions 
involved. Agencies in such cases should consider 
the designation of a single "lead agency" to as- 
sume supervisory responsibility for preparation 
of a joint statement. ^'^Hiere a lead agency pre- 
pares the statement, the other agencies involved 
should provide assistance with respect to their 
areas of jurisdiction and expertise. The state- 
ment should contain an evaluation of the full 
range of Federal actions involved, should reflect 
the views of all participating agencies, and 
should be prepared before major or irreversible 
actions have been taken by any of the partici- 
pating agencies. Some relevant factors in deter- 
mining an appropriate lead agency are : the time 
sequence in which the agencies become involved, 
the magnitude of their respective involvement, 
and their relative expertise with respect to the 
project's environmental effects. 



Questions concerning ''lead agency" decisions 
should be raised with CEQ through TES. For 
projects serving and primarily involving land 
owned by or under the jurisdiction of another 
Federal agency, that agency may be the appro- 
priate lead agency. 

(d) Applicants, Where the agency requests 
an applicant for financial assistance or other 
agency approval to submit an environmental 
assessment, the responsible official will (1) assist 
the applicant by outlining the information re- 
quired, and (2) in all cases make his own evalua- 
tion of the environmental issues involved and 
take responsibility for the scope and content of 
draft and final environmental statements. 

§ 520.24 Internal processing of draft environ- 
mental Impact statements. Before circulating a 
DEIS for external review, the official responsible 
for the DEIS shall (1) receive the concurrence 
of the Associate Administrator for Planning and 
Evaluation and the Chief Counsel; and (2) pre- 
pare a memorandum for approval by the Admin- 
istrator which shall — 

(a) Set forth the basis on which is was deter- 
mined that a potentially significant environ- 
mental effect exists; 

(b) Attach the DEIS; 

(c) Identify the Federal, State, and local agen- 
cies and private sources from which comments 
on the DEIS are proposed to be solicited (see 
Attacliment 2) ; and 

(d) Include a recommendation on whether a 
public hearing on the proposed action should be 
held. 

§ 520.25 External review of draft environmental 
impact statements. 

(a) Requirements. The official responsible for 
the DEIS shall— 

(1) Transmit 5 copies of the DEIS to the 
CEQ and 2 copies to TES ; 

(2) Solicit comments from all Federal, 
State, and local agencies which have jurisdic- 
tion by law or special expertise with respect 
to the possible environmental impact involved, 
and from the public (see Attachment 2) ; and 



PART 520-7 



Effective: November 4, 1975 



(3) Inform the public and interested parties 
of the availability of the DEIS and provide 
copies as appropriate; and 

(4) Allow a comment period of not less than 
45 days from the Friday of the week follow- 
inji; receipt of the draft impact statement by 
CEQ. Requests for extensions shall be jji-anted 
whenever possible, and particularly when war- 
ranted by the mafrnitude and complexity of 
the statement or the extent of citizen interest. 

(b) Procedures. 

(1) Federal and Federal-State agency re- 
view. 

(i) The DEIS shall be circulated for re- 
view to the Federal and Federal-State 
agencies with special expertise or jurisdic- 
tion by law with regard to the potential 
environmental impact involved. These agen- 
cies and their relevant areas of expertise are 
identified in Attachment 2. 

(ii) For actions within the jurisdiction 
of the Environmental Protection Agency 
(air or water quality, solid wastes, pesticides, 
radiation standards, noise), the DEIS shall 
be sent to EPA. 

(iii) For actions which would affect any 
property that is included in the National 
Register of Historic Preservation, the DEIS 
should be sent to the Advisory Council on 
Historic Preservation and the State Liaison 
Office for Historic Preservation. 

(2) State and local review, ^Vliere a review 
of the proposed action by State and local 
agencies authorized to develop and enforce en- 
vironmental standards is relevant, comments 
are to be solicited directly from such agencies 
with known responsibilities in environmental 
matters, and shall be obtained as follows: 

(i) Where review of direct Federal de- 
vovclopment projects, and of projects assisted 
under programs listed in Attachment D to 
revised 0MB Circular A-95 (as imple- 
mented by DOT 4600.4B "Evaluation, Re- 
view and Coordination of DOT Assistance 
Programs and Projects", dated February 27, 
1974), takes place prior to preparation of 
an environmental statement, comments of 
the reviewing agencies on the environmental 
effects of the proposed project are inputs to 



♦ 



the environmental statement. These com- 
ments shall be attached to the draft state- 
ment when it is circulated for review and 
coj)ies of the draft shall be sent to those 
who connnented. A-95 clearinghouses or 
other agencies designated by the Governor 
may also secure comments on environmental 
statements. In all cases, copies of the draft 
environmental statements shall be sent to 
clearinghouses and to the applicant whose 
project is the subject of the statement. 

(ii) Comments shall be directly obtained 
from appropriate State and local agencies, 
except where review is secured by agreement 
through A-95 clearinghouses, unless the 
Governor of the appropriate State has des- 
ignated some other point for obtaining his 
review. Instructions for obtaining the views 
of such agencies are contained in the joint 
OMB-CEQ memorandum (see Attachment 
4) . Comments shall be solicited from muni- 
cipalities and counties on all projects located 
therein. 

(iii) State and local review of NHTSA 
procedures, regulations, and policies for ad- 
ministering Federal programs of assistance 
to State and local governments shall be ob- ^ 
tained pursuant to procedures established by 
0MB Circular No. A-85. 

(iv) Generally, environmental statements 
on legislative and budget proposals may be 
excluded from State and local review. 
(3) General public review. 

(i) At the time the DEIS is circulated to 
Federal, State, and local agencies, public 
availability of the DEIS for comment and 
review will be announced by the CEQ in the 
Federal Register. Copies of the DEIS 
should be sent to laiown interested parties, 
and press releases should be sent to local 
news media advising where the DEIS is 
available and how copies may be obtained. 
The Office of Public Affairs and Consumer 
Services shall maintain a list of groups, in- 
cluding conservatioii organizations and 
motor vehicle manufacturers, known to be 
interested in the agency's activities, and di- 
rectly notify such groups of the availability 
of the DEIS or send them a copy as soon 
as it has been prepared. 



PART 520-8 



Effective: November 4, 1975 



(ii) A DEIS should be available to the 
public at least 30 days prior to the time of 
a public hearino; on the DEIS. 

(iii) Copies of the DEIS will be made 
available at the NHTSA Docket Section, 
Room 5108, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Wash- 
ington, D.C. 20590, and, where appropriate, 
NHTSA Regional Offices, at the offices of 
any applicants of frrantees, at appropriate 
State, regional, and metropolitan clearing 
houses, and local public libraries, and fur- 
nished to public and private organizations 
and individuals with special expertise with 
respect to the potential environmental im- 
pact involved, and to those with an interest 
in the action who request an opportunity 
to comment. Copies to be made available to 
the public shall be provided without charge 
to the extent practicable, or at a fee which 
is not more than the actual cost of repro- 
ducing copies required to \ye sent to other 
Federal agencies, including the CEQ. 

(iv) A copy of the DEIS should in all 
cases be sent to any applicant whose project 
is the subject of the statement. 

(v) If a DEIS is changed to a negative 
declaration as a result of the public review 
process, all agencies and individuals that 
received copies and/or commented on the 
DEIS must be informed that a negative de- 
claration was substituted for the DEIS and 
given a brief explanation of the reason for 
such substitution. 

(c) Utilization of Comments. 

Comments received on the draft statement, and 
inputs (in summary form, if appropriate) from 
the processes for citizen participation, shall 
accompany the environmental statement through 
the normal internal project or j'l'ogi'am review 
process. 

§ 520.26 Public hearings. 

(a) A public hearing on a proposed or on- 
going action covered by a DEIS shall be held 
upon the detennination by the official responsible 
for such action, in consultation with the Associate 
Administrator for Planning and Evaluation, that 
a public hearing would be appropriate and in 
the public interest. In deciding whether a public 



hearing is appropriate, the responsible official 
sjiould consider — 

(1) The magnitude of the proposal in terms 
of economic costs, the geographic area in- 
volved, and the uniqueness or size of the com- 
mitment of the ix'sources involved. 

(2) The degree of interest in the proposal, 
as evidenced by requests from the public and 
from Federal, State, and local authorities that 
a hearing be held ; 

(3) The likelihood that information will be 
presented at the hearing Avhich will be of 
assistance to the agency in fulfilling its respon- 
sibilities under the NEPA; 

(4) The extent to which public involvement 
already has been achieved through other means, 
such as earlier public hearings, meetings with 
citizen representatives, and/or written com- 
ments on the proposed action; and 

(5) The extent of potential environmental 
impact. 

(b) If it is determined that a public hearing 
is to be held in accordance with paragraph (a) 
of this section, the official responsible for the 
action shall both announce the hearing through 
newspaper articles, dii-ect notification to inter- 
ested parties, and clearinghouses, and cause a 
notice to be issued in the Federal Register at 
least 30 days prior to the time of such hearing — 

(1) Identifying the subject matter of the 
hearing ; 

(2) Announcing the date, time, and place of 
the hearing and the procedures to be followed ; 
and 

(3) Announcing the availability of the 
DEIS and any other information, as appro- 
priate, for public inspection at one or more 
locations in the area affected by the action. 

§ 520.27 Legislative actions. 

(a) A DEIS on both legislative proposals and 
reports for which NHTSA either develops the 
Departmental position or originates the legis- 
lation will be cleared with TES, filed with CEQ, 
and submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget through the normal DOT and NHTSA 
legislative process. 



PART 520-9 



231-088 O - 7- 



Effective: November 4, 1975 



(b) The preparation, circulation, and filing of 
the environmental statement shall be in accord- 
ance with OMB Bulletin 72-6, "Proposed Fed- 
eral Actions Affecting the Environment." 

(c) A DEIS and any comments that have been 
received should be available to the Congress and 
to the public for consideration in connection with 
the proposed legislation or report on proposed 
legislation. In cases where the scheduling of 
Congressional 4iearings on recommendations or 
reports on proposals for legislation which the 
Depailment has forwarded to the Congress does 
not allow adequate time for the completion of 
a FEIS, a DEIS may be furnished to the Con- 
gress and made available to the public pending 
transmittal of the comments as received and the 
final text. 

§ 520.28 Preparation of final environmental 
impact statements. 

(a) If the action is to go forward and the 
DEIS has not been changed to a negative decla- 
ration, as soon as practicable after the expira- 
tion of the comment period and hearing process, 
if any, the official i-esponsible for the action shall 
prepare a final environmental impact statement 
(FEIS), taking into account all comments re- 
ceived and issues raised during such period and 
process. 

(b) The FEIS shall conform to the guidelines 
for form and content in Attachment 1. 

(c) The FEIS shall then be submitted to the 
Chief Counsel bj^ the official responsible for the 
action, for determination of legal sufficiency. 

§ 520.29 Internal review of final environmental 
impact statements. 

(a) Upon completion of the review for legal 
sufficiency of the FEIS, the Chief Counsel shall 
transmit 2 copies of the FEIS to TES for con- 
currence. Unless other notification is provided 
within 2 weeks after receipt in TES, the state- 
ment will be considered concurred in by TES. 

(b) After concurrence by TES, the FEIS 
will be transmitted by the Chief Counsel to tlie 
Administrator for approval. 



(c) If an action requires the personal approval ^ 
of the Seci-etary or Deputy Secretary pursuant ^ 
to a request by them or by TES, TGC, or the 
NHTSA office originating the action, the final 
environmental statement shall be accompanied 
by a brief cover memorandum requesting the 
Secretary's or Deputy Secretary's approval of the 
action. 

(1) The memorandum shall have signature 
lines for the concurrence of the Assistant Sec- 
retary for Environment, Safety, and Consumer 
Affairs, the General Counsel, and the Deputy 
Secretary, and for the approval of the Secre- 
tary or Deputy Secretary. 

(2) TES, in conjimction with the Executive 
Secretary, is responsible for informing the 
Assistant Secretary for Congressional and 
Intergovernmental Affairs and the Office of 
Public Affairs of the Secretary's decisions so 
that they, in coordination with the operating 
administrations or other Secretai'ial Offices in- 
volved, may take the appropriate actions. 

§ 520.30 Availability of final environmental 
impact statements. 

(a) Pending final approval and filing with 
CEQ, a proposed FEIS may be made available * 
to the public and Federal, State, or local agencies 

if it carries a notation that it is not approved 
and filed. 

(b) After approval by the Administrator, the 
Associate Administrator for Planning and 
Evaluation will send 5 copies of the FEIS (to- 
gether with comments) to the CEQ; individual 
copies with comments attached to the EPA and 
all Federal, State, and local agencies and mem- 
bers of the public who submitted comments on 
the DEIS or requested copies of the FEIS. If 
the length of the statement or the number of 
comments make this distribution requirement 
highly impractical, TES should be consulted to 
consider an alternative arrangement. 

(c) Copies of the FEIS will be made avail- 
able in the NHTSA Docket Section, Room 5108, 
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20590, and, where appropriate, NHTSA Regional 
Offices, at the offices of any applicants or grantees, 
and at appropriate State, regional, and metro- 
politan clearinghouses and, where the impact is 
localized, public libraries. 



PART 520-10 



Effective: November 4, 1975 



r\ (d) The official responsible for the action 
' r shall, upon request, make available copies of the 
FEIS and substantive comments received on the 
DEIS without charge to the extent practicable, 
or at a fee which is not more than the actual cost 
or reproducing copies. 

§ 520.31 Amendments or supplements. A draft 
or final environmental impact statement may be 
amended or supplemented. Supplements or 
amendments should l>e considered when substan- 
tial changes are made in the proposed or ongoing 
action that will introduce a new or changed 
environmental effect of significance to the quality 
of the environment, or significant new informa- 
tion becomes available concerning its environ- 
mental aspects. In such cases, the supplement 
or amendment shall be processed in consultation 
with TES with respect to the need for, or desir- 
ability of, recirculating the statement for the 
appropriate period. TES concurrence must be 
secured before issuance. 

§ 520.32 Emergency action procedures. The 

CEQ Guidelines allow modification of require- 
ments in case of a national emergency, a disaster 
|k\ or similar great urgency. The processing times 
"/ may be reduced, or if the emergency situation 
warrants, preparation and processing of a DEIS, 
FEIS, or negative declaration may be abbre- 
viated. Such procedural changes, however, 
should be requested only for those projects where 
the need for immediate action requires processing 
in other than the normal manner. 

§ 520.33 Timing of proposed NHTSA actions. To 

the maximum extent practicable, no administra- 
tive action (i.e., any proposed action to be taken 
by the agency other than agency pi'oposals for 
legislation to Congress, budget proposals, or 
agency reports on legislation) subject to this 
part and covered by an environmetal impact 
statement shall be taken sooner than 90 days 
after a DEIS has been circulated for comment, 
furnished to the CEQ, and made public. Neither 
shall such administrative action be taken sooner 
than 30 days after the FEIS (together with 



comments) has been filed with CEQ, and made 
available to commenting agencies and the public. 
If the FEIS is filed within 90 days after a DEIS 
has been circulated for comment, furnished to 
the CEQ and made public, the 30-day period 
and 90-day period may run concurrently to the 
extent that they overlap. The 90-day time period 
is measured from the date of publication in the 
Federal Register of the list of weekly filings of 
environmental impact statements with the CEQ, 
but the 30-day period is computed from the date 
of receipt by the CEQ. 

§ 520.34 Comments on environmental statements 
prepared by other agencies. 

(a) All requests for NHTSA's views on a 
DEIS or a proposed action undergoing environ- 
mental review by another agency will be trans- 
mitted to the Associate Administrator for 
Planning and Evaluation for action or referral 
to TES where appropriate. Offices within 
NHTSA may be requested by the Associate 
Administrator for Planning and Evaluation to 
supply any pertinent information and comments 
for a coordinated agency response. 

(b) NHTSA's comments and the comments of 
any offices responding to a request by the Asso- 
ciate Administrator for Planning and Evaluation 
should be organized in a manner consistent with 
the structure of an environmental re\aew set out 
in § 520.21(e). NHTSA programs that are en- 
\aronmentally related to the proposed action 
under review should be identified so interrela- 
tionships may receive due consideration. 

(c) Copies of NHTSA's comments on environ- 
mental statements prepared by other agencies 
shall be distributed as follows: 

(1) The original and 1 copy to the request- 
ing agency; 

(2) 1 copy to TES-70; and 

(3) 5 copies to CEQ. 

(d) Requests by the public for copies should 
be referred to the agency originating the state- 
ment. 



PART 520-11 



EfFecfive: November 4, 1975 



ATTACHMENT 1 
FORM AND CONTENT OF STATEMENT 

1. Form. a. Each statement will be headed as 
follows : 

DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC 

SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 

(Draft) Environmental Impact Statement 
Pursuant to section 102(2) (C), Pub. L. 91-190; 
83 Stat. 853; 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (C). 

b. The heading specified above shall be modi- 
fied to indicate that the statement also covei's 
sections 4(f) of the DOT Act or 106 of the 
National Historic Preservation Act, when 
appropriate. 

c. Each statement will, as a minimum, con- 
tain sections corresponding to paragraph 3 
herein, supplemented as necessary to cover 
other matters provided in this Attachment. 

d. The format for the summary to accom- 
pany draft and final environmental statements 
is as follows: 



(Check one) 



SUMMARY 

( ) Draft 



( ) Final 



Department of Transportation, National High- 
way Traffic Safety Administration. Name, 
address, and telephone number of individual 
who can be contacted for additional informa- 
tion about the proposed action or the statement. 

(Note: DOT Order 2100.2 prescribed proce- 
dure for reporting public contacts in rulemak- 
ing.) 

(1) Name of Action. (Check one) ( ) 
Administrative Action. ( ) Legislative 
Action. 

(2) Brief description of action indicating 
what States (and counties) are particularly 
affected. 

(3) Summary of environmental impact 
and adverse environmental effects. 

(4) List alternatives considered. 

(5) (a) (For draft statements) List all 
Federal, State, and local agencies from which 
comments have been requested. 



(b) (For final statements) List all Federal, ^ 
State, and local agencies and other sources 
from which written comments have been re- 
ceived. 

(6) Dates the draft statement and the 

final statement, if iasued, were made available 

to the Council on Environmental Quality 

and the public. 

2. Guidance as to content of statement. The 
following paragraphs of this Attachment are 
intended to be considered, where relevant, as 
guidance regarding the content of environmental 
statements. This guidance is expected to be sup- 
plemented by research reports, guidance on 
methodology, and other material from the litera- 
ture as may be pertinent to evaluation of relevant 
environmental factors. 

3. General content. The following points are 
to be covered : 

a. A description of the proposed Federal 
action (e.g., "The proposed Federal action is 
approval of a grant application to con- 
struct * * *"), a statement of its purpose, and 
a description of the environment affected, in- 
cluding information, summary technical data, ^ 
and maps and diagrams where relevant, ade- \ 
quate to permit an assessment of potential 
environmental impact by commenting offices 
and the public. 

(1) Highly technical and specialized 
analyses and data should generally be 
avoided in the body of the draft impact 
statement. Such materials should be appro- 
priately summarized in the body of the en- 
vironmental statement and attached as 
appendices or footnoted with adequate biblio- 
graphic references. 

(2) The statement should succinctly de- 
scribe the environment of the area affected 
as it exists prior to a proposed action, includ- 
ing other related Federal activities in the 
area, their interrelationships, and ciunulative 
environmental impact. The amount of de- 
tail provided in such descriptions should be 
commensurate with the extent and expected 
impact of the action, and with the amount 
of information required at the particular 
level of decision making (planning, feasi- 
bility, design, etc.). In order to insure ac- 



PART 520-12 



Effective: November 4, 1975 



6. Impacts of the proposed action on the hu- 
man environment involving community disrup- 
include a description. 

a. The statement should include a descrip- 
tion of probable impact sufficient to enable an 
understanding of the extent of the environ- 
mental and social impact of the project alter- 
natives and to consider whether relocation 
problems can be properly handled. This would 
include the following information obtainable 
by visual inspection of the proposed affected 
area and from secondary sources and commu- 
nity sources when available. 

(1) An estimate of the households to be 
displaced including the family characteristics 
(e.g., minorities, and income levels, tenure, 
the elderly, large families). 

(2) Impact on the human environment of 
an action which divides or disrupts an estab- 
lished community, including where pertinent, 
the effect of displacement on types of fam- 
ilies and individuals affected, effect of streets 
cut off, separation of residences from com- 
munity facilities, separation of residential 
areas. 

(3) Impact on the neighborhood and hous- 
ing to which relocation is likely to take place 
(e.g., lack of sufficient housing for large fam- 
ilies, doublings up). 

(4) An estimate of the businesses to be 
displaced, and the general effect of business 
dislocation on the economy of the community. 

(5) A discussion of relocation housing in 
the area and the ability to provide adequate 
relocation Iiousing for the types of families 
to be displaced. If the resources are in- 
sufficient to meet the estimated displacement 
needs, a description of the actions proposed 
to remedy this situation including, if neces- 
sary, use of housing of last resort. 

(6) Results of consultation with local offi- 
cials and community groups regarding the 
impacts to the community affected. Reloca- 
tion agencies and staff and other social agen- 
cies can help to describe probable social 
impacts of this proposed action. 

(7) "WHiere necessai-y, special relocation ad- 
visory services to be provided the elderly, 
handicapped and illiterate regarding inter- 



pretations of benefits, assistance in selecting 
replacement housing and consultation with 
respect to acquiring, leasing, and occupying 
replacement housing. 

b. This data should provide the preliminary 
basis for assurance of the availability of relo- 
cation housing as required by DOT 5620.1, Re- 
placement Housing Policy, dated June 24, 1970, 
and 49 CFR 25.53. 

7. Considerations relating to pedestrians and 
bicyclists. "WTiere appropriate, the statement 
should discuss impacts on, and consideration to be 
given in the development of the project to pedes- 
trian and bicycle access, movement and safety 
within the affected area, particularly in medium 
and high density commercial and residential 
areas. 

8. Other social impacts. The general social 
groups si^ecially benefitted or harmed by the pro- 
posed action should be identified in the statement 
including the following: 

a. Particular effects of a proposal on the 
elderly, handicapped, non-drivers, transit de- 
pendent, or minorities should be described to 
the extent reasonably predictable. 

b. How the proposal will facilitate or inhibit 
their access to jobs, educational facilities, re- 
ligious institutions, health and welfare services, 
recreational facilities, social and cultural fa- 
cilities, pedestrian movement facilities, and 
public transit services. 

9. Standards as to noise, air, and water pollu- 
tion. The statement shall reflect sufficient analysis 
of the effects of the proposed action on attain- 
ment and maintenance of any environmental 
standards established by law or administrative 
determination (e.g., noise, ambient air quality, 
water quality) including the following docu- 
mentation : 

a. With respect to water quality, there 
should be consultation with the agency respon- 
sible for the State water pollution control 
program as to conformity with standards and 
regulations regarding storm sewer discharge 
sedimentation control, and other non-point 
source discharges. 

b. The comments or determinations of the 
offices charged with administration of the 
State's implementation plan for air quality as 



PART 520-17 



Effective: November 4, 1975 



to the consistency of the project with State 
plans for the implementation of ambient air 
quality standards. 

c. Conformity to adopted noise standards, 
compatible if appropriate, with different land 
uses. 

10. Energy supply and natural resources de- 
velopment. Where applicable, the statement 
should reflect consideration of whether the project 
or program will have any effect on either the 
production or consumption of energy and other 
natural resources, and discuss such effects if they 
are significant. 

11. Flood hazard evaluation. When an alterna- 
tive under consideration encroaches on a flood 
plain, the statement should include evidence that 
studies have been made and evidence of consulta- 
tions with agencies with expertise have been 
carried out. Necessary measures to handle flood 
hazard problems should be described. In com- 
pliance with Executive Order 11296, and Flood 
Hazard Guidelines for Federal Executive Agen- 
cies, promulgated by the Wat«r Resources Coun- 
cil, or how such requirements can be met during 
project development. 

12. Considerations relating to wetlands or 
coastal zones. "Wliere wetlands or coastal zones 
are involved, the statement should include: 

a. Information on location, types, and extent 
of wetlands areas which might be affected by 
the proposed action. 

b. An assessment of the impacts resulting 
from both construction and operation of the 
project on the wetlands and associated wild- 
life, and measures to minimize adverse impacts. 

c. A statement by the local representative of 
the Department of the Interior, and any other 



responsible officials with special expertise, set- 
ting forth his views on the impacts of the 
project on the wetlands, the worth of the 
particular wetlands areas involved to the com- 
munity and to the Nation, and recommendations 
as to whether the proposed action should pro- 
ceed, and, if applicable, along what alternative 
route. 

d. Where applicable, a discussion of how the 
proposed project relates to the State coastal 
zone management program for the particular 
State in which the project is to take place. 

13. Construction impacts. In general, adverse 
impacts during construction will be of less im- 
portance than long-term impacts of a proposal. 
Nonetheless, statements should appropriately ad- 
dress such matters as the following, identifying 
any special problem areas: 

a. Noise impacts from construction and any 
specifications setting maximum noise levels. 

b. Disposal of spoil and effect on borrow 
areas and disposal sites (include specifications 
where special problems are involved). 

c. Measures to minimize effects on traffic and 
pedestrians. 

14. Land use and urban growth. The state- 
ment should include, to the extent relevant and 
predictable : 

a. The effect of the project on land use, de- 
velopment patterns, and urban growth. 

b. Where significant land use and develop- 
ment impacts are anticipated, identify public 
facilities needed to serve the new development 
and any problems or issues which would arise 
in connection with these facilities, and the com- 
ments of agencies that would provide these 
facilities. 



PART 520-18 



Effective; November 4, 1975 



fc. ATTACHMENT 2 

I 

^ AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND FED- 
ERAL AGENCIES AND FEDERAL-STATE AGENCIES' 
WITH JURISDICTION BY LAW OR SPECIAL EXPER- 
TISE TO COMMENT THEREON' 

AIK 

Air Quality 

Department of Agriculture — 

Forest Service (effects on vegetation) 

Atomic Energy Commission (radioactive sub- 
stances) 

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Department of the Interior — 

Bureau of Mines (fossil and gaseous fuel com- 
bustion) 
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (effect 

on wildlife) 
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (effect on recrea- 
tion) 
% Bureau of Land Management (public lands) 
Bureau of Indian Affairs (Indian lands) 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(remote sensing, aircraft emissions) 

Department of Transportation — 

Assistant Secretary for Sj^stems Development 
and Technology (auto emissions) 

Coast Guard (vessel emissions) 

Federal Aviation Administration (aircraft 
emissions) 



'River Basin Commissions (Delaware, Great Lakes, 
Missouri, New England, Oliio, Pacific Northwest, Souris- 
Red-Rainy, Susquehanna, Upper Mississippi) and similar 
Federal-State agencies should be consulted on actions 
affecting the environment of their specific geographic 
jurisdictions. 

' In all cases where a proposed action will have sig- 
nificant international environmental effects, the Depart- 
ment of State should be consulted, and should he sent a 
copy of any draft and final impact statement which 
covers such action. 



Weather Modification 
Department of Agriculture — 
Forest Service 

Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- 
tion 

Department of Defense — 

Department of the Air Force 
Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Water Resources Council 

WATER 

Water Quality 
Department of Agriculture — ■ 
Soil Conservation Service 
Forest Service 

Atomic Energy Commission (radioactive sub- 
stances) 

Department of the Interior — 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Bureau of Land Management (public lands) 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (Indian lands) 

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 

Geological Survey 

Office of Saline Water 
Environmental Protection Agency 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 
Department of Defense — 

Army Corps of Engineers 

Department of the Navy (ship pollution con- 
trol) 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(remote sensing) 

Department of Transportation — 

Coast Guard (oil spills, ship sanitation) 

Department of Commerce — 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- 
tion 

Water Resources Council 

River Basin Commissions (as geographically ap- 
propriate) 



PART 520-19 



EfFecHve: November 4, 1975 



Marine Pollution^ Commercial Fishery 
Conservation, and Shellfish Sanitation 

Department of Commerce — 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- 
tion 

Department of Defense — 

Army Corps of Engineers 

Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy 

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 

Department of the Interior — 

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 
Bureau of Land Management (outer conti- 
nental shelf) 
Geological Survey (outer continental shelf) 

Department of Transportation — 

Coast Guard 
Environmental Protection Agency 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(remote sensing) 

Water Resources Council 

River Basin Commissions (as geographically ap- 
propriate) 

Waterway Regulation and Stream 
Modification 

Department of Agriculture — 
Soil Conservation Service 

Department of Defense — 
Bureau of Reclamation 
Army Corps of Engineers 

Department of the Interior — 

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 
Geological Survey 

Department of Transportation — 
Coast Guard 

Environmental Protection Agency 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(remote sensing) 

Water Resources Council 

River Basin Commissions (as geographically ap- 
propriate) 



FISH AND WILDLIFE 

Department of Agriculture — 

Forest Service 

Soil Conservation Service 
Department of Commerce — 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- 
tion (marine species) 

Department of the Interior — 

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 
Bureau of Land Management 
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 

Environmental Protection Agency 

SOLID WASTE 

Atomic Energy Commission (radioactive waste) 

Department of Defense — 
Army Corps of Engineers 

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 

Department of the Interior — 

Bureau of Mines (mineral waste, mine acid 

waste, municipal solid waste, recycling) 
Bureau of Land Management (public lands) J 
Bureau of Indian Affairs (Indian lands) ^ 

Geological Survey (geologic and hydrologic 
effects) 

Office of Saline Water (demineralization) 

Department of Transportation — 
Coast Guard (ship sanitation) 

Environmental Protection Agency 

River Basin Commissions (as geographically ap- 
propriate) 

Water Resources Council 

NOISE 

Department of Commerce — 

National Bureau of Standards 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(land use and building materials aspects) 

Department of Labor — 

Occupational Safety and Health Administra- 
tion 



PART 520-20 



^ 



Effective: November 4, 1975 



Department of Transportation — 
Assistant Secretary for Systems Development 
and Technology 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Federal Aviation Administration, Office of 
Noise Abatement 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

RADIATION 

Atomic Energy Commission 
Department of Commerce — 

National Bureau of Standards 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 
Department of the Interior — 

Bureau of Mines (uranium mines) 

Mining Enforcement and Safety Administra- 
tion (uranium mines) 

Environmental Protection Agency 

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 

Toxic Materials 

Atomic Energy Commission (radioactive sub- 
stances) 

Department of Agriculture — ■ 
Agricultural Research Service 
Consumer and Marketing Service 

Department of Commerce — 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- 
tion 

Department of Defense 

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Food Additives and Contamination of 
Foodstuffs 

Department of Agriculture — 

Consumer and Marketing Service (meat and 
poultry products) 

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 

Environmental Protection Agency 



Pesticides 

Department of Agriculture — 

Agricultural Research Service (biological con- 
trols, food and fiber production) 
Consumer and Marketing Service 
Forest Service 

Department of Commerce — 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- 
tion 

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 

Department of the Interior — 

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (fish 

and wildlife effects) 
Bureau of Land Management (public lands) 
Bureau of Indian Affairs (Indian lands) 
Bureau of Reclamation (irrigated lands) 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Transportation and Handling of Hazardous 
Materials 

Atomic Energy Commission (radioactive sub- 
stances) 

Department of Commerce — 

Maritime Administration 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- 
tion (effects on marine life and the coastal 
zone) 

Department of Defense — 

Armed Services Explosive Safety Board 
Army Corps of Engineers (navigable water- 
ways) 

Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of 

Motor Carrier Safety 
Coast Guard 

Federal Railroad Administration 
Federal Aviation Administration 
Assistant Secretary' for Systems Development 

and Technology 
Office of Hazardous Materials 
Office of Pipeline Safety 

Environmental Protection Agency 



PART 520-21 



Effective: November 4, 1975 



ENEKGY SUPPLY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 
DEVELOPMENT 

Electric Energy Development, Generation, 
and Transmission, and Use 

Atomic Energy Commission (nuclear) 
Department of Agriculture — 

Rural Electrification Administration (rural 
areas) 
Department of Defense — 

Army Corps of Engineers (hydro) 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 

(radiation effects) 
Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(urban areas) 
Department of the Interior — 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (Indian lands) 

Bureau of Land Management (public lands) 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Power Marketing Administrations 

Geological Survey 

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 

National Park Service 
Environmental Protection Agency 
Federal Power Commission (hydro, transmission, 

and supply) 
River Basin Commissions (as geographically ap- 
propriate) 
Tennessee Valley Authority 
Water Resources Council 

Petroleum Development, Extraction, 
Refning, Transport, and Use 

Department of the Interior — 

Office of Oil and Gas 

Bureau of Mines 

Geological Survey 

Bureau of Land Management (public lands 
and outer continental shelf) 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (Indian lands) 

Bureau of Sport. Fislieries and Wildlife (effects 
on fish and wildlife) 

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 

National Park Service 
Department of Transportation (Transport and 

Pipeline Safety) 
Environmental Protection Agency 
Interstate Commerce Commission 



Natural Gas Development, Production, 
Transmission, and Use 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(urban areas) 

Department of the Interior — 
Office of Oil and Gas 
Geological Survey 
Bureau of Mines 

Bureau of Land Management (public lands) 
Bureau of Indian Affairs (Indian lands) 
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 
National Park Service 

Department of Transportation (transport and 
safety) 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Federal Power Commission (production, trans- 
mission, and supply) 

Interstate Commerce Commission 

Coal and Miiierals Development, Mining, 
Conversion, Processing, Transport, and Use 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

Department of Agriculture — 
Forest Service 

Department of Commerce 

Department of Interior — 
Office of Coal Research 

Mining Enforcement and Safety Administra- 
tion 
Bureau of Mines 
Geological Survey 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (Indian lands) 
Bureau of Land Management (public lands) 
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 
National Park Service 

Department of Labor — 

Occupational Safety and Health Administra- 
tion 

Department of Transportation 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Interstate Commerce Commission 

Tennessee Vallev Authority 



PART 520-22 



Effective: November 4, 1975 



Renewable Resource Development, Production, 
I Management, Harvest, Transport, and Use 

Department of Agriculture — 
Forest Service 
Soil Conservation Service 

Department of Commerce 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(building materials) 

Department of the Interior — 
Geological Survey 

Bureau of Land Management (public lands) 
Bureau of Indian Affairs (Indian lands) 
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 
National Park Service 

Department of Transportation 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Interstate Commerce Commission (freight rates) 

Energy and Natural Resources Conservation 

Department of Agriculture — 
Forest Service 
k Soil Conservation Service 

Department of Commerce — 

National Bureau of Standards (energy effi- 
ciency) 

Department of Housing and Urban Develop- 
ment — 
Federal Housing Administration (housing 
standards) 

Department of the Interior — 
Office of Energy Conservation 
Bureau of Mines 
Bureau of Reclamation 
Geological Survey 
Power Marketing Administration 

Department of Transportation 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Federal Power Commission 

General Services Administration (design and op- 
eration of buildings) 

Tennessee Valley Authority 

Federal Energy Administration 



LAND USE AND MANAGEMENT 

Land Use Changes, Planning and Regulation 
or Land Development 

Department of Agriculture — 
Forest Service (forest lands) 
Agricultural Research Service (agricultural 
lands) 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Department of the Interior — 

Office of Land Use and Water Planning 
Bureau of Land Management (public lands) 
Bureau of Indian Affairs (Indian lands) 
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (wild- 
life refuges) 
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (recreation 

lands) 
National Park Service (NPS units) 

Department of Transportation 

Environmental Protection Agency (pollution 
effects) 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(remote sensing) 

River Basins Commissions (as geographically ap- 
propriate) 

Public Land Management 
Department of Agriculture — 
Forest Service (forests) 

Department of Defense 

Department of the Interior — 
Bureau of Land Management 
Bureau of Indian Affairs (Indian lands) 
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (wild- 
life refuges) 
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (recreation 

lands) 
National Park Service (NPS units) 

Federal Power Commission (project lands) 

General Services Administration 

Natiopal Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(remote sensing) 

Tennessee Valley Authority (project lands) 



PART 520-23 



Effective: November 4, 1975 



Protection of Environmentally Critical Areas 
— Floodplains, Wetlands, Beaches and 
Dunes, Unstable Soils, Steep Slopes, 
Aquifer Recharge Areas, etc. 

Department of Agriculture — 

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation 

Service 
Soil Conservation Service 
Forest Service 

Department of Commerce — 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin- 
istration (coastal areas) 

Department of Defense — 
Army Corps of Engineers 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(urban and floodplain areas) 

Department of the Interior — 

Office of Land Use and Water Planning 
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 
Bureau of Reclamation 
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 
Bureau of Land Management 
Geological Survey 

Environmental Protection Agency (pollution ef- 
fects) 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(remote sensing) 

River Basins Commissions (as geographically ap- 
propriate) 

Water Resources Council 

Land Use in Coastal Areas 

Department of Agriculture — 
Forest Service 

Soil Conservation Service (soil stability, hy- 
drology) 

Department of Commerce — 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- 
tion (impact on marine life and coastal zone 
management) 

Department of Defense — 

Army Corps of Engineers (beaches, dredge and 
fill permits, Refuse Act permits) 

Department of Housing and Urban Develop- 
ment (urban areas) 



Department of the Interior — / 

Office of Land Use and Water Planning 

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 

National Park Service 

Geological Survey 

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 

Bureau of Land Management (public lands) 
Department of Transportation — 

Coast Guard (bridges, navigation) 

Environmental Protection Agency (pollution ef- 
fects) 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(remote sensing) 

Redevelopment and Construction in 
Built-Up Areas 

Department of Commerce — 

Economic Development Administration (desig- 
nated areas) 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 
Department of the Interior — 

Office of Land Use and Water Planning 
Department of Transportation 
Environmental Protection Agency 
General Services Administration 
Office of Economic Opportunity 

Density and Congestion Mitigation 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 
Department of Housing and Urban Development 
Department of the Interior — 

Office of Land Use and Water Planning 

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 
Department of Transportation 
Environmental Protection Agency 

Neighborhood Character and Continuity 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 
Department of Housing and Urban Development 
National Endowment for the Arts 
Office of Economic Opportunity 



PART 520-24 



^ 



EffecHva: November 4, 1975 



IjtPACTs ON Low-Income Populations 

Department of Commerce — 

Economic Development Administration (desig- 
nated areas) 

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Office of Economic Opportunity 

Historic, Architectueal, and Archeological 
Preservation 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Department of the Interior — 
National Park Service 

Bureau of Land Management (public lands) 
Bureau of Indian Affairs (Indian lands) 

General Sei-vices Administration 

National Endowment for the Arts 

Soil and Plant Conservation and 
Hydrology 

Department of Agriculture — 
Soil Conservation Service 
Agriculture Service 
Forest Service 

Department of Commerce — 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- 
tion 

Department of Defense — 

Army Corps of Engineers (dredging, aquatic 
plants) 

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 



Department of the Interior 
Bureau of Land Management 
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 
Geological Survey 
Bureau of Reclamation 

Environmental Protection Agency 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(remote sensing) 

River Basin Commissions (as geographically ap- 
propriate) 

Water Resources Council 

OUTDOOR recreation 

Department of Agriculture 
Forest Service 
Soil Conservation Service 

Department of Defense — 

Army Corps of Engineers 
Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(urban areas) 

Department of the Interior — 
Bureau of Land Management 
National Park Service 
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 
Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Environmental Protection Agency 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(remote sensing) 

River Basin Commissions (as geographically ap- 
propriate) 

Water Resources Council 



PART 520-25 



231-088 O - 77 - 



Effective: November 4, 1975 



ATTACHMENT 3 

OFFICES WITHIN FEDERAL AGENCIES AND FED- 
ERAL-STATE AGENCIES FOR INFORMATION RE- 
GARDING THE AGENCIES' NEPA ACTIVITIES 
AND FOR RECEIVING OTHER AGENCIES' IM- 
PACT STATEMENTS FOR WHICH COMMENTS 
ARE REQUESTED 

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

Office of Architectural and Environmental Pres- 
ervation, Advisoi-y Council on Historic Pres- 
ervation, Suite 430, 1522 K Street N.W., Wash- 
ington, D.C. 20005 254-3974. 

Eegional Administrator, I, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Room 2303, John F. Ken- 
nedy Federal Bldg., Boston, Mass. 02203 (617) 
223-7210. 

Regional Administrator, II, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Room 908, 26 Federal 
Plaza, New York, New York 10007 (212) 264- 
2525. 

Regional Administrator, III, U.S. Environ- 
mental Protection Agency, Curtis Bldg., 6th & 
"Walnut Sts., Philadelphia, Pa. 19106 (215) 
597-9801. 

Regional Administrator, IV, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1421 Peachtree Street, N.E., 
Atlanta, Ga. 30309 (404) 526-5727. 

Regional Administrator, V, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1 N. Wacker Drive, Chi- 
cago, Illinois 60606 (312) 353-5250. 

Regional Administrator, VI, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1600 Patterson Street, Suite 
1100, Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 749-1962. 

Regional Administrator, VII, U.S. Environ- 
mental Protection Agency, 1735 Baltimore Ave- 
nue, Kansas City, Missouri 64108 (816) 374- 
5493. 

Regional Administrator, VIII, U.S. Environ- 
mental Protection Agency, Suite 900, Lincoln 
Tower, 1860 Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado 
80203 (303) 837-3895. 

Regional Administrator, IX, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 100 California Street, San 
Francisco, California 94111 (415) 556-2320. 

Regional Administrator, X, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 
Washington 98101 (206) 442-1220. 



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ^ 

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hamp- 
sliire, Rhode Island, Vei-mont 

New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin 
Islands 

Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, 
West Virginia, District of Columbia 

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Missis- 
sippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Ten- 
nessee 

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, 
Wisconsin 

Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Texas, Okla- 
homa 

Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska 

Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, 
Utah, Wyoming 

Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, American 
Samoa, Guam, Trust Territories of Pacific Is- 
lands, Wake Island 

Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ^ 

Office of the Secretary, Attn : Coordinator, En- 
vironmental Quality Activities, U.S. Depart- 
ment of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250 
447-3965. 



' Contact the Office of Federal Activities for environ- 
mental statements concerning legislation, regulations, 
national program proposals, or other major policy issues. 

For all other EPA consultation, contact the Regional 
Administrator in whose area the proposed action (e.g., 
highway or water resource construction projects) will 
take place. The Regional Administrators will coordinate 
the EPA review. Addresses of the Regional Admin- 
istrators, and the areas covered by their regions are as 
follows : 

Director, Office of Federal Activities, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20460 755-0777. 

' Requests for comments or information from indi- 
vidual units of the Department of Agriculture, e.g., Soil 
Conservation Service, Forest Service, etc. should be sent 
to the Office of the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, 
at tlie address given above. 



PART 520-26 



Effective: November 4, 1975 



APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION 

Office of the Alternate Federal Co-Chaiiinan, 
Appalachian Regional Commission, 1666 Con- 
necticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20235 
967^103. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ( CORPS OF ENGINEERS) 

Executive Director of Civil Works, Office of the 
Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of En- 
gineers, Washington, D.C. 20314 693-7168. 

ATOMIC ENERGT COMMISSION 

For nonregulatory matters: Office of Assistant 
General Manager for Biomedical and Environ- 
mental Research and Safety Programs, Atomic 
Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. 20345 
973-3208. 

For regulatory matters: Office of the Assistant 
Director for Environmental Projects, Atomic 
Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. 20545 
973-7531. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for En- 
vironmental Affairs, U.S. Department of Com- 
merce, Washington, D.C. 20230 967-4335. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Defense 
(Health and Environment), U.S. Department 
of Defense, Room 3E172, The Pentagon, Wash- 
ington, D.C. 20301 697-2111. 

DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION 

Office of the Secretary, DelaM^are River Basin 
Commission, Post Office Box 360, Trenton, N.J. 
08603 (609) 883-9500. 

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION 

Commission's Advisor on Environmental Quality, 
Federal Power Commission, 825 N. Capitol 
Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426 386-6084. 

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

Office of Environmental Affairs, Office of the 
Deputy Administrator for Special Projects, 
General Services Administration, Washington, 
D.C. 20405 343-4161. 

GREAT LAKES BASIN COMMISSION 

Office of the Chairman, Great Lakes Basin Com- 
mission, 3475 Plymouth Road, P.O. Box 999, 
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 (313) 769-7431. 



DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION 
AND AVELFARE ^ 

For information with respect to HEW actions 
occurring within the jurisdiction of the Depart- 
ments' Regional Directors, contact the appro- 
priate Regional Environmental Officer : 
Office of Environmental Affairs, Office of the As- 
sistant Secretary for Administration and Man- 
agement, Department of Health, Education 
and Welfare, Washington, D.C. 20202 963-4456. 

Region I, Regional Environmental Officer, U.S. 
Department of Healtli, Education and Welfare, 
Room 2007B, John F. Kennedy Center, Boston, 
Massachusetts 02203 (617) 223-6837. 

Region II, Regional Environmental Officer, U.S. 
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 
Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, 
New York 10007 (212) 264-1308. 

Region III, Regional Environmental Officer, U.S. 
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 
P.O. Box 13716, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 
19101 (215) 597-6498. 

Region IV, Regional Environmental Officer, U.S. 
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 
Room 404, 50 Seventh Street, N.E. Atlanta, 
Georgia 30323 (404) 526-6817. 

Region V, Regional Environmental Officer, U.S. 
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 
433 West Van Buren Stret, Chicago, Illinois 
60607 (312) 353-1644. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN 
DEVELOPMENT * 

Regional Administrator II, Environmental Clear- 
ance Officer, U.S. Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, 26 Federal Plaza, New 
York, New York 10007 (212) 264-8068. 



' Contact the Office of Environment Affairs for in- 
formation on HEW's environmental statements concern- 
ing legislation, regulations, national program proposals 
or other major policy issues, and for all requests for 
HEW comment on impact statements of other agencies. 
' Contact the Director with regard to environmental 
impacts of legislation, policy statements, program regula- 
tions and procedures, and precedent-making project deci- 
sions. For all other HUD consultation, contact the HUD 
Regional Administrator in whose jurisdiction the project 
lies, as follows : 

Regional Administrator I, Environmental Clearance Of- 
ficer, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop- 



PART 520-27 



Effactive: November 4, 1975 



Regional Administrator III, Environmental 
Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, Curtis Building, 
Sixth and Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Penn- 
sylvania 19106 (215) 597-2560. 

Regional Administrator IV, Environmental 
Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, Peachtree-Seventh 
Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30323 (404) 526- 
5585. 

Regional Administra1x)r V, Environmental Clear- 
ance Officer, U.S. Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, 360 North Michigan Ave- 
nue, Chicago, Illinois 60601 (312) 353-5680. 

Director, Office of Community and Environ- 
mental Standards, Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, Room 7206, Washington, 
D.C. 20410 755-5980. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ^ 

Director, Office of Environmental Project Review, 
Department of the Interior, Interior Building, 
Washington, D.C. 20240 343-3891. 

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION 

Office of Proceedings, Interstate Commerce Com- 
mission, Washington, D.C. 20423 343-6167. 

raent, Room 405, John F. Kennedy Federal Building, 
Boston, Mass. 02203 (617) 223-4066. 

Region VI, Regional Environmental Officer, U.S. Depart- 
ment of Health, Education and Welfare, 1114 Com- 
merce Street, Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 749-2236. 

Region VII, Regional Environmental Officer, U.S. De- 
partment of Health, Education and Welfare, 601 East 
12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106 (816) 374- 
3584. 

Region VIII, Regional Environmental Officer, U.S. De- 
partment of Health, Education and Welfare, 9017 
Federal Building, 19th and Stout Streets, Denver, 
Colorado 80202 (303) 837-4178. 

Region IX, Regional Environmental Officer, U.S. De- 
partment of Health, Education and Welfare, !50 Fulton 
Street, San Francisco, California 94102 (415) 556-1970. 

Region X, Regional Environmental Officer, U.S. Depart- 
ment of Health, Education and Welfare, Arcade Plaza 
Building, 1321 .Second Street, Seattle, Washington 
98101 (206) 442-0490. 

° Requests for comments or information from indi- 
vidual units of the Department of the Interior should 
be sent to the Office of Environmental Project Review at 
the address given above. 



DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and 
Health, Department of Labor, Washington, 
D.C. 20210 961-3405. 

MISSOURI RIVER BASINS COMMISSION 

Office of the Chairman, Missouri River Basins 
Commission, 10050 Regency Circle, Omaha, 
Nebraska 68114 (402) 397-5714. 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 
SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

Office of the Comj)troller, National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration, Washington, D.C. 
20546 755-8440. 

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION 

Office of Environmental Affairs, Office of the 
Executive Director, National Capital Planning 
Commission, Washington, D.C. 20576 382-7200. 

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS 

Office of Architecture and Environmental Arts 
Program, National Endowment for the Arts, 
Washington, D.C. 20506 382-5765. 

NEW ENGLAND RIVER BASINS COMMISSION 

Office of the Chairman, New England River 
Basins Commission, 55 Court Street, Boston, 
Mass. 02108 (617) 223-6244. 

Regional Administrator VI, Environmenta,l 
Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, Federal Office Build- 
ing, 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 
76102 (817) 334-2867. 

Regional Administrator VII, Environmental 
Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, 911 Walnut Street, 
Kansas City, Missouri 64106 (816) 374-2661. 

Regional Administrator VIII, Environmental 
Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, Samsonite Building, 
1051 Soutli Broadway, Denver, Colorado 80209 
(303) 837-4061. 

Regional Administrator IX, Environmental 
Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, 450 Golden Gate 
Avenue, Post Office Box 36003, San Francisco, 
California 94102 (415) 556^752. 



r 



PART 520-28 



Effective: November 4, 1975 



^ Regional Administrator X, Environmental 

^ Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, Room 226, Arcade 

Plaza Building, Seattle, Washington 98101 

(206) 583-5415. 

OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 

Office of the Director, Office of Economic Oppor- 
tunity, 1200 19th Street, N.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20506 254-6000. 

OHIO ri\t;r basin commission 
Office of the Chairman, Ohio River Basin Com- 
mission, 36 East 4th Street, Suite 208-20, Cin- 
cinnati, Ohio 45202 (513) 684-3831. 

pacific northwest ri\t:r basins 
commission 
Office of the Chairman, Pacific Northwest River 
Basins Commission, 1 Columbia River, Van- 
couver, Washington 98660 (206) 695-3606. 

souris-red-rainy river basins commission 
Office of the Chairman, Souris-Red-Rainy River 
Basins Commission, Suite 6, Professional 
Building, Holiday Mall, Moorhead, Minnesota 
^ 56560 (701) 237-5227. 

department of state 
Office of the Special Assistant to the Secretary 
for Environmental Affairs, Department of 
State, Washington, D.C. 20520 632-7964. 

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN COMMISSION 

Office of the Executive Director, Susquehanna 
River Basin Commission, 5012 Lenker Street, 
Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17055 (717) 737-0501. 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 

Office of the Director of Environmental Re- 
search and Development, Tennessee Valley Au- 
thority, 720 Edney Building, Chattanooga, 
Tennessee 37401 (615) 755-2002. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION * 

Director, Office of Environmental Quality, Office 
of the Assistant Secretary for Environment, 



'Contact the Officp of Environmental Quality, Depart- 
ment of Trans?portation, for information on DOT'S en- 
vironmental statements concerninf; legislation, regula- 
tions, national program proposals, or other major policy 
issues. 



Safety, and Consumer Affairs, Department of 
Transportation, Washington, D.C. 20590 426- 
4357. 

For information regarding the Department of 
Transportation's other environmental statements, 
contact the national office for the appropriate ad- 
ministration : 

U.S. Coast Guard 
Office of Marine Environment and Systems, U.S. 
Coast Guard, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washing- 
ton, D.C. 20590 426-2007. 

Federal Atnation Administration 
Office of Environmental Quality, Federal Avia- 
tion Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591 426-8406. 

Federal Highway Administration 
Office of Environmental Policy, Federal High- 
way Administration, 400 7th Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20590 426-0351. 

Federal Railroad Administration 
Office of Policy and Plans, Federal Railroad 
Administration, 400 7th Street, S.W., Wash- 
ington, D.C. 20590 426-1567. 

Urban Mass Transportation Admdni.stration 
Office of Program Operations, Urban Mass Trans- 
portation Administration, 400 7th Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20590 426-4020. 

For other administration's not listed above, 
contact the Office of Environmental Quality, De- 
partment of Transportation, at the address given 
above. 

For comments on other agencies' environmental 
statements, contact the appropriate adminis- 
tration's regional office. If more than one 
administration within the Department of Trans- 
portation is to be requested to comment, contact 
the Secretarial Representative in the appropriate 
Regional Office for coordination of the Depart- 
ment's comments : 

SECRETARIAL REPRESENTATIVE 

Region I Secretarial Representative, U.S. De- 
partment of Transportation, Transportation 
Systems Center, 55 Broadway, Cambridge, 
Massachusetts 02142 (617) 494-2709. 



PART 520-29 



Effective: November 4, 1975 



Region II Secretarial Representative, U.S. De- 
partment of Transportation, 26 Federal Plaza, 
Room 1811, New York, New York 10007 (212) 
26't-2672. 

Region III Secretarial Representative, U.S. De- 
partment of Transportation, Mall Building, 
Suite 1214, 32.5 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania 19106 (215) 597-0407. 

Region IV Secretai'ial Representative, U.S. De- 
partment of Transportation, Suit« 515, 1720 
Peachtree Rd., N.'W., Atlanta, Georgia 30309 
(404) 526-3738. 

Region V Secretarial Representative, U.S. De- 
partment of Transportation, I7th Floor, 300 S. 
Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 
353-4000. 

Region VI Secretarial Representative, U.S. De- 
partment of Transportation, 9-C-18 Federal 
Center, 1100 Commerce Street, Dallas, Texas 
75202 (214) 749-1851. 

Region VII Secretarial Representative, U.S. De- 
partment of Transportation, 601 E. 12th Street, 
Room 634, Kansas City, Missouri 64106 (816) 
374-2761. 

Region VIII Secretarial Representative, U.S. 
Depai'tment of Transportation, Prudential 
Plaza, Suite 1822, 1050 17th Street, Denver, 
Colorado 80225 (303) 837-3242. 

Region IX Secretarial Representative, U.S. De- 
partment of Transportation, 450 Golden Gate 
Avenue, Box 36133, San Francisco, California 
94102 (415) 556-,5961. 

Region X Secretarial Representative, U.S. De- 
partment of Transportation, 1321 Second Ave- 
nue. Room 507, Seattle, Washington 98101 
(206) 442-0590. 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

New England Region, Office of the Regional Di- 
rector, Federal Aviation Administration, 154 
Middlesex Street, Burlington, Massachusetts 
01803 (617) 272-2350. 

Eastern Region, Office of the Regional Director, 
Federal Aviation Administration, Federal 
Building, JFK International Airport, Jamaica, 
New York 11430 (212) 995-3333. 

Southern Region, Office of the Regional Director, 
Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 
20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320 (404) 526-7222. 



Great Lakes Region, Office of the Regional Di- 
rector, Federal Aviation Administration, 2300 
East Devon, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018 (312) 
694-4500. 

Southwest Region, Office of the Regional Di- 
rector, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. 
Box 1689, Fort Worth, Texas 76101 (817) 624- 
4911. 

Central Region,Office of the Regional Director, 
Federal Aviation Administration, 601 E. 12th 
Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106 (816) 374- 
5626. 

Rocky Mountain Region, Office of the Regional 
Director, Federal Aviation Administration, 
Park Hill Station, P.O. Box 7213, Denver, 
Colorado 80207 (303) 837-3646. 

Western Region, Office of the Regional Director, 
Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 
92007, World Way Postal Center, Los Angeles, 
California 90009 "(213) 536-6427. 

Northwest Region, Office of the Regional Di- 
rector, Federal Aviation Administration, FAA 
Building, Boeing Field, Seattle, Washington 
98108 (206) 767-2780. 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION 

Region 1, Regional Administrator, Federal High- 
way Administration, 4 Normanskill Boulevard, 
Deimar, New York 12054 (518) 472-6476. 

Region 3, Regional Administrator, Federal High- 
way Administration, Room 1621, George H. 
Fallon Federal Office Building, 31 Hopkins 
Plaza, Baltimore, Maryland 21201 (301) 962- 
2361. 

Region 4, Regional Administrator, Federal High- 
way Administration, Suite 200, 1720 Peachtree 
Road, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30309 (404) 526- 
5078. 

Region 5, Regional Administrator, Federal High- 
way Administration. Dixie Highway, Home- 
wood, Illinois 604030 (312) 799-6300. 

Region 6, Regional Administrator, Federal High- 
way Administration, 819 Taylor Street, Fort 
Worth, Texas 76102 (817) 334-3232. 

Region 7, Regional Administrator, Federal High- 
way Administration, P.O. Box 7186, Country 
Club Station, Kansas City, Missouri 64113 
(816) 361-7563. 



PART 520-30 



Effective: November 4, 1975 



Region 8, Re<iional Administrator, Federal High- 
way Administration, Room 242, Building 40, 
Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 
80225. 

Region 9, Regional Administrator, Federal High- 
way Administration, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 
Box 36096, San Francisco, California 94102 
(415) 556-3895. 

Region 10, Regional Administrator, Federal 
Highway Administration, Room 412, Mohawk 
Building, 222 S.W. Morrison Street, Portland, 
Oregon 97204 (503) 221-2065. 

URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION 

Region I, Office of the UMTA Representative, 
Urban Mass Transportation Administration, 
Transportation Systems Center, Technology 
Building, Room 277, 55 Broadway, Boston, 
Massachusetts 02142 (617) 494-2055. 

Region II, Office of the UMTA Representative, 
Urban Mass Transportation Administration, 
26 Federal Plaza, Suite 1809, New York, New 
York 10007 (212) 264-8162. 

Region III, Office of the UMTA Representative, 
Urban Mass Transportation Administration, 
IMall Building, Suite 1214, 325 Chestnut Street, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 (215) 597- 
0407. 

Region IV, Office of tlie UMTA Representative, 
Urban Mass Transportation Administration, 
1720 Peachtree Road, Northwest, Suite 501, 
Atlanta, Georgia 30309 (404) 526-3948. 

Region V, Office of tlie UMTA Representative, 
Urban Mass Transportation Administration, 
300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 700, Chicago, 
Illinois 60606 (312) 353-6005. 



Region VI, Office of the UMTA Representative, 
Urban Alass Transportation Administration, 
Federal Center, Suite 9E24, 1100 Commerce 
Street, Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 749-7322. 

Region VII, Office of the UMTA Representative, 
Urban Mass Transportation Administration, 
c/o FAA Management Systems Division, Room 
1564D, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, 
Missouri 64106 (816) 374-5567. 

Region VIII, Office of the UMTA Representative, 
Urban Mass Transportation Administration, 
Prudential Plaza, Suite 1822, 1050 17th Street, 
Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 837-3242. 

Region IX, Office of the UMTA Representative, 
Urban Mass Transportation Administration, 
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36125, San Fran- 
cisco, California 94102 (415) 556-2884. 

Region X, Office of the UMTA Representative, 
Urban Mass Transportation Administration, 
1321 Second Avenue, Suite 5079, Seattle, Wash- 
ington (206) 442-0590. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of Assistant Secretary for Administration, 
Department of the Treasury, Washington, 
D.C. 20220 964-5391. 

UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN COMMISSION 

Office of the Chairman, Upper Mississippi River 
Basin Commission, Federal Office Building, 
Fort Snelling, Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111 
(612) 725-4690. 

WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL 

Office of the Associate Director, Water Resources 
Council, 2120 L Street, N.W., Suite 800, Wash- 
ington, D.C. 20037 254-6442. 



PART 520-31 



EfFective: November 4, 1975 



ATTACHMENT 4 

STATE AND LOCAL AGENCY REVIEW 
OF IMPACT STATEMENTS 

1. OBM Eevised Circular No. A-95 through 
its system of clearinghouses provides a means for 
securing the views of State and local environ- 
mental agencies, which can assist in the prepara- 
tion of impact statements. Under A-95, review 
of the proposed project in the case of federally 
assisted projects (Part I of A-95) generally 
takes place prior to the preparation of the impact 
statement. Therefore, comments on the environ- 
mental effects of the proposed project that are 
secured during this stage of the A-95 process 
represent inputs to the environmental impact 
statement. 

2. In the case of direct Federal development 
(Part II of A-95), Federal agencies are required 
to consult with clearinghouse at the earliest 
practicable time in the planning of the project 
or activity. Wliere such consultation occurs 
prior to completion of the draft impact state- 
ment, comments relating to the environmental 
effects of the proposed action would also repre- 
sent inputs to the environmental impact state- 
ment. 

3. In either case, whatever comments are made 
on environmental effects of proposed Federal or 
federally assisted projects by clearinghouses, or 
by State and local environmental agencies 
through clearinghouses, in the course of the A-95 



review should be attached to the draft impact 
statement when it is circulated for review. Copies 
of the statement should be sent to the agencies 
making such comments. Whether those agencies 
then elect to comment again on the basis of the 
draft impact statement is a matter to be left 
to tlie discretion of the commenting agency de- 
pending on its resources, the significance of the 
project and the extent to which its earlier com- 
ments were considered in preparing the draft 
statement. 

4. The clearinghouses may also be used, by mu- 
tual agreement, for securing reviews of the draft 
environmental impact statement. However, the 
Federal agency may wigh to deal directly with 
appropriate State or local agencies in the review 
of impact statements because tlie clearinghouses 
may be unwilling or unable to handle this phase 
of the process. In some cases, the Governor may 
have designated a specific agency, other than the 
clearinghouse, for securing reviews of impact 
statements. In any case, the clearinghouses 
should be sent copies of the impact statement. 

5. To aid clearinghouses in coordinating State 
and local comments, draft statements should in- 
clude copies of State and local agency comments 
made earlier under the A-95 process and should 
indicate on the summary sheet those other agen- 
cies from which comments have been requested, 
as specified in Attachment 1. 

40 F.R. 52395 
November 10, 1975 



PAKT 520-32 



Effactiv*: December 20, 1966 



PREAMBLE TO PART 551— PROCEDURAL RULES 
(Docket No. 4) 



The purpose of this rule-making action is to 
adopt new Part 351 — General Procedural Rules. 

The new part will eventually contain the rules 
on those matters that are common to all proce- 
dures. At this time only the rules governing 
submittals in writing, and governing service of 
process on designated agents of foreign manu- 
facturers, are being adopted. 

The rules governing submittals in writing are 
those considered necessary for the efficient han- 
dling of business. These rules apply, of course, 
to written comments on notices of proposed rule- 
making. Designation of agents by foreign manu- 
facturers to receive service of process is required 
by section 110(e) of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, and the rules 
implement this provision. Both groups of rules 
are self-explanatory. Since these rules are pro- 
cedural in character, notice of proposed rule- 
making is not required (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). 

In consideration of the foregoing. Chapter II 
of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
is amended by inserting, in Subchapter B, a new 
part as set forth below. This action is taken 
under the authority of sections 110(e) and 119 
of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 
Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 718) ; 23 U.S.C. section 315 
and chapter 4; and the delegation of authority 
of October 20, 1966 (31 F.R. 13952). 

These rules become effective December 20, 1966. 



Issued in Washington, D.C., on December 15, 
1966. 

Alan S. Boyd, 

Under Secretary of Commerce 

for Transportation 

SUBPART A— GENERAL 
Sec. 
351.1 Scope. 

SUBPART B— [RESERVED] 
351.31 Form of communications. 
351.33 Address of communications. 
351.35 Subscription of communications. 
351.37 Language of communications. 

SUBPART D— SERVICE OF PROCESS; AGENTS 
351.41 [Reserved] 
351.43 [Reserved] 

351.45 Service of process on foreign manufac- 
turers and importers 

AUTHORITY: The provisions of this Part 
351 issued under sees. 110(e), 119, 80 Stat. 719, 
728; 15 U.S.C. 1399, 1407, 23 U.S.C. 315, 401- 
404; Delegation of Authority, 31 F.R. 13952, 
32 F.R. 5606. 

31 F.R. 16267 
December 20, 1966 



PART 551— PRE 1-2 



( 



Effacllve: July 27, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 551— PROCEDURAL RULES 



Parts 501, 551, and 553 of Title 49, Code of 
Federal Kegulations, currently detail the dele- 
gated powers, general procedures, and rulemak- 
ing procedures utilized by the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to 
implement the National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Public Law 89-563. 
The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost 
Savings Act, Public Law 92-513, vests addi- 
tional authority in the NHTSA. This amend- 
ment extends the applicability of Parts 501, 551, 
and 553 to the Cost Savings Act to establish 
uniform rulemaking procedures for both Acts. 

Accordingly, amendments are made to 49 CFR, 
Part 501, "Organization and delegation of 
powers and duties". Part 551, "Procedural rules", 
and Part 553, "Rulemaking procedures: motor 
vehicle safety standards'". . . . 

Since this amendment relates to NHTSA 
organization, procedures, and practices, it is 



found that notice and public procedure thereon 
are unnecessary. 

Effective date: July 27, 1973. Because this 
notice is only an extension of existing procedures 
to new areas of jurisdiction, it is foimd that an 
immediate effective date is in the public interest. 

(Sees. 9, Pub. L. 89-670, 80 Stat. 944, 49 U.S.C. 
1657; 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 15 
U.S.C. 1392, 1407; 102, 105, 201, 205, 302, and 
408, Pub. L. 92-513, 86 Stat. 947, 15 U.S.C. 1912, 
1915, 1941, 1945, 1962, and 1988; delegation of 
authority at 38 FR 12147). 

Issued on July 23, 1973. 

James E. Wilson 
Associate Administrator 
Traffic Safety Programs 

38 F.R. 20086 
July 27, 1973 



PART 551— PRE 3-4 



Effective: December 20, 1966 



PART 551— PROCEDURAL RULES 



SUBPART A— GENERAL 

§551.1. Scope. 

This part contains rules of procedure generally 
applicable to the transaction of official business 
under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act of 1966, the Motor Vehicle Informa- 
tion and Cost Sa^•ings Act, and the Highway 
Safety Act of 1966. These rules apply in 
addition to the rules governing specific proceed- 
ings. In case of inconsistency with these general 
rules, the specific rules prevail. 

SUBPART B— [RESERVED] 
SUBPART C— SUBMITTALS IN WRITING 

§551.31 Form of Communications. 

Any communication in writing relating to of- 
ficial business (including formal documents) 
shall be on opaque and durable paper not larger 
than 9 by 14 inches in size. Tables, charts, or 
originals of other documents that are attached 
to communications shall be folded to this size, 
if possible. The left margin of communications 
shall be at least li^ inches wide, and if a com- 
munication is bound, it shall be bound on the 
left side. All copies submitted shall be legible. 

§551.33 [Address of communications. 

Unless othei'wise specified, communications 
shall be addressed to the Administrator, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh 
Street, S.W., AVashington, D.C. 20590. Com- 
munications may not be addressed to a staff 
member's private address (36 F.E. 1147 — Jan- 
uary 23, 1971. Eti'ective : 1-27-71 ) ] 

§ 551.35 Subscription of communications. 

Each communication shall be signed in ink and 
shall disclose the full legal name and address of 
the person signing it and, if he is an agent, of 
his principal. 



§551.37 Language of communications. 

Communications and attachments thereto shall 
be in English. Any matter written in a foreign 
language will be considered only if accompanied 
by a translation into English. A translation 
shall bear a certificate by the translator certi- 
fying that he is qualified to make the translation ; 
that the translation is complete except as other- 
wise clearly indicated; and that it is accurate to 
the best of the translator's knowledge and belief. 
The translator shall sign the certificate in ink 
and state his full, legal name, occupation and 
address. 

SUBPART D— SERVICE OF PROCESS; AGENTS 

§551.41 [Reserved] 
§551.43 [Reserved] 

§ 551.45 Service of process on foreign manu- 
facturers and importers. 

(a.) Designation of agent for service. Any 
manufacturer, assembler or importer of motor 
vehicles or motor vehicle equipment (hereinafter 
called manufacturer) before offering a motor 
vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for 
importation into the United States, shall desig- 
nate a permanent resident of the United States 
as his agent upon whom service of all processes, 
notices, orders, decisions, and requirements may 
be made for him and on his behalf as provided 
in section 110(e) of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 718) 
and in this section. The agent may be an indi- 
vidual, a firm, or a domestic corporation. Any 
number of manufacturers may designate the 
same person as agent. 

(b) Form and contents of designation. [The 
designation shall be addressed to the Adminis- 
trator, National Highway Traffic Safety Adminis- 
tration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20590. (36 F.E. 1147— January 23, 1971. Ef- 



)l (Rev. 7/23/731 



PART 551-1 



Effective: December 20, 1966 



fective: 1-27-71)] It shall be in writing and 
dated; all signatures shall be in ink. The 
designation shall be made in legal form re- 
quired to make it valid, and binding on the 
laws, or other requirements governing the mak- 
ing of the designation by the manufacturer at 
the place and time where it is made, and the 
person or persons signing the designation shall 
certify that it is so made. The designation shall 
disclose the full legal name, principal place of 
business, and mailing address of the manufac- 
turer. If any of the products of the manufac- 
turer do not bear his legal name, the marks, 
trade names, or other designations of origin 
which these products bear shall be stated in the 
designation. The designation of agent shall pro- 
vide that it remains in effect until withdrawn 
or replaced by the manufacturer. The designa- 
tion shall bear a declaration of acceptance duly 
signed by the designated agent. The full legal 
name and mailing address of the agent shall be 



stated. Designations are binding on the manu- 
facturer even when not in compliance with all 
requirements of this section until rejected by the 
Administrator. The designated agent may not 
assign performance of his functions under the 
designation to another person. 

(c) Method of service. Service of any process, 
notice, order, requirement, or decision specified 
in section 110(e) of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 may be made 
by registered or certified mail addressed to the 
agent, with return receipt requested, or in any 
other manner authorized by law. If service can- 
not be effected because the agent has died (or, 
if a firm or a corporation ceased to exist) or 
moved, or otherwise does not receive correctly 
addressed mail, service may be made by posting 
as provided in section 110(e). 

31 F.R. 16267-8 
December 20, 1966 



(Rev. Jan. 71) 



PART 551-2 



Effective: September 4, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO PART 552— PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING, DEFECT, AND 

NONCOMPLIANCE ORDERS 

(Docket No. 75-12; Notice 2) 



This notice establishes a new regulation speci- 
fying the requirements for submission of peti- 
tions for rulemaking, and petitions for the 
commencement of defect or non-compliance pro- 
ceedings in accordance with section 124 of the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 
15 U.S.C. 1410a. It also describes the pro- 
cedures the NHTSA will follow in acting upon 
such petitions. 

The notice of proposed rulemaking on which 
this issuance is based was issued on May 16, 1975 
(40 CFR 21486), in response to which eight com- 
ments were received. After careful consideration 
of those comments, the NHTSA has determined 
that no substantial change from the proposal is 
called for in the language of the rule. 

Most of the comments received in response to 
the proposed resolution supported the establish- 
ment of some kind of regulation with respect to 
petitions for rulemaking. American Motors sup- 
ported the proposal without qualification, while 
the other commenters suggested changes of vary- 
ing import. 

The Center for Auto Safety argued that the 
proposed rule was too narrow, as it did not deal 
with petitions to close defect investigations. 
Section 124 of the Act, upon which Part 552 is 
based, establishes formal requirements for peti- 
tions in the major areas of agency activity under 
the Act: petitions to "commence proceedings" 
concerning the issuance, amendment, or revoca- 
tion of a motor vehicle safety standard, and 
petitions to "commence proceedings" concerning 
the issuance of an order with respect to the fail- 
ure to comply with a safety standard or the 
existence of a safety-related defect. These are 
in fact the main areas in which petitions have 
been received by the agency in the past. Section 
124 indicates an intent of Congress to provide, 



and at the same time to limit, formal "petition 
treatment" to these areas. This treatment in- 
cludes a statutory deadline for action, and Fed- 
eral Register publication of reasons for denial. 
A corollary of this Congressional intent is that 
an informal response by the agency to other types 
of requests for action is satisfactory. Accord- 
ingly, such other requests will not be treated as 
petitions, but will be handled informally (as in 
the past) imder existing correspondence or other 
appropriate NHTSA procedures. 

The Center for Auto Safety also urged that, 
upon denial of a petition, the NHTSA should 
be required to provide the reasons for the denial 
in specific detail. This suggestion is outside the 
intent of the statutory provision, and without 
merit. A full discussion of the agency's reasons 
for denial of a petition is provided to the peti- 
tioner, and copies of such a denial letter are 
(except for confidential matter) generally avail- 
able to any person upon request. This agency 
does not find any intent of Congress to require 
the full text of denial letters to be printed in the 
Federal Register. The NHTSA practice of pub- 
lishing a summary of its reasons for a denial 
appears to satisfy both the letter and the spirit 
of section 124. The reason for the provision is 
to make the agency publicly accountable and 
"responsible" (from the title of the section) for 
its negative decisions, as it naturally is for its 
positive ones. A person who, put on notice by 
the Federal Register publication, wishes to delve 
more deeply into the background of the matter 
may readily do so by requesting further informa- 
tion from the agency. 

General Motors objected to the use of the 
"reasonable possibility" standard in determining 
whether to grant or deny a petition because it 
would allow for the granting of virtually any 



PART 552— PRE 1 



Effective: September 4, 1975 

petition. The NHTSA does not agree. It should 
be remembered that the grant of a petition under 
this part leads only to the commencement of 
agency action to gather information necessary 
to make a decision. The use of the modifier 
"reasonable" limits the discretion of the Admin- 
istrator to grant only a petition for an order or 
rule that has a reasonable chance of being issued, 
not a petition for any order or rule that may 
conceivably be issued. The substitution of the 
term "reasonable probability," as urged by GM, 
would tend to transform a threshold decision as 
to whether or not the rule or order might issue 
into a determination of whether or not it should 
issue. Such a result would dilute the intent of 
both section 124 and Part 552 to provide means 
for interested parties, without access to complete 
data, to seek remedial action regarding what 
they consider to be defective or unsafe char- 
acteristics of motor vehicles. 

GM also urged that a petitioner be required to 
verify the facts alleged in the petition before 
any information requests are made to the manu- 
facturer. Such a requirement would preclude 
the granting of a petition submitted by an in- 
dividual or organization with limited resources. 
The technical review conducted by the Associate 
Administrator necessarily includes an analysis 
of the facts alleged in the petition. If he de- 
termines that the facts need verification by the 
petitioner, he has the discretion to request that 
the petitioner submit additional information. 
However, to require such information as a condi- 
tion precedent to granting the petition would 
not only unduly burden the petitioner, but also 
would exceed the statutory requirement that the 
petition merely set forth the facts which it is 
claimed establish the necessity of an order, not 
that it prove those facts. 

The Recreation Vehicle Industry Association 
(RVIA) objected to the provision denying cross 
examination of witnesses at hearings lield on 
petitions under Part 552. It is well established 
that the NHTSA may hold informal hearings 
under the Traffic Safety Act, in cases such as 
Automotive Parts & Accessories Ass''n, Inc. v. 
Boyd, 407 F.2d 330, 334 (D.C. Cir. 1968). The 
purpose of an informal hearing is to permit the 
NHTSA to determine whether or not a petitioner 



has a valid complaint or request for rulemaking. 
This purpose is best served by allowing both ( 
sides to present information and ai'guments 
without the necessity for conforming to strict 
evidentiary rules. In addition, the drafters of 
section 124 intended to encourage the free use 
of the petition procedure in alerting the NHTSA 
to vehicle safety problems. The possibility of 
having to submit to rigorous cross-examination 
might deter many potential petitioners from uti- 
lizing this procedure. Accordingly, the provi- 
sion allowing for an informal hearing has been 
retained intact. 

The RVIA also argued that the manufacturer 
be allowed to respond to the petition before the 
Administrator decided whether to grant or deny 
it. Such a proposal misapprehends the purpose 
of the petition and ignores the opportunities a 
manufacturer has to respond to adverse informa- 
tion submitted in a petition. If the NHTSA 
denies the petition, there is no need for response 
as there is no action adverse to the manufacturer. 
If the petition is granted, the applicable 
rulemaking and investigatory procedures are 
commenced, with full opportunity for the manu- 
facturer to present data and arguments against 
the proposed rule or order. As noted above, the 
purpose of the technical review is to facilitate 
a threshold decision as to whether an order or 
rule might issue, not whether it will. Thus it 
is not necessary to consider the comments of the 
manufacturer before deciding whether to grant 
or deny. 

The proposed time for Federal Register pub- 
lication of notice of a denial of a petition was 
30 days. In order to allow time to prepare a 
monthly publication of a notice of denials, in the 
interest of efficieny and conservation of Federal 
Register space, this period is set at 45 days. 

In light of the foregoing. Title 49, Code of 
Federal Regulation, is amended by the addition 
of a new Part 552, Petitions for Rulemaking, 
Defect, and Noncompliance Orders. . . . 

Effective date: September 4, 1975. 

Issued on September 4, 1975. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 
40 F.R. 42013 
September 10, 1975 



PART 552— PRE 2 



Effective: September 4, 197S 



-563, 80 



PART 552- 

Sec. 

552.1 Scope. 

552.2 Purpose. 

552.3 General. 

552.4 Requirements for Petition. 

552.5 Improperly filed petitions. 

552.6 Technical review. 

552.7 Public hearing. 

552.8 Determination whether to commence 

proceeding. 

552.9 Grant of petition. 

552.10 Denial of petition. 

Authority: Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L 
Stat. 718, (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; Sec. 124, 152 
Pub. L. 93-492, 88 Stat. 1470, (15 TJ.S.C. 1410a, 
1412) ; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.51. 

§ 552.1 Scope. This part establishes pro- 
cedures for the submission and disposition of 
petitions filed by interested persons pursuant to 
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 
Act and the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost 
Savings Act, to initiate rulemaking or to make 
a determination that a motor vehicle or item of 
replacement equipment does not comply with an 
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard 
or contains a defect which relates to motor ve- 
hicle safety. 

§ 552.2 Purpose. The purpose of tliis part is 
to enable the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration to identify and respond on a 
timely basis to petitions for rulemaking or de- 
fect or noncompliance determinations, and to 
inform the public of the procedures following 
in response to such petitions. 



-PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING, DEFECT, AND 
NONCOMPLIANCE ORDERS 



§ 552.3 General. Any interested person may 
file with the Administrator a petition requesting 
him (1) to commence a proceeding respecting 
the issuance, amendment, or revocation of a 
motor vehicle safety standard, or (2) to com- 
mence a proceeding to determine whether to 
issue an order concerning the notification and 
remedy of a failure of a motor vehicle or item 
of replacement equipment to comply with an 
applicable motor vehicle safety standard or a 
defect in such vehicle or equipment that relates 
to motor vehicle safety. 

§ 552.4 Requirements for petition. A petition 
filed under tliis part should be addressed and 
submitted to: Administi'ator, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Each 
petition filed under this part must — 

(a) Be written in the English language; 

(b) Have, preceding its text, a heading that 
includes the word "Petition"; 

(c) Set forth facts which it is claimed estab- 
lish that an order is necessary; 

(d) Set forth a brief description of the sub- 
stance of the order which it is claimed should 
be issued; and 

(e) Contain the name and address of the 
petitioner. 

§552.5 Improperly filed petitions, (a) A peti- 
tion that is not addressed as specified in § 552.4, 
but that meets the other requirements of that 
section, will be treated as a properly filed peti- 
tion, received as of the time it is discovered and 
identified. 

(b) A document that fails to conform to one 
or more of the requirements of 552.4(a) through 
(e) will not be treated as a petition under this 
part. Such a document will be treated according 



PART 552-1 



231-038 O - 77 - 4 



Effective: September 4, 1975 



to the existing correspondence or other appro- 
priate procedures of the NHTSA, and any sug- 
gestions contained in it will be considei'ed at the 
discretion of the Administrator or his delegate. 

§ 552.6 Technical review. The appropriate 
Associate Administrator conducts a techncial re- 
view of the petition, to determine whether there 
is a reasonable possibility that the requested 
order will be issued at the conclusion of the 
appropriate proceeding. The technical review 
may consist of an analysis of the material sub- 
mitted, together with information already in the 
possession of the agency, or it may also include 
the collection of additional information, or a 
public meeting in accordance with § 552.7. 

§ 552.7 Public meeting. If the Associate Ad- 
ministrator decides that a public meeting on the 
subject of the petition would contribute to the 
determination whether to commence a proceeding, 
he issues a notice of public meeting for publica- 
tion in the Federal Register to advise interested 
persons of the time, place, and subject matter 
of the public meeting and invite their participa- 
tion. Interested persons may submit their views 
and evidence through oral or written presenta- 
tions, or both. There is no cross examination of 
witnesses. A transcript of the meeting is kept 
and exhibits may be accepted as part of the tran- 
script. Sections 556 and 557 of Title 5, United 
States Code, do not apply to meetings held under 
this part. The Chief Counsel designates a mem- 
ber of his staff to serve as legal officer at the 
meeting. 

§ 552.8 Determination whether to commence 
a proceeding. At the conclusion of the technical 
review, the Administrator or his delegate deter- 



mines whether there is a reasonable possibility 
that the order requested in the petition will be 
issued at tlie conclusion of the appropriate pro- 
ceeding. If such a reasonable possibility is 
found, the petition is granted. If it is not found, 
the petition is denied. In either event, the peti- 
tioner is notified of the grant or denial not more 
than 120 days after receipt of the petition by 
the NHTSA. 

§ 552.9 Grant of petition, (a) If a petition 
for rulemaking with respect to a motor vehicle 
safety standard is granted, a rulemaking pro- 
ceeding is promptly commenced in accordance 
with applicable NHTSA and statutory proce- 
dui'es. The granting of such a petition and the 
commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does 
not signify, however, that the rule in question 
will be issued. A decision as to the issuance of 
the rule is made on the basis of all available 
information developed in the course of the rule- 
making proceeding, in accordance with statutory 
criteria. 

(b) If a petition with respect to a noncom- 
pliance or a defect is granted, a proceeding to 
determine the existence of the noncompliance or 
defect is promptly com.menced by the initiation 
of an investigation by the Office of Standards 
Enforcement or the Office of Defects Investiga- 
tion, as appropriate. 

§ 552.10 Denial of petition. If a petition is 
denied, a Federal Register notice of the denial is 
issued within 45 days of the denial, setting forth 
the reasons for denial of the petition. 

40 F.R. 42013 
September 10, 1975 



PART 552-2 



Effactiva: November 17, 1967 



PREAMBLE TO PART 553- 



-RULEMAKING PROCEDURES: MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY 
STANDARDS 



This amendment revokes "Part 215 — Rule- 
Making; Initial Safety Standards," 31 F.R. 
13127, as amended, in 31 F.R. 15197, 32 F.R. 
976, 32 F.R. 5832, and 32 F.R. 13000, and adds 
a new Part 353 — "Rule-Making Procedures: 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards" to the regula- 
tions of the Federal Highway Administration. 

The purpose of this part is to describe the 
procedures applicable to the Federal Highway 
Administration in prescribing public rules for 
motor vehicle safety standards and to provide 
for appropriate participation by interested per- 
sons. 

The new part provides for general notices of 
proposed rule making, to be published in the 
Federal Register, except in cases where the Ad- 
ministration finds that notice is impractical, un- 
necessary or contrary to the public interest. The 
new part also provides for petitions for extension 
of time to comment on notices of proposed rule 
making, petitions for reconsideration, and peti- 
tions for proposed rule making. 

Sections 556 and 557 of Title 5, United States 
Code (formerly sections 7 and 8 of the Admin- 
istrative Procedure Act), do not apply to rule 
making under this part. Consequently, hearings 
are not a required part of the rule-making pro- 
cedure. However, hearings may be held, when- 
ever it is considered necessary and desirable. 
Unless otherwise specified, any hearing held 
would be nonadversary, with no formal pleadings 
and no adverse party. A rule issued after such 
hearing would not necessarily be based exclu- 
sively on the record of the hearing. 

All final rules will be published in the Federal 
Register, unless, in accordance with section 
552(a) of Title 5, United States Code, actual 
and timely notice has been given to all persons 
subject to it. 

Since this amendment relates to Federal High- 
way Administration organization, procedures. 



and practices, notice and public procedure hereon 
is not necessary and it may be made effective in 
less than thirty (30) days after publication in 
the Federal Register. 

This amendment is made under the authority 
of sections 103 and 119 of the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 
1407), and the delegation of authority of October 
14, 1967 (32 F.R. 14277). 

In consideration of the foregoing, Title 49 [23] 
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
by deleting Part 215 and adding the following 
new Part 353 — "Rule-Making Procedures: Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standards" effective November 
17, 1967. 



Issued in Washington, D.C.. 
1967. 



on November 9, 



Lowell K. Bridwell, 

Federal Highway Administrator 

SUBPART A— GENERAL 



Sec. 




353.1 


Applicability. 


353.3 


Definitions. 


353.5 


Regulatory dockets 


353.7 


Records. 



SUBPART B— PROCEDURES FOR ADOPTION OF 

RULES UNDER SECTIONS 103 AND 109 

OF THE ACT 

353.1 1 General. 

353.13 Initiation of rule making. 

353.15 Contents of notices of proposed rule 
making. 

353.17 Participation of interested persons. 

353.19 Petitions for extension of time to com- 
ment. 

353.21 Contents of written comments. 

353.23 Consideration of comments received. 



PART 553— PRE 1 



Effective: November 17, 1967 

353.25 Additional rule-making proceedings. 

353.27 Hearings. 

353.29 Adoption of final rules. 

353.31 Petitions for rule making. 

353.33 Processing of petitions. 

353.35 Petitions for reconsideration. 

353.37 Proceedings on petitions for reconsid- 
eration. 



AUTHORITY: The provisions of this Part ^ 
353 issued under sees. 103 and 119, 80 Stat. 728; ^" 
15 U.S.C. 1407; Delegation of Authority of Oct. 
14, 1967 (32F.R. 14277). 

32 F.R. 15818 
November 17, 1967 



PART 553— PRE 2 



i 



EfFective: Decembar 19, 1970 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 553— RULEMAKING PROCEDURES: MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

Effect of Petition for Reconsideration 



Sections 553.35 and 553.37 of Title 49, Code 
of Federal Regulations, provide procedural rules 
for submission of, and action upon, petitions for 
reconsideration of rules issued under the Na- 
tional Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 
U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). The purpose of this notice 
is to establish a new section in Part 553, to make 
clear the National Highway Safety Bureau's in- 
terpretation of the effect of the filing of a peti- 
tion for reconsideration upon the running of the 
60-day period for judicial review of orders issued 
under the Act (15 U.S.C. 1394). 

The Bureau's position is that the 60-day period 
for judicial review is stayed by a timely petition 
for reconsideration of an order, and that the re- 
view period does not expire until 60 days after 
the Director's disposition of the petition by 
notice in the Federal Register. A party ad- 
versely affected by the order may, however, seek 
judicial review before the petition is disposed of. 

The staying of the expiration of the review 
period while action is being taken on petitions 
for reconsideration is manifestly in the interest 
both of affected parties and orderly administra- 
tion by the Bureau. Original orders are often 
amended on reconsideration. If the expiration 
of the judicial review period is not stayed, 
affected parties will be forced to file their appeal 
in court within 30 days after filing a petition 
for reconsideration, regarding an issue that may 
subsequently be mooted by Bureau action on the 
petition. There would be corresponding pressure 
on the Bureau to take hasty action on the peti- 
tion. It appears that the intent of the statute 
would be best carried out by allowing an appeal 



at any time between the original Bureau order 
and 60 days after final action on petitions. 

The language of the statute can support this 
interpretation. The key language is that a per- 
son may seek judicial review "at any time prior 
to the 60th day after such order is issued" (15 
U.S.C. 1394(a)(1)). Where a rule is promul- 
gated, and then action is taken on a petition for 
reconsideration, actually both actions can rea- 
sonably be viewed as the issuance of an order. 
A party may accordingly wait until the last 
"order" in the rulemaking process to prepare 
his court action, with 60 days to do so. Alterna- 
tively, he may appeal immediately after the rule 
is first issued, as, for example, where the effective 
date is soon enough that he considers it im- 
portant to obtain an immediate resolution of the 
issues. 

In light of the foregoing. Part 553, Eule- 
making Procedures: Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards, of Title 49, Code of Federal Regula- 
tions is amended by adding a new § 553.39, Effect 
of petition for reconsideration on time for seek- 
ing judicial review, to read as set forth below. 
Since this rule is interpretative in nature, notice 
and public procedure thereon are unnecessary, 
and it is effective upon publication in the Fed- 
eral Register. 

Issued on December 17, 1970. 

Douglas AV. Toms, 
Director. 

December 19, 1970 
35 F.R. 19268 



PART 553— PRE 3-4 



t 



'4 



Effective: February 5, 1971 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 553— RULEMAKING PROCEDURES: MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

Petitions for Extension of Time to Comment 



Section 553.19, rulemaking procedures, in 
Chapter 5 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regula- 
tions, currently requires that a petition for exten- 
tion of time to comment on a rulemaking notice 
be received not later than 3 days before the 
expiration of the comment period specified in the 
notice. The 3-day requirement has proven un- 
satisfactory in situations where the petition is 
received close to the deadline, and the agency 
determines that it should be denied. The 3-day 
period does not allow sufficient time for the 
agency to process the petition, notify the peti- 
tioner of its determination, and leave time in the 
comment period for the petitioner to submit 
comments. 

To remedy this problem, § 553.19 is hereby 
amended to require that petitions for extensions 
of time be submitted not later than 10 days be- 



fore the expiration of the comment period. This 
will provide time for agency action within the 
comment period, and for petitioners whose peti- 
tions are denied to submit comments, if they 
wish, before the comment period expires. 

Since this amendment concerns agency pro- 
cedure, notice and public procedure thereon are 
unnecessary, and it is effective upon publication 
in the Federal Register (2-5-71), with respect 
to all rulemaking notices issued subsequent to 
its publication. 

Issued on February 2, 1971. 

Douglas W. Toms, 
Acting Administrator. 

36 F.R. 2511 
February 5, 1971 



PART 553— PRE 5-6 



v« 



^ 



EffecHve: March 1. 1972 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 553— RULEMAKING PROCEDURES: 
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

Statement of Policy: Action on Petitions for Reconsideration 



The Center for Auto Safety lias submitted a 
petition for rulemaking requesting that the 
NHTSA amend 49 CFR Part 553, Rulemaking 
Procedures, to provide that NHTSA must re- 
spond to petitions for reconsideration within 60 
days of the date the rule in question is published 
in the Federal Register. The Center cited the 
interval of 5 months and 19 days that elapsed 
before issuance of the recent action on petitions 
concerning Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash 
Protection, as an illustration of the need for such 
a rule. 

The NHTSA does not agree that the elapsed 
interval in that case, in view of the complexity 
of the issues raised and the hundreds of pages of 
highly technical material submitted in the peti- 
tions, was unjustified. This agency does, how- 
ever, recognize that the i)eriod of reconsideration 
is one of considerable luicertainty to interested 
parties, since the rule in question has been issued, 
the effective date is approaching, and active prep- 
aration for compliance presumably is underway. 

It has been determined, therefore, that a state- 
ment of policy on this subject will be appropriate, 
for the guidance of all parties concerned. A 
period of 90 days from issuance of the rule will 
be the normal period for action on reconsidera- 
tion. This period will allow only 60 days for 
agency action, which is considered the shortest 



practicable period for the necessary steps: de- 
tailed review of the petitions, gathering of sup- 
plementary information as necessary, making 
basic technical and policy decisions, drafting of 
the action document, and review by responsible 
officials. Where that period is found insufficient, 
a Federal Register notice will be issued stating 
the date by which action is expected to be com- 
pleted. 

Accordingly, an Appendix is hereby added to 
49 CFR Part 553, .... 

Elective date: March 1, 1972. This statement 
is issued in the interest of orderly administration 
and public information. It shall not affect the 
validity of any rules hereafter issued by the Na- 
tional Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or 
the legal rights, duties, or liabilities of any per- 
sons pursuant to those rules. 

This notice is issued under the authority of 
section 119 of the National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1407, and the dele- 
gation of authority at 49 CFR 1.51. 



Issued on February 14, 1972. 



Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

37 F.R. 3632 
February 18, 1972 



PART 553— PRE 7-8 



(i 



EfNcHvai May 23, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 553— RULEMAKING PROCEDURES 



Sections 553.31 and 553.35 of Title 49, Code 
of Federal Regulations, currently specify that 
petitions for rulemaking and for reconsideration 
of rules should be addressed to the Docket Room 
of the National Highway Traffic Safety Admin- 
istration. To conform to internal NHTSA cor- 
respondence procedures, §§ 553.31 and 553.35 are 
hereby amended by changing the submission ad- 
dress to the general mailing address specified in 
§ 551.33. For public information, the same ad- 
dress is added to § 553.19, Petitions for extension 
of time to comment. 

The requirement of § 553.31(b) (1) that peti- 
tions for rulemaking be submitted in duplicate 
is unnecessary and inconsistent with agency 
policy with respect to other submissions, and is 
being deleted. As in the case of other petitions 



and comments, it is requested but not required 
that 10 copies be submitted. 

Accordingly, amendments are made to 49 CFR 
Part 553, RvXemukmg Procedures: Motor Ve- 
hicle Safety Standards. . . . 

Since this amendment concerns internal agency 
procedure, it is foimd that notice and public 
procedure thereon are unnecessary. 

Effective date: May 23, 1973. 

(Sec. 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 15 
U.S.C. 1407 ; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.51) 

Issued on April 13, 1973. 

James E. Wilson 
Acting Administrator 
38 F.R. 9824 
April 20, 1973. 



PART 553— PRE 9-10 



^ 



Effective: July 27, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 553— RULEMAKING PROCEDURES 



Parts 501, 551, and 553 of Title 49, Code of 
Federal Regulations, currently detail the dele- 
gated powers, general procedures, and rulemak- 
ing procedures utilized by the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to 
implement the National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Public Law 89-563. 
The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost 
Savings Act, Public Law 92-513, vests addi- 
tional authority in the NHTSA. This amend- 
ment extends the applicability of Parts 501, 551, 
and 553 to the Cost Savings Act to establish 
uniform rulemaking procedures for both Acts. 

Accordingly, amendments are made to 49 CFR, 
Part 501, "Organization and delegation of 
powers and duties", Part 551, "Procedural rules", 
and Part 553, "Rulemaking procedures: motor 
vehicle safety standards". . . . 

Since this amendment relates to NHTSA 
organization, procedures, and practices, it is 



found that notice and public procedure thereon 
are unnecessary. 

Effective date: July 27, 1973. Because this 
notice is only an extension of existing procedures 
to new areas of jurisdiction, it is found that an 
immediate effective date is in the public interest. 

(Sees. 9, Pub. L. 89-670, 80 Stat. 944, 49 U.S.C. 
1657; 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 15 
U.S.C. 1392, 1407; 102, 105, 201, 205, 302, and 
408, Pub L. 92-513, 86 Stat. 947, 15 U.S.C. 1912, 
1915, 1941, 1945, 1962, and 1988; delegation of 
authority at 38 FR 12147). 

Issued on July 23, 1973. 

James E. Wilson 
Associate Administrator 
Traffic Safety Programs 

38 F.R. 20086 
July 27, 1973 



PART 553— PRE 11-12 



EfFeclive: April 25, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 553— RULEMAKING PROCEDURES 



The purpose of this notice is to change tlie 
time specified, as an agency policy, for the 
NHTSA to act on petitions for reconsideration 
to 90 days from the closing date for the petitions. 

On February 18, 1972, the NHTSA published 
a notice (37 FR 3682) adding an appendix to 49 
CFR Part 553 that established an agency policy 
of responding to jietitions for reconsideration 
within 90 days from jtublication of the final rule. 
The policy was instituted in order to remove some 
uncertaintly as to the time when the agency 
would act on petitions following the issuance of 
a rule. 

Since a period of 80 days from the issuance of 
a rule is allowed for the submission of petitions 
for reconsideration, the i)resent policy allows only 
60 days for the NHTSA to aiuilyze the petitions 
and decide on, draft and have reviewed the ap- 
propriate response. It has become apparent that 
60 days are not adequate time to complete this 
process. In conformance with the NHTSA's aim 
to specify a normal period for action on petitions 
for reconsideration, the period is being extended 
to 90 days from the closing date for petitions. 



It has been determined that this is necessary to 
afford sufficient time for consideration of the peti- 
tions and the issuance of a res])onse to the issues 
they raise. 

As provided in the P^ebruary 18, 1972 notice 
(87 FR 8632), where this i)eriod is found in- 
sufficient, a Federal Register notice will be issued 
stating the date by which action is expected to be 
completed. 

Accordingly, the appendix to 49 CFR Part 558 
is revised: 

Effective date: April 25, 1974. 

(Sec. 119, Pub. L. 89-568, 80 Stat. 718 (15 
U.S.C. 1407) ; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.51) 



Issued on April 22, 1974. 



James V>. (Jregory 
Administrator 

39 F.R. 14593 
April 25, 1974 



PART 553— PRE 13-14 



Effective: October 13, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 553— RULEMAKING PROCEDURES 

(Docket No. 75-17; Notice 2) 



This notice amends title 49, Code of Federal 
Regulations, Part 553, Rulemaking Procedures^ 
by deleting tliose sections of the part which set 
out procedures by which interested persons may 
petition the NHTSA to undertake rulemaking. 
These procedures have been incorporated in a 
new Part 552, Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, 
and Noncompliance Orders, of Title 49, Code of 
Federal Regulations, published today in a sepa- 
rate notice. 

The amendments provide that the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administrator may ini- 
tiate rulemaking on his own motion, on the rec- 
ommendation of other agencies of the Federal 
Government, or on petition by any interested 
person after a determination in accordance with 
Part 552 that grant of the petition is advisable 
(§553.11). 

The amendment also reverses the order of sec- 
tions dealing with initiation of rulemaking and 
notice of proposed rulemaking, presently set out 
in sections 553.13 and 553.11, respectively, to 
more closely follow the chronology of the rule- 
making process. 

Only one comment, from American Motors 
Corporation, was received in response to the 
notice proposing these amendments (40 F.R. 
25480, June 16, 1975). AMC asserted that the 



language of the new section 553.11 could be mis- 
interpreted to mean that recommendations from 
other Federal agencies would be treated as an- 
other form of petition for rulemaking, rather 
than as input to the Administrator in making a 
determination whether or not to commence rule- 
making on his own motion. The NHTSA does 
not agree that the language of section 553.11 is 
subject to such an interpretation, as it neither 
expressly nor impliedly directs the Administrator 
to treat recommendations from other agencies as 
petitions. It merely continues the intent of the 
previous section 533.13 that the recommendations 
of other agencies may be considered by the Ad- 
ministrator in determining whether to initiate 
rulemaking proceedings in response to a petition 
from an interested party or on his own motion. 

In light of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 553, 
Rulemaking Procedures, is amended as follows: 

Effective date : October 13, 1975. 

(Sec. 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 (15 
U.S.C. 1407) ; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.51.) 

Issued on September 4, 1975. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

40 F.R. 42015 
September 10, 1975 



PART 553— PRE 15-16 



Effective: November 14, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 553— RULEMAKING PROCEDURES 

(Docket No. 75-17; Notice 1) 



On September 10, 1975, a notice was published 
amending 49 CFR Part 553, Rulemaking Pro- 
cedures, to delete certain provisions of the regula- 
tion incorporated in a new Part 552, Petitions for 
Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders, 
published the same day (40 F.R. 42015). Sec- 
tion 553.35(a) refers to "petitions filed under 
§553.31." However, the provisions of §553.31 
are now incorporated in 49 CFR Part 552. As 
a result, the notice amending Part 553 should 
have included an amendment to § 553.35(a) re- 
flecting this change. 

Accordingly, the phrase "petitions filed under 
§ 553.31" in paragraph (a) of section 553.35 is 
changed to read "petitions filed under Part 552 
of this chapter." 



Effective date: November 14, 1975. Because 
this amendment clarifies a previous notice and 
imposes no additional burden on any person, it 
is found for good cause shown that an immediate 
effective date is in the public interest. 

(Sec. 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 (15 
U.S.C. 1407) ; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.51.) 

Issued on November 10, 1975. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

40 F.R. 53032 
November 14, 1975 



PART 553— PRE 17-18 



Effective: November 17, 1967 



PART 553— RULEMAKING PROCEDURES 



SUBPART A— GENERAL 

§ 553.1 Applicability. 

[This part prescribes rulemaking procedures 
that apply to the issuance, amendment, and 
revocation of niles pursuant to the National 
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 
and the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost 
Savangs Act. (38 F.R. 20086— July 27, 1973. 
Effective: 7/27/73)] 

§ 553.3 Definitions. 

["Acts" means the National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Public Law 89-563, 
15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq., and the Motor Vehicle 
Information and Cost Savings Act, Public Law 
92-513, 15 U.S.C. 1901, et seq. (38 F.R. 20086— 
July 27, 1973. Effective: 7/27/73)] 

"Administrator" means the Administrator of 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminis- 
tration or a person to whom he has delegated 
final authority in the matter concerned. 

["Rule" includes any order, regulation, or 
Federal motor vehicle safety standard issued 
under the Acts. (38 F.R. 20086— July 27, 1973. 
Effective: 7/27/73)] 

§ 553.5 Regulatory docket. 

(a) Information and data deemed relevant by 
the Administrator relating to rulemaking actions, 
including notices of proposed rulemaking; com- 
ments received in response to notices; petitions 
for rulemaking and reconsideration; denials of 
petitions for rulemaking and reconsideration; 
records of additional rulemaking proceedings 
under § 553.25 ; and final rules are maintained 
in the Docket Room, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20590. 

(b) [Any person may examine any docketed 
material at the Docket Room at any time 
during regular business hours after the docket 



is established, except material ordered withheld 
from the public under applicable provisions of 
the Acts and section 552(b) of Title 5 of the 
United States Code, and may obtain a copy of it 

upon payment of a fee. (38 F.R. 20086— July 27, 
1973. Effective: 7/27/73)] 

§ 553.7 Records. 

Records of the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration relating to rulemaking 
proceedings are available for inspection as pro- 
vided in section 552(b) of Title 5 of the United 
States Code and Part 7 of the Regulations of the 
Secretary of Transportation (49 CFR Part 7; 
32 F.R. 9284 et seq.). 

SUBPART B— PROCEDURES FOR ADOPTION OF 
RULES 
§ 553.11 [Initiation of rulemaking. 

The Administrator may initiate rulemaking 
either on his own motion or on petition by any 
interested person after a determination in ac- 
cordance with Part 552 of this title that grant 
of the petition is advisable. The Administrator 
may, in his discretion, also consider the recom- 
mendations of other agencies of the United 
States. (40 F.R. 42015— September 10, 1975. 
Effective: 10/13/75)] 

§ 553.13 [Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

Unless the Administrator, for good cause, finds 
that notice is impracticable, unnecessary, or con- 
trary to the public interest, and incorporates that 
finding and a brief statement of the reasons for 
it in the rule, a notice of proposed rulemaking 
is issued and interested persons are invited to 
participate in the rulemaking proceedings under 
applicable provisions of the Acts. (40 F.R. 
42015— September 10, 1975. Effective: 10/13/75)] 

§ 553.15 Contents of notices of proposed rule- 
making. 

(a) Each notice of proposed rulemaking is 
published in the Federal Register^ unless all per- 



IRev. <ilAI7S\ 



PART 553-1 



Effective: November 17, 1967 



sons subject to it are named and are personally 
served with a copy of it. 

(b) Each notice, whether published in the 
Federal Register or personally served, includes — 

(1) A statement of the time, place, and na- 
ture of the proposed rulemaking proceedings; 

(2) A reference to the authority under which 
it is issued; 

(3) A description of the subjects and issues 
involved or the substance and terms of the 
proposed rule; 

(4) A statement of the time within which 
written comments must be submitted; and 

(5) A statement of how and to what extent 
interested persons may participate in the pro- 
ceeding. 

§553.17 Participation by interested persons. 

(a) Any interested person may participate in 
rulemaking proceeding by submitting comments 
in writing containing information, views or 
arguments. 

(b) In his discretion, the Administrator may 
invite any interested person to participate in the 
rulemaking procedures described in § 553.25. 

§ 553.19 Petitions for extension of time to 
comment. 

[A petition for extension of the time to sub- 
mit comments must be received not later than 10 
days before expiration of the time stated in the 
notice. The petitions must be submitted to : Ad- 
ministrator, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, U. S. Department of Transpor- 
tation, 400 Seventh Street, S.AV., Washington, 
D. C. 20590. It is requested, but not required, 
that 10 copies be submitted. Tlie hling of the 
petition does not automatically extend the time 
for petitioner's comments. Such a petition is 
granted only if the petitioner shows good cause 
for the extension, and if the extension is con- 
sistent with the public interest. If an extension 
is granted, it is granted to all persons, and it is 
published in the Federal Register. (38 F.R. 
9824— April 20, 1973. Effective: 5/23/73)3 

§ 553.21 Contents of written comments. 

All written comments must be in English. It 
is requested, but not required, that 10 copies be 



submitted. Any interested person must submit 
as part of his written comments all the material 
that he considers relevant to any statement of 
fact made by him. Incorporation of material by 
reference is to be avoided. However, if such 
incorporation is necessary, the incorporated ma- 
terial shall be identified with resi:)ect to document 
and page. 

§ 553.23 Consideration of comments received. 

All timely comments are considered before 
final action is taken on a rule-making proposal. 
Late filed comments may be considered as far as 
practicable. 

§ 553.25 Additional rulemaking proceedings. 

The Administrator may initiate any further 
rulemaking proceedings that he finds necessary 
or desirable. For example, interested persons 
may be invited to make oral arguments, to par- 
ticipate in conferences lietween the Administrator 
or his representative and interested persons at 
which minutes of the conference are kept, to 
appear at informal hearings presided over by 
officials designated by the Administrator at which 
a transcript or minutes are kept, or participate 
in any other proceeding to assure informed ad- 
ministrative action and to protect the public 
interest. 

§ 553.27 Hearings. 

(a) Sections 556 and 557 of Title 5, United 
States Code, do not apply to hearings held under 
this part. Unless otherwise specified, hearings 
held under this part are informal, nonadversai-y, 
fact-finding proceedings, at which there are no 
formal pleadings or adverse parties. Any rule 
issued in a case in which an informal hearing 
is held is not necessarily based exclusively on 
the record of the hearing. 

(b) The Administrator designates a represen- 
tative to conduct any hearing held under this 
part. The Chief Counsel designates a member 
of his staff to serve as legal officer at the hearing. 

§ 553.29 Adoption of fina! rules. 

P'inal rules are prepared by representatives 
of the office concerned and the Office of the Chief 
Counsel. The rule is then submitted to the Ad- 
ministrator for his consideration. If the Ad- 



(Rev. 4/13/73) 



PART 553-2 



ministrator adopts the rule, it is published in the 
Federal Register, unless all persons subject to it 
are named and are personally served with a 
copy of it. 

§ 553.31 [Reserved. (40 F.R. 42015— Sep- 
tember 10, 1975. Effective: 10/13/75)] 

§ 553.33 [Reserved. (40 F.R. 42015— Sep- 
tember 10, 1975. Effective: 10/13/75)] 

§ 553.35 Petitions for reconsideration. 

(a) [Any interested person may i)etition the 
Administrator for reconsideration of any rule 
issued under this part. The petition must be sub- 
mitted to: Administrator, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department 
of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20590. It is requested, but 
not required, that 10 copies be submitted. The 
l^etition must be received not later than thirty 
(30) days after publication of the rule in the 
Federal Register. Petitions filed after that time 
will be considered as petitions filed under 
§ 552. The petition must contain a brief state- 
ment of the complaint and an explanation as 
to why compliance with the rule is not prac- 
ticable, is unreasonable, or is not in the public 
interest. (38 F.R. 9824— April 20, 1973. Effec- 
tive: 5/23/73)] 

(b) If the petitioner requests the consideration 
of additional facts, he must state the reason they 
were not presented to the Administrator within 
the prescribed time. 

(c) The Administrator does not consider repe- 
titious petitions. 

(d) Unless the Administrator otherwise pro- 
vides, the filing of a petition under this section 
does not stay the effectiveness of the rule. 

§ 553.37 Proceedings on petitions for recon- 
sideration. 

The Administrator may grant or deny, in 
whole or in part, any petition for reconsideration 
without further proceedings. In the event he 



Effective: November 17, 1967 

determines to reconsider any rule, he may issue 
a final decision on reconsideration without fur- 
ther proceedings, or he may provide such oppor- 
tunity to submit comment or information and 
data as he deems appropriate. Whenever the 
Administrator determines that a petition should 
be granted or denied, he prepares a notice of the 
grant or denial of a petition for reconsideration, 
for issuance to the petitioner and issues it to the 
petitioner. The Administrator may consolidate 
petitions relating to the same rule. 

[§ 553.39 EfFect of petition for reconsideration 
on time for seeking judicial review. 

The filing of a timely petition for reconsidera- 
tion of any rule issued under this part postpones 
the expiration of the 60-day period in which to 
seek judicial review of that rule, as to every 
person adversely affected by the rule. Such a 
person may file a petition for judicial review at 
any time from the issuance of the rule in ques- 
tion until 60 days after publication in the Fed- 
eral Register of the Administrator's disposition 
of any timely petitions for reconsideration. (35 
F.R. 19268— Dec. 19, 1970. Effective: 12/19/70)] 

APPENDIX 

[Statement of Policy: Action on Petitions for 
Reconsideration 

It is the policy of the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration to issue notice of the 
action taken on a petition for reconsideration 
within 90 days after the closing date for receipt 
of such petitions, unless it is found impracticable 
to take action within that time. In cases where 
it is so found and the delay beyond that period 
is expected to be substantial, notice of that fact, 
and the date by which it is expected that action 
will be taken, will be published in the Federal 
Register. (39 F.R. 14593— April 25, 1974. Ef- 
fective: 4/25/74)] 

32 F.R. 15818 
November 17, 1967 



(Rev. 11/10/75) 



PART 553-3 



Eff*ctlv«: January 29, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO PART 555— TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FROM MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

(Docket No. 72-30; Notice 2) 



This notice amends Title 49 of the Code of 
Federal Reg^ulations by adding a new Part 555, 
"Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standards," effective January 29, 1973. A 
notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject was 
published December 1, 1972 (37 F.R. 25533), 
and opportunity afforded for comment. 

On October 25, 1972 P.L. 92-548 was enacted, 
amending section 123 of the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 to pro- 
vide four bases upon which a manufacturer of 
motor vehicles might apply for a temporary ex- 
emption from one or more Federal motor vehicle 
safety standards. The legislative intent is clearly 
expressed as to the information required to sub- 
stantiate an application on each basis. A discus- 
sion follows of each basis, the required informa- 
tion and the principal issues raised in response 
to the proposal. 

1. Substantial Economic Hardship. A manufac- 
turer whose total motor vehicle production in his 
most recent year of manufacture did not exceed 
10,000 may petition for relief on grounds that 
compliance would cause him substantial economic 
hardship and that he has, in good faith, attempted 
to comply with the standards. Hardship exemp- 
tions are granted for periods not to exceed three 
years. Section 123 of the Act and the proposed 
regulations require an applicant to include in his 
petition a complete financial statement showing 
the basis of the economic hardship and a com- 
plete description of his good faith effort to com- 
ply with the standards. Although it was not 
required by the Act, the NHTSA also proposed 
to require a description of the steps a manufac- 
turer proposes to take during the exemption 
period to achieve full compliance and the esti- 
mated date by which full compliance is to be 
achieved. 



Submissions on the issue of economic hardship 
were received from Senator Warren Magnuson, 
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
the Public Interest Research Group, the Center 
for Auto Safety, Freightliner Corporation, and 
Lotus Cars, Ltd. Senator Magnuson and the 
Research Group have suggested that the NHTSA 
should adopt application guidelines modeled af- 
ter those of the Environmental Protection Agency 
for requests for suspension of the effective date 
of motor vehicle emission standards. The Re- 
search Group has drafted a model application 
form using the EPA guidelines as a departure 
point. Senator Magnuson also suggested that 
cost data concerning the affected component 
should be required, as well as a chronological an- 
alysis by the petitioner of its efforts to comply 
with the standard following issuance of the notice 
of proposed rulemaking. Finally, he urged that 
a company be required to submit an analysis of 
the effects on its economic stability of the ab- 
sence of an exemption. The Center for Auto 
Safety believes that all financial data should 
be presented in dollar figures. Lotus Cars, Ltd. 
suggested that, if a manufacturer has no plans 
to achieve conformity because the production nm 
of a model is nearing its end, the regulations 
should specifically permit him to so state. 
Freightliner Corporation commented that hard- 
ship should be considered in relation to the total 
economic picture "including the purchaser" and 
the particular job a vehicle is intended to per- 
form. It expressed fear that the legislation was 
not enacted with multi-stage manufacturers in 
mind. Freightliner appears to be concerned 
about hardship situations that may occur to man- 
ufacturers whose total annual volume exceeds 
10,000 units and who are called upon to provide 
costly custom equipment. 



PART 555— PRE 1 



Eilactiv*: January 29, 1973 



In formulating the regulations for hardship 
applications the NHTSA has adopted many of 
the suggestions of Senator Magnuson and the 
Public Interest Research Group. Engineering 
and financial data that must be submitted with 
the application will include a list or description 
of each component that would have to be modified 
in order to achieve compliance, together with an 
itemization of the estimated cost to the petitioner 
to modify each such component if required to do 
so on an emergency basis, or at the end of one-, 
two-, and three-year periods. The manufacturer 
will also include what it estimates as the price 
increase per vehicle to balance the total costs in- 
curred were it to achieve compliance, and a state- 
ment of the anticipated effect of the price increase. 
Corporate balance sheets for the three fiscal years 
immediately preceding the application must be 
submitted, as well as a projected balance sheet 
for the fiscal year following any denial of the 
petition. The financial data must be in dollar 
figures, as the Center for Auto Safety suggested. 
The manufacturer would also be allowed to dis- 
cuss other hardship factors that a denial would 
cause, such as loss of market. In its description 
of compliance efforts a manufacturer will be 
required to submit a chronological analysis show- 
ing the relationship of those efforts to the rule- 
making history of the standard, and to discuss 
alternate means of compliance that may have been 
considered, and the reasons for the rejection of 
each. As proposed, a manufacturer must also 
describe the steps to be taken while the exemp- 
tion is in effect to achieve full compliance, and 
the estimated date by which full compliance will 
be achieved. 

The NHTSA did not adopt the format and in- 
formational content of the EPA guidelines for 
several reasons. There is a basic difference in 
the Clean Air Act and the Traffic Safety Act. 
Under the former, the public health is para- 
mount. All motor vehicles must meet certain 
emission standards by the 1975 model year. A 
one-year suspension is possible, but only upon 
technological grounds, and not for economic 
hardship. Suspensions are granted on the basis 
of fulfilling four criteria — ( 1 ) that it is essential 
to the public interest and public health of the 
United States, (2) that all good faith efforts have 
been made to meet the established standards, (3) 



that effective emission control technology is not 
available, or has not been available for a sufficient 
time to achieve compliance prior to the effective 
date of such standard and (4) that the study and 
investigation of the National Academy of Sci- 
ences and other available information has not 
indicated that technology or other alternatives 
are available to meet the emission standards. By 
the 1976 model year all vehicles will comply and 
no further suspension is possible. The proof to 
support an emission standard suspension thus 
differs substantially from that required for hard- 
ship. On the other hand, under the Traffic 
Safety Act, motor vehicle safety must be balanced 
with other factors of the public interest including 
the desirability of affording a continuing and 
wide choice of vehicles to meet differing needs, 
and encouraging the continuation of relatively 
small manufacturers. In some instances, the 
safety exemption sought may be limited in time 
and scope, and extensively detailed informa- 
tion such as EPA requires may be unnecessary 
to document the request. 

With reference to the comments by Freight- 
liner, the NHTSA does take into account the 
vehicle purchaser, in that it is concerned with 
the effect of a denial upon the availability of 
vehicles and their retail prices. Moreover, 
throughout its existence this agency has been 
aware of the problems of custom-truck manu- 
facturers and has tried to accommodate them, 
consistent with considerations of motor vehicle 
safety. 

2. Other Bases for Exemption. A manufac- 
turer may apply for an exemption for a period 
not to exceed two years and covering up to 2,500 
vehicles for any 12-month period that the ex- 
emption is in effect on any one of three additional 
bases: that it would assist in the development 
or field evaluation of new motor vehicle safety 
features, that it would assist in the development 
or field evaluation of a low-emission vehicle, or 
that, in the absence of an exemption, it would be 
unable to sell a motor vehicle whose overall level 
of safety is equivalent to or exceeds the overall 
level of safety of non-exempted motor vehicles. 
To substantiate the development of safety fea- 
tures, it was proposed that the applicant estab- 
lish the innovational nature of the safety feature 
and that it would provide a level of safety at 



PART 555— PRE 2 



Effective: January 29, 1973 



least equivalent to the level of safety established 
in the standard from which exemption is sought. 
To substantiate the development of a low-emis- 
sion vehicle, it was proposed that the applicant 
establish the emission feature of his vehicle and 
that an exemption would aid in its development 
as well as evidence that a temporary exemption 
would not unreasonably degrade the safety of 
the vehicle. Finally, to substantiate that failure 
to provide an exemption would prevent the sale 
of an otherwise safe vehicle, it was proposed that 
an applicant submit evidence that the vehicle 
could not otherwise be sold, and provide an anal- 
ysis of how the vehicle provides an overall level 
of safety equal to or exceeding the overall level 
of safety of non-exempted vehicles. 

The Public Interest Research Group again 
suggested that the proposal be amplified to pro- 
vide guidelines similar to those of EPA, and 
supplied formats for each of the three bases. 
The NHTSA concurs with the Research Group 
to the extent that it has expanded the proposal 
so that the regulation includes some of the in- 
formation and data suggested, but it has not 
adopted the format in detail, for the reasons 
previously discussed. 

A manufacturer who wishes to develop or 
evaluate new safety features must document the 
innovational nature of the features. He must 
also submit an analysis establishing that the 
safety level provided by the feature equals or 
exceeds the level of safety established in the 
standard from which exemption is sought, includ- 
ing a description of how complying and non- 
complying vehicles differ, the results of tests 
that demonstrate performance which meets or 
exceeds the safety levels of the standard, and 
substantiation that a temporary exemption would 
facilitate the development or field evaluation of 
the vehicle. The manufacturer is also required 
to indicate his intent at the end of the exemp- 
tion period to conform to the standard, or to 
petition for rulemaking to amend the standard 
so that the feature might be incorporated into it. 

Somewhat similar information is required of a 
manufacturer who wishes to develop or evaluate 
a low-emission vehicle, although in this instance 
the NHTSA is also interested in a manufac- 
turer's test results showing how far the vehicle 



deviates from the standard, as part of the manu- 
facturer's showing that the exemption would not 
unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle. 

A manufacturer who petitions on the basis that 
the overall level of safety is equivalent to or ex- 
ceeds the overall level of non-exempted vehicles 
must describe how exempted and non-exempted 
vehicles differ, describe safety features that the 
vehicle offers as standard equipment that are 
not required by the Federal standards, and sub- 
mit both comparative test results showing how 
far the vehicle deviates from the standard, and 
the results of any tests showing that the vehicle 
exceeds the minimum requirements of any Fed- 
eral standard. The manufacturer must also state 
whether he intends to comply at the end of the 
exemption period. Petitions for renewal of an 
exemption under each of these three bases are 
required to state the number of exempted vehicles 
sold in the United States under the prior ex- 
emption. 

3. Miscellaneous Comments. The Public In- 
terest Research Group and the Center for Auto 
Safety requested that § 555.7, Processing of peti- 
tions, be rewritten to include a provision for 
informal public hearings to be held at the discre- 
tion of the Administrator. Such a provision, in 
the opinion of the Research Group, "might well 
preclude protracted litigation by fully addressing 
issues in an informal public hearing." The re- 
quested provision has not been included in the 
final rule as it is considered unnecessary. Such 
a power is inherent in the Administrator's gen- 
eral powers and may be invoked in any appro- 
priate occasions. It is not specifically required 
by the legislation, which deems notice and an 
opportunity to comment in writing a sufficient 
forum and means of assuring informed admin- 
istrative action and of protecting the public 
interest. 

The Center for Auto Safety requested that 
§ 555.8, Termination of temporary exemptions, in- 
clude a provision that the Administrator will en- 
tertain petitions for termination from interested 
persons. Although such a provision is not neces- 
sary since the agency would consider any in- 
formation brought to its attention that is relevant 
to its regvilatory functions, a section to this effect 
has been added for public information. It pro- 



PART 555— PRE 3 



MmMv*: January 29, 1973 



vides that petitions for termination of an ex- 
emption will be handled in accordance with the 
procedures of §§ 553.31 and .33 on petitions for 
rulemaking. The Center also asked whether 
the civil penalty provisions of section 109 could 
apply in the event it was determined that an 
exemption had been granted on the basis of 
fraudulent information. The NHTSA believes 
that civil penalties could apply in this instance, 
through the application of sections 108, 109, and 
112. In addition, the general fraud provisions 
of 18 U.S.C. 1001 provide both criminal and civil 
penalties for submission of false information. 

Senator Magnuson, Lotus, and the Research 
Group commented that the temporary exemp- 
tion labels (§ 555.9) should include the title of 
the standard as a matter of clearer public dis- 
closure. The comments have merit and the labels, 
both windshield and certification, must state 
the title of any exempted standard. The Re- 
search Group has further commented that the 
NHTSA has ignored the provision of Section 
123(b) that written notification of the exemp- 
tion be delivered to the dealer and first pur- 
chaser. The agency does not agree with the 
Research Group and believes that the windshield 
label constitutes written notification, fulfilling 
this discretionary requirement. 

Finally, comments were addressed to the ade- 
quacy of § 555.10, Availability for public inspec- 
tion. The NHTSA has adopted the Center for 
Auto Safety's comment that subsection (a) should 
be revised to provide availability of memoranda 
of all metings held pursuant to § 555.7(a). How- 
ever, the NHTSA has not agreed with the 
Center's suggestion that the agency commit itself 



to make such memoranda available within a spec- 
ified time limit "such as five working days". 
The agency will use its best efi'orts to place memo- 
randa of this nature in the dockets as soon as 
practicable. The Center, Senator Magnuson, and 
the Research Group pointed out that Section 
123(b) of the Act authorizes the Secretary to 
withhold only information "not relevant to the 
application for exemption". This agency concurs 
and minor rewording of § 555.10(b) clarifies this. 
Senator Magnuson encourages the agency "as a 
general policy, to release information contained 
in applications for exemptions on the basis that 
all such information is relevant to the application 
or it would not have been included by the manu- 
facturer". The NHTSA agrees with this general 
policy. It will carefully scrutinize requests for 
confidential treatment of information and lib- 
erally interpret the relevancy of that information 
to the petition. 

In consideration of the foregoing. Title 49 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended by add- 
ing Part 555, Temporary Exemption from Fed- 
eral Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, as set 
forth below. 

Effective date: January 29, 1973. 

(Sec. 3, Pub. L. 92-548, 86 Stat. 1159; Sec. 
119, Pub. L. 89-563 (15 U.S.C. 1410, 1407), 80 
Stat. 718; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.51) 

Issued on January 22, 1973. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

38 F.R. 2693 
January 29, 1 973 



PART 55fr— PRE 4 



Effective: March 15, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 555— TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FROM 

MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

(Docket No. 72-30; Notice 4) 



This notice amends 49 CFR Part 555 to specify 
that the NHTSA will notify petitioners directly 
when their petitions are found not to contain 
required information, and that income statements 
must be included in su^jport of liardshii) peti- 
tions. 

The NHTSA proposed these amendments on 
October 29, 1973 (38 F.R. 29817). Interested 
persons have been ottered an opportunity to j)ar- 
ticipate in the makino- of the amendments and 
due consideration has been given to tiie two com- 
ments that were received in response to the notice. 

A comment by H. E. Waterman of Bowie, 
Maryland, suggests that tlie agency adopt the 
essence of Federal Aviation Regulation § 11.25 
Petition for rulemaking or exemptionn to em- 
phasize public interest factors, rather than the 
"private interests'' of the petitioner. Mr. Water- 
man commented that "If an applicant considers 
his finances to be of interest relative to his peti- 
tion, he should be given an opportunity to state 
his financial condition, but that should not be 
emphasized by establishment of such a require- 
ment". 

Mr. Waterman's comment is inapposite. The 
exemption authority of the Federal Aviation 
Administration is broader than that provided 
the NHTSA, and grant of exemption under FAR 
§ 11.25 is not based specifically upon factors of 
substantial economic hardship. The NHTSA has 
concluded tliat it must request detailed financial 
data from hardship petitioners to assist it and 
the public in evaluating the merits of hardship 
claims, and it does not request such information 
of petitioners who file for exemption on other 
grounds. 



Mr. Waterman's comment on public interest 
factors however is in point. In addition to find- 
ing that one of the four appropriate statutory 
bases for exemption is present, the Administrator 
must also make a finding that the exem])ti(m is 
in the public interest and consistent witli the 
objectives of the National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act. The regulation currently 
does not specifically require the petitioner to sub- 
mit public interest arguments, and the NHTSA 
believes that it should be amended to so provide. 
Accordingly § 555.5 Petition for exempfio)i is be- 
ing amended to require the petition to "contain 
any information, views, or arguments available 
to the petitioner as to why the granting of the 
petition would be in the public interest and con- 
sistent with the objectives of the Act''. 

American Motors commented that income state- 
ments and balance sheets are generally only part 
of a larger overall picture of the financial impact 
of compliance, and that to specifically require 
them might exclude the submission of other docu- 
ments which could similarly describe the impact. 
It suggests amending the regulation to require 
only that the basis for an exemption for sub- 
stantial economic hardship be fully documented. 

The NHTSA does not consider its informa- 
tional requirements restricti\e and has not 
adopted the comments of American Motors. Sec- 
tion 556. (a)(1) contains a broad request for 
"engineering and financial information demon- 
strating in detail how compliance or failure to 
obtain an exemption would cause substantial 
economic hardship" which includes but is not 
limited to five specific categories of information, 
plus "(vi) A discussion of other hardships (e.g. 



PART 555— PRE 5 



Effective: March 15, 1974 



loss of market) that the petitioner desires the U.S.C. 1407; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 

agency to consider". 1.51.) 

In consideration of the foregoing. 49 CFR Issued on February 7. 1974. 
Part 555 is amended .... 

r^jn J.- 1 , ,r , James B. Gregory 

Eifechve date: March 15, 1974. Administrator 

(Sec. 3, Pub. L. 92-548, 86 Stat 1159. 15 U.S.C. 39 p R 5439 

1410; sec. 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718. 15 February 13, 1974 



PART 555— PRE 6 ( 



Effective: November 24, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 555— TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FROM 
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

(Docket No. 72-30; Notice 5) 



This notice amends 49 CFR Part 555 to specify 
that denials as well ns grants are published in 
the Federal Register, and to clarify that the 
eifective date of a temporary exemption is its date 
of publication in tlie Federal Reghter unless a 
later effective date is specified. The amendments 
also specify that an expirinji exemption does not 
terminate during consideration of a petition for 
its renewal. 

These amendments pertain to agency practice 
and are interpretative in nature. Accordingly, 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 553(b), it has been found 
that no notice of proposed rulemaking is called 
for. 

Section 555.7(a) is amended to specify that 
when the Administrator determines tliat a peti- 
tion does not contain adequate justification and is 
denied, the petitioner is notified in writing and a 
notice of the denial is published in the Federal 
Register. Publication of denials has been an 
agency practice and the regulation is amended to 
reflect it. 

A new subparagraph (f) is added to 49 CFR 
555.7 to specify that the effective date of a tem- 
porary exemption is the date of publication of 
the notice of grant in the Federal Register unless 
a later effective date is s2:)ecified. Interested per- 
sons have asked whether exemptions can be made 
effective as of the date of the filng of a petition 
for relief, or can include the total production of 
a model year that begins before the date an ex- 
emption is granted. This amendment is intended 
to clarify the agency's policy that exemptions 
should not have a retroactive effect which could 
serve to excuse manufacture of nonconforming 



vehicles in violation of section 108(a)(1) of the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. 

In section 555.8 the references to paragraph 
(c) in paragraphs (a) and (b) are changexi to 
paragraph (d), to indicate that the cause of an 
early termination of an exemption by the Ad- 
ministrator is through administrative action 
(paragraph (d)), rather than through petition 
by interested persons (paragraph (c)). A new- 
paragraph (c) is added to § 555.8, implementing 
the Administrative Procedure Act pro\ision at 
5 U.S.C. § 558(c), stating in effect that when a 
timely and sufficient application for renewal of 
a temporally exemption has been received before 
the exemption's termination date, the exemption 
does not expire until the Administrator grants 
or denies the petition for renewal. A timely 
application is one that is recei\ed not later than 
60 days before the expiration of an exemption. 
A sufficient application is one that contains in- 
formation required by § 555.5. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
Part 555 is amended. . . . 

Effective date: November 24, 1974. 

(Sec. 3, Pub. L. 92-548, 86 Stat. 1159, 15 U.S.C. 
1410; sec. 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 15 
U.S.C. 1407 ; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.51). 

Issued on October 21, 1974. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

39 F.R. 37988 
October 25, 1974 



PART 555— PRE 7-8 



Effective: May 30, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 555— TEAAPORARY EXEMPTION FROM MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 
(Docket No. 73-20; Notice 6) 



This notice amends 49 CFR § 555.10(b) to 
clarify tliat information made a\ailable for pub- 
lic inspection shall include all submitted ma- 
terials that are specifically required by § 555.6. 
The amendment is effective 30 days after publi- 
cation in the Federal Register. 

This amendment pertains to agency practice 
and is clarifying and interpretative in nature. 
Accordingly, pui-suant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b), it is 
found that notice of proposed rulemaking is un- 
necessary. 

Currently § 555.10(b) states that "Information 
made available for inspection shall not include 
materials not relevant to the petition that are to 
be withheld from the public in accordance with 
sections 112 and 113 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1401, 
1402) and section 552(b) of Title 5 of the United 
States Code." 

Some petitioners for temporary exemptions on 
hardship grounds have requested that confidential 
treatment be given such items as estimated price 
increases that would be caused by compliance, 
projected balance sheets and income statements 
for the fiscal year following denial of a petition, 
or the efforts to be taken to achieve compliance 
while the exemption is in effect. The usual 
reason given is that the information could be 
harmful to the petitioner in the hands of its 
competitors. The NHTSA has uniformly denied 



such requests if they involve materials that the 
regulation specifically requires to be submitted. 
These materials are necessary for a determination 
by the NHTSA of whether the statutoiy basis 
for exemption exists. This agency finds that all 
materials it requests pursuant to (he regulation, 
and which are used in its own decisions, should 
be available for inspection in the docket bj- mem- 
bers of the public who wish to reach their own 
conclusion on the merits of the petition. Ma- 
terials submitted gratuitously will, of course, be 
withheld from availability for inspection, if the 
petitioner requests it and if it is a matter that 
may be withheld in accordance with sections 112, 
113, and 158 of the National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
§ 555.10(b) is amended. . . . 

Elective date : May 30, 1975. 

(Sec. 3, Pub. L. 92-548, 86 Stat. 1159, 15 
U.S.C. 1410, sec. 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 
718, 15 U.S.C. 1407; delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on April 24, 1975. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

40 F.R. 18789 
April 30, 1975 



PART 555— PRE 9-10 



« 



I 



i 



EffecHva: Scptembar 10, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 555— TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FROM FEDERAL 

MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 
(Docket 73-20; Notice 7) 



This notice amends 49 CFR Part 555 to reflect 
the fact that the Administrator considers peti- 
tions to modify exemptions. 

On July 7, 1975, the Administrator published 
notice (40 F.R. 28504) of a petition by General 
Motors Corporation to modify the temporary 
exemption previously granted Motor Coach In- 
dustries, Inc. Under § 555.8(c) the Adminis- 
trator may receive petitions to terminate tempo- 
rary exemptions, and, under § 555.8(d), he may 
terminate them. The Administrator's power 
with respect to temporary exemptions necessar- 
ily includes modification of an exemption when 
to do so is in the public interest and consistent 
with the objectives of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act, or when the exemp- 
tion is based upon misrepresentations. Accord- 
ingly, § 555.8(c) and § 555.8(d) are amended to 
reflect this fact. In addition, the section refer- 
ences to processing of petitions (§ 555.31, 
§553.35) are changed to Part 552 to reflect recent 
amendments (40 F.R. 42014). A new paragraph 



is added to specify that notices of termination 
or modification will appear in the Federal 
Register. 

In consideration of the foregoing, in § 555.8 
of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, para- 
graph (c) and the introductory phase of para- 
graph (d) are revised, and paragraph (f) is 
added. . . . 

Elective date: September 10, 1975. Since the 
amendment reflects internal policy and proce- 
dure it may be made eflFective upon publication. 

(Sec. 3, Pub. L. 92-548, 86 Stat 1159, 15 U.fi.C. 
1410, Sec. 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat 718, 15 
U.S.C. 1407 ; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.51.) 

Issued on September 4, 1975. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

40 F.R. 42015 
September 10, 1975 



PART 555-PRE 11-12 



EfFeclive: January 29, 1973 



PART 555— TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FROM MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 



§ 555.1 Scope. This part establislies require- 
ments for the temporary exemption, by tlie Na- 
tional Hifihvvay Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA), of certain motor vehicles from com- 
pliance with one or more Federal motor vehicle 
safety standards in accordance with section 123 
of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 
Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1410. 

§ 555.2 Purpose. The purpose of this part is 
to provide a means by wjiicli manufacturers of 
motor vehicles may obtain temporary exemptions 
from Federal motor vehicle safety standards on 
the bases of substantial economic liardship, fa- 
cilitation of the development of new motor ve- 
hicle safety or low-emission enpine features, or 
existence of an equivalent overall level of motor 
vehicle safety. 

§ 555.3 Application. This part applies to man- 
ufacturers of motor \ehicles. 

§ 555.4 Definitions. 

"Administrator" means the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administrator or his delegate. 

"United States" means the several States, the 
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, the 
Canal Zone, and American Samoa. 

§ 555.5 Petition for exemption. 

(a) A manufacturer of motor vehicles may 
petition the NHTSA for a temporary exemption 
from any Federal motor vehicle safety standard 
or for a renewal of any exemption on the bases 
of substantial economic hardship, facilitation of 
the development of new motor vehicle safety or 
low-emission engine features, or the existence 
of an equivalent overall level of motor vehicle 
safety. 

(b) Each petition filed mider this part for an 
exemption or its renewal must — 

(1) Be written in the English language; 

(2) Be submitted in three copies to: 



Administrator, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 
'20590 ; 

(3) State the full name and address of the 
applicant, tiie nature of its organization (in- 
dividual, partnersiiij), corporation, etc.) and 
the name of the State or country under the 
laws of which it is organized : 

(4) State the number and title, and the text 
or substance of the standard or portion thereof 
from which the temporary exemption is sought, 
and the lengtii of time desired for such ex- 
emption : 

[(5) Set forth the basis foi' the petition and 
the information required by S 555.6(a), (b). 
(c), or (d) as appropriate. 

(6) Specify any part of tiie information and 
data submitted which petitioner requests be 
withheld from public disclosuio and the reason 
for the request ; and 

(7) Set forth the reasons why the granting 
of the exemption would be in the i)nb]ic in- 
terest and consistent with the objectives of the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. 
(39 F.R. 5489— Februarv 13. 19T4. Effective: 
3/15/74)] 

(c) The knowing and willful submission of 
false, fictitious or fraudulent information will 
subject the petitioner to the civil and criminal 
penalties of IS TLS.C. 1001. 

§ 555.6 Basis for petition. 

(a) If the basis of the petition is substantial 
economic hardship the petitioner shall provide 
tlie following information. 

(1) Engineering and financial information 
demonstrating in detail how compliance or fail- 
ure to obtain an exemption would cause sub- 
stantial economic hardship, including — 

(i) A list or description of each item of 
motor vehicle equipment that would have 
to be modified in order to achieve compliance; 



(Rev. 2/7/74) 



PART 555-1 



Effective: January 29, 1973 



(ii) The itemized estimated cost to modify 
each sucli item of motor vehicle equipment if 
compliance were to be achieved — 

(A) As soon as possible, 

(B) At the end of a one-year exemption 
period, (if the j^etition is for one year or 
more) 

(C) At the end of a two-year exemption 
period, (if the petition is for two years or 
more) 

(D) At the end of a three-year exemp- 
tion period, (if the petition is for three 
years) 

(iii) Tlie estimated price increase per ve- 
hicle to balance the total costs incurred pur- 
suant to subdivision (ii) of this subpara- 
fjraph and a statement of the anticipated 
effect of each such price increase; 

[(iv) Corporate balance sheets and in- 
come statements for the three fiscal yesirs 
immediately preceding; the filin<:- of the 
application ; 

(v) Projected balance sheet and income 
statement for the fiscal year following a 
denial of the petition; and (39 F.E. 5489— 
February 13, 1974. Effective: 3/15/74)3 

(vi) A discussion of any other hardships 
{e.g., loss of market) that the petitioner de- 
sires the agency to consider. 

(2) A description of its efforts to comply 
with the standards, including — 

(i) A chronological analysis of such efforts 
showing its relationship to the rulemaking 
history of the standard from which exemp- 
tion is sought ; 

(ii) A discussion of alternate means of 
compliance considered and the reasons for 
rejection of each; 

(iii) A description of the steps to be taken, 
while the exemption is in effect, and the esti- 
mated date by which full compliance will be 
achieved either by design changes or termi- 
nation of production of nonconforming ve- 
hicles; and 

(iv) The total number of motor vehicles 
produced by or on behalf of the petitioner in 
the 12-month period prior to filing the peti- 



tion, and the inclusi\e dates of the period. 
(Section 123 of the Act limits eligibility for 
exemption on the basis of economic hardship 
to manufacturers whose total motor vehicle 
[iroduction does not exceed 10,000.) 

(b) If the basis of the petition is the develoj)- 
ment or field evaluation of new motor vehicle 
safety features, the jjetitioner shall jirovide the 
following information : 

(1) A description of the safety features, and 
research, de\elopment, and testing documenta- 
tion establishing the inno\ational nature of 
such features. 

(2) An analysis establishing that the level of 
safety of the features is eqiiivalent to or exceeds 
the le\el of safety established in the standard 
from which exemption is sought, including^ — 

(i) A detailed description of how a motor 
\ehicle equipped with the safety features 
differs from one that complies with the 
standard : 

(ii) If applicant is presently manufac- 
tiiring a \ehicle conforming to the standard, 
the results of tests conducted to substantiate 
certification to the standard; and 

(iii) The results of tests conducted on the 
safety features that demonstrate perform- 
ance which meets or exceeds the requirements 
of the standard. 

(3) Substantiation that a temporary exemp- 
tion would facilitate the develoi)ment or field 
e\al nation of the vehicle. 

(4) A statement whether, at the end of the 
exemption period, the manufacturer intends to 
conform to the standard, apply for a further 
exemption, or petition for rulemaking to amend 
the standard to incorporate the safety features. 

(5) A statement that not more than 2,500 ex- 
empted vehicles will be sold in the United States 
in any 12-month period for which an exemp- 
tion may be granted pursuant to this para- 
graph. A petition for renewal of such an ex- 
emption shall also include the total number of 
exempted \ehicles sold in the United States 
under the existing exemption. 

(c) If the basis of the petition is the develop- 
ment or field evaluation of a low-emission vehicle, 
the petitioner shall provide — 



(Rev. 2/7/74) 



PART 555-2 



c 



Effective: January 29, 1973 



(1) Substantiation tliat tlie motor vehicle is 
a low-emission vehicle as defined by section 
123(g) of the Act. 

(2) Researcli, development, and testing doc- 
umentation establishing that a temporary ex- 
emption would not unreasonably degrade the 
safety of the \ehicle, including — 

(i) A detailed description of how the 
motor vehicle equipped with the low-emission 
engine would, if exempted, differ from one 
that complies with the standard; 

(ii) If applicant is presently manufac- 
turing a vehicle conforming to the standard, 
"" the results of tests conducted to substantiate 
certification to the standard; 

(iii) The results of any tests conducted 
on the vehicle that demonstrate its failure 
to meet the standard, expi'essed as compara- 
tive performance levels; and 

(iv) Reasons why the failure to meet the 
standard does not unreasonably degrade the 
safety of the vehicle. 

(3) Substantiation that a temporary exemp- 
tion would facilitate the development or field 
evaluation of the vehicle. 

(4) A statement whether, at the end of the 
exemption period, the manufacturer intends 
to conform with the standard. 

(5) A statement that not more than 2,500 
exempted vehicles will be sold in the United 
States in any 12-month period for which an 
exemption may be granted pursuant to this 
paragraph. A petition for renewal of an ex- 
emption shall also include the total number 
of exempted vehicles sold in the United States 
under the existing exemption. 

(d) If the basis of the petition is that the peti- 
tioner is otherwise unable to sell a motor vehicle 
whose overall level of safety is equivalent to or 
exceeds the overall level of safety of non- 
exempted motor vehicles, the petitioner shall 
provide — 

(1) A detailed analysis of how the vehicle 
provides an overall level of safety equivalent 
to or exceeding the overall safety of non-ex- 
empted vehices, including — 

(i) A detailed description of how the 
motor vehicle, if exempted, differs from one 
that conforms to the standard; 



(ii) A detailed description of any safety 
features that tlie motor vehicle offers as 
standard equipment that are not required by 
the Federal motor vehicle safety standards; 

(iii) The results of any tests conducted on 
the vehicle demonstrating that it fails to 
meet the standard, expressed as comparative 
performance levels ; 

(iv) The results of any tests conducted 
on the vehicle demonstrating that its overall 
level of safety exceeds that which is achieved 
by conformity to the standards. 

(v) Other arguments that the overall level 
of safety of the vehicle equals or exceeds the 
level of safety of non-exempted vehicles. 

(2) Substantiation that compliance would 
prev-ent the sale of the vehicle. 

(3) A statement whether, at the end of the 
exemption period, the manufacturer intends to 
comply with the standard. 

(4) A statement that not more than 2,500 
exempted vehicles will be sold in the United 
States in any 12-month period for which an 
exemption may be granted pursuant to this 
paragraph. A petition for renewal of any ex- 
emption shall also include the total number of 
exempted vehicles sold in the United States 
under the existing exemption. 

§ 555.7 Processing of petitions. 

(a) [The NHTSA publishes in the Federal 
Register, affording opportunity for comment, a 
notice of each petition containing the informa- 
tion required by this part. However, if the 
NHTSA finds that a petition does not contain 
the information required bj- this part, it so in- 
forms the petitioner, pointing out the areas of 
insufficiency and stating tliat tlie petition will not 
receive further consideration until the required 
information is submitted. (39 F.R. 5489— Febru- 
ary 13, 1974. Effective: 3/15/74)] 

(b) No public hearing, argument or other for- 
mal proceeding is held directly on a petition filed 
under this part before its disposition under this 
section. 

(c) Any interested person may, upon written 
request, appear informally before an appropriate 
official of the NHTSA to discuss a petition for 



(Rev. 2/7/74) 



PART 555-3 



Effective: January 29, 1973 



exemption or the action taken in response to a 
petition. 

(d) [If the Administrator determines tliat tlie 
petition does not contain adequate justification, 
he denies it and notifies the petitioner in writing. 
He also publishes in the Federal Register a notice 
of the denial and the reasons for it. (39 F.R. 
37998— October 25, 1974. Effective: 11/24/74)] 

(e) If the Administrator determines that the 
petition contains adequate justification, he grants 
it, and notifies the jjetitioner in writing. He 
also publishes in the Federal Register a notice 
of the grant and the reasons for it. 

[(f) Unless a later effective date is specified 
in the notice of the grant, a temporary exemption 
is effective upon publication of the notice in the 
Federal Register and exempts vehicles manufac- 
tured on and after the effective date. (39 F.R. 
37988— October 25, 1974. Effective: 11/24/74)1 

§ 555.8 Termination of temporary exemptions. 

(a) [A tenn^orary exemption from a standard 
granted on the basis of substantial economic hard- 
ship terminates according to its terms but not 
later than 3 years after the date of issuance un- 
less terminated sooner pursuant to paragraph (d) 
of this section. (39 F.R. 37988— October 25, 1974. 
Effective: 11/24/74)] 

(b) [A temporary exemption from a standard 
granted on a basis other than substantial eco- 
nomic hardship terminates according to its terms 
but not later than 2 years after the date of is- 
suance unless terminated sooner pursuant to sub- 
paragraph (d). (39 F.R. 37988— October 25, 
1974. Effective: 11/24/74)] 

(c) [Any interested person may petition for 
the termination or modification of an exemption 
granted under this part. The petition will be 
processed in accordance with the procedures of 
Part 552 of this chapter. (40 F.R. 42015— 
September 10, 1975. Effective: 9/10/75)] 

(d) [The Administrator terminates or modi- 
fies a temporary exemption if he determines 
that— (40 F.R. 42015— September 10, 1975. 
Effective: 9/10/75)] 

(1) The temporary exemption is no longer 
consistent with the public interest and the 
objectives of the Act; or 



(2) The temporary exemption was granted t 
on the basis of false, fraudulent, or misleading \_ 
representations or information. 

[(e) If a petition for renewal of a temporary 
exemption that meets the i-equirements of § 555.5 
has been filed not later than 60 days before the 
termination date of an exemption, the exemption 
does not terminate until the Administrator grants 
or denies the petition for renewal. (39 F.R. 
37988— October 25, 1974. Effective: 11/24/74)] 

[(f) The Administrator publishes in the 
Federal Register a notice of 

(i) a petition for termination or modifica- 
tion of an exemption and the action taken in 
response to it; and 

(ii) any termination or modification of an 
exemption pursuant to the Administrator's 
own motion. (40 F.R. 42015— September 10, 
1975. Effective: 9/10/75)] 

§ 555.9 Temporary exemption labels. A man- 
ufacturer of an exempted vehicle shall — 

(a) Submit to the Administrator, within 30 
days after receiving notification of the grant 

of an exemption, a sample of the certification f 
label required by PART 567 of this chapter and *^ 
paragraph (c) of this section; 

(b) Affix securely to the windshield or side 
window of each exempted vehicle a label in the 
English language containing the statement re- 
quired by paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this 
section, and with the words "SHOWN ABOVE" 
omitted. 

(c) Meet all applicable requirements of Part 
567 of this chapter, except that. — 

(1) Instead of the statement required by 
§ 567.4(g) (5) the following statement shall 
appear: "THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO 
ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR 
VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS IN EF- 
FECT ON THE DATE OF MANUFAC- 
TURE SHOWN ABOVE EXCEPT FOR 
STANDARD NOS. [Listing the standards by 
number and title for which an exemption has 
been granted]. EXEMPTED PURSUANT 
TO NHTSA EXEMPTION NO. 

(2) Instead of the statement required by 
§ 567.5(a) (7), the following statement shall ap- 



(Rev. 9/4/75) 



PART 555^ 



Effective: January 29, 1973 



pear: THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO 
ALL APPLICABLE P^EUEKAL MOTOR 
VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS IN EF- 
FECT IN [Month, Year] EXCEPT FOR 
STANDARD NOS. [Listing the standards by 
number and title for which an exemption has 
been granted]. EXEMPTED PURSUANT 
TO NHTSA EXEMPTION NO 

§ 555.10 Availability for public inspection. 

(a) Inform;\tion relevant to a petition under 
this part, including: the petition and supporting 
data, memoranda of informal meetings with the 
petitioner or any other interested person, and 
the grant or denial of the petition, is available 
for public inspection, except as specified in para- 
graph (b) of this section, in the Docket Section, 
Room 5221, National Highway Traffic Safety 



Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Wash- 
ington, D.C. 20.590. Cojjies of available informa- 
tion may be obtained, as provided in Part 7 of 
the regulations of the Office of the Secretary of 
Transportation (49 CFR Part 7). 

(b) [Infoi-mation made available for inspec- 
tion shall include all submitted materials that 
are specifically required by g 555.6, but shall not 
include materials not relevant to the petition for 
which confidentiality is requested, and may be 
granted, in accordance with sections 112, 113, 
and 158 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1401, 1402, and 
1418) and section 552(b) of Title 5 of the United 
States Code. (40 F.R. 18789— April 30, 1975. 
Effective: 5/30/75)] 

38 F.R. 2693 
January 29, 1973 



(Rev. 4/24/751 



PART 555-5 



c 



I 



l> 



Effactiv*: February 1, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO PART 566— MANUFACTURER IDENTIFICATION 
(Docket No. 71-11; Notice 2) 



This notice adopts a new Part 566 in Title 49, 
Code of Federal Regulations, to require manu- 
facturers of motor vehicles, and manufacturers 
of motor vehicle equipment to which a motor 
vehicle safety standard applies, to submit iden- 
tifying information and a description of the 
items they produce. A notice of proposed rule- 
making on this subject was published on April 
28, 1971 (36 F.R. 7970). The comments re- 
ceived in response to the notice have been con- 
sidered in this issuance of a final rule. The final 
rule exempts tire manufacturers from coverage, 
deletes the required submittal of estimated an- 
nual production, and requires the manufacturer 
to submit revised information when necessary to 
keep his entry current. 

As noted in the proposal of April 28, 1971 (36 
F.R. 7970) the establishment of a centrally or- 
ganized system to collect information regarding 
the manufacturer's corporate status, mailing ad- 
dress, and items manufactured has been found 
necessary for efficient enforcement of the Act, 
as well as for distribution of information to 
manufacturers. 

Several manufacturers stated that the informa- 
tion required by the regulations is already sub- 
mitted to the NHTSA under existing regula- 
tions. This claim is true only with respect to 
tire manufacturers, who are required under Part 
574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, (36 
F.R. 1196, at 1197-8) to submit to the NHTSA 
data which would meet the requirements of the 
proposed regulation in order to obtain their code 
numbers. The tire manufacturers' request for 
exemption has therefore been granted. 

While it is true that the Defect Reports reg- 
ulation (36 F.R. 3064) requires the submittal 
of some information similar to the data collected 
under the proposed regulation, the former re- 



quirement does not provide the comprehensive 
data required by the Administration. 

The largest number of comments were di- 
rected at the required submittal of estimated 
annual production figures. Upon consideration 
of the comments and review of the Administra- 
tion's need for this data, it has been determined 
that its collection would create difficulties for 
the industry that outweigh its benefits, par- 
ticularly since approximate information about 
production is available to the NHTSA from 
other sources. Therefore this requirement is 
deleted. 

A number of manufacturers were uncertain 
about their coverage under the proposed regula- 
tion. One packager of brake fluids stated that 
he did not manufacture the fluid and wished to 
know whether he is considered a manufacturer 
under the regulation. The packager's operations 
may significantly afl"ect the quality of the brake 
fluid. Moreover, under amended Federal Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 116, "Motor Vehicle Hy- 
draulic Brake Fluids", the original manufacturer 
in some cases will not be identified on the con- 
tainer label. For these reasons it has been deter- 
mined that for the purposes of this regulation, 
a person who packages brake fluid from a bulk 
state shall be considered a manufacturer of 
motor vehicle equipment and therefore subject 
to the regulation. 

A manufacturer of mobile homes sought an 
exemption from coverage on the grounds that 
the general public does not usually engage in 
transporting mobile structure trailers. The fact 
that only "experts" transport the regulated ve- 
hicle is not germane to the question of its inclu- 
sion under the regulation, however, since the 
identification requirement is based on the general 
determination that the centralized data system 



PART 566— PRE 1 



EffecHve: February 1, 1972 

will improve enforcement of the Act and com- 
mimication with manufacturers. 

An incomplete vehicle manufacturer submitted 
a comment regarding the requirement that manu- 
facturers of multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
trucks and trailers submit a description indi- 
cating the intended final use of their product. 
The final rule as issued does not specifically 
include incomplete vehicle manufacturers. A 
notice of proposed rulemaking published in this 
issue of the Federal Register would, however, 
amend the regulation to jjrovide coverage of 
incomplete vehicles. 

The time-of -submittal section has been clarified 
in light of the comments. It is intended that a 
manufacturer supply the required information 
when he begins to manufacture the motor ve- 
hicle or covered equipment. The regulation has 
been amended to indicate that subsequent sub- 
mittals will be necessary only when changes in 
the manufacturer's business render the submitted 
data inaccurate or incomplete. 

A number of manufacturers offered recom- 
mendations as to the classification system to be 
adopted by the Administration utilizing the data 



collected under this regulation. Such discussion y' 
is beyond the scope of this regulation, but these [^ 
suggestions will be considered at the appropriate 
time. 

One manufacturer petitioned for a public 
hearing to discuss the NHTSA's planned use of 
the information collected under the regulation. 
Since the required submittal of estimated annual 
production figures has been deleted from the 
final rule, the concern about the use of the in- 
formation by the Administration would appear 
to be dispelled, and a public hearing has been 
found to be unnecessary. Tlie petition is there- 
fore denied. 

Effective date: February 1, 1972. 

In consideration of the above, Part 566, Manu- 
facturer Identification, is added to Title 49, Code 
of Federal Regulations. . . . 

Issued on October 22, 1971. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 



36 F.R. 20977 
November 2, 1971 



L 



PART 566— PRE 2 



(C 



Effcctlvs: Fabruory 1, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 566— MANUFACTURER IDENTIFICATION 

(Docket No. 71-11; Notice 4) 



This notice amends Part 566 in Title 49, Code 
of Federal Regulations, to provide for the cov- 
erage of "incomplete vehicles," as defined in Part 
568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More 
Stages. A notice of proposed rulemaking on this 
subject was published on November 2, 1971 (36 
F.R. 20987). No comments on the proposed 
amendment were received, and the amendment 
is adopted as proposed. 

Part 566, published on November 2, 1971 (36 
F.R. 20977), requires manufacturers of motor 
vehicles and of motor vehicle equipment other 
than tires to which a motor vehicle safety stand- 
ard applies to submit identifying information 
and a description of the items which they pro- 
duce. In responding to a comment on the pro- 
posed regulation from an incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer, it was noted that while the regu- 
lation clearly covers intermediate and final-stage 
manufacturers (as defined in Part 568) it makes 
no reference to incomplete vehicle manufactur- 
ers. This amendment is intended to clarify this 
ambiguity by specifically providing for coverage 
of incomplete vehicles. 



The incomplete vehicle manufacturer stated 
that he was unaware of the final use of his light 
truck vehicles and requested that he be permitted 
to submit a brief description of the incomplete 
vehicle expressed in the terminology of the in- 
dustry as an alternative to the description in 
terms of final use. This method for incomplete 
vehicle manufacturers has been found acceptable, 
and the NHTSA accordingly grants this request. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the NHTSA 
adopts amendments to Part 566 of Title 49, Code 
of Federal Regulations .... 

Effective date : February 1, 1972. 

This amendment is issued under the authority 
of sections 103, 108, 112 and 119 of the National 
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1397, 1401, 1407, and the delega- 
tion of authority at 49 CFR 1.51. 

Issued on January 24, 1972. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

37 F.R. 1364 
January 28, 1972 



PART 566— PRE 3^ 



^ 



Effectiv*: February 1, 1972 



PART 566— MANUFACTURER IDENTIFICATION 
(Docket No. 71-11; Notice 2) 



§ 566.1 Scope. This part requires munufac- 
turers of motor vehicles, and of motor vehicle 
equipment to which a motor vehicle safety stand- 
ard applies, to submit identifying information 
and a description of tlie items they produce. 

§ 566.2 Purpose. The purpose of this part is 
to facilitate the regidation of manufacturers un- 
der the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 
Act, and to aid in establishing a code numbering 
system for all regulated manufacturers. 

§ 566.3 Application. This part applies to all 
manufacturers of motor vehicles, and to manu- 
facturers of motor vehicle equipment, other than 
tires, to which a motor vehicle safety standard 
applies (hereafter referred to as "covered equip- 
ment"). 

§ 566.4 Definitions. [All terms defined in the 
Act and the rules and standards issued under 
its authority are used as defined therein. Spec- 
ifically, "incomplete vehicle," "intermediate man- 
ufacturer," and "final-stage manufacturer" are 
used as defined in Part 568, Vehicles Manufac- 
tured in Two or More Stages. (37 F.R 1364— 
January 28, 1972. Effective: 2/1/72)] 

§ 566.5 Requirements. Each manufacturer of 
motor vehicles, and each manufacturer of covered 
equipment, shall furnish the information spec- 
ified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this sec- 
tion to: Administrator, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. 

(a) Full individual, partnership, or cor- 
porate name of the manufacturer. 

(b) Residence address of the manufacturer 
and State of incorporation if applicable. 

(c) Description of each type of motor ve- 
hicle or of covered equipment manufactured by 
the manufacturer, including for motor vehicles. 



the approximate ranges of gross vehicle weight 
ratings for each type. 

(1) Except as noted below, the descrip- 
tion may be of general types, such as "passenger 
cars" or "brake fluid." 

(2) In the case of multipurpose passen- 
ger vehicles, trucks, and trailers, the description 
shall be specific enough also to indicate the types 
of use for which the vehicles are intended, such 
as "tank trailer," "motor home", or "cargo van." 

(3) [In the case of motor vehicles pro- 
duced in two or more stages, if the manufacturer 
is an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, the de- 
scription shall so state and include a descprition 
indicating the stage of completion of the vehicle 
and, where known, the types of use for which the 
vehicle is intended. 

EXAMPLE: "Incomplete vehicle manufacturer 
— Chassis-cab intended for completion as 
van-type truck." 

If the manufacturer is an intermediate manu- 
facturer, or a final stage manufacturer, the de- 
scription shall so state and include a brief descrip- 
tion of the work performed. 

EXAMPLE: "Multipurpose passenger vehicels: 
Motor homes with GV\VR from 8,000 to 
12,000 pounds. Final-stage manufacturer — 
add body to bare chassis." 

(37 F.R. 1364— January 28, 1972. Effective: 

2/1/72)] 

S 566.6 Submittal of information. Each man- 
ufacturer required to submit information under 
§ 566.4 shall submit the information not later 
than February 1, 1972. After that date, each 
person who begins to manufacture a type of 
motor vehicle or covered equipment for which 
he has not submitted the required information 



lltav. Jan. 1972) 



PART 566-1 



EffacKve: Febrvory 1, 1972 



sliall submit the information specified in para- complete by submitting revised information not ^ 

graphs (a) through (c) of § 566.4 not later than later than 30 days after the relevant changes f^ 

30 days after he begins manufacture. Each man- i" l^is busmess occur. 

ufacturer who has submitted required informa- 36 F.R. 20977 

tion shall keep his entry current, accurate and November 2, 1971 



(Rev. Jan. 197J) PART 566-2 



Effactiva: September 1, 1969 



PREAMBLE TO PART 567— CERTIFICATION 



Regulations for the certification labeling of 
motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, and 
the provision of identifying information on the 
label, were issued under sections 112, 114, and 
119 of the National Traific and Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1401, 1403, 1407) by the 
Federal Highway Administrator and published 
in the Federal Register on January 24, 1969 (34 
F.R. 1147). In a notice published on April 29, 
1969, (34 F.R. 7031) it was proposed to make 
certain amendments to those regulations. This 
amendment to the regulations is based on that 
proposal. 

The notice proposed that sections 367.7 and 
367.8, relating to manufacturers and distributors 
of motor vehicle equipment, be revoked, pending 
further study of the distribution patterns and 
the needs of the motor vehicle equipment indus- 
try. No adverse comments to that proposal were 
received. Those two sections are accordingly 
being revoked with a view to the future issuance 
of regulations relating to the particular indus- 
tries whose products are covered by equipment 
standards. Manufacturers and distributors of 
motor vehicle equipment must, however, continue 
to meet the certification requirements of section 
114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1403) as ampli- 
fied by notice in the Federal Register of Novem- 
ber 4, 1967 (32 F.R. 15444). 

Clarifying language was proposed by the notice 
adding the phrase "(except chassis-cabs)" to sec- 
tion 367.4(a), and substituting the phrase "door 
edge that meets the door latch post" in section 
367.4(c). A sentence was proposed for addition 
to section 367.4(g)(1), requiring the name of a 
person, other than the manufacturer, who affixes 
a label on an imported vehicle to be shown on 
the label. No adverse comments were received 
on these proposals, and they are incorporated 
into the rule as issued. 



It was proposed to delete the reference to the 
use of tools in section 367.4(b), so that the sub- 
section would read: "The label shall be perma- 
nently affixed in such a manner that it cannot be 
removed without destroying it." Some comments 
have indicated uncertainty as to the types of 
label that are permitted by this section. It is 
intended that the label be affixed so as not to be 
removable without damage. The purpose is to 
make sure that a label cannot be easily and un- 
detectably transferred to another vehicle, and to 
provide that, within this requirement, manufac- 
turers would have discretion in choice of material 
and adhesive method. In order to clarify the 
requirement, the words "or defacing" are inserted 
after "destroying". Several inquiries were di- 
rected specifically to the adequacy of riveted 
labels. This amendment permits riveting since 
it has been determined to be a generally satis- 
factory method of affixing the label. 

One comment noted that, particularly in some 
foreign countries, assembly of a vehicle may be 
performed by a subsidiary corporation controlled 
by a parent that is the generally known "name- 
plate" company. It was suggested that the name 
of the parent corporation should be allowable on 
the label. The suggestion has been determined 
to have merit, in that no important purpose is 
served by requiring the name of a lesser-known 
subsidiary corporation on the label, and language 
permitting the use of a parent corporation's name 
is added to section 367.4(g) (1). 

In order to allow exporting and importing 
manufacturers to indicate the coimtry to which 
the word "Federal" refers, a sentence is added 
to section 367.4(g)(3) permitting the insertion 
of "U.S." or "U.S.A." before the word "Federal" 
in the conformity statement. 

One petitioner suggested permitting the inser- 
tion of the model year before the word "vehicle" 
in the conformity statement, so that it would 
read "This 1970 vehicle conforms . . .", in the 



PART 567— PRE 1 



231-088 O - 77 - 7 



Effactiv*: SaplamlMr 1, 1969 



case of a vehicle manufactured in late 1969. The 
requirement of stating the month and year of 
manufacture on the label is intended to eliminate 
confusion caused by model years that do not 
match calendar years, and that may mislead con- 
sumers as to the standards that are applicable. 
The manufacturer or dealer is free to indicate 
the model year of the vehicle by other labels, or 
any means that do not involve the certification 
label, and therefore it is not necessary to allow 
insertion of this possibly confusing additional 
date. 

Objections were made to the requirement of 
color contrast on the label, and to the require- 
ment of stating the actual manufacturer's name 
rather than that of a distributor under a "private 
brand" label. Similar comments were made and 
rejected at previous stages of rulemaking. Both 
of these requirements are important aids to en- 
forcement where rapid inspection of large num- 
bers of vehicles must be made. 

One comment suggested that it would be mis- 
leading for a manufacturer to certify that the 
vehicle "conforms" to applicable standards, since 
the manufacturer has no control over the vehicle 
after it leaves his hands, and proposed that the 
certification be limited to the statement that the 
vehicle conformed at the time it was delivered 
to a distributor or dealer. The requirement for 
certification is not, however, limited to manu- 
facturers, but extends to all distributors and 
importers as well. These parties satisfy this 
requirement by allowing the certification label 
to remain affixed to the vehicle. A distributor 
who alters a vehicle so that it does not conform 
to the manufacturer's certification must certify 
that the vehicle as altered meets applicable 
standards or he is subject to penalties under the 
Act. A dealer who sells a vehicle after altering 
it so that it does not conform would be subject 
to penalties under the Act, and prior parties 
would not be held responsible for the dealer's 
alterations. Any alterations that came about 
after a vehicle had been sold to a user would not 
be relevant to the question of conformity to ap- 
plicable standards, as provided by section 108(b) 
(1) of the Act. 

One comment raised the question of who should 
certify a vehicle such as a boat trailer that is 



shipped complete but in unassembled form by . 
its fabricator, such that it can be easily assembled f 
without special equipment. The fabricator ob- 
viously has the technical knowledge on which 
certification should be based, but the subsequent 
assembler may be viewed as the "manufacturer" 
of the vehicle within the meaning of the Act. 
This question is part of the larger area of kits 
for the assembly of new vehicles or the renova- 
tion or alteration of existing ones. It is expected 
that separate regulations will be issued concern- 
ing standards applicable to such assemblers and 
their certification. As an interim measure, it 
has been determined that the purposes of the Act 
would be served by allowing the fabricator the 
option of treating itself as the certifying manu- 
facturer under section 114 of the Act and affixing 
the label in a manner such that it will conform 
when the vehicle is assembled. Language to that 
effect is added to section 367.4(g) (1). 

In section 367.4(e), describing the label loca- 
tion for motorcycles, the words "except the 
steering system" are added to the final phrase, 
"in a location such that it is easily readable 
without moving any part of the vehicle", in order 
to allow a location on the steering post that may / 
be obscured when the steering system is turned ^ 
to a certain position. 

Effective date. Since these amendments do not 
impose substantial additional burdens relative to 
the regulations as previously issued, this part as 
amended shall continue to be effective for all 
motor vehicles manufactured on or after Septem- 
ber 1, 1969. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
Part 367, Certification, is amended to read as set 
forth below. This amendment is issued under 
the authority of sections 112, 114, and 119 of the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 
(15 U.S.C. 1401, 1403, 1407) and the delegation 
of authority from the Secretary of Transporta- 
tion to the Federal Highway Administrator, 49 
CFR § 1.4(c). 

Issued on July 7, 1969. 

F. C. Turner 

Federal Highway Administrator 



PART 567— PRE 2 



Eff*cliv«: S*plmnb«r 1, 1969 

Sec. 367.5 Requirements for manufacturers of chassis- 

367.1 Purpose and scope. cabs. 

367.2 Application. 367.6 Requirements for distributors of motor 

367.3 Definitions. vehicles. 

367.4 Requirements for manufacturers of motor 34 F.R. 11360 
vehicles. July 9, 1969 



> 



\ 



PAET 567— PRE 3^ 



u 



^ 



Effectiv*: Jun* 1, 1971 

January 1, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO PART 567— CERTIFICATION 

(Dockets No. 70-6, 70-8, and 70-15) 

(Revised and reissued April 8, 1971) 



This notice adopts a new Part 568 in Title 49, 
Code of Federal Regulations, to require the fur- 
nishing of information relevant to a vehicle's 
conformity to motor vehicle safety standards, 
and makes complementary changes in the cer- 
tification regulations in Part 567 of that title and 
in Part 571. It also amends the certification 
regulations with respect to the manufacturer 
whose name must appear on the label for trailers 
and with respect to the information that must 
appear on the label for all vehicles. Notices 
of proposed rulemaking on these subjects were 
published on March 17, 1970 (35 F.R. 4639), 
May 1, 1970 (35 F.R. 6969), and June 13, 1970 
(35 F.R. 9293). The comments received in re- 
sponse to these notices, and the statements made 
at the public meeting on vehicles manufactured 
in two or more stages (September 18, 1970; 35 
F.R. 13139) have been considered in this issuance 
of a final rule. 

The amendments to the certification regula- 
tions proposed on May 1, 1970 (35 F.R. 6969) 
are adopted as proposed, except that GCWR in- 
formation is not required. 

The most frequently stated objection to the 
amendments was that the providing of GVWR 
and GAWR for passenger C3rs gives the pur- 
chaser information that is already provided by 
the label required by Standard No. 110. Al- 
though the information is to fome extent duplica- 
tive, in that if the consumer knew the vehicle's 
unloaded weight, he could use the information 
required by Standard No. 110 to estimate the 
gross vehicle weight, the gross weight informa- 
tion is more easily usable for regulatory pur- 



poses. Requirements of certain standards may in 
the future apply to a passenger car according to 

its weight class. 

Several comments stated that the inclusion of 
weight information on the certification label 
would make the labels awkw-.irdly large. Since 
only two items would be added to the label, these 
comments are considered to be without merit. 

As amended, the regulation requires a certifica- 
tion label on vehicles sold directly to users, as 
well as on those sold to dealers and distributors. 
The Administration regards tliis as useful to the 
consumer and necessary to efficient, enforcement 
of the standards. The authority for requiring 
information labels is found in sections 112 and 
119 of the Act, as well as in section 114. 

The requirements for the certification label 
for multi-stage vehicles, discussed above, include 
the vehicle type. Under Part 567 as presently 
in force, the type need only be shown for multi- 
purpose passenger vehicles. This information 
has been determined to be useful for enforce- 
ment and other information purposes, and Part 
567 is therefore hereby amended to require the 
vehicle type to appear on all labels. 

Issued on April 8, 1971. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Acting Administrator 



36 F.R. 7054 
April 14, 1971 



PART 567— PRE 5-6 



Effacllv*: January 1, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 567— CERTIFICATION 

and 
(Denial of Petitions to Part 568 — Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages) 

(Docket No. 70-8) 



Part 567 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regula- 
tions, certification requirements for motor ve- 
hicles, as amended, and Part 568, establishing 
requirements for vehicles manufactured in two or 
more stages, were published on April 14, 1971 
(36 F.R. 7054 et seq.). Thereafter, pursuant to 
49 CFR 553.35 (35 F.R. 5119), petitions for re- 
consideration were filed by American Motors 
Corporation, Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor 
Company, General Motors Corporation, and In- 
ternational Harvester Company. On June 22, 
1971, a notice proposing the addition of a vehicle 
identification number to the certification label 
reqtiired for vehicles manufactured in two or 
more stages was published in the Federal Reg- 
hter (Docket No. 71-14; Notice 1, 36 F.R. 11868). 

This notice of Reconsideration and Amend- 
ment represents the action taken by this agency 
in response to the petitions and the notice of 
June 22. 

1. Effective date. Ford and International 
Harvester petitioned that the effective date of 
Part 568 be delayed at least until July 1, 1972, 
to permit a more orderly development and im- 
plementation of systems and procedures per- 
taining to the documentation requirements of the 
regulation. Neither petitioner has argued that it 
is impossible or impracticable for it to comply 
with Part 568 by January 1, 1972, nor has any 
other petition been received on this subject. 
Timely implementation of these regulations is 
important, because of the need to have the re- 
quired information in the hands of final-stage 
manufacturers in advance of the effective date of 
standards applicable to these types of vehicles. 
The Administrator therefore has denied the peti- 
tions for extension of the effective date. 



1. GVWR; GAWR. International Harvester 
stated that if an incomplete vehicle manufacturer 
installs tires supplied by the customer or ships 
the vehicle with temporary tires that will be re- 
placed by the customer, the manufacturer should 
be permitted to base his GV^VR and GAWR 
ratings on the capacity of the vehicle's structure 
and to disregard the capacity of customer-in- 
stalled tires. The company therefore requested 
an interpretation, or revision, of the regulation 
to exclude tire ratings in the computation of 
GAWR and GVWR, so long as the exclusion is 
indicated on the certification label or the docu- 
ment furnished to the final-stage manufacturer. 

The NHTSA cannot accept the position that 
the weight ratings should not be related to the 
tires on the vehicle. To t^ie contrary, the newly 
proposed motor vehicle safety standard on Tire 
and Rim Selection and Rim Performance for 
vehicles other than passenger cars (36 F.R. 14273, 
August 3, 1971) would require each completed 
vehicle to have tires whose load ratings reflect 
the gross axle weight ratings of the vehicle. If 
an incomplete vehicle manufacturer installs tires 
that are intended to be used on the vehicle as 
completed (whether or not they are "supplied by 
the customer"), the weight ratings of the vehicle 
sliould reflect the capacities of those tires. On 
the other hand, it is entirely permissible for an 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer to install "tem- 
porary" tires for shipment purposes only, if he 
provides full information on the subject in the 
document required to be furnished with the 
incomplete vehicle under Part 568. 

Counsel for the Trailer Manufacturers Associa- 
tion have pointed out that some trailer manufac- 
turers provide different sizes of tires as a customer 



PART 567— PRE 7 



Effccllv*: January I, 1972 



option, and have requested permission to state dif- 
ferent weight rating vahies on the label for each 
tire size that is offered. This request may have 
merit, since it may not be practicable in some 
cases for a manufacturer to anticipate which 
tires will be used on a particular vehicle, or to 
rely on dealers to affix permanent labels that re- 
flect the tires ultimately selected. A notice of 
proposed rulemaking tliat would allow manu- 
facturers to provide several values for GVIVR 
and GAWR, along with tire sizes for each, is 
published in this issue of the Federal Register. 

American Motors petitioned for withdrawal of 
GVAVR and GAWR from passenger car certifica- 
tion labels on the grounds that the terms are am- 
biguous and misleading. Ford also petitioned 
for a change in the GAWR-GVWR usage, stat- 
ing that the present placard required on ])assen- 
ger cars by Standard No. 110 makes GAWR and 
GVWR unnecessary for passenger cars and that 
a similar reference to vehicle capacity weight 
should be substituted for GAWR and GVWR 
in the documents and labels required on multi- 
purpose passenger Achicles, trucks, and buses. 
American interprets GVIVR to be the equivalent 
of maximum loaded vehicle weight, as well as the 
equivalent of the sum of unloaded \ehicle weight 
and vehicle capacity weight. 

Tiie definitions of gross vehicle weight rating 
and gross axle weight rating have been develoi)ed 
in order to provide useful and reasonably flexible 
metliods for manufacturers to rate the overall 
capacities of their vehicles and axle systems re- 
spectively, on the basis of which the vehicles 
will be tested for conformity to various stand- 
ards. The existing concept of "maximum loaded 
vehicle weight" lias been found deficient for some 
purposes, because it relies on a complex definition 
of "curb weight" (found in Standard No. 110, 
49 CFR 571.21) that combines both arbitrary and 
specific elements. It is this agency's intent to 
allow manufacturers, in stating GVWR and 
GAWR, to select values that represent the overall 
performance capabilities of their vehicles as de- 
livered, without necessarily varying the values to 
allow for minor weight variations in a particular 
line of vehicles. To preclude the possibility of 
understating a vehicle's GVWR, however, the 
certification regulation is herewith amended to 



provide that the stated GVWR shall not be less | 
than the sum of. unloaded vehicle weight, rated ^ 
cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's 
designated seating capacity. 

3. Certification, resjwnsihility of the incom- 
plete vehicle manufar-turer. General Motors has 
petitioned for a revision of Part 568 tliat would 
"distinguish between final-stage manufacturers 
who merely add a van or a work unit to the rear 
of a chassis-cab, and those manufacturers who 
perform material alterations to the incomplete 
vehicle in the process of manufacturing a com- 
pleted vehicle." In the former case, under the 
GM scheme, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer 
would certify that the vehicles complied with all 
Federal standards except those (such as No. 108) 
where final compliance depends upon the work 
performed by the add-on type mantifacturers. 
The latter would then certify that he liad made 
no alterations to the incomplete vehicle other 
than (describing the work per- 
formed), and that the vehicle complied with 

(standards not certified by the 

incomplete vehicle manufacturer). GM believes 
that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer could j 
be required by regulation to provide specific \ 
items of information about its product (e.g., 
maximum height of center of gravity, regarding 
Standard No. 105) to enable the final-stage man- 
ufacturer to add a van or work unit without 
causing a nonconformity. In the second case, 
under the GM scheme, the material-alteration 
type manufacturer would certify the entire ve- 
hicle, and could obtain from the incomplete ve- 
hicle manufacturer all data needed for certifica- 
tion. 

There is considerable similarity between the 
(tM scheme and Part 568. The manufacturer of 
a vehicle complete except for the addition of a 
van or work unit, under Part 568, provides a 
statement (568.4(a) (7) (i)) that the vehicle when 
completed will conform to s[)ecified standards if 
no alterations are made in identified components 
of the incomplete vehicle. He also i)rovides an 
appropriate statement, according to 568.4(a)- 
(7)(ii) or (iii), as to the remaining standards. 
On tlie basis of such statements, and the work 
he performs, the final stage manufacturer certifies 
tiie complete ^•ehicle. 



PART 567— PRE 8 



Effective: January 1, 1972 



Tlie primary difficulty witli the GM sclieme is 
that it is not adequate for such standards as 
No. 121, Air Brake Systems, wliere end conform- 
ance depends upon work performed by botli the 
incomplete vehicle and final -sta<re manufacturers. 
GM would not, in that instance, certify con- 
formance as to Standard No. 121, nor would it 
provide information sufficient for the final-stage 
manufacturer to produce a conforming vehicle. 
The scheme with respect to material -alteration 
type manufacturers as well woidd not appear to 
provide as much assistance to final -stage manu- 
facturers as that adopted under Part 568. Tra- 
ditionally, the final-stage manufacturer is an 
entity whose resources are limited. The thrust 
of Part 568 is to place some legal responsibility 
on the incomplete vehicle manufacturer to supply 
the final-stage manufacturer with data and con- 
ditions under which tlie completed vehicle will 
comply, and most importantly, to allocate a fair 
share of the legal responsibility for conformity 
to the incomjilete vehicle manufacturer. GM's 
petition is therefore denied. 

Chrysler also wishes to split the certification 
responsibility, and petitioned for an amendment 
requiring the incomplete vehicle manufacturer to 
"list . . . only those standards to which full com- 
pliance has been achieved . . . ." Otherwise, 
Chrysler feels it has no alternative other than 
periodic use of the general statement allowed 
by g 568.4(a) (7) (iii) that conformity with a 
standard is not substantially determined by the 
design of the incomplete vehicle, and that the 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no repre- 
sentation as to conformity of the incomplete ve- 
hicle witli such standard. 

Since alternative (iii), above, is partially a 
factual representation, Chrysler may not provide 
such a statement where conformance with a 
standard is substantially determined by the de- 
sign of the incomplete vehicle. It is up to the 



incomplete vehicle manufacturer to decide which 
type of statement accurately reflects the condi- 
tion of compliance, and Chrysler may use the 
general statement in those instances where it is 
appropriate. Chrysler's petition is therefore 
denied. 

4. Seq\tei)ce of required data. Ford petitioned 
tliat Part 567 be amended to make the sequence 
of the data required on certification labels per- 
manently affixed to completed Aehicles consistent 
with that on the document to be supplied by 
incomplete vehicle manufacturers (Part 568). 
Ford's reason for this request is that it would 
simplif}' com})uter print-out of material if the 
same computer program could be used for both 
requirements. 

Although this request has some technical merit, 
Ford is the only manufacturer who has com- 
mented on variances in data sequence. This 
agency understands that other manufacturers 
have already ordered certification labels printed 
in the sequence required by Part 567, and deems 
it unfair to them to amend Part 567 at this time. 
Ford's request is therefore denied. 

5. Proposed VIN. There were no objections 
to the proposal that a vehicle identification num- 
ber be required for labels on vehicles manufac- 
tured in two or more stages, and the proposal is 
adoj)ted. 

In consideration of the foregoing changes are 
made in 49 CFR Part 567. 

Effective date: January 1, 1972. 

Issued on October 6, 1971. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

36 F.R. 19593 
Octobers, 1971 



PART 567— PRE 9-10 



Effcctlva: January 1, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 567— CERTIFICATION 

(Docket No. 70-8; Notice 5) 



This notice amends the Certification Regula- 
tions to allow vehicle manufacturers to list on 
the certification label more than one set of 
values for gross vehicle and gross axle weight 
ratings. It also allows school bus manufacturers 
to compute the vehicle's GVWR using 120 pounds 
to represent the weight of an occupant. 

On April 14, 1971, (36 F.R. 7054), the certifi- 
cation regulations (49 CFR Part 567) were 
amended to provide for the furnishing of addi- 
tional information on the certification label, and 
a new Part 568, "Vehicles Manufactured in Two 
or More Stages", was established. On October 8, 
1971, (36 F.R. 9593) certain amendments to Part 
567 and Part 568 were issued in response to peti- 
tions for reconsideration received concerning the 
amendment of April 14, 1971. Also on October 
8, 1971, a notice was issued (36 F.R. 19617) pro- 
posing to allow multiple GVWR and GAAVR 
listings to be used in certain circumstances. This 
notice is issued in response to petitions for re- 
consideration concerning the amendment of 
October 8, 1971, and comments concerning the 
notice of proposed rulemaking of that date. 

The proposal of October 8, 1971, allowing 
multiple GVWR and GAWR listings to be 
placed on the certification label is adopted as 
proposed. Comments received by the NHTSA 
were generally in favor of this amendment. One 
commentator stated that the proposal would not 
be practical for large trucks. However, the re- 
quirement is only permissive, and it will j^rovide 
a useful alternative to manufacturers of various 
other types of vehicles. It is therefore adopted 
as proposed. 

The final rule published in the October 8 notice 
amended sections 567.4(g)(3) and 567.5(a)(5) 
to provide for GVW'^R computation using a 
multiplier of 150 pounds times the vehicle's' 
designated seating capacity. This agency has 
received petitions for reconsideration of this 



provision from the School Bus Manufacturers 
Institute and Blue Bird Body Company. Both 
suggested that the figure of 150 pounds is un- 
realistically high, because the maximum seating 
capacity of a school bus is based on three chil- 
dren sitting on each standard 39-inch seat. These 
petitions suggested that a 120-pound figure, 
found in the 1970 Revised Edition of Minimum 
Standards for School Buses^ be used in comput- 
ing the GVWR of school buses. The NHTSA 
agrees with these petitions, and the regulation 
is amended accordingly. 

It has been brought to the attention of the 
NHTSA that on some vehicles it will be difficult 
to affix the required label in the designated loca- 
tion, because of space limitations. It was re- 
quested that the use of a multi-column label or a 
label in two parts be considered permissible 
under the regulation. One such request was 
answered in a letter interpretation to counsel for 
the Trailer Manufacturers Association, dated 
November 3, 1971. The substance of the agency's 
reply is repeated here for the benefit of all inter- 
ested parties: The NHTSA adheres to the re- 
quirement in the certification regulation that the 
required information be listed "in the order 
shown," a requirement that since its issuance in 
September 1969 has been found to enhance the 
readability and usefulness of the label. How- 
ever, there is no requirement that the listing be 
in one column, and as long as it appears in the 
order specified, mulfi-column labels or adjacent 
labels in two or more parts are permitted. 

Some inquiries were received concerning the 
significance of the requirement for a vehicle 
identification number on the label of a vehicle 
manufactured in two or more stages (36 F.R. 
19593, October 8, 1971). This VIN requirement 
is not new, as some persons apparently believed, 
but merel}' a continuation of the requirement 
contained in the original certification regulations 



PART 567— PRE 11 



ERmMv*: January 1, 1972 



eflFective September 1, 1969 (34 F.R. 11360, July 
9, 1969). The VIN requirement is not intended 
to change existing practices with respect to ve- 
hicle numbering. 

In consideration of the foregoing, Part 567 of 
Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, is hereby 
amended .... 

Effective date: As these requirements impose 
no additional burdens on any person, and as 
implementation of these requirements as part of 
the general regulatory scheme is essential, good 
cause exists for an effective date less than 30 
days from the day of publication. The amend- 
ments are accordingly effective on January 1, 
1972. 



This notice is issued pursuant to Sections 103, 
112, 114, and 119 of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 
1403, 1407), and tlie delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51. 

Issued on December 8, 1971. 



Charles H. Hartman 
Acting Administrator 



36 F.R. 23571 
December 10, 1971 



PART 567— PRE 12 



i 



Effcctiv*: July 13, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 567— CERTIFICATION 
(Docket No. 70-8; Notice 7) 



The purpose of this notice is to allow manu- 
facturers to specify a tire size on their certifica- 
tion label when they provide only one gross 
vehicle weight rating, or one gross axle weight 
rating for each axle, and do not list other op- 
tional tire sizes. The provisions of the Certifi- 
cation regulations dealing with gross vehicle 
weight rating and gross axle weight rating were 
published April 14, 1971 (36 F.R. 7054), and 
were amended on October 8, 1971 (36 F.R. 
19593) and December 10, 1971 (36 F.R. 23572). 
In addition, the definition of gross axle weight 
rating (49 CFR 571.3) was amended February 
12,1972 (37 F.R. 3185). 

As issued on April 14, 1971, the certification 
regulations required each manufacturer (final- 
stage manufacturers in the case of multi-stage 
vehicles) to include on his certification label a 
gross vehicle weight rating, and a gross axle 
weight rating for each axle. The assigned rating 
was to be made without reference to particular 
tires or other components on which the value was 
based. The amendment of December 10, 1971, 
modified this result to some extent by allowing a 
manufacturer, at his option, to list different 
weight ratings for various tire sizes, with the 
appropriate tire size listed for each rating. 

In response to inquiries by interested persons, 
the agency has decided not to limit this option 
to cases of multiple tire sizes. By the amend- 
ment issued herewith, manufacturers are allowed 



to list the appropriate tire size for both gross 
vehicle and axle weight ratings, even when only 
one rating is provided. With this information, 
subsequent manufacturers, distributors, dealers, 
and users who install or replace tires will be put 
on notice that the tires they mount on the vehicle 
might affect the weight ratings provided by the 
manufacturer. 

This amendment also makes a minor correction 
in a paragraph reference in the regulations. 

In light of the above, 49 CFR Part 567, "Cer- 
tification," is amended .... 

Eifective date : July 13, 1972. 

As this amendment provides an optional 
method of compliance and imposes no additional 
burdens, it is found for good cause shown that 
an effective date less than 30 days from the day 
of issuance is in the public interest. 

This notice is issued under the authority of 
sections 103, 112, 114, and 119 of the National 
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 
1392, 1401, 1403, 1407, and the delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.51. 

Issued on July 6, 1972. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

37 F.R. 13696 
July 13, 1972 



PART 567-PRE 13-14 



Effective: February 1, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 567— CERTIFICATION 



(Docket No. 72-27; Notice 2) 



This notice establishes certification and label- 
ing responsibilities for persons who alter "com- 
pleted vehicles" after their certification as 
conforming to applicable motor vehicle safety 
standards. The requirements are based on those 
proposed in a notice of proposed rulemaking 
published October 25, 1972 (37 F.R. 22800). 

Under the new requirements, a person who 
alters a completed vehicle, other than by the 
attachment, substitution, or removal of "readily 
attachable components", will be required to as- 
certain conformity to all applicable standards as 
of any date between the manufacture date of the 
completed vehicle and the manufacture date of 
the altered vehicle. That person will be required 
to aflSx a label (leaving the certification label in 
place) that identifies the alterer, the date of 
alteration, the date as of which conformity is 
determined, and any changes the alteration pro- 
duces in either gross weight ratings or vehicle 
classification. A person who does not alter the 
vehicle, or who adds, substitutes, or removes only 
readily attachable components will be required 
to leave the certification label in place, but will 
not be required, unless the alteration invalidates 
the stated weight ratings, to provide an addi- 
tional label. Distributors who do not alter the 
vehicle, or who alter it using only readily attach- 
able components and do not invalidate the stated 
weight ratings will meet the certification require- 
ments by leaving the certification label in place. 
The requirements will place persons who alter 
completed vehicles on the same basis as final- 
stage manufacturers, by allowing the former to 
choose as the date by which vehicle conformity 
is determined any date between the date on which 
the completed vehicle is manufactured and the 
date on which the vehicle is altered. Under 
previously existing statutory and regulatory pro- 
visions, alterers of vehicles were required to use 



only the date of completion of the altered vehicle 
as the date by which conformity could be deter- 
mined. 

General Motors, Truck Body and Equipment 
Association, and Stutz Motor Car of America 
supported the proposal without qualification. 
Other comments generally approved the proposal 
with some suggested changes. 

Several comments argued that the limiting 
concept of "readily attachable components", the 
addition, removal, or substitution of which does 
not create a requirement to affix a label, sliould 
not include "mirrors or tire and rim assemblies", 
as the language appears in §§ 567.6 and .7, and 
§ 568.8. It was argued that these items directly 
affect the vehicle's conformity to the standards 
or the weight ratings, and should therefore not 
be alterable without, in effect, a recertification 
by the alterer. It was variously suggested that 
explicit inclusion of these items as examples of 
readily attachable components might cause a 
safety problem, a false certification, or a mis- 
leading of persons such as dealers as to their 
responsibilities under the Act and the standards. 

The NHTSA does not accept these arguments. 
The provisions for alteration of vehicles, like the 
larger certification scheme of which they are a 
part, are intended to reflect the realities of manu- 
facture and distribution. It is a fact that the 
substitution of tires by a dealer takes place in a 
substantial fraction of all vehicle sales. More- 
over, a large proportion of the components that 
are in fact frequently altered at the dealer level 
are directly affected by standards: mirrors, tires, 
rims, lighting accessories, bumper guards and 
attachments, windshield wipers and washers, hub 
caps and wheel nuts, seat belts, and interior 
components such as air conditioners or radios 
that come within the head impact area, to name 



PAET 567— PRE 15 



Effective: February J, 1974 



a few. If these items were not included in the 
concept of readily attachable components, for 
which an alteration label is not required, it is 
safe to say that virtually every dealer in the 
country would be affixing labels to many of the 
vehicles he sold. 

It was not the intent of this agency to create 
such a manifold expansion of labeling require- 
ments. The altered-vehicle label is designed 
primarily to reach those cases where a completed 
vehicle is significantly altered, in a manner, and 
with components, not provided by the original 
manufacturer. The substitution or addition of 
parts such as tires, rims, and mirrors is a routine 
aspect of typical vehicle distribution systems, 
and the cost burden of affijxing a permanent label 
to the vehicle has not been found to be justified 
in that situation. For these reasons the language 
of the regulation has in these respects been re- 
tained as proposed. 

The requirement to keep a vehicle in conform- 
ity to the standards and the weight ratings ap- 
plies throughout the chain of distribution 
regardless of any labeling requirements, and this 
agency has no intent of downgrading the im- 
portance of that requirement. The comments did 
reveal a justifiable concern of manufacturers for 
situations where the vehicle might be altered, as 
by substitution of tires, in a way that its stated 
weight ratings are no longer valid. Also, there 
may well be cases where a customer wants a 
vehicle to have lighter components for its in- 
tended purpose, and would accept lowered weight 
ratings. To deal with these cases, language has 
been added to sections 567.6 and .7, and 568.8, to 
require the affixing of an alteration label when- 
ever any type of alteration is made that would 
invalidate the stated weight ratings. 

American Motors and Jeep argued that re- 
quiring alterers to certify conformity discrimi- 
nates against manufacturers' dealers. They 
pointed out that dealers, who generally alter 
vehicles before sale, are required to maintain 
conformity, while aftermarket installers of equip- 
ment, because the additions they make are to 
"used" vehicles, need not. They suggested that 
"special add-on accessories" be excepted from the 
requirements, that a new category of "Special 
Motorized Equipment" be created to which some 



of the. standards would not apply, that equip- 
ment standards be issued to cover aftermarket 
installers, and that highway safety program 
standards prohibit the alteration of vehicles such 
that they would not conform to the standards. 
These comments are not, in the view of this 
agency, within the scope of the rulemaking. 
Requests of this nature should be submitted as 
petitions for rulemaking, with supporting data, 
in accordance with the procedures of 49 CFR 
Part 553. 

British Leyland suggested that an exemption 
to the labeling requirements be made for persons 
installing accessories which the original vehicle 
manufacturer makes available, and whose in- 
stallation he knows will not affect vehicle con- 
formity. The NHTSA expects that most 
accessories meeting this description will be read- 
ily attachable within the sense of the regulation, 
and no further labeling in these cases will be 
required. It should be noted that the category 
of "readily attachable components" cannot be 
sharply defined, and in any marginal case the 
NHTSA will accept the reasonable judgment of 
the parties concerned, especially where the origi- 
nal manufacturer and the alterer are in agree- C 
ment. In cases where components of this type V 
are not found to be readily attachable, the burden 
on the alterer to determine that the alteration 
does not destroy conformity is minimized, leaving 
him with essentially no more than the attachment 
of the alterer label. 

Certain comments pointed out that while pro- 
posed sections 567.7 and 568.8 are not limited in 
their application to distributors, that limitation 
had been retained in section 567.6. The com- 
ments suggested that, as sections 567.7 and 568.8 
applied to dealers, section 567.6 should likewise 
so apply. The substance of the suggestion has 
been adopted in the final rule, by modifying 
§ 567.6 to apply to any person. 

The Recreation Vehicle Institute (RVI) sug- 
gested that manufacturers of completed vehicles 
be required to supply a document when requested 
by a vehicle alterer, similar to that provided 
final-stage manufacturers, that advises alterers 
how to achieve or retain conformity. This sug- 
gestion has not been adopted. If a vehicle manu- 
facturer wishes to provide information on the 



PART 567— PRE 16 



Effective: February 1, 1974 



alteration of his vehicles, he of course may do so. 
Once a completed, certified vehicle has been pro- 
duced, however, the NHTSA does not believe it 
reasonable to require manufacturers to provide 
persons who might alter that vehicle with addi- 
tional certification information. The requirement 
to provide information concerning incomplete 
vehicles (Part 568) is founded on the fact that 
an incomplete vehicle manufacturer has marketed 
his vehicles with the express intent of having 
them completed by other persons. This is not 
the case with completed vehicles. 

RVI also suggested that the regulation spe- 
cifically provide that alterers be allowed to base 
their conclusions as to conformity on the original 
certification. The NHTSA does not consider 
such a provision to be meaningful. The extent 
to which the alterer's conformity assurance may 
be based on the original certification depends 
entirely on what the alterer does to the vehicle, 
which is a fact peculiarly within his knowledge. 

Certain comments suggested that compliance 
with the requirements be permitted before the 



specified effective date. The NHTSA believes 
this request to be meritorious. Alterers will be 
able to conform to existing requirements or to 
those issued by this notice at any time up to the 
effective date. 

In light of the above, amendments are made 
to 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 ... . 

Efective date: February 1, 1974. However, 
persons who alter vehicles may at any time be- 
fore that date conform to the provisions issued 
in this notice in lieu of existing provisions of 
49 CFR Parts 567 and 568. 

Sections 103, 112, 114, 119, Pub. L. 80-563, 
80 Stat. 718; 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407; 
delegation of authority at 38 F.R. 12147. 

Issued on June 13, 1973. 

James E. Wilson 
Associate Administrator 
Traffic Safety Programs 

38 F.R. 15961 
June 19, 1973 



PART 567— PRE 17-18 



f 



EffacHv*: Jun* 1, 1971 

January 1, 1972 



PART 567— CERTIFICATION 

(Dockets No. 70-6, 70-8, and 70-15) 

(Revised and reissued April 8, 1971) 



S 567.1 Purpose and scope. 

The purpose of this part is to specify the con- 
tent and location of, and other requirements for, 
the label or tag to be affixed to motor vehicles 
required by section 114 of the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 
1403) ("the Act") and to provide the consumer 
with information to assist him in determining 
which of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards (Part 571 of this chapter) ("Stand- 
ards") are applicable to the vphicle. 

§ 567.2 Application. 

(a) This part applies to manufacturers and 
distributors of motor vehicles to which one or 
more standards are applicable. 

(b) In the case of imported motor vehicles, 
the requirement of affixing a label or tag applies 
to importers of vehicles, admitted to the United 
States under § 12.80(b) (2) of the joint regula- 
tions for importation of motor vehicles and 
equipment (19 CFR 12.80(b)(2)) to which the 
required label or tag is not affixed. 

S 567.3 Definitions. 

All terms that are defined in the Act and the 
niles and standards issued under its authority 
are used as defined therein. 

t 567.4 Requirements for manufacturers of 
motor vehicles. 

(a) Each manufacturer of motor vehicles (ex- 
cept vehicles manufactured in two or more 
stages) shall affix to each vehicle a label, of the 
type and in the manner described below, contain- 
ing the statements specified in paragraph (g) of 
this section. 

(b) The label shall, unless riveted, be per- 
manently affixed in such a manner that it cannot 
be removed without destroying or defacing it. 



(c) Except for trailers and motorcycles, the 
label shall be affixed to either the hinge pillar, 
door-latch post, or the door edge that meets the 
door-latch post, next to the driver's seating posi- 
tion, or if none of these locations is practicable, 
to the left side of the instrument panel. If none 
of these locations is practicable, notification of 
that fact, together with drawings or photographs 
showing a suggested alternate location in the 
same general area, shall be submitted for ap- 
proval to the Administrator, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 
20590. The location of the label shall be such 
that it is easily readable without moving any 
part of the vehicle except an outer door. 

(d) The label for trailers shall be affixed to a 
location on the forward half of the left side, 
such that it is easily readable from outside the 
vehicle without moving any part of the vehicle. 

(e) The label for motorcycles shall be affixed 
to a permanent member of the vehicle as close 
as is practicable to the intersection of the steer- 
ing post with the handle bars, in a location such 
that it is easily readable without moving any 
part of the vehicle except the steering system. 

(f) The lettering on the label shall be of a 
color that constrasts with the background of the 
label. 

(g) The label ^all contain the following 
statements, in the English language, lettered in 
block capitals and numerals not less than three 
thirty-seconds of an inch high, in the order 
shown : 

(1) Name of manufacturer: Except as pro- 
vided in (i), (ii), and (iii) below, the full 
corporate or individual name of the actual as- 
sembler of the vehicle shall be spelled out, ex- 
cept that such abbreviations as "Co." or "Inc." 



PART 567—1 



Effacllva: June I, 1971 

January 1, 1972 

and their foreign equivalents, and the first and 
middle initials of individuals, may be used. 
The name of the manufacturer shall be pre- 
ceded by the words "Manufactured By" or 
"Mfd By". In the case of imported vehicles, 
where the label required by this section is 
aflixed by a person other than the final as- 
sembler of the vehicle, the corporate or in- 
dividual name of the person affixing the label 
shall also be placed on the label in the manner 
described in this paragraph, directly below the 
name of the final assembler. 

(i) If a vehicle is assembled by a cor- 
poration that is controlled by another cor- 
poration that assumes responsibility for con- 
formity with the standards, the name of the 
controlling corporation may be used. 

(ii) If a vehicle is fabricated and de- 
livered in complete but unassembled form, 
such that it is designed to be assembled with- 
out special machinery or tools, the fabricator 
of the vehicle may affix the label and name 
itself as the manufacturer for the purposes 
of this section. 

(iii) If a trailer is sold by a person who is 
not its manufacturer, but who is engaged in 
the manufacture of trailers and assumes 
legal responsibility for ail duties and liabil- 
ities imposed by the Act with respect to that 
trailer, the name of that person may appear 
on the label as the manufacturer. In such 
a case the name shall be preceded by the 
words "Responsible Manufacturer" or "Resp 
Mfr." 

(2) Month and year of manufacture: This 
shall be the time during which work was com- 
pleted at the place of main assembly of the 
vehicle. It may be spelled out, as "June 1970", 
or expressed in numerals, as "6/70." 

[(3) "GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT RATING" or 

"GVWR" followed by the appropriate value 
in pounds, which shall not be less than the 
sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated 
cargo load, and 150 oounds times the vehicle's 
designated seating capacity. However, for 
school buses the minimum occupant weight 
allowance shall be 120 pounds. (36 F.R. 
23571— December 10, 1971. Effective: Jan- 
uary 1, 1972)] 



(4) "Gross Axle Weight Rating" or f 
"GAWR," followed by the appropriate value 

in pounds for each axle, identified in order 
from front to rear {e.g., front, first interme- 
diate, second intermediate, rear). 

(5) The statement: THIS VEHICLE 
CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY 
STANDARDS IN EFFECT ON THE 
DATE OF MANUFACTURE SHOWN 
ABOVE. The expression "U.S." or "U.S.A." 
may be inserted before the word "FED- 
ERAL." 

(6) Vehicle identification number. 

(7) The type classification of the vehicle as 
defined in § 571.3 of Title 49 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations {e.g., truck, MPV, bus, 
trailer). 

[(h) In cases where different tire sizes are 
offered as a customer option, a manufacturer 
may at his option list more than one set of values 
for GVWR and GAWR, in response to the re- 
quirements of subparagraphs (g) (3) and (4) of 
this section. If the label shows more than one 
set of weight rating values, each value shall be » 

followed by the phrase "with tires," 

inserting the proper tire size designations. [A 
manufacturer may at his option list one or more 
tire sizes where only one set of weight ratings is 
provided. (37 F.R. 13696— July 13, 1972. Ef- 
fective 7/13/72)3 

Example : 
GVWR: 

800 with 7.00xl5LT(D) tires. 
11000 with 8.25xl6LT(E) tires. 

GAWR: 

Front-^080 with 7.00xl5LT(D) tires. 

5920 with 8.25xl6LT(E) tires. 
Rear-^080 with 7.00xl5LT(D) tires. 
5920 with 8.25xl6LT(E) tires. 
(36 F.R. 23571— December 10, 1971. Effective: 
January 1, 1972)] 

§ 567.5 Requirements for manufacturers of 
vehicles manufactured in two or more 
stages. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and 
(d) of this section, each final-stage manufacturer, 



(»«v. 7/6/72) 



PART 567—2 



as defined in §568.3 of Title 49 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations, of a vehicle manu- 
factured in two or more stages shall affix to each 
vehicle a label, of the type and in the manner 
and form described in § 567.4 of this part, con- 
taining the following statements: 

(1) Name of final-stage manufacturer, pre- 
ceded by the words "MANUFACTURED 
BY" or "MFD BY." 

(2) Month and year in which final -stage 
manufacturer is completed. This may be 
spelled out as "JUNE 1970" or expressed in 
numerals as "6/70." No preface is required. 

(3) Name of original manufacturer of the 
incomplete vehicle, preceded by the words 
"INCOMPLETE VEHICLE MANUFAC- 
TURED BY" or "INC VEH MFD BY." 

(4) Month and year in which the original 
manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle per- 
formed his last manufacturing operation on the 
incomplete vehicle, in the same form as (2) 
above. 

[(5) "GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT RATING" or 
"GVWR" followed by the appropriate value 
in pounds, which shall not be less than the 
sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated 
cargo load, and 150 poimds times the vehicle's 
designated seating capacity. However, for 
school buses the minimum occupant weight 
allowance shall be 120 pounds. (36 F.R. 
23571— December 10, 1971. Effective : January 
1, 1972)] 

(6) "GROSS AXLE WEIGHT RATING" 
or "GAWR," followed by the appropriate 
value in pounds for each axle, identified in 
order from front to rear {e.g., front, first inter- 
mediate, second intermediate, rear). 

(7) The statement: "THIS VEHICLE 
CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FED- 
ERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY 
STANDARDS IN EFFECT IN [month, 
year]." The date shown shall be no earlier 
than the matuifacturing date of the incomplete 
vehicle, and no later than the date of com- 
pletion of final-stage manufacture. 

[(8) "VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION 
NUMBER" (36 F.R. 19593— October 8, 1971)] 

(9) The type classification of the vehicle as 
defined in 8 571.3 of Title 49 of the Code of 



Effective: June 1, 1971 

JanuQiy 1, 1972 

Federal Regulations {e.g., truck, MPV, bus, 

trailer.) 

[(b) More than one set of figures for GVWR 
and GAWR, and one or more tire sizes, may be 
listed in satisfaction of the requirements of 
paragraphs (a)(5) and (6) of this section, 
as provided in § 567.4(h). (37 F.R. 13696— 
July 13, 1972. Effective 7/13/72)] 

(c) If an incomplete vehicle manufacturer as- 
sumes legal responsibility for all duties and lia- 
bilities imposed by the Act, with respect to the 
vehicle as finally manufactured, the incomplete 
vehicle manufacturer shall ensure that a label is 
affixed to the final vehicle in conformity with 
paragraph (a) of this section, except that the 
name of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer 
shall appear instead of the name of the final- 
stage manufacturer after the words "MANU- 
FACTURED BY" or "MFD BY" required by 
subparagraph (a)(1) of thiLi section, the addi- 
tional manufacturer's name required by sub- 
paragraph (a) (3) of this section shall be omitted, 
and the date required by subparagraph (a) (4) of 
this section shall be preceded by the words "IN- 
COMPLETE VEHICLE MANUFACTURED" 
or "INC VEH MFD." 

(d) If an intermediate manufacturer of a ve- 
hicle assumes legal responsibility for all duties 
and liabilities imposed on manufacturers by the 
Act, with respect to the vehicle as finally manu- 
factured, the intermediate manufacturer shall 
ensure that a label is affixed to the final vehicle 
in conformity with paragraph (a) of this section, 
except that the name of the intermediate manu- 
facturer shall appear instead of the name of the 
final-stage manufacturer after the words "MAN- 
UFACTURED BY" or "MFD BY" required by 
subparagraph (a)(1) of this section. 

§ 567.6 [Requirements for persons who do 
not alter certified vehicles or do so 
with readily attachable components. 

A person who does not alter a motor vehicle 
or who alters such a vehicle only by the addition, 
substitution, or removal of readily attachable 
components such as mirrors or tire and rim as- 
semblies, or minor finishing operations such as 
painting, in such a manner that the vehicle's 
stated weight ratings are still valid, need not 



(«ev. 6/13/73) 



PART 567—3 



affix a label to the vehicle, but shall allow a 
manufacturer's label that conforms to the re- 
quirements of this part to remain affixed to the 
vehicle. If such a person is a distributor of the 
motor vehicle, allowing the manufacturer's label 
to remain affixed to the vehicle shall satisfy the 
distributor's certification requirements under the 
Act. (38 F.R. 15961— June 19, 1973. Effective: 
2/1/74)] 

[§ 567.7 Requirements for persons who alter 
certified vehicles. 

A person who alters a vehicle that has pre- 
viously been certified in accordance with § 567.4 
or § 567.5, other than by the addition, substitu- 
tion, or removal of readily attachable components 
such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or 
minor finishing operations such as painting, or 
who alters the vehicle in such a manner that its 
stated weight ratings are no longer valid, before 
the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for 
purposes other than resale, shall allow the origi- 
nal certification label to remain on the vehicle, 
and shall affix to the vehicle an additional label 



of the type and in the manner and form described 
in § 567.4, containing the following information : 

(a) The statement: "This vehicle was altered 
by (individual or corporate name) in (month 
and year in which alterations were completed) 
and as altered it conforms to all applicable Fed- 
eral Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect in 
(month, year)." The second date shall be no 
earlier than the manufacturing date of the origi- 
nal vehicle, and no later than the date alterations 
were completed. 

(b) If the gross vehicle weight rating or any 
of the gross axle weight ratings of the vehicle as 
altered are different from those shown on the 
original certification label, the modified values 
sliall be provided in the form specified in 
§§ 567.4(g) (3) and (4). 

(c) If the vehicle as altered has a different 
type classification from that shown on the origi- 
nal certification label, the type as modified shall 
be provided. (38 F.R. 15961— June 19, 1973. 
Effective: 2/1/74)] 

36 F.R. 7054 
April 14, 1971 



(«•¥. 6/13/73) 



PART 567—4 



EfFacNva: January 1, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO PART 568— VEHICLES MANUFAaURED IN TWO OR MORE STAGES 

(Dockets No. 70-6, 70-8, and 70-15) 



This notice adopts a new Part 568 in Title 49, 
Code of Federal Regulations, to require the fur- 
nishing of information relevant to a vehicle's 
conformity to motor vehicle safety standards, 
and makes complementary changes in the cer- 
tification regulations in Part 567 of that title 
and in Part 571. It also ameads the certification 
regulations with respect to the manufacturer 
whose name must appear on the label for trailers 
and with respect to the infoimation that must 
appear on the label for all vehicles. Notices of 
proposed rulemaking on these subjects were pub- 
lished on March 17, 1970 (35 F.R. 4639), May 1, 
1970 (35 F.R. 6969), and June 13, 1970 (35 F.R. 
9293). The comments received in response to 
these notices, and the statements made at the 
public meeting on vehicles manufactured in two 
or more stages (September 18, 1970; 35 F.R. 
13139) have been considered in this issuance of a 
final rule. 

In adopting the new Part 568, Vehicles Manu- 
factured in Two or More Stages, in a form sim- 
ilar to that proposed in the March 17 notice, the 
Administration has determined that there is a 
need to regulate the relationsliips between manu- 
facturers of multi-stage vehicles to the extent 
those relationships affect the conformity of the 
final vehicle to the motor vehicle safety stand- 
ards, and that the regulation will meet this need 
with a minimum disruption of established in- 
dustry practices. Comments received from per- 
sons who would occupy the positions of inter- 
mediate and final-stage manufacturers were sub- 
stantially in favor of the proposal. 

The definitions by which the regulation estab- 
lishes the categories of "incomplete vehicle," 
"completed vehicle," and the three categories of 
vehicle manufacturers provide a framework 
within which each may categorize himself and 
his products. Of necessity, the definitions are 



broad and may not clearly define indi\'idual 
situations. The primary distinction between the 
incomplete vehicle and the completed vehicle is 
whether the vehicle can perform its intended 
function without further manufacturing opera- 
tions other than the addition of readily attach- 
able components or minor finishing operations. 
The comments indicated there may sometimes be 
a close question as to whether or not a missing 
component is "readily attachable." How the 
question is answered may determine the vehicle's 
status as a "completed vehicle," or an "incom- 
plete vehicle" and the corresponding status of 
the manufacturers involved. It has not been 
foimd feasible or desirable at this time to regu- 
late the numerous variations in relationships 
that may develop. In the usual case, it will be 
possible for the affected manufacturers to reach 
agreement between themselves as to their re- 
spective obligations. 

The largest number of comments were directed 
at the section (§ 568.4) establishing requirements 
for incomplete vehicle manufacturers. That sec- 
tion provides, first, that an incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer must furnish a document with the 
vehicle to contain the information specified by 
the section. The document may be attached to 
the vehicle in such a manner that it will not be 
inadvertently detached, or it may be sent directly 
to a subsequent manufacturer or a purchaser for 
purposes other than resale. Several comments 
requested that the information be placed on a 
permanent label, although the commenters dis- 
agreed as to the amount of information to be so 
placed. Some chassis-cab manufacturers wanted 
to retain the chassis-cab label, perhaps with the 
addition of weight ratings, while several body as- 
semblers wanted to have a label containing all 
the information specified in the regulation. 
Apart from the greater amount of information 



PART 568— PRE 1 



Effoclive: January 1, 1972 



required, which could malce a label incon- 
veniently large, there will often be a need for the 
final-stage manufacturer to retain copies of the 
document in his files. A detachable document 
would meet this much better than a label affixed 
to the vehicle. Despite complaints from some 
final-stage manufacturers that detachable docu- 
ments are too easily lost, there was ample in- 
dication at the public meeting that other final- 
stage manufacturers do not experience such prob- 
lems. It is the Administration's position that 
the transmittal of the required documents can 
be reasonably assured by secure attachment and 
prominent identification, and that no further 
regulation of the transmittal process is necessary. 

The listing of ratings for the gross vehicle 
weight and the gross axle weight was not ob- 
jected to except with respect ' to multipurpose 
passenger vehicles. It was suggested that "ve- 
hicle capacity weight" or a similar term reflecting 
the passenger capacity be used. After review of 
the suggestions, the Administration has con- 
cluded that the GVWR-GAWR usage, though 
perhaps not current in some parts of the in- 
dustry, is nonetheless the (Simplest and most 
accurate means of informing subsequent manu- 
facturers of the vehicle's weight characteristics. 

After review of the numerous comments on the 
subject, the Administration has decided not to 
require manufacturers to provide information on 
gross combination weight ratings. The term 
is not in general use in the country and its ap- 
plication is not clear with respect to certain types 
of combinations. For this reason, and because 
there are no existing or proposed standards that 
refer to gross combination weight ratings, it is 
not now appropriate to require GCWR informa- 
tion. 

The regulation adopts the requirement that 
the incomplete vehicle manufacturer must list 
in the document each standard, applicable to the 
types of vehicles into which the incomplete ve- 
hicle may be manufactured, that is in effect at 
the time of manufacture of the incomplete ve- 
hicle. He must provide, with respect to each of 
these standards, one of the three types of state- 
ments proposed in the notice, depending on the 
degree to which his vehicle complies with each 
standard. If compliance is complete, and cer- 
tification of the completed vehicle requires only 



that the final-stage vehicle manufacturer not alter 
certain portions of the vehicle, the incomplete iL 
vehicle manufacturer may so state. There is no \ 
need for parts to be listed in detail, as suggested 
by one commenting party. The portions of the 
veliicle may be referred to by part, system, di- 
mensions, or any other method sufficient to ob- 
jectively identify them. 

At the other extreme, an incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer may state that the design of the 
incom^jlete vehicle does not substantially deter- 
mine the completed vehicle's conformity with a 
standard. This would be the case, for example, 
with respect to Standard No. 205, Glazing Ma- 
terials, if the incomplete vehicle is a stripped 
chassis. Some comments stated that it appeared 
unnecessary to recite such standards if the in- 
complete vehicle manufacturer has nothing to do 
with them. It is the Administration's position, 
however, that such a recitation serves as useful 
notice to final-stage vehicle manufacturers, many 
of whom may be less familiar with the standards 
than the incomplete vehicle manufacturers. 

Between these two extremes are the situations 
in which the work of the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer partially determines the con- 
formity of the final vehicle, but in which the in- i 
put of subsequent manufacturers will necessarily 
affect such conformity. It may be that the main 
system components are furnished and installed 
by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, as in the 
case of the recently adopted standard on air 
brake systems, but that the final-stage vehicle 
manufacturer must necessarily perform opera- 
tions that affect the performance of the com- 
ponents, such as placing a body on the chassis, 
thereby affecting the vehicle's weight distribu- 
tion and center of gravity. In some cases, as 
under the lighting standard, the incomplete ve- 
hicle manufacturer will suppy some components 
that will be installed by the final-stage manu- 
facturer, with or without additional components. 
In either case, the ultimate conformity of the 
vehicle is determined by more than one manu- 
facturer, and the regulation deals with this 
problem by requiring the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer to set forth specific conditions un- 
der which the completed vehicle will conform to 
the standard. It is not intended that the in- 
complete vehicle manufacturer should indicate 



PART 568— PRE 2 



Effectiv*: January 1, 1972 



all possible conditions under --.vhich a vehicle will 
or will not conform. He must, however, specify 
at least one set of conditions under which the 
completed vehicle will conform. A final-stage 
manufacturer who wishes to act outside these 
conditions will be on notice that he should con- 
sult further with the incomplete vehicle manu- 
facturer, or accept responsibility for conformity 
with the standard in question. Since the in- 
formation that the incomplete vehicle manufac- 
turer is required to <rather will be developed in 
tlie course of liis en<rineerin<r development pro- 
pram, the requirement that this information be 
supplied to subsequent manufacturers does not 
appear unduly burdensome, and the requirement 
is adopted as proposed. 

The obligations of the final-stage manufac- 
turer have also been adopted without change 
from the notice of March 17. The major objec- 
tion expressed in the comments was that the 
final-stage manufacturer was often a small com- 
pany wliose input was small relative to that of 
the incomplete vehicle manufacturer and that 
he should not bear the burden of certifying that 
the vehicle fully conforms to the standards. This 
objection confuses certification with liability. Al- 
tlioupli the certifying manufacturer may be ap- 
proaclied first in the event of his vehicle's non- 
conformity, if the nonconforming aspect of the 
vehicle is a component or system supplied by the 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer, the final-stage 
manufacturer may establish that he exercised due 
care by showing that he observed the conditions 
stated by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. 
To the extent that the final vehicle's conformity 
is determined by work done by the incomplete 
vehicle manufacturer, the final manufacturer's 
burden is thus reduced. 

Several comments stated that considerable time 
may elapse between the date of manufacture of 
the incomplete vehicle and the date of comple- 
tion of the final-stage vehicle. The regulation 
deals with this situation by permitting the final - 
stage manufacturer to select either date or any 
date in between as the certification date. Al- 
though this aspect of the regulation appears to 
be generally understood, the question arose at 
tlie September 18 meeting as to whether a manu- 
facturer may certify compliance with standards 



as they are effective at different dates between 
initial and final manufacture. This question has 
been answered in the negative. The regulation 
requires manufacturers to conform to all the 
standards in effect on a particular date, between 
the two limits. The NHTSA may repeal certain 
requirements while instituting others, and those 
in effect at a particular time must be viewed, and 
conformed to, as a system. A manufacturer 
who wishes to comply with a standard before its 
effective date may do so, of course, even though 
he is not required to certify. "Where amendments 
to an existing standard are such that a vehicle 
complying with the amended standard will not 
comply with the earlier version, the Administra- 
tion will ordinarily provide in the standard that 
a manufacturer may elect to comply with the 
amendment before its effective date, if such a 
course is considered acceptable. 

A further question raised in the comments 
concerns the status of a manufacturer who does 
not have title to the vehicle on which he performs 
manufacturing operations. The Administra- 
tion's response, as stated at the September 18 
meeting, is that if a manufacturer produces a 
completed vehicle from the incomplete stage, 
he is a final-stage manufacturer, regardless of 
title. Basing responsibility for conformity on 
title would present too many opportunities for 
e\-asion, and the actual assembler is the party 
most likely to have the technical knowledge 
necessary for effective exercise of responsibility. 

Another question concerns the magnitude of 
the manufacturing operation I hat makes the ve- 
hicle a completed vehicle and its manufacturer 
a final-stage manufacturer. By its definition a 
completed vehicle is one that requires no further 
manufacturing operations in order to perform 
its intended function, other than the attachment 
of readily attachable components and minor 
finishing operations. If a manufacturer installs 
a component that is not readily attachable, such 
as a fifth wheel, then he is a final-stage manu- 
facturer even though his contribution to the over- 
all vehicle may appear small. In any case, how- 
ever, an incomplete vehicle or intermediate manu- 
facturer may assume legal responsibility for the 



PART 568— PRE 3 



Effactiva: January 1, 1972 

vehicle and affix the appropriate label under 
567.5(b) or 567.5(c) of the certification regula- 
tions. 

In the event that a "readily attachable com- 
ponent" is a component regulated by the stand- 
ards, such as a mirror or a tire, the final-stage 
manufacturer must assume responsibility and 
certify the vehicle even though he does not in- 
stall the particular component. Otherwise, the 
installers of mirrors and tires would be con- 
sidered final-stage manufacturers, a status that 
they would probably find unacceptable and that 
would tend to make certification less meaningful. 

In consideration of the above. Title 49, Code of 
Federal Regulations, is amended as follows: 



A new part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two 
or More Stages, is added, reading as set forth 
below. 

Section 571.3 is amended by deleting the 
definition of "chassis cab." 

Sections 571.5(b) and 571.13, and the Ruling 
Regarding Chassis-cabs appearing at 33 F.R. 
•29 (January 3, 1968), are revoked. 

Issued on April 8, 1971. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Acting Administrator 

36 F.R. 7054 
April 14, 1971 



f 



PART 568— PRE 4 



Efftctiva: June 1, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 568— VEHICLES MANUFACTURED IN 

TWO OR MORE STAGES 



This notice extends the applicability of the 
definitions used in the Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standards to other regulations contained 
in Chapter V of Title 49, Code of Federal Regu- 
lations, and deletes the definitions of "Gross axle 
weight rating" and "Gross vehicle weight rating" 
from the regulations governing vehicles manufac- 
tured in two or more stages. 

49 CFR 571.3(b) contains the definitions used 
in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. 
Some of the regulations other than standards con- 
tain their own definition sections defining terms 
unique to the regulation, and otherwise in- 
corporating by reference the definitions of Part 
571. An example of this is the definition section 
in the Certification Regulation, 49 CFR 567.3: 
"All terms that are defined in the Act and the 
rules and standards issued under its authority 
are used as defined therein." However, there is 
no reverse applicability of 49 CFR 571.3(b), 
which applies only to terms "as used in this 
part." One result has been that duplicate defini- 
tions appear in certain regulations, specifically, 
the identical definitions of "Gross axle weight 
rating" and "Gross vehicle weight rating" found 
in both Part 571 and the regulation on Vehicles 
Manufactured in Two or More Stages, Part 568. 
To prevent unnecessary duplication and the pos- 
sibility of confusion in the future, the Admin- 



istration has determined that the definitions used 
in Part 571 should apply to all regulations in 
Chapter V, and also that Part 568 should be 
amended by deleting the definitions of "Gross 
axle weight rating" and "Gross vehicle weight 
rating." In consideration of the foregoing 49 
CFR 568.3 is amended . . . 

Effective date: June 1, 1972. Since this 
amendment is administrative and interpretive in 
nature and imposes no additional burden upon 
any person, notice and public procedure thereon is 
unnecessary and it may be made effective in less 
than 30 days after publication in the Federal 
Register. 

This notice is issued under the authority of 
section 103 and 119 of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 
1392, 1407), and the delegation of authority from 
the Secretary of Transportation to the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR 
1.51. 



Issued on May 9, 1972. 



Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

37 F.R. 10938 
June 1, 1972 



PART 568— PRE 5-6 



t 



Effective: February 1, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 568— 
VEHICLES MANUFACTURED IN TWO OR MORE STAGES 



(Docket No. 72-27; Notice 2) 



This notice establishes certification and label- 
ing responsibilities for persons who alter "com- 
pleted vehicles" after their certification as 
conforming to applicable motor vehicle safety 
standards. The requirements are based on those 
proposed in a notice of proposed rulemaking 
published October 25, 1972 (37 F.R. 22800). 

Under the new requirements, a person who 
alters a completed vehicle, other than by the 
attachment, substitution, or removal of "readily 
attachable components", will be required to as- 
certain conformity to all applicable standards as 
of any date between the manufacture date of the 
completed vehicle and the manufacture date of 
the altered vehicle. That person will be required 
to aflix a label (leaving the certification label in 
place) that identifies the alterer, the date of 
alteration, the date as of which conformity is 
determined, and any changes the alteration pro- 
duces in either gross weight ratings or vehicle 
classification. A person who does not alter the 
vehicle, or who adds, substitutes, or removes only 
readily attachable components will be required 
to leave the certification label in place, but will 
not be required, unless the alteration invalidates 
the stated weight ratings, to provide an addi- 
tional label. Distributors who do not alter the 
vehicle, or who alter it using only readily attach- 
able components and do not invalidate the stated 
weight ratings will meet the certification require- 
ments by leaving the certification label in place. 
The requirements will place persons who alter 
completed vehicles on the same basis as final- 
stage manufacturers, by allowing the former to 
choose as the date by which vehicle conformity 
is determined any date between the date on which 
the completed vehicle is manufactured and the 
date on which the vehicle is altered. Under 



previously existing statutory and regulatory pro- 
visions, alterers of vehicles were required to use 
only the date of completion of the altered vehicle 
as the date by which conformity could be deter- 
mined. 

General Motors, Truck Body and Equipment 
Association, and Stutz Motor Car of America 
supported the proposal without qualification. 
Other comments generally approved the proposal 
with some suggested changes. 

Several comments argued that the limiting 
concept of "readily attachable components", the 
addition, removal, or substitution of which does 
not create a requirement to affix a label, should 
not include "mirrors or tire and rim assemblies", 
as the language appears in §§ 567.6 and .7, and 
§ 568.8. It was argued that these items directly 
affect the vehicle's conformity to the standards 
or the weight ratings, and should therefore not 
be alterable without, in effect, a recertification 
by the alterer. It was variously suggested that 
explicit inclusion of these items as examples of 
readily attachable components might cause a 
safety problem, a false certification, or a mis- 
leading of persons such as dealers as to their 
responsibilities under the Act and the standards. 

The NHTSA does not accept these arguments. 
The provisions for alteration of vehicles, like the 
larger certification scheme of which they are a 
part, are intended to reflect the realities of manu- 
facture and distribution. It is a fact that the 
substitution of tires by a dealer takes place in a 
substantial fraction of all vehicle sales. More- 
over, a large proportion of the components that 
are in fact frequently altered at the dealer level 
are directly affected by standards: mirrors, tires, 
rims, lighting accessories, bumper guards and 
attachments, windshield wipers and washers, hub 



PART 568— PRE 7 



Effective: February 1, 1974 



caps and wheel nuts, seat belts, and interior 
components such as air conditioners or radios 
that come within the head impact area, to name 
a few. If these items were not included in the 
concept of readily attachable components, for 
which an alteration label is not required, it is 
safe to say that virtually every dealer in the 
country would be afiixing labels to many of the 
vehicles he sold. 

It was not the intent of this agency to create 
such a manifold expansion of labeling require- 
ments. The altered-vehicle label is designed 
primarily to reach those cases where a completed 
vehicle is significantly altered, in a manner, and 
with components, not provided by the original 
manufacturer. The suT^stitution or addition of 
parts such as tires, rims, and mirrors is a routine 
aspect of typical vehicle distribution systems, 
and the cost burden of afiixing a permanent label 
to the vehicle has not been found to be justified 
in that situation. For these reasons the language 
of the regulation has in these respects been re- 
tained as proposed. 

The requirement to keep a vehicle in conform- 
ity to the standards and the weight ratings ap- 
plies throughout the chain of distribution 
regardless of any labeling requirements, and this 
agency has no intent of downgrading the im- 
portance of that requirement. The comments did 
reveal a justifiable concern of manufacturers for 
situations where the vehicle might be altered, as 
by substitution of tires, in a way that its stated 
weight ratings are no longer valid. Also, there 
may well be cases where a customer wants a 
vehicle to have lighter components for its in- 
tended purpose, and would accept lowered weight 
ratings. To deal with these cases, language has 
been added to sections 567.6 and .7, and 568.8, to 
require the affixing of an alteration label when- 
ever any type of alteration is made that would 
invalidate the stated weight ratings. 

American Motors and Jeep argued that re- 
quiring alterers to certify conformity discrimi- 
nates against manufacturers' dealers. They 
pointed out that dealers, who generally alter ve- 
hicles before sale, are required to maintain con- 
formity, while aftermarket installers of equip- 
ment, because the additions they make are to 
"used" vehicles, need not. They suggested that 



"special add-on accessories" be excepted from the a 
requirements, that a new category of "Special \ 
Motorized Equipment" be created to which some 
of the standards would not apply, that equipment 
standards be issued to cover aftermarket install- 
ers, and that highway safety program standards 
prohibit the alteration of vehicles such that they 
would not conform to the standards. These com- 
ments are not, in the view of this agency, within 
the scope of the rulemaking. Requests of this 
nature should be submitted as petitions for rule- 
making, with supporting data, in accordance with 
the procedures of 49 CFR Part 553. 

British Leyland suggested that an exemption 
to the labeling requirements be made for persons 
installing accessories which the original vehicle 
manufacturer makes available, and whose instal- 
lation he knows will not affect vehicle conform- 
ity. The NHTSA expects that most accessories 
meeting this description will be readily attach- 
able within the sense of the regulation, and no 
further labeling in these cases will be required. 
It should be noted that the category of "readily 
attachable components" cannot be sharply de- 
fined, and in any marginal case the NHTSA will 
accept the reasonable judgment of the parties ▲ 
concerned, especially where the original manu- \ 
facturer and the alterer are in agreement. In 
cases where components of this type are not 
found to be readily attachable, the burden on 
the alterer to determine that the alteration does 
not destroy conformity is minimized, leaving him 
with essentially no more than the attachment of 
the alterer label. 

Certain comments pointed out that while pro- 
posed sections 567.7 and 568.8 are not limited in 
their application to distributors, that limitation 
had been retained in section 567.6. The com- 
ments suggested that, as sections 567.7 and 568.8 
applied to dealers, section 567.6 should likewise 
so apply. The substance of the suggestion has 
been adopted in the final rule, by modifying 
§ 567.6 to apply to any "person". 

The Recreation Vehicle Institute (RVI) sug- 
gested that manufacturers of completed vehicles 
be required to supply a document when requested 
by a vehicle alterer, similar to that provided 
final-stage manufacturers, that advises alterers 
how to achieve or retain conformity. This sug- 



PART 568— PRE 8 



Effactiv*: February 1, 1974 



gestion has not been adopted. If a vehicle manu- 
facturer wishes to provide information on the 
alteration of his vehicles, he of course may do so. 
Once a completed, certified vehicle has been pro- 
duced, however, the NHTSA does not believe it 
reasonable to require manufacturers to provide 
persons who might alter that vehicle with addi- 
tional certification information. The requirement 
to provide information concerning incomplete 
vehicles (Part 568) is founded on the fact that 
an incomplete vehicle manufacturer has marketed 
his vehicles with the express intent of having 
them completed by other persons. This is not 
the case witli completed vehicles. 

RVI also suggested that the regulation spe- 
cifically provide that alterers be allowed to base 
their conclusions as to conformity on the original 
certification. The NHTSA does not consider 
such a provision to be meaningful. The extent 
to which the alterer's conformity assurance may 
be based on the original certification depends 
entirely on what the alterer does to the vehicle, 
which is a fact peculiarly within his knowledge. 

Certain comments suggested that compliance 
with the requirements be permitted before the 



specified effective date. The NHTSA believes 
this request to be meritorious. Alterers will be 
able to conform to existing requirements or to 
those issued by this notice at any time up to the 
effective date. 

In light of the above, amendments are made 
to 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 ... . 

Effective date: February 1, 1974. However, 
persons who alter vehicles may at any time before 
that date conform to the provisions issued in this 
in lieu of existing provisions of 49 CFR Parts 
567 and 568. 

Sections 103, 112, 114, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 
80 Stat. 718; 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407; 
delegation of authority at 38 F.R. 12147. 

Issued on June 13, 1973. 

James E. Wilson 
Associate Administrator 
Traffic Safety Programs 

38 F.R. 15961 
June 19, 1973 



\ 



PART 568— PRE 9-10 



1 



Effacliv*: January 1, 1972 



PART 568— VEHICLES MANUFACTURED IN TWO OR MORE STAGES 
(Dockets No. 70-6, 70-8, and 70-15) 



§ 568.1 Purpose and scope. 

The purpose of this part is to prescribe the 
method by wliich manufacturers of vehicles man- 
ufactured in two or more stages shall ensure con- 
formity of those vehicles with the Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards ("standards") and other 
regulations issued under the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. 

§ 568.2 Application. 

This part applies to incomplete vehicle manu- 
facturers, intermediate manufacturers, and final- 
stage manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in 
two or more stages. 

§ 568.3 Definitions. 

"Completed vehicle" means a vehicle that re- 
quires no further manufacturing operations to 
perform its intended function, other than the 
addition of readily attachable components, such 
as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor 
finishing operations such as painting. 

"Final-stage manufacturer" means a person 
who performs such manufacturing operations 
on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a com- 
pleted vehicle. 

"Incomplete vehicle" means an assemblage 
consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis 
structure, power train, steering system, suspen- 
sion system, and braking system, to the extent 
that those systems are to be part of the com- 
pleted vehicle, that requires further manufac- 
turing operations, other than the addition of 
readily attachable components, such as mirrors 
or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing 
operations such as painting, to become a com- 
pleted vehicle. 



"Intermediate manufacturer" means a person, 
other than the incomplete vehicle manufacturer 
or the final-stage manufacturer, who performs 
manufacturing operations on an incomplete ve- 
hicle. 

"Incomplete vehicle manufacturer" means a 
person who manufactures an incomplete vehicle 
by assembling components none of which, taken 
separately, constitute an incomplete vehicle. 

§ 568.4 Requirements for incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers. 

(a) The incomplete vehicle manufacturer shall 
furnish with the incomplete vehicle, at or before 
the time of delivery, a document that contains 
the following statements, in the order shown, and 
any other information required by this chapter 
to be included therein. 

(1) Name and mailing address of the in- 
complete vehicle manufacturer. 

(2) Month and year during which the in- 
complete vehicle manufacturer performed his 
last manufacturing operation on the incom- 
plete vehicle. 

(3) Identification of the incomplete ve- 
hicle (s) to which the document applies. The 
identification may be by serial number, groups 
of serial numbers, or otherwise, but it must be 
sufficient to ascertain positively that a docu- 
ment applies to a particular incomplete vehicle 
after the document has been removed from the 
vehicle. 

(4) Gross vehicle weight rating of the com- 
pleted vehicle for which the incomplete vehicle 
is intended. 

(5) Gross axle weight rating for each axle 
of the completed vehicle, listed and identified 
in order from front to rear. 



(Rav. May 1972) 



PART 568-1 



231-088 O - 77 - 9 



Effective: January 1, J 972 



(6) Listing of the vehicle types as defined in 
49 CFR § 571.3 {e.g., truck, MPV, bus, trailer) 
into which the incomplete vehicle may appro- 
priately be manufactured. 

(7) Listing by number of each standard, in 
effect at the time of manufacture of the incom- 
plete vehicle, that applies to any of the vehicle 
types listed in subparagraph (7) of this para- 
graph, followed in each case by one of the 
following three types of statement, as ap- 
plicable : 

(i) A statement that the vehicle when 
completed will conform to the standard if 
no alterations are made in identified com- 
ponents of the incomplete vehicle. 

EXAMPLE: 

"107 — This vehicle when completed will 
conform to Standard 107, Reflecting Sur- 
faces, if no alterations are made in the wind- 
shield wiper components or in the reflecting 
surfaces in the interior of the cab." 

(ii) A statement of specific conditions of 
final manufacture under which the manu- 
facturer specifies that the completed vehicle 
will conform to the standard. 

EXAMPLE: 

"121 — This vehicle when completed will 
conform to Standard 121, Air Brake Sys- 
tems, if it does not exceed any of the gross 
axle weight ratings, if the center of gravity 
at GVWR is not higher than nine feet above 
the ground, and if no alterations are made 
in any brake system component. 

(iii) A statement that conformity with 
the standard is not substantially determined 
by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and 
that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer 
makes no representation as to conformity 
with the standard. 

(b) The document shall be attached to the 
incomplete vehicle in such a manner that it will 
not be inadvertently detached, or alternatively, it 
may be sent directly to a final-stage manufac- 
turer, intermediate manufacturer or purchaser 
for purposes other than resale to whom the in- 
complete vehicle is delivered. 



§ 568.5 Requirements for intermediate manu- 
facturers. 

Each intermediate manufacturer of an incom- 
plete vehicle shall furnish the document required 
by § 568.4 of this part, in the manner specified 
in that section. If any of the changes in the 
vehicle made by the intermediate manufacturer 
affect the validity of the statements in the docu- 
ment as provided to him he shall furnish an 
addendum to the document that contains his 
name and mailing address and an indication of 
all changes that should be made in the document 
to reflect changes that he made in the vehicle. 

S 568.6 Requirements for final-stage manu- 
facturers. 

(a) Each final-stage manufacturer shall com- 
plete the vehicle in such a manner that it con- 
forms to the standards in effect on the date of 
manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date 
of final completion, or a date between those two 
dates. This requirement shall, however, be su- 
perseded by any conflicting provisions of a 
standard that applies by its terms to vehicles 
manufactured in two or more stages. 

(b) Each final-stage manufacturer shall cer- a 
tify that the entire vehicle conforms to all ap- ' 
plicable standards, in accordance with section 
567.5 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regula- 
tions, Requirements for manufacturers of ve- 
hicles manufactured in two or more stages. 

§ 568.7 Requirements for manufacturers who 
assume legal responsibility for the 
vehicle. 

(a) If an incomplete vehicle manufacturer 
assumes legal responsibility for all duties and 
liabilities imposed on manufacturers by the Na- 
tional Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 
U.S.C. 1381-1425) (hereafter referred to as "the 
Act"), with respect to the vehicle as finally 
manufactured, the requirements of §§ 568.4, 
568.5 and 568.6(b) of this part do not apply 
to that vehicle. In such a case, the incomplete 
vehicle manufacturer shall ensure that a label is 
affixed to the final vehicle in conformity with 
§ 567.5(b) of this part. 

(b) If an intermediate manufacturer of a ve- 
hicle assumes legal responsibility for all duties 



(Rev. May 1972) 



PART 568-2 



Effective: January 1, 1972 



and liabilities imposed on manufacturers by the 
Act, with respect to the vehicle as finally manu- 
factured, §§568.5 and 568.6(b) of this part do 
not apply to that vehicle. In such a case, the 
manufacturer assuming responsibility shall en- 
sure that a label is affixed to the final vehicle in 
conformity with § 567.5(c) of this part. The 
assumption of responsibility by an intermediate 
manufacturer does not, however, change the re- 
quirements for incomplete vehicle manufacturers 
in 568.4. 

[§ 568.8 Requirements for persons who alter 
certified vehicles. 

A person who alters a vehicle that has been 
previously certified in accordance with § 567.4 or 
§ 567.5, other than by the addition, substitution. 



or removal of readily attachable components such 
as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor 
finishing operations such as painting, or who 
alters the vehicle in such a manner that its stated 
weight ratings are no longer valid, before the 
first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for 
purposes other than resale, shall ascertain that 
the vehicle as altered conforms to the standards 
in effect on the original date of manufacture of 
the vehicle, the date of final completion, or a 
date between those two dates. That person shall 
certify that the vehicle conforms to all applicable 
standards in accordance with § 567.7 of this 
chapter. (38 F.R. 15961— June 19, 1973. Effec- 
tive: 2/1/74)] 

April 14, 1971 
36 F.R. 7054 



m»v. 6/13/73) 



PART 568-3 



f 



( 



Effactlv*: April 1, 1969 



PREAMBLE TO PART 569— REGROOVED TIRES 
(Docket No. 20; Notice No. 4) 



The purpose of this amendment is to establish 
criteria under which regrooved tires may be sold 
or delivered for introduction into interstate com- 
merce. The regulation allows only tires designed 
for the regrooving process to be regrooved; 
specifies dimensional and conditional require- 
ments for the tire after the regrooving process; 
and sets forth labeling requirements for the tire 
which is to be regrooved. 

Section 204(a) of the National TraflSc and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 
1424) provides that no person shall sell, offer for 
sale, or introduce for sale or delivery for intro- 
duction into interstate commerce, any tire or 
motor vehicle equipped with any tire which has 
been regrooved but gives the Secretary the au- 
thority to permit the sale of regrooved tires and 
motor vehicles equipped with regrooved tires 
when the regrooved tires are designed and con- 
structed in a manner consistent with the pur- 
poses of the Act. 

A Notice was published (32 F.R. 11579) af- 
fording interested persons an opportunity to 
present views, information and data to form the 
basis for permitting the sale and delivery for 
introduction into interstate commerce of re- 
grooved tires and motor vehicles equipped with 
regrooved tires. 

After considering the comments, data, infor- 
mation received and the state-of-the-art a pro- 
posed regulation setting forth criteria to govern 
the regrooving of tires was published (33 F.R. 
8603). All comments received have been con- 
sidered. 

As proposed, it was not clear that the defini- 
tion of regroovable and regrooved tires would 
allow the regrooving of retreaded tires. Two 
comments asked whether the regulation would 
allow the established practice of regrooving a 
retreaded motor vehicle tire. The Administrator 
has determined that regrooving sound retreaded 



tires does not affect their level of safety per- 
formance. Accordingly, the regulation as issued 
is clarified so as to allow regrooving of both 
original tread and retreaded motor vehicle tires. 
There is presently under consideration a Federal 
motor vehicle safety standard for retreaded tires. 
When this standard is established, retreaded tires 
that are regrooved will have to conform to the 
retread requirements as well as the regrooved 
tire regulations. 

•The Notice of Proposed Rule Making appearing in 
June 12, 1968, Issue of the Federal Register (33 F.R. 
8603) was Issued under 23 CFR 256, Parts of the Code 
of Federal Regulations relating to motor vehicle safety 
were transferred to Title 49 by Part II of the Federal 
Regiitter of December 25, 1968 133 F.R. 19700). 

Section 256.5(a)(3) as contained in the Notice 
of Proposed Rule Making would have required 
that, after the regrooving process, there be a 
protective covering of tread material at least 
%2-inch thick over the tire cord. Four comments 
asked that this requirement be deleted. It was 
argued that this would require the removal of 
regrooved tires with "many usable miles" re- 
maining on the tires. 

The %2-inch undertread requirement is di- 
rectly comparable to the undertread of a new 
tire. It is considered necessary that there be 
%2 of an inch of rubber over the cord material 
as a protection against road hazard damage. 
Furthermore, this protection is considered essen- 
tial in order to prevent moisture entering the ply 
material and subsequently causing deterioration 
of the tire fabric and ply adhesion. For these 
reasons, it is concluded that to allow an under- 
tread of less than %2 of ^^ i^^ch would not be in 
the public interest. 

One comment argued that a tire would have to 
be completely cut to determine the thickness of 
the undertread. Since it is acceptable practice 
to determine undertread depth by use of an awl 
and only a very limited degree of expertise is 



PART 569— PRE 1 



Effactiv*: April 1, 1969 



needed to make this measurement without caus- 
ing damage to the tire, this argument has been 
rejected. 

Section 256.5(a) (4) as contained in the Notice 
of Proposed Rule Making would have required 
that after regrooving, the tire have a minimum 
of 90 linear inches of tread edges per linear foot 
of tire circumference. Four comments requested 
clarification of this requirement as to whether the 
original molded tread was to be included in the 
measurements for this requirement. The initial 
intent of this requirement was to include only 
the newly cut grooves. However, after consid- 
ering the fact that residual existent grooves offer 
ti'ead edges which contribute to the traction of 
the tire, the regulation as issued is revised to 
allow that portion of the original tread pattern 
of a regroovable tire which is at least as deep 
as the new regroove depth to be included within 
the calculation of the 90 linear inches of tread 
edges required in each foot of tire circumference. 

Section 256.5(a)(5) as contained in the Notice 
of Proposed Rule Making would have required 
that, after regrooving, the groove width be a 
minimum of %6-inch and a maximum of %6"i"ch. 
Four comments requested clarification whether 
this re(|uin'ment applied to the original molded 
tread pattern as well as the tread pattern created 
by regrooving. It was not intended that this 
requirement apply to the original molded tread 
pattern and the regulation as issued is revised 
to make this clear. 

One comment pointed out that the use of the 
term "tractionizing" within Section 256.5(b) was 
too general and that the proper term for cross- 
cutting the tread without rubber removal is 
"siping." Accordingly, the regulation as issued 
is revised to reflect this suggestion. 

Section 256.7 as contained in the Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making specified certain labeling 
requirements for regroovable and regrooved tires. 
Four comments contended that the labeling re- 
quirements should not be included within the 
regulation. Two other comments stated that the 
proposed labeling was too large and requested 



smaller size symbols and letters. The Adminis- 
trator recognizes that several names or brands 
are used to identify regroovable tires and has 
therefore determined that concise identification 
of regroovable tires is needed. For this reason 
the regulation as issued requires molding on a 
regroovable tire the word "Regroovable," but 
permits lettering one half the size proposed in 
the Notice of Proposed Rule Making. However, 
with regard to the proposed requirement that 
each regrooving be indicated on the tire, it was 
found that such a requirement was not necessary 
in view of the minimum undertread requirement 
in the regulation and that proposed requirement 
has been deleted. 

In consideration of the foregoing. Part 369 — 
Regrooved Tire Regulation set forth below is 
added to Title 49 — Transportation, Chapter III — 
Federal Highway Administration, Department of 
Transportation, Subchapter A — Motor Vehicle 
Safety Regulations. [This regulation becomes 
effective April 1, 1969. (34 F.R. 3687— March 
1, 1969.)] 

This regulation is issued under authority of 
Sections 119 and 204 of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 
1407 and 1424) and the delegation from the 
Secretary of Transportation, Part I of the Regu- 
lations of the Office of the Secretary (49 CFR 
§ 1.4(c)). 

Issued January 17, 1969. 

Lowell K. Bridwell, 

Federal Highway Administrator 







34 F.R. 


114^ 


9 






January 


24, 


1969 


SECTION 








369.1 


Purpose and Scope 








369.3 


Definitions 








369.5 


Applicability 








369.7 


Requirements 








369.9 


Labeling of Regroovable Tire* 







PART 569— PRE 2 



Effective: April 1, 1969 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 569— REGROOVED TIRES 
(Docket No. 20; Notice 5) 



Extension of Effective Date 

On January 24, 1969, the Federal Highway 
Administrator published in the Federal Register 
(34 F.R. 1149) a regulation setting forth the 
conditions under which regrooved tires would be 
allowed to be sold, offered for sale, introduced 
for sale, or delivered for introduction into inter- 
state commerce. As published the regulation had 
an effective date of February 28, 1969. 

Several petitions have been received requesting 
reconsideration of the regrooved tire regulation. 
The Administrator finds that the petitions do 
not raise either substantial arguments that have 
not been carefully considered in issuing the regu- 
lation or matters that would require a change in 



the regulation, and, therefore, the petitions are 
denied. 

Several petitioners have requested that the 
effective date of the regulation be postponed. 
Upon consideration of these requests, I find that 
good cause exists for postponing the effective 
date of the regrooved tire regulation, 49 CFR 
Part 369, from February 28, 1969, to April 1, 
1969. 

Issued on February 28, 1969. 

John B. Jamieson, 

Federal Highway Administrator 

34 F.R. 3687 
March 1, 1969 



PART 569— PRE 3-4 



EffKHva: April 30, 1974 



I 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 569— REGROOVED TIRES 

(Docket 74-19; Notice 1) 



This notice amends res^ilations applicable to 
regrooved and regroovable tires in response to 
an opinion of the United States Court of Appeals 
in NAMBO v. Volpe 484 F.2d 1294 (D.C. Cir., 

1973), cert, denied US (1974). 

The Regrooved Tire regulation was published 
January 24, 1969 (34 F.R. 1149). 

In light of the decision in the case cited, 49 
CFR Part 569, "Regrooved Tires," is revised 

E-ffective date: April 30, 1974. This amend- 
ment is issued in response to a decision of the 
United States Court of Appeals, and in accord- 
ance therewith imposes restrictions required by 



statu*^e. Accordingly, notice and public proce- 
dure thereon are unnecessary and good cause is 
found for an effective date less than 30 days from 
publication. 

(Sees. 119, 204, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
15 U.S.C. 1407, 1424; delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on April 24, 1974. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

39 F.R. 15038 
April 30, 1974 



> 



I 



PART 569— PRE 5-6 



EfFacliva: April 1, ]969 



PART 569— REGROOVED TIRES 



§ 569.1 Purpose and Scope. 

[This part sets forth the conditions under 
which regrooved and regroovable tires manufac- 
tured or regrooved after the effective date of the 
regulation may be sold. (39 F.R. 15038— April 
30,1974, Effective: 4/30/74)3 

§ 569.3 Definitions. 

(a) Statutory Defnitions. All terms used in 
this part that are defined in Section 102 of the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 
of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1391) are used as defined in 
the Act. 

(b) Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Defini- 
tions. Unless otherwise indicated, all terms used 
in this part that are defined in the Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standards, Part 371, of this subchapter 
(hereinafter "The Standards"), are used as de- 
fined therein without regard to the applicability 
of a standard in which a definition is contained. 

(c) "Regroovable tire" means a tire, either 
original tread or retread, designed and con- 
structed with sufficient tread material to permit 
renewal of the tread pattern or the generation 
of a new tread pattern in a manner which con- 
forms to this part. 

(d) "Regrooved tire" means a tire, either 
original tread or retread, on which the tread 
pattern has been renewed or a new tread has 
been produced by cutting into the tread of a 
worn tire to a depth equal to or deeper than the 
molded original groove depth. 

§ 569.5 Applicability. 

(a) General. Except as provided in paragraph 
(b) of this section, this part applies to all motor 
vehicle regrooved or regroovable tires manufac- 
tured or regrooved after the effective date of the 
regulation. 

(b) Export. This part does not apply to re- 
grooved or regroovable tires intended solely for 
export and so labeled or tagged. 



§ 569.7 Requirements. 

[(a) Regrooved tires. 

(1) Except insofar as the sale of regrooved 
tires is permitted by paragraph (a) (2) of this 
section, no person shall sell, offer for sale, or 
introduce or deliver for introduction into inter- 
state commerce regrooved tires produced by 
removing rubber from the surface of a worn 
tire tread to generate a new tread pattern. 
Any person who regrooves tires and leases 
them to owners or operators of motor vehicles 
and any person who regrooves his own tires for 
use on motor vehicles is considered to be a 
person delivering for introduction into inter- 
state commerce within the meaning of this 
part. 

(2) A regrooved tire may be sold only if 
it conforms to each of the following require- 
ments : 

(i) The tire being regrooved shall be a 
regroovable tire; 

(ii) After regrooving, cord material be- 
low the grooves shall have a protective cov- 
ering of tread material at least %2"iiich thick. 

(iii) After regrooving, the new grooves 
generated into the tread material and any 
residual original molded tread groove which 
is at or below the new regrooved groove 
depth shall have a minimum of 90 linear 
inches of tread edges per linear foot of the 
circumference ; 

(iv) After regrooving, the new groove 
width generated into the tread material shall 
be a minimum of s/^g-inch and a maximum 
of 5/ie-inch. 

(v) After regrooving, all new grooves 
cut into the tread shall provide unobstructed 
fluid escape passages; and 

(vi) After regrooving, the tire shall not 
contain any of the following defects, as de- 
termined by a visual examination of the tire 



(Rev. 4/24/74) 



PART 569-1 



Effective: April 1, 1969 

either mounted on the rim, or dismounted, 
whichever is applicable: 

(A) Cracking which extends to the 
fabric, 

(B) Groove cracks or wear extending 
to the fabric, or 

(C) Evidence of ply, tread, or sidewall 
separation. 

(vii) If the tire is siped by cutting the 
tread surface without removing rubber, the 
tire cord material shall not be damaged as 
a result of the siping process, and no sipe 
shall be deeper than the original or retread 
groove depth. 

(b) Siped regroovable titles. No person shall 
sell, offer for sale, or introduce for sale or de- 
liver for introduction into interstate commerce 
a regroovable tire that has been siped by cutting 
the tread surface without removing rubber if the 



tire cord material is damaged as a result of the 
siping process, or if the tire is siped deeper than 
the original or retread groove depth. (39 F.E. 
15038— April 30, 1974. Effective: 4/30/74)] 

S 569.9 Labeling of Regroovable Tires. 

(a) Regroovable Tires. After August 30, 
1969, each tire designed and constructed for re- 
grooving shall be labeled on both sidewalls with 
the word "Regroovable" molded on or into the 
tire in raised or recessed letters .025 to .040 inches. 
The word "Regroovable" shall be in letters 0.38 
to 0.50 inches in height and not less than 4 inches 
and not more than 6 inches in length. The let- 
tering shall be located in the sidewall of the tire 
between the maximum section width and the 
bead in an area which will not be obstructed by 
the rim flange. 

34 F.R. 1150 
January 24, 1969 



(Rev. 4/24/741 



PART 669-2 



EffccHva: Saplamber 28, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO PART 570— VEHICLE IN USE INSPECTION STANDARDS 

(Docket No. 73-9; Notice 2) 



This notice adds Part 570, Vehicle In Use In- 
spection Standards to Chapter V, Title 49, Code 
of Federal Regulations. 

Part 570 does not in itself impose requirements 
on any person. It is intended to be implemented 
by the States through the highway safety pro- 
gram standards issued under the Highway Safety 
Act (23 U.S.C. 402) with respect to inspection 
of motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight 
rating of 10,000 pounds or less, except motor- 
cycles and trailers. General provisions regard- 
ing vehicle inspection are set forth in NHTSA 
Highway Safety Program Manual Vol. 1 Pe- 
riodic Motor Vehicle Inspection. Standards and 
procedures are adopted for hydraulic service 
brake systems, steering and suspension systems, 
tire and wheel assemblies. 

Interested persons have been afforded an op- 
portunity to participate in the making of these 
amendments by a notice of proposed rulemaking 
published in the Federal Register on April 2, 
1973 (38 F.R. 8451), and due consideration has 
been given to all comments received in response 
to the notice, insofar as they relate to matters 
within the scope of the notice. Except for edi- 
torial changes, and except as specifically dis- 
cussed herein, these amendments and the reasons 
therefore are the same as those contained in the 
notice. 

Policy considerations. A total of 120 comments 
were received in response to the notice. These 
comments were submitted by State motor vehicle 
agencies, national safety organizations, motor 
vehicle associations, vehicle and equipment manu- 
facturers, antique car clubs and owners, public 
interest groups, and individual citizens. The 
commenters were predominantly in favor of 
periodic motor vehicle inspection (PMVI) and 
the establishment of uniform motor vehicle in 
use safety standards throughout the United 
States. 



As the NHTSA stated in the prior notice, 
cost-benefit factors were the primary policy con- 
sideration in developing the inspection standards 
and procedures. The primary concern of the 
States was the socioeconomic impact on the 
motoring public as well as the impact on the 
State itself. The general consensus was that the 
proposed inspection requirements would require 
a significant increase in facilities, operating per- 
sonnel, and equipment. Though cost effective- 
ness was a predominant concern the States 
nevertheless felt that inspections should include 
vehicles over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight 
and be extended to include other vehicle sys- 
tems. Several States expressed concern for the 
cost of implementing the proposed standards, 
estimating it at from $10 to $14 per car. Even 
though these States favored PMVI and now 
have PMVI or random inspection they felt that 
implementation costs would have a decided eco- 
nomic impact. 

NHTSA has responded to these comments 
allowing an optional road test as a check of 
service brake system performance, adopting 
neither of the proposed parking brake proce- 
dures, and simplifying test procedures where pos- 
sible so that tests may be conducted with a 
minimum added expenditure for equipment, per- 
sonnel, and facilities. These matters will be 
discussed subsequently. 

The establishment of the proposed standards 
as "minimum requirements" was questioned by 
several States as leading to a "watering down" 
of current requirements in those States which 
currently meet or exceed them. The NHTSA 
repeats its intent that the standards are not in- 
tended to supplant State standards that estab- 
lish a higher performance, or to discourage them 
from establishing or maintaining standards for 
other vehicle systems not covered by NHTSA. 



PART 570— PRE 1 



Effective: September 28, 1973 



A number of comments were recei\'ed from 
antique car clubs and individual owners who be- 
lieve that antique, special interest, and vintage 
cars should be exempt from the proposed stand- 
ards. These comments should be directed to the 
States. Each State has its own definitions and 
registration requirements for vehicles of this 
nature, and the NHTSA intends the States to 
implement Part 570 to the extent that it is com- 
patible with its current requirements for these 
special vehicles. 

Several respondents commented that the pro- 
posed standard should be expanded to include 
ligliting, glazing, exhaust, wipers, horns, con- 
trols, and instrumentation systems. The con- 
sensus was that the cost-benefit ratio would 
materially increase if these systems were in- 
cluded in the proposed standard since inspection 
of these systems does not require time-consuming 
procedures or special tools, and corrective meas- 
ures are less costly to the owner. Some con- 
sidered it contradictory that safety systems 
covered by the Federal standards must meet 
safety performance requirements at the time of 
manufacture and not during the service life of 
the vehicle. As the NHTSA stated in the prior 
notice, the initial Federal effort is intended to 
cover those vehicles and veliicle systems whose 
maintenance in good order has proven critical 
to the prevention of traffic accidents. Require- 
ments for motorcycles and trailers, and for less 
critical systems, are under study, and the NHTSA 
intends to take such rulemaking action in the 
future as may be appropriate to cover them. 

Applicability. A frequent comment was that 
the standards and procedures should be extended 
to cover vehicles whose GV^VR exceeds 10,000 
pounds. Because braking and steering and sus- 
pension systems on these vehicles differ mate- 
rially from those on lighter vehicles, different 
criteria must be established and the proposed 
standards simply cannot be extended to cover 
them. The NHTSA, however, is developing ap- 
propriate inspection standards and procedures 
for heavy vehicles and will propose them in a 
notice to be issued by mid-October 1973. 

Brake systems. Several comments were re- 
ceived questioning the procedure for determining 
operability of the brake failure indicator lamp. 



In some vehicles the parking brake indicator 
and service brake system failure indicator use 
the lamp and the methods of simulating failure 
vary. 

It is realized that the procedure specified by 
the standard is general in nature and cannot 
cover all possible systems. In those vehicles 
where a lamp test cannot be executed in the nor- 
mal manner the test will have to be conducted 
in accordance with the manufacturer's specifica- 
tions, as determined by the vehicle inspector. 

The brake system integrity test for fluid leak- 
age has been modified on the basis of comments 
that it was not stringent enough. It was pro- 
posed that decrease in pedal height under 125 
pounds force for 10 seconds should not exceed 
one-quarter of an inch. The requirement adopted 
is that there be no perceptible decrease in pedal 
height when 125 pounds of force is applied to 
the brake pedal and held for 30 seconds. 

The brake pedal reserve test has been adopted 
substantially as proposed, and specifies that the 
engine be operating at the time of the test. Ve- 
hicles with full power (central hydraulic) brake 
systems are exempted from this test as the service 
brake performance test will be adequate to test 
such systems. 

The service brake performance test offers the 
option of a road test, or testing upon a drive-on 
platform or roller-type brake analyzer (origi- 
nally proposed under the title "Brake equaliza- 
tion"). States that conduct random inspections, 
and those that designate agents to perform ve- 
hicle inspections, objected strenuously to a test 
requiring the use of roller-type or drive-on test 
equipment. Consequently, an alternate test has 
been adopted which requires vehicles to stop from 
20 mph in 25 feet or less without leaving a 12- 
foot wide lane. It is intended that this option 
be used only by States where it is current prac- 
tice, and it is hoped that such States where 
practicable will change to the drive-on brake 
platform or roller-type brake analyzer tests. The 
terms "crimped" and "damaged" have been elimi- 
nated as causes for rejection of brake hoses, as 
redundant. If brake discs and drums are not 
embossed with safety tolerances, the require- 
ment has been added that they be within the 
manufacturer's recommended specifications. 



PART 570— PRE 2 



Effective: September 28, 1973 



The primary concern regarding power assist 
units was that the brake pedal will rise instead 
of falling on a full-power brake system when 
tested according to the procedure proposed. In 
view of the basic design of a full-power brake 
system this test would not be a proper check of 
sj'stem operation, and will not be required. As 
noted earlier, the service brake performance test 
will be used as the primary test of the full- 
power brake performance. To accord with the 
terminology of Standard No. 105a this section 
has been renamed "Brake power units." 

The parking brake system inspection proposal 
proved controversial. The NHTSA proposed 
two objective, alternate tests, the first requiring 
the system to hold the vehicle on a 17 percent 
grade, and the second requiring the system to 
stop the vehicle from 20 mph within 54 feet. 
The first was objected to principally on the 
ground that each inspection station would have 
to construct a 17 percent grade. This would 
present problems for both in-line and bay type 
inspection facilities. The stopping distance test, 
on the other hand, was opposed as a dynamic 
test more apj^ropriate for service brake evalua- 
tion. In view of these objections, the parking 
brake inspection requirements were not adopted. 

Steering and svspension systems. The primary 
objections to the steering wheel test for free 
play concerned the test condition with the engine 
off on vehicles equipped with power steering, the 
linear measure of system free play (instead of 
angular measure to eliminate the variance due 
to steering wheel diameters), and the 2-inch free 
play limit for rack and pinion type steering gear. 

The tolerance proposed and adopted for steer- 
ing wheel free play is 2 inches for wheels of 
16 inches diameter or less, since few passenger 
car steering wheels exceed this diameter. How- 
ever, a table of free play values for older vehicles 
with steering wheels over 16 inches in diameter 
has been added to the standard. The require- 
ment to have the engine running is being added 
to the procedure since steering wheel play can 
be greater with the engine off than with the en- 
gine on for cars equipped with power steering. 
Steering play on cars equipped with rack and 
pinion type steering will require further review 



to determine if the 2-inch tolerance should be 
changed. 

Some comments argued that wheel alignment 
tolerances were considered too restrictive in the 
toe-in condition, and too lenient in toe-out. Some 
comments recommended visual inspection of tire 
wear as criteria to determine alignment. How- 
ever, visual inspection of tire wear is not con- 
sidered a valid method of chocking alignment, 
and therefore was not adopted as an alternate 
method. No consensus of alternative values could 
be derived from the comments, and the proposed 
tolerances of 30 feet per mile have been adopted. 

The requirements for the condition of shock 
absorber mountings, shackles, and U-bolts have 
been changed from "tight" to "securely attached" 
as a clarification. 

Tire and wheel assembly standards and in- 
spectimi -procedures. Several comments were re- 
ceived suggesting that rim deformation in excess 
of one-sixteenth of an inch be permitted, as the 
proposed tolerance would result in rejection of 
otherwise safe vehicles. The primary concern 
of the requirement is air retention, and since 
vehicles with wheel deformation of one-sixteenth 
of an inch apparently perform satisfactorily in 
service without hazard the deformation tolerance 
has been increased to three thirty-seconds of an 
inch runout for both lateral and radial bead seat 
areas. 

Ejfectivity. Several commenters questioned the 
proposed effective date, 30 days after publica- 
tion of the final rule. The NHTSA considers 
it in the public interest that minimum Federal 
standards for motor vehicles in use become effec- 
tive without further delay. Implementation by 
the States will take place within the context of 
their highway safety programs, and the plans 
approved by the NHTSA under the Highway 
Safety Act, 23 U.S.C. 402. 

In consideration of the foregoing. Title 49, 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended by add- 
ing Part 570 to read as set forth below. 

Effective date. Sept. 28. 1973. Since this part 
does not in itself impose requirements on any 
person it is determined for good cause shown 
that an effective date earlier than 180 days after 



PART 570— PRE 3 



Effective: September 28, 1973 

publication of the final rule is in the public Issued on : Aug. 29, 1973. 

interest. James B. Gregory 

(Sec. 103, 108, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. Administrator 

718, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1397, 1407; delegation of 38 F.R. 23949 

authority at 49 CFR 1.51.) September 5, 1973 



PART 570— PRE 4 



Effaclivc: May 9, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 570— VEHICLE IN USE INSPEaiON STANDARDS 

(Docket No. 73-9; Notice 4) 



This notice responds to petitions for reconsid- 
eration of Vehicle In Use Inspection Standards 
and amends the standards in certain minor 
respects. 

The Vehicle In Use Inspection Standards, 49 
CFR Part o70, were published on September 5, 
1973 (38 F.R. 23919). Thereafter, pursuant to 

49 CFR 553.35, petitions for reconsideration of 
the rule were received from Motor Vehicle Manu- 
facturers Association (MVMA), Rubber Manu- 
facturers Association (RMA), Firestone Tire 
and Rubber Company (Firestone), General 
Motors Corporation (GM), and Ford Motor 
Company (Ford). This notice discusses the 
major issues raised by these petitions and their 
resolution. 

Ford called NHTSA's attention to an over- 
sight in the inspection procedure for brake pedal 
reserve in § 570.5. Notice 1 proposed a force of 
25 pounds for power-assisted brake systems and 

50 pounds for all other brake systems. These 
forces were inadvertently omitted in Notice 2, 
and, accordingly, § 570.5 is amended to include 
them. 

GM and the MVMA requested that the period 
during which a 125-pound force is applied to the 
brake pedal be reduced from 30 seconds to 10 
seconds. Since the purpose of the standard is to 
check for brake fluid leakage, and this can be 
determined during a 10-secon.d period, the peti- 
tion is granted. 

Ford requested that § 570.5(e) "Service Brake 
System — Brake Hoses and Assemblies" be 
amended to allow "rub rings," installed as hose 
protection devices, to come in contact with a 
vehicle body or chassis. The purpose of these 
devices as stated by Ford is to prevent damage 
to hose or tubing and thus promote motor vehicle 
safety. NHTSA, after investigation, has deter- 
mined that rub rings or similar protective devices 



do provide brake hose and tube protection, and 
§ 570.5(e) is amended accordingly. However, 
should the rub rings wear or abrade to the extent 
that the hoses or tubing contact the chassis or 
vehicle body, the vehicle should be rejected. 

GM requested that the procedure for inspect- 
ing steering wheel lash in g 570.7(a) be revised 
so as to yield more consistent results between 
examiners and inspection stations. It was GM's 
con(;ention that the term "perceptible movement" 
was too subjective, and that the many intangible 
factors involved in the inspection procedure 
would not provide an objective and repeatable 
test. The procedure recommended by GM would 
involve applying a specified force in one direction 
to remove lash and provide a small amount of 
torsional wind up, releasing the wheel, and ap- 
plying another force in the same direction to 
establish a reference point. The process would 
be repeated in the opposite direction to establish 
a second reference point. The distance between 
the two points would then be measured. 

Although the inspection procedure proposed by 
GM may provide a more objective test of steer- 
ing system play, it is the belief of NHTSA that 
additional time will be required to evaluate their 
proposal under field test conditions with various 
steering wheel diameters. Therefore, action on 
this request will be held in abeyance pending 
completion of such a study. 

Ford and GM requested a change in the toe-in 
alignment specifications listed in § 570.7(d), 
stating that several vehicles currently in service 
would exceed the 30 ft/mi toe-in limits estab- 
lished in the standard. For example, 1974 Ford 
Service Specifications — Tire Scrub (based on a 
29-in diameter tire/wheel assembly) shows a 
maximum toe-in for certain Ford vehicles of 
82.5 ft /mi based on 11.78 ft/mi tire scrub for 
each i/16-in toe-in. In its submission to Docket 



PART 570— PRE 5 



231-088 O - " - 10 



Elftcllv*: May 9, 1974 



No. 73-9, Ford recommended that the toe-in re- 
quirement be no more stringent than 1.5 times 
the manufacturer's maximum toe-in specification. 
In consideration of the wide variance between 
manufacturers' toe-in specification, the limits of 
±30 ft/mi currently used in some State inspec- 
tions appear to be reasonable for some vehicles 
and unduly restrictive for others. § 570.7(d), 
therefore, is amended to make the requirement 
more equitable. 

The NHTSA, however, believes that wheel 
alignment designs with liigh toe-in values are not 
in the best interests of the consumer, as both tire 
wear and fuel economy are affected adversely 
with high toe-in/toe-out conditions. For this rea- 
son, industry action to alleviate this problem will 
be carefully ol>served. 

RMA and Firestone petitioned for a clarifica- 
tion of the language of g 570.9(b) concerning tire 
type. It was suggested that "tire size designa- 
tion" would be more explicit than tire "nominal 
size.-' XHTSA believes the suggested phrase 
more clearly defines the intent of the standard, 
and the petition is granted. 

The i^etitioners additionally contend that the 
language in § 570.9(b) (i), notably "major mis- 
match" and "major deviation," could lead the 
inspector to reject tires that do not have exactly 
the tire size designation (s) specified by the ve- 
hicle manufacturer. NHTSA disagrees with this 
interpretation of the inspection procedure. The 
language allows the inspector to pass any vehicle 
equipped with tires that meet the published 
vehicle-manufacturer or EMA criteria for tire 
replacement. Tires with special characteristics 
such as extra wide sport type tires, "slicks", and 
extra low profile tires would not meet the criteria 
for replacement tires. The petition is, therefore, 
denied. 

Both RMA and Firestone requested a change 
in the language of § 570.9(d) (i) which specified 
the use of an awl to probe cuts on tires as a 
method for evaluating the extent of tire damage. 
Firestone strongly recommended the use of a 



"blunt instrument" rather than an awl to prevent 
further damage to the tire. The NHTSA feels 
that this is a constructive request, and the peti- 
tion is granted. 

RMA and GM requested a change in § 570.10 
(b) regarding tiie limits and the procedure for 
checking lateral and radial runout of wheel as- 
semblies. GM contended, based on a survey of 
500 vehicles of its employees, that the %2 ^^ 
runout specification is too restrictive and that 
owners of vehicle with runouts of 0.050 to 0.225 
in did not experience loss of air pressure or any 
detectable vibration. GM recommended a runout 
specification of at least Vg in. After reviewing 
the GM data, NHTSA has determined that the 
request is reasonable and, therefore, the petition 
is granted. Accordingly § 570.10(b) is amended 
to reflect the Vg-in radial and lateral runout 
limits. 

Finally there were several requests to include 
provisions for non-matching spare or emergency 
tires, prohibition of radial-ply tire mix with any 
other tire type on the same vehicle, and recom- 
mendations for inclusion of minimum criteria for 
accuracy of test devices. Since these topics were 
not included in prior rulemaking notices, these 
recommendations will be considered for future 
action. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
Part 570, Vehicle In Use Inspection Standards, 
is amended. . . . 

Effective date : May 9, 1974. 

(Sec. 103, 108, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 
718, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1397, 1401; delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on April 3, 1974. 



James B. Gregory 
Administrator 



39 F.R. 12867 
April 9, 1974 



PART 570— PRE 6 



Effective: August 14, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 570— VEHICLE IN USE 
INSPECTION STANDARDS 

(Docket No. 73-9; Notice 7) 



This notice amends Part 570, Vehicle in Use 
Inspection Standards, Chapter V, Title 49, Code 
of Federal Regulations by adding inspection 
standards and procedures for brake systems, 
steering and suspension systems, and tire and 
wheel assemblies for all motor vehicles with a 
gross vehicle weight rating that exceeds 10,000 
pounds. 

Interested persons have been afforded an op- 
portunity to participate in the making of these 
amendments by a notice of profjosed rulemaking 
published in the Federal Register on October 11, 
1973 (38 CFR 28077), and due consideration has 
been given to all comments received in response 
to the notice. 

A total of twenty-nine comments were re- 
ceived in response to the notice. These comments 
were submitted by State motor vehicle agencies, 
motor vehicle manufacturers, tire and brake 
equipment manufacturers, the Motor Vehicle 
Manufacturers Association, and the American 
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. 
The comments were predominantly in favor of 
periodic motor vehicle inspection, although prob- 
lem areas in the inspection of vehicles over 
10,000 pounds were presented. 

An exemption for mobile homes from the pro- 
posed rulemaking action was requested by the 
Mobile Home Manufacturers Association who 
contended that since mobile homes are moved 
about 2.3 times during their life span and are 
constructed for use primarily as residential 
dwellings and not as motor vehicles for use on 
the highways, they should be excluded from the 
proposed regulation. The Recreational Vehicle 
Institute, however, suggested that different in- 
spection frequencies for motor homes and recrea- 
tional trailers as related to other commercial 



vehicles would be appropriate. The NHTSA 
concludes that motor homes and recreational ve- 
hicles should not be excluded from periodic in- 
spection, but the period between inspections 
should be determined by the States based on the 
requirements that may be unique to their par- 
ticular jurisdiction. 

The Professional Drivers Council suggested 
that inspection intervals should be based upon 
vehicle use, in lieu of calendar periods, in order 
to ensure adequate inspection frequency. They 
suggested 20,000 miles between inspections as a 
feasible criterion. Although NHTSA agrees 
that distance as well as time is an important 
criterion in determining inspection intervals, it 
has concluded that each State should determine 
inspection intervals based upon the driving con- 
ditions experienced by motor vehicles within its 
jurisdiction. 

Many comments questioned the time required 
to check the brake system integrity of a hy- 
draulic brake system, and suggested that the time 
of application be changed to 10 seconds. Since 
the purpose of this check is to determine whether 
there is any leakage of hydraulic fluid during 
operational conditions, and the consensus of 
comments indicates that this can be accomplished 
equally well during a 10-second test, the sugges- 
tion is adopted and § 570.55 will be worded 
accordingly. 

Ford and MVMA requested that a brake pedal 
force be included in the brake pedal reserve 
check, and that a note be added regarding the 
effect of a vacuum booster on test validity. The 
suggestion to include a pedal force is considered 
valid, and § 570.55(c) will include a brake pedal 
force of 50 lbs. NHTSA concludes, however, 
that the terminology "full power (central hy- 
draulic) brake system and brake systems de- 



PART 570— PRE 7 



Effective: August 14, 1974 



signed to operate with greater than 80% pedal 
travel" properly describes brake systems, and 
that a note to include a reference to a vacuum 
booster is not required. 

Several comments suggested exemption of 
protective rings from consideration as part of a 
hose or tubing assembly. These Iiave been found 
to have merit, and § 570.55(d) exempts jirotec- 
tive rings or devices from consideration in re- 
gard to contact with vehicle body or chassis. 

Several comments were received requesting 
clarification of the requirements of truck and 
trailer vacuum system checks in § 570.56. In 
response, this section has been rewritten to re- 
quire the capability of at least one service brake 
application at a 50-poimd brake pedal pressure 
after the engine has been turned off to verify 
operation of vacuum system. The inspection 
procedure has been revised to cover trailers 
equipped either with brake chamber rods or with 
enclosed chambers and hydraulic systems. 

A large number of comments were received 
regarding § 570.57 (Air Brake System Integ- 
rity). This section has been altered from the 
proposal to change air pressure limits, time of 
test, and engine idling speed, thus clarifying the 
terminology and allowing test limits to more 
properly reflect operating conditions. 

Comments on § 570.58 were submitted by Wag- 
ner and MVMA regarding wire gage and current 
capacity, sensing of surge force during test, and 
comparison of GVWR to capacity and number 
of brakes. The NHTSA concludes that § 570.58 
properly covers these areas and that no change 
from the proposal is necessary. 

Several comments were received on § 570.59, 
service brake system testing, regarding the feasi- 
bility of roller-type or drive-on platform testers 
for large vehicles, and questioning the 25-perce,nt 
allowable imbalance of braking forces between 
wheels on same axle. Since the test procedure 
is designed to locate a serious imbalance condi- 
tion, the NHTSA concludes that the recom- 
mended 25 percent or less imbalance requirement 
will provide the desired safety benefit. How- 
ever, if future t«st data show that upgrading the 
requirement to a 20 percent maximum imbalance 
is warranted, NHTSA shall propose that the 
requirement be made more stringent. 



The feasibility of inspection of brake linings 
and other internal components as compared to 
road testing was questioned by several com- 
mentors. While the optimum inspection of 
brake assemblies would require the removal of 
the wheels, tlie NHTSA has found that the re- 
moval of a wheel in most vehicles in the 10,000 
pound and over GVWR class requires special 
skills and training, as well as replacement of oil 
seals, for reassembly. Therefore, this inspection 
procedure is limited to wheels which are 
equipped with inspection ports or access open- 
ings, thereby avoiding the need to remove the 
wheels. 

Several comments were received regarding 
stopping distances of 35 feet versus 40 feet for 
combination vehicles and truck tractors for the 
road test at 20 mph. The present Bureau of 
Motor Carrier Safety standard is 40 feet, and 
NHTSA has decided that this value is adequate 
for safety purposes. The standard is worded 
accordingly. 

In response to the comments received, the in- 
spection jjrocedure for checking front wheel 
steering linkage free play in § 570.60 is changed 
from the proposal to provide for projaer testing 
of vehicles with and without power steering. 
Alignment limits are increased to 1.5 times the 
value listed in the vehicle manufacturer's service 
specification for alignment setting to allow for 
variations in vehicles due to age and differences 
in test equipment readouts. 

Commentors on § 570.61, suspension system, 
requested clarification of the proposed require- 
ment that "Springs shall not be broken or ex- 
tended by spacers." This sentence is reworded 
to read "Springs shall not be broken and coil 
springs shall not be extended by spacers." 

Several comments were received regarding 
tread depth requirements in § 570.62, and the 
number of places around the circumference of a 
tire where measurements should be taken. The 
standard is worded so as to measure tread depth 
in two adjacent major grooves at three locations 
spaced approximately 120 degrees apart for tires 
without tread wear indicators. A clarification 
was requested of the use of the terms "construc- 
tion", "profile", and "nominal size" in describing 
tires and of the % in. limit on overall diameter. 



PART 570— PRE 8 



Effective; August 14, 1974 



In response, this section is worded to read "Ve- 
hicles should be equipped with tires on the same 
axle that are matched in construction and size 
designation, and dual tii-es shall be matched for 
overall diameter within one-half inch." 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
Part 570, Vehicle In Use Inspection Standards, 
is amended by denoting the existing sections 
570.1 through 570.10 as Subpart A, VehwUs with 
GVWR of 10 poo Pounds or Less, and by adding 
a new Subpart B, Vehicles with GVWR of More 
Than 10,000 Pounds 

Effective date: August 14, 1974. Since this 
part consists of standards for State inspection 
programs and does not directly impose require- 



ments on any person, it is determined for good 
cause shown that an effective date earlier than 
180 days after publication of the final rule is in 
the public interest. 

(Sees. 103, 108, 119, Public Law 89-563, 80 
Stat. 718, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1397, 1407; delegation 
of authority at 49 CFR 1.51.) 



Issued on July 9, 1974. 



James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

39 F.R. 26026 
July 16, 1974 



PART 570— PRE 9-10 



Effective: August 13, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 570— VEHICLE IN USE 
INSPECTION STANDARDS 

(Docket No. 73-9; Notice 8) 



This notice amends Part 570, Subpart B, Ve- 
hicle in Use Inspection Standards, Motor Ve- 
hicles with a GVWR of More Than 10,000 
Pounds, in Title 49, Code of Federal Regula- 
tions, by making it clear that the standard does 
not apply to mobile structure trailers. 

On July 16, 1974, NHTSA promulgated Sub- 
part B to Part 570 which consisted of vehicle in 
use standards for motor vehicles with a GWVR 
of more than 10,000 pounds (39 F.R. 26026). 
In response to the notice of proposed rulemaking 
which preceded it (38 F.R. 28077), the Mobile 
Homes Manufacturers Association (MHMA) 
commented that their data indicated that the 
average mobile home is moved once every 40 
months or about 2.3 times during its life, that it 
spends less than 12 hours on the public roads 
during its 18 to 20 year life span, and that it 
spends 0.055% of its useful life on the highway. 
NHTSA concluded, therefore, that mobile struc- 
ture trailers should not fall within the ambit of 
the standard at this time. 



By letter of July 19, 1974, the Mobile Homes 
Manufacturers Association (MHMA) pointed 
out that while motor homes and recreational ve- 
hicles were specifically made subject to the 
standard, no reference was made to mobile struc- 
ture trailers except to reiterate MHMA's com- 
ments to the proposed rule. To clarify this 
ambiguity and the agency's intent, § 510.53 is 
hereby amended .... 

Effective date: August 13, 1974. Since this 
amendment does not impose requirements on any 
person and is meant to clarify a preceding rule, 
it is found for good cause shown that an imme- 
diate effective date is in the public interest. 

(Sees. 103, 108, 119, Public Law 89-563, 80 
Stat. 718, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1397, 1407; delegation 
of authority at 49 CFR 1.51.) 



Issued on August 7, 1974. 



James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

39 F.R. 28980 
August 13, 1974 



PART 570— PRE 11-12 



Effective: February 4, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 570— VEHICLE IN USE INSPECTION STANDARDS 

(Docket No. 73-9; Notice 9) 



This notice responds to petitions for recon- 
sideration of Vehicle in Use Inspection Stand- 
ards for veiiicles with a GVAVR of more than 
10,000 pounds. 

NHTSA issued on July 16, 1974, the vehicle 
in use inspection standards to be implemented 
by the States for \ehicles with a GVWE of more 
than 10,000 pounds (39 F.R. 26026). Subse- 
quently, petitions for reconsideration were re- 
ceived from Ford Motor Company (Ford), 
General Motors Corporation (GjM), the Motor 
Vehicle Manufacturers Association (^IV^NIA), 
the Midland-Eoss Corporation (Midland) and 
the Bendix-'Westinghouse Corporation (Bendix). 
The NHTSA response to matters raised in these 
petitions will be given by subject grouping. 

Brake Pedal Reserve 
Ford has called the attention of NHTSA to a 
typograpjiical error in the formula shown in sub- 
paragraph .570.55(c)(1) and used for computing 
the brake pedal reserve. Instead of the rela- 
tionship A-B , the formula should be shown 

AxlOO 

A-B 

as — 7— x 100. The standard will be corrected 
A 

accordingly. 

Midland petitioned to revise the wording in 
paragraph 570.55(c) to require vehicles with 
modified vehicle brake systems, such as with an 
additional tag axle utilizing existing hydraulic 
brake fluid capacity, to meet the requirements 
of the brake pedal reserve test. Currently, this 
test is waived for all vehicles with brake systems 
designed to operate witli greater than 80 i)ercent 
pedal travel, whether through original design or 
modification. Since it was XHTSA's original 
intent that the waiver api^ly only wlien the 
original manufacturer's design criteria estab- 
lished pedal travel at greater than 80%, this 



petition is granted, and the second sentence of 
paragraph 570.55(c) is amended to read: 

"The brake pedal reserve test is not required 
for vehicles with brake systems designed by the 
original vehicle manufacturer to operate with 
greater than 80 percent pedal travel." 

Air Brake Sy stein Integrity 
Ford petitioned to expand Table 1 (Air brake 
system pressure build-up time) to include ve- 
hicles equipped with reservoirs of smaller ca- 
pacities and varying designs, such as vehicles 
that use wedge brakes and the newly-developed 
comjiact brake chambers. Further, GM recom- 
mended that the values in Table 1 representing 
total reservoir volume be separated by 1 cubic 
inch to avoid column overlapjiing and resultant 
errors in utilizing the tables. The NHTSA con- 
curs with these suggestions, and Table 1 is ex- 
panded to include requirements for 9-inch and 
12-inch brake chambers and the columnar reser- 
voir volume range values are separated by 1 cubic 
inch. 

GM questioned the chamber volumes used in 
Table 1 as "not reflecting a substantial 2>ortion 
of industry usage." This question was also dis- 
cussed by ]Midland-Ross, which submitted cham- 
ber area \-olume figures ranging from 16 inches 
to 36 inches. Likewise, Bendix submitted volume 
figures which were consistent with those sub- 
mitted by Midland-Eoss. The Midland-Eoss 
petition also suggested that to be fair to all 
manufacturers, the reservoir build-up times as 
shown in Table 1 should be increased by a factor 
of 20 percent to comfjensate for normal com- 
pressor wear and deterioration. NHTSA con- 
curs in these views, and Table 1 is amended to 
utilize composite volume figures deemed repre- 
sentative of industry practice for the representa- 
tive brake chambers as shown in Table 2 below : 



PART 570— PRE 13 



Effective: February 4, 1975 



Table 2. — Chamber Volumes for Representative 
Brake Chambers 



Chamber Size (Inches) 



Volume (Cubic Inches) 



12 
16 
20 
24 
30 
36 



18 
25 
43 
51 
66 
88 
125 



Further, the following formula is established to 
compute the time in seconds: 

Time (Seconds) =Actiial Reservoir Capacity x 25 x 1.20 
Required Reservoir Capacity 

Bendix petitioned for the use of only a single 
maximum time figure of 30 seconds for an in- 
crease in the air pressure from 85 to 100 psi in 
the reservoirs with the engine running at the 
vehicle manufacturer's maximum recommended 
number of revolutions per minute. Although 
this requirement would simplify Table 1, it would 
not cover all of the combinations of brake cham- 
bers and reservoirs used in the trucking industry. 
NHTSA therefore concludes that Table 1 is 
necessary, and Bendix's petition is accordingly 
denied. 

MVMA in its petition pointed out the prob- 
lems involved in requiring the inspector to iden- 
tify the number and size of brake chambers and 
the number and size of the reservoirs before he 
could use Table 1. In the judgment of this 
agency, it is not an unreasonable burden on the 
truck owner or operator to provide this readily- 
available information to an inspector at the time 
of inspection. MVjNIA's petition is therefore 
denied. 

Midland petitioned to revise paragraph 570.57 
(a)(1) to assure conformity of test conditions 
between FMVSS 121 and the air brake system 
pressure build-up test of Table 1. This request 
is considei'ed valid, and paragraph 570.57(a)(1) 
is revised to read: "The air brake system com- 
pressor shall increase the air pressure in the 



truck or truck tractor reservoir (s) from 85 to 100 
psi in not more than the time specified in Table 
1, with the engine running at the vehicle manu- 
facturer's maximum recommended number of 
revolutions per minute." 

Ford petitioned for the elimination of 
570.61(b), Shock absorber condition, contending 
that shock absorbers do not affect the safety of 
all large motor vehicles, are offered only to im- 
prove operator comfort and have only a minimal 
effect on vehicle stability. Although the rela- 
tioiiship between comfort and control may be 
hard to define, NHTSA concludes that the op- 
erator's response to varying loads, weather con- 
ditions, and road conditions is affected by the 
condition of the shock absorbers on the motor 
vehicle being driven. Further, results of two 
test programs carried out by NHTSA indicate 
that shock absorber degradation does have an 
effect on the handling characteristics of motor 
vehicles. Therefore, based on currently available 
data, NHTSA concludes that the shock absorbers 
are a contributing factor to safe motor vehicle 
operations, and Ford's petition is denied. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
Part 570, Subpart B, Motor Vehicles With a 
GVWR of More Than 10,000 Pounds, is amended 
as follows: 

Effective date: February 4, 1975. Because the 
amendments correct errors and modify inspec- 
tion procedures, but create no additional burden, 
it is found for good cause shown that they should 
be effective immediately on publication. 

(Sees. 103, 108, 119, Pub. L. 84-563, 80 Stat. 
718; 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1397, 1401; delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.51) 

Issued on January 24, 1975. 

Noel C. Bufe 
Acting Administrator 

40 F.R. 5159 
February 4, 1975 



PART 570— PRE 14 



Effective: September 28, 1973 



PART 570— VEHICLE IN USE INSPECTION STANDARDS 



Subpart A— Vehicles With GVWR of 10,000 
Pounds or Less 

570.1 Scope 

570.2 Purpose 

570.3 Applicability 

570.4 Definitions 

570.5 Service brake system 

570.6 Brake power unit 

570.7 Steering systems 

570.8 Suspension systems 

570.9 Tires 

570.10 Wheel assemblies 

Authority: Sees. 103, 108, 119, Public Law 89- 
563, 80 Stat. 718, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1-397, 1407; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.51. 

§ 570.1 Scope. This part specifies standards 
and procedures for inspection of hydraulic serv- 
ice brake systems, steering and suspension sys- 
tems, and tire and wheel assemblies of motor 
vehicles in use. 

§ 570.2 Purpose. The purpose of this part is 
to establish criteria for the inspection of motor 
vehicles by State inspection systems, in order 
to reduce death and injuries attributable to 
failure or inadequate performance of motor ve- 
hicle systems. 

§ 570.3 Applicability. This part does not in 
itself impose requirements on any person. It is 
intended to be implemented by States through 
the highway safety program standards issued 
under the Highway Safety Act (23 U.S.C. 402) 
with respect to inspection of motor vehicles with 
gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or 
less, except motorcycles or trailers. 

§ 570.4 Definitions. Unless otherwise indi- 
cated, all terms used in this part that are defined 



in 49 CFR Part 571, Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards, are used as defined in that part. 

§ 570.5 Service brake system. fTTnless other- 
wise noted, the force to be applied during inspec- 
tion procedures to power-assisted and full-power 
brake systems is 25 lb, and to all other systems, 
50 1b. (39 F.R. 12867— April 9, 1974. Effective: 
5/9/74)3 

(a) Failure indicator. The brake system 
failure indicator lamp, if part of a vehicle's 
original equipment, shall be operable. (This 
lamp is required by Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 105, 49 CFR 571.105, on 
every new passenger car manufactured on or 
after January 1, 1968, and on other types of 
motor vehicles manufactured on or after Sep- 
tember 1, 1975.) 

Inspection froredure. Apply the parking brake 
and turn the ignition to start, or verify lamp 
operation by other means indicated by the vehicle 
manufacturer that the brake system failure indi- 
cator lamp is operable. 

(b) Brake system integnty. The brake sys- 
tem shall demonstrate integrity as indicated by 
no perceptible decrease in pedal height under a 
125 pound force applied to the brake pedal or by 
no illumination of the brake system failure in- 
dicator lamp. The brake system shall withstand 
the application of force to the pedal without 
failure of any line or other part. 

Inspection procedure. With the engine running 
on vehicles equipped with power brake systems, 
and the ignition turned to "on" in other vehicles, 
apply a force of 125 pounds to the brake pedal 
and hold for 10 seconds. Note any decrease in 
pedal height, and whether the lamp illuminates. 

(c) Brake pedal reserve. When the brake 
pedal is fully depressed, the distance that the 
pedal has traveled from its free position shall 



(Rev. 9/9/74) 



PART 570—1 



Effective: September 28, 1973 



be not greater than 80 percent of the total dis- 
tance from its free position to the floorboard or 
other object that restricts pedal travel. 

Inspection procedure. Measure the distance (A) 
from the free pedal position to the floorboard 
or other object that restricts braise pedal travel. 
Depress the brake pedal, and with the force 
applied measure the distance (B) from the de- 
pressed i^edal position to the floorboard or other 
object that restricts pedal travel. Determine 

A-B 

the percentage as —r — x 100. The engine must 

be operating when power-assisted brakes are 
checked. The pedal reserve check is not required 
for vehicles equipped with full-power (central 
hydraulic) brake systems, or to vehicles with 
brake systems designed to operate with greater 
than 80 percent pedal travel. 

(d) Service brake performance. Compliance 
with one of the following performance criteria 
will satisfy the requirements of this section. 
Verify that tire inflation pressure is within the 
limits recommended by vehicle manufacturer be- 
fore conducting either of the following tests. 

(1) Roller-type or drive-on platform tests. 
The force applied by the brake on a front 
wheel or a rear wheel shall not differ by more 
than 20 percent from the force applied by 
the brake on the other front wheel or the other 
rear wheel respectively. 

Inspection procedure. The vehicle shall be tested 
on a drive-on platform, or a roller-type brake 
analyzer with the caiDability of measuring equali- 
zation. The test shall be conducted in accord- 
ance with the test equipment manufacturer's 
specifications. Note the left to right brake force 
variance. 

(2) Road test. The service brake system 
shall stop the \'ehicle in a distance of 2.5 feet 
or less from a speed of 20 miles per hour 
without leaving a 12-foot-wide lane. 

Inspection procedure. The road test shall be 
conducted on a level (not to exceed plus or minus 
one percent grade) dry, smooth, hard-surfaced 
road that is free from loose material, oil or 
grease. The service brakes shall be applied at 
a vehicle speed of 20 miles per hour and the 
vehicle shall be brought to a stop as specified. 
Measure the distance required to stop. 



(e) Brake hoses and Asseniblies. [Brake 
hoses shall not be mounted so as to contact the 
vehicle body or chassis. Hoses shall not be 
cracked, chafed, or flattened. Protective devices, 
such as "rub rings," shall not be considered part 
of the hose or tubing. (39 F.R. 12867— April 9, 
1974. Effective: 5/9/74)] 

Inspection procedure. Examine visually, inspect- 
ing front brake hoses through all wheel positions 
from full left to full right for conditions indi- 
cated. 

[Note: to inspect for (f), (g), and (h) below, 
remove at a minimum one front wheel and one 
rear wheel.] 

(f) Disc and dnmn condition. If the drum 
is embossed with a maximum safe diameter 
dimension or the rotor is embossed with a mini- 
mum safety thickness dimension, the drum or 
disc shall be within the appropriate specifica- 
tions. These dimensions will be found on motor 
vehicles manufactured since January 1, 1971, and 
may be found on vehicles manufactured for 
several years prior to that time. If the drums 
and discs are not embossed the drums and discs 
shall be within the manufacturer's specifications. 
Inspection procedure. Examine visually for con- ^ 
dition indicated, measui'ing as necessary. 

(g) Friction materials. On each brake the 
thickness of the lining or pad shall not be less 
than one thirty-second of an inch over the rivet 
heads, or the brake shoe on bonded linings or 
pads. Brake linings and pads shall not have 
cracks or breaks that extend to rivet holes except 
minor cracks that do not impair attachment. 
Drum brake linings shall be securely attached 
to brake shoes. Disc brake pads shall be securely 
attached to shoe plates. 

Inspection, procedure. Examine visually for con- 
ditions indicated, and measure height of rubbing 
surface of lining over rivet heads. Measure 
bonded lining thickness over slioe surface at the 
thinnest point on the lining or pad. 

(h) Structxiral and mechanical parts. Back- 
ing plates and caliper assemblies shall not be 
deformed or cracked. System jsarts shall not 
be broken, misaligned, missing, binding, or show 
evidence of severe wear. Automatic adjusters 
and other parts shall be assembled and installed 
correctly. 



(Rev. 4/3/74) 



PART 570—2 



EfFeclive: September 28, 1973 



Inspection, ■procedure. Examine A-isiially for con- 
ditions indicated. 

§ 570.6 Brake power unit. Vacuum hoses 
shall not be collapsed, abraded, broken, improp- 
ei"ly mounted or audibly leaking. With residual 
vacuum exhausted and a constant 25 pound force 
on the brake pedal, the pedal shall fall slightly 
when the engine is started, demonstrating integ- 
rity of the power assist system. This test is 
not applicable to vehicles equipped with full 
power brake system as the service brake perform- 
ance test shall be considered adequate test of sys- 
tem performance. 

Inspection procedure. With engine running, 
examine hose visually and aurally for conditions 
indicated. Stop engine and apply service brakes 
several times to destroy vacuum in system. De- 
press brake pedal with 25 jDounds of force and 
while maintaining that force, start the engine. 
If brake pedal does not fall slightly under force 
when the engine starts, there is a malfunction in 
the power assist system. 

§ 570.7 Steering systems. 

(a) System play. Lash or free play in the 
steering system shall not exceed values shown in 
Table 1. 

Inspection procedure. With the engine on and the 
wheels in the straight ahead position, turn the 
steering wheel in one direction imtil there is a 
perceptible movement of a front wheel. If a 
point on the steering wheel rim mo-i-es more than 
the value shown in Table 1 before perceptible 
return movement of the wheel under observation, 
there is excessive lash or free play in the steer- 
ing system. 

Table 1. — Steering System Free Play Values 



Steering 
Wheel Diameter {In.) 


Lash (In.) 


16 or less 

18 

20 

22 


2 

2% 
2% 
2% 



(b) Linkage p^ay. Free play in the steering 
linkage shall not exceed one-quarter of an inch. 
Inspection procedure. Elevate the front end of 
the vehicle to load the ball joints. Insure that 
wheel bearings are correctly adjusted. Grasp the 



front and rear of a tire and attempt to tiirn the 
tire and wheel assembly left and right. If the 
free movement at the front or rear tread of the 
tire exceeds one-quarter inch there is excessive 
steering linkage play. 

(c) Free twming. Steering wheels shall turn 
freely through the limit of travel in both direc- 
tions. 

Inspection procedure. Turn the steering wheel 
through the limit of travel in both directions. 
Feel for binding or jamming in the steering 
gear mechanism. 

(d) Alignment. [Toe-in and toe-out measure- 
ments shall not be greater than 1.5 times the 
value listed in the vehicle manufacturer's service 
specification for alignment setting. 

Inspectimt procedure. Verify that toe-in or toe- 
out is not greater than 1.5 times the values listed 
in the vehicle manufacturer's service specifica- 
tions for alignment settings as measured by a 
bar-type scuff gauge or other toe-in measuring 
device. Values to convert toe-in readings in 
inches to scuff gauge readings in ft/mi side-slip 
for diffei-ent wheel sizes are provided in Table 2. 
Tire diameters used in computing scuff gauge 
readings are based on the average maximum tire 
dimensions of growia tires in service for typical 
wheel and tire assemblies. (39 F.R. 12867— 
April 9, 1974. Effective: 5/9/74)] 

(e) Power steering system. The power steer- 
ing system shall not have cracked or slipping 
belts, or insufficient fluid in the reservoir. 

Inspection procedure. Examine fluid reservoir 
and pump belts for conditions indicated. 

§ 570.8 Suspension systems. 

(a) Suspension condition. Ball joint seals 
shall not be cut or cracked. Structural parts 
shall not be bent or damaged. Stabilizer bars 
shall be connected. Springs shall not be broken, 
or extended by spacers. Shock absorber mount- 
ings, shackles, and U-bolts shall be securely at- 
tached. Rubber bushings shall not be cracked, 
extruded out from or missing from suspension 
joints. Radius rods shall not be missing or 
damaged. 

Inspection procedure. Examine front and rear 
end suspension parts for conditions indicated. 



(Rev. 4/3/74) 



PART 570—3 



Effective: September 28, 1973 



Table 2. — Toe-In Settings From Vehicle MFR's Service Specifications 





Nominal 


Wheel 


Tire 


Size 


Diameter 


(In) 


(In) 


13 


25.2 



Readings In Feet Per Mile Sideslip 



%6" 
13.1 



Vs" 
26.2 



%6" 

39.3 



52.4 



%6" 
65.5 



%" 
78.6 



%6" 

91.7 



W 
104.8 



°A6 
117.9 



14 


26.4 


12.5 


25.0 


37.5 


50.0 


62.5 


75.0 


87.5 


100. 


112.5 


15 


28.5 


11.5 


23.0 


34.5 


46.0 


57.5 


69.0 


80.5 


92.0 


103.5 


16 


35.6 


9.3 


18.6 


27.9 


37.2 


46.5 


55.8 


65.1 


74.4 


83.7 



t(39 F.R. 12867— April 9, 1974. Effective: 5/9/74)] 

(b) Shock absorber condition. There shall be 
no oil on the shock absorber housing attributable 
to leakage by the seal, and Mie vehicle shall not 
continue free rocking motion for more than two 
cycles. 

Inspection procedure. Examine shock absorbers 
for oil leaking from within, then with vehicle 
on a level surface, push down on one end of 
vehicle and release. Note number of cycles of 
free rocking motion. Repeat procedure at other 
end of vehicle. 

§ 570.9 Tires. 

(a) Tread depth. The tread on each tire shall 
be not less than two thirty-seconds of an inch 
deep. 

Inspection procedure. Passenger car tires have 
tread depth indicators that become exposed when 
tread depth is less than two tliirty-seconds of an 
inch. Inspect for indicators in any two adjacent 
major grooves at three locations spaced approxi- 
mately equally around the outside of the tire. 
For vehicles other than passenger cars it may be 
necessary to measure tread depth with a tread 
gauge. 

(b) Type. [Vehicle shall be equipped with 
tires on the same axle that are matched in tire 
size designation, construction, and profile. 

Inspection procedure. Examine visually. A 
major mismatch in tire size designation, construc- 
tion, and profile between tires on the same axle, or 
a major deviation from tlie size as recommended 
by the manufacturer (e.g. as indicated on the 
glove box placard on 1968 and later passenger 



cars) are causes for rejection. (39 F.R. 12867 — 
April 9, 1974. Effective: 5/9/74)] 

(c) General condition. Tires shall be free 
from chunking, bumps, knots, or bulges evidenc- 
ing cord, ply, or tread separation from the cas- 
ing or other adjacent materials. 

(d) Damage. Tire cords or belting materials 
shall not be exposed, either to the naked eye or 
when cuts or abrasions on the tire are probed. 
Inspection procedures. [Examine visually for 
conditions indicated, using a blunt instrument if 
necessary to probe cuts or abrasions. (39 F.R. 
12867— April 9, 1974. Effective: 5/9/74)3 

§ 570.10 Wheel assemblies. 

(a) Wheel integrity. A tire rim, wheel disc, 
or spider shall have no visible cracks, elongated 
bolt holes or indication of repair by welding. 
Inspection procedure. Examine visually for con- 
ditions indicated. 

(b) Defoi^mation. [The lateral and radial 
runout of each rim bead area shall not exceed 
one-eighth of an inch of total indicated runout. 
Inspection procedure. Using a runout indicator 
gauge, and a suitable stand, measure lateral and 
radial runout of rim bead through one full wheel 
revolution and note runout in excess of one- 
eighth of an inch. (39 F.R. 12867— April 9, 
1974. Effective: 5/9/74)] 

(c) Mounting. All wheel nuts and bolts shall 
be in place and tight. 

Inspection, procedure. Check wheel retention for 

conditions indicated. 

38 F.R. 23949 
September 5, 1973 



(Rev. MZI7A\ 



PART 570^ 



Effective: August 14, 1974 



Subpart B— Vehicles With GVWR of More Than 
10,000 Pounds 

570.51 Scope 

570.52 Purpose 

570.53 Applicability 

570.54 Definitions 

570.55 Hyciraulic brake system 

570.56 Vacuum brake assist unit and vacuum 
brake system 

570.57 Air brake system and air-over-hydraulic 
brake subsystem 

570.58 Electric brake system 

570.59 Service brake system 

570.60 Steering system 

570.61 Suspension system 

570.62 Tires 

570.63 Wheel assemblies 

AUTHORITY: Sees. 103, 108, 119, Public Law 
89-563. 80 Stat. 718. 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1397. 1407; 
delegration of authority at 49 CFll 1.51. 

§ 570.51 Scope. This part specifies standards 
and procedures for the inspection of brake, 
steering and suspension systems, and tire and 
wheel assemblies, of motor vehicles in use with 
a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 
10,000 pounds. 

§ 570.52 Purpose. The purpose of this part 
is to establish criteria for the inspection of motor 
vehicles through State inspection programs, in 
order to reduce deaths and injuries attributable 
to failure or inadequate performance of the 
motor vehicle systems covered by this part. 

§ 570.53 Applicability. [This part does not 
in itself impose requirements on any person. It 
is intended to be implemented by States thi'ough 
the highway safety program standards issued 
under the Highway Safety Act (23 U.S.C. 402) 
with respect to inspection of motor vehicles with 
gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 
pounds, except mobile structure trailers. (39 
F.R. 28980— August 13, 1974. Effective: 8/13/ 
74)] 

§ 570.54 Definitions. Unless otherwise indi- 
cated, all terms used in this part that are defined 
in 49 CFR Part 571, Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards, are used as defined in that part. 



"Air-over-hydraulic brake subsystem" means a 
subsystem of the air brake that uses compressed 
air to transmit a force from the driver control 
to a hydraulic brake system to actuate the service 
brakes. 

"Electric brake system" means a system that 
uses electric current to actuate the service brake. 

"Vacuiim brake system" means a system that 
uses a vacuum and atmospheric pressure for 
transmitting a force from the driver control to 
the service brake, but does not include a system 
that uses vacuum only to assist the driver in 
applying muscular force to hydraulic or me- 
chanical components. 

§ 570.55 Hydraulic brake system. The fol- 
lowing requirements apply to vehicles with hy- 
draulic brake systems. 

(a) Brake system failure indicator. The hy- 
draulic brake system failure indicator lamp, if 
part of a vehicle's original equijiment, shall be 
operable. 

Inspection, procedure. Apply the parking brake 
and turn the ignition to start to verify that the 
brake system failure indicator lamp is operable, 
or verify by other means recommended by the 
\-ehicle manufacturer. 

(b) Brake system integrity. The hydraulic 
brake system shall demonstrate integrity as in- 
dicated by no perceiJtible decrease in pedal 
height under a 125-pound force applied to the 
brake pedal and by no illumination of the brake 
system failure indicator lamp. The brake sys- 
tem shall withstand the application of force to 
the pedal without failure of any tube, hose or 
other part. 

Inspect/on procedure. With the engine nmning 
in \-eliicles ec[uipped with power brake systems 
and the ignition turned to "on" in other vehicles, 
apply a force of 125 pounds to the brake pedal 
and hold for 10 seconds. Note any additional 
decrease in pedal height after the initial de- 
crease, and whether the brake system failure 
indicator lam.p illuminates. 

(c) ^Brake pedal reserve. Wlien the brake 
pedal is depressed with a force of 50 pounds, the 
distance that the pedal has traveled from its 
free position shall be not greater than 80 percent 
of the total distance from its free position to the 



PART 570—5 



Effective: August 14, 1974 



floorboard or other object that restricts pedal 
travel. The brake pedal reserve test is not re- 
quired for vehicles with brake systems designed 
by the original vehicle manufacturer to operate 
with gi-eater than 80 percent pedal travel. (40 
F.R. 5159— February 4, 1975. Efiective 2/4/75)] 
Inspection procedure. Measure tlie distance 
(A) from the free pedal position to the 
floorboard or other object tliat restricts brake 
pedal travel. Depress the brake pedal, and with 
the force applied measure the distance (B) from 
the depressed pedal position to the floorboard or 
other object that restricts pedal travel. Deter- 

A-B 

mine the pedal travel percentage as — - — x 100. 

The engine must be operating when power- 
assisted brakes are checked. 

(d) Brake hoses, master cylinder, tubes and 
tiibe assemblies. Hydraulic brake hoses shall not 
be mounted so as to contact the vehicle body or 
chassis. Hoses shall not be cracked, chafed, or 
flattened. Brake tubes shall not be flattened or 
restricted. Brake hoses and tubes shall be at- 
tached or supported to prevent damage by vibra- 
tion or abrasion. Master cylinder shall not show 
signs of leakage. Hose or tube protective rings 
or devices shall not be considered part of the 
hose or tubing. 

Inspection procedure. Examine visually brake 
master cylinder, hoses and tubes, including 
front brake hoses, through all wheel positions 
from full left turn to full right turn for condi- 
tions indicated. 

§ 570.56 Vacuum brake assist unit and vac- 
uum brake system. The following requirements 
apply to vehicles with vacuum brake assist units 
and vacuum brake systems. 

(a) Vacwiim, brake assist unit integrity. The 
vacuum brake assist unit shall demonstrate in- 
tegrity as indicated by a decrease in pedal height 
when the engine is started and a constant 50- 
pound force is maintained on the pedal. 
Inspection procedure. Stop the engine and aji- 
ply service brake several times to destroy 
vacuum in .system. Depress the brake pedal with 
50 pounds of force and while maintaining that 
force, start the engine. If the brake pedal does 
not move slightly under force when the engine 
starts, there is a malfunction in the power assist 
unit. 



(b) Low- cacuum indicator. If the vehicle has > 
a low-vacuum indicator, the indicator activation ^^ 
level shall not be less than 8 inches of mercury. 

Inspection procedure. Run the engine to 
evacuate the system fully. Shut off the engine 
and slowly reduce the vacuum in the system by 
moderate brake applications until the vehicle 
gauge reads 8 inches of mercury. Observe the 
functioning of the low- vacuum indicator. 

(c) Vacuum brake system integrity. The vac- 
uum brake system shall demonstrate integrity by 
meeting the following requirements: (1) The 
vacuum brake system shall provide vacuum re- 
serve to permit one service brake application 
with a brake pedal force of 50 pounds after the 
engine is turned ofl' without actuating the low 
vacuum indicator. (2) Trailer vacuum brakes 
shall operate in conjunction with the truck or 
truck tractor brake pedal. 

Inspection procedure. Che^-k the trailer vacuum 
system by coupling trailer(s) to truck or truck 
tractor and opening trailer shutoff \"alves. Start, 
the engine and after allowing approximately 
1 minute to build up the \-acuum, apply and 
release the brake pedal. In the case of trailer / 
brakes equipped with brake chamber rods, ob- 
sei've the chamber rod movement. Run the en- 
gine to re-establisii maximum A'acuum, then shut 
ofl' the engine and apjily the brakes with a 50- 
pound force on the brake pedal. Xote the brake 
application and check for low-vacuum indicator 
activation. 

For a combination vehicle equipped with 
breakaway protection and no reservoir on the 
towing vehicle supply line, close the supplj- line 
shutoff valve and disconnect the supply line. 
Apply a 50-pound force to the brake pedr.l on the 
towing vehicle and release. Trailer brakes should 
remain in the applied position. 

(d) Vacuum, .system hoses, tubes and connec- 
tions. Vacuum hoses, tubes and connections 
shall be in place and properly supported. Vac- 
uum hoses shall not be collapsed, cracked or 
abraded. 

Inspection procedure. With the engine running, 
examine hoses and tubes for the conditions indi- 
cated and note bix)ken or missing clamps. 



(Rev. 1/24/75) 



PART 570—6 



Effective: August 1 4, 1 974 



w 




1^ 




1— 1 




H 




Ph 




P 




P 




hJ 




hH 




1— 




H' 




PQ 


'^ 


H 


g 




1— I 


w 


eS 


a) 


S 




cr 


CLh 




S 


Ph 


y 
^ 


T3 


w 


s 


03 


;^ 




^ 


M 


o 


^ 


3 


W 




P-l 


00 



p^ 



P3 







rfO 


l»OI l<:OCOI ItNI-^-^OO — C^l>OOOt^00t^^OC35C^]r^cc0^0505 






oc 


-H o^t^ 00 ooocoas— 'r^oiooo^ooid^-^^t^iocD-piocCTf 






oio 


— H ^ 






00 00 








^ o 


1 00 1 1 00)0 1 l^ 1 OOOiO'f^OOomiO^COMOM-^OMOinoo 






oo 


o o^r^o i^ oot^ooooooo»or-';j'oo»ot^Htr^^cD-r»oco-^ 






>rao 


— ^ .^ — H 






t^ 00 








-HO 


1 — * 1 1 Tj-oOrf-HC^ lOI-^ — Oit^-^COiNO-HI^OiOOOiOOSt^-H-^CO 






OO 


O OOCDOINt^ OOI^cDt*0000>Ot^-fI^lOOTfcDT^10COlOCCT7< 






o>a 


— -H 






t^tr- 








-HO 


1 ^ 1 -*35(Nf,cot~^CDC-. CO-fOOOOOOiraoCat^-Hlr^TfC^lOlOOO^NO 






OO 


^ c<i r^ CO 00 "-■ CO oi t^ CD »o t^ o^ lO t^ -^ o cc t> -^ CO CO O -^ l« CO -^ CO --i^ 






lOO 








'J2r~ 








-H O 


1 t^ [ 100)00— 'lOC-10--'-t*fMOO'^»C(MlOOcDt^COCOT}*OCJiOC^-rt*CiI:^ 






OO 


00 -Ht^incOOO — t^OlOOOO"5t^^cOcOO-flOcOlCCOlOCO^'McO 






O trt 


— H 1 — ^ — * 


0) 




CO to 




o 




— 'O 


1 O 1 COt^cO^cCt^cDiOOOOCOI^O"^ — »OcO-HO(MC<l»OOcOO--<r*-t^ 


c 




o o 


00 ooiOi>oinooin-r--ot^incoTt"ncocDi'incoiraco>*co-t<c-)?3 


HH 




lOO 


— H — H 


u 




lO o 




s 

3 




_<o 


oico 1 t^'-ioooor^ojt^ocO'^i:^ooooooococot^C50coo)i^t^»o — 


o 




OO 


oir^ ascD-^'cDoo»oc^»oio-:j'iot^-fcocoiOcoiCcO'i^o)icco^o)cooico 




OiO 




c 




lOlO 




» 

CO 


0) 




-H O 


OO 1 t^>n-j<-H35ooi^^oO(N-*<M>n^ot^-Hco«tDmoooin'#c<ioo 




£ 




OO 


-Hco 00»0-rfcOI^-*OOiC-!t"-^00-^iOcO^O)»/5CO-^01-^COC0 01C00101 


c 


_3 

"3 




lOo 




o 




-* to 




o 
XT. 


> 




-H O 


SJOcoooooira— ioiooooco>ooi^f--a30-H^ lOOoOcooi^Tf !N o 1 in 




t_ 




oo 


0:»C01t^-^COiOt^'^t^-^'*CO^»OcOrt'COTj'C<|-^C<ICOC<»'^01COC^CO f>t 


c 


'q 




O lO 


-H 


QJ 


> 

(-1 




-* ■* 




£ 


GJ 




-H O 


t^OlC-. OCO-^OOOJt^OOlOO— ■— 'OCOCOl^O-HOO'TOira-^O 1 -.O 1 (N 


H 


a> 




OO 


00>OOCO'rcOTrcDcOO-#COCO^iracO-*'NCO(N-*(MC001CO'NcO 0) (N 


ct 




>oo 


—4 


(U 




co^ 








— . o 


COinTj^OOOOOI-^fNOt^COt^iOCOOt^CO — 00*0 010 1 — 'OO 1 CO 1 1 




OO 


t^ rf O CD CO CO '3' "5 CO O CO CO 0> CO -* Ol CO Ol CO -H CO Ol O) CO oa Ol Ol 


T3 




o >o 






CO CO 




cu 




-HO 


'3'000-HOI>ncDCDt^-H-HOOCOOt~^010cDIO|lOltDIOJI 1 1 | 






OO 


COCOOOlOcOOlCO-^OllOCOOlOlCOCOOJCOOlOl CO Ol Ol Ol 




U50 




c 




C^M 








— lO 


C<l-Hin-HCD-H01^l-H'OCOI^O|COI 1 1^1 1 l-ll 1 1 1 1 1 






OO 


10COO'1<OJ01INCO TjtNCa OICO Ol O) O) 






OiO 








(M O) 








— o 


C0CD-*1001|T»<-H|T)<-H| 1 llOIOJI 1 lOI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 






lO o 


-rO)lOC0O)01C0C005 OlOJ Ol 






t-o 








-HIM 








-HO 


00 O) (^ O 1 1 -H t^ 1 O 1 1 1 1 Ol 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 






om 


COOl'l'CO OIOICO O) 






u^r^ 








-H -H 








-HO 


oaiomillcoiioiiiiiiiiiililliliiiii 






ino 


CO 'J' Ol oa Ol 






(Nira 








-H -H 








OO 


CDIC<I-H|IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 






O lO 


Ol cool 






o oq 








-H T^ 










0100rJ<c001— . t^Orrc0 01-ct<0-*<00>nolcOt^l^OOlOiOcO-H01--t^C5 








C0C00100--'OOIOOC0 — OGOOCOOO — t^ntOOCOniOOCCGOiCr^-^lO 






o "o 


Ol— o — — o — — •- — — — o ^o — ooo — oooooooooo 






CO> 


ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 






Ji 


CDOOlOlOlOlODOOOlOOOOloOOOOrfcOOOcDCOOOOO'i^cOOl 






— 33 


ococococ;:ooioocot^«oococooio-*''Ooooco-f-ooiraoooico — 






oj — ocDinoicooooootr-cot-oi'Tcooi- oioococo-r — t^^^ccolm — 






— Ol— — oicooi— CO— oioicooioicooiTfcoiOoi^co»ocO'^coiO':t^oio 


s 








xn 

>> 




s 


!-• C; t_ 

aj (S3 cj 


OOOlOlOOlOOlOlcDCDOOlOOlOlrl^^OO-^^OOTfTfOOOOcD 




T? 


^— , — — — — — — — — OIOICOCOOIOICOCOOIOICOCOCOCOCO 






(d^-^ 








3 2 03 


^i'oO C?5^Q0 0000-3>00OI-*000000-fl'00Ol^Ol'rOlH3ic<l-*NT)<(MTfol-*C? 






^ 




OOC^OOOSO^OIOIOIO^OIOIOCDCDCOCDOCDOOOO'^ — Tt^-^OOO 




si 


t, 0) £ 


— — — — — — — — — — — — — — OIOIOIOIOIOIOIOICOCOCO 




O N (i 






1-1 






4^ 


Ol Ol Ol Ol -f -c oi'oi OlOlOI-f^OlOaOlOIOlOlOlOJOlOlOlOlOlOlOlOlOlOl 




o 


3 c 2 






(h 


c S-c 






fe 


» o 





XI 






CO 




on 




>-5 


X! 


ca 


:j 


< 


■t) 


■I) 












o 






M 


^ 




i~> 





a s 




s: o 




"ti 








> m 








r,^ 




a tu 




-TTH 




'ts. 




t. o 


C1 


o > 






> 


i"i 




^^ 












C3-D 






^ 





a, 
o 






3) 



in 



as 



la 

iH 



(Rev. 1/24/75) 



PAET 570—7 



231-088 O - 77 . 



Effective: August 14, 1974 



§ 570.57 Air brake system and air-over- 
hydraulic brake subsystem. The following re- 
quirements apply to veliicle.s with air brake and 
air-over-hydraulic brake systems. Trailer (s) 
must be coupled to a truck or truck-tractor for 
the purpose of this inspection, except as noted. 

(a) Air brake system integrity. The air brake 
system shall demonstrate integrity by meeting 
the following requirements: 

(1) [The air brake system compressor shall 
increase the air pressure in the truck or truck 
trailer reservoir(s) from 85 to 100 psi in not 
more than the time specified in Table 1, with the 
engine running at the vehicle manufacturer's 
maximum recommended number of revolutions 
per minute. (40 F.R. 5159— February 4, 1975. 
Effective: 2/4/75)] 

(2) The warning device (visual or audible) 
connected to tlie brake system air pressure source 
shall be activated when air pressure is lowered 
to not less than 50 psi. For vehicles manufac- 
tured to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 121 (generally vehicles 
manufactured on or after March 1, 1975), the 
low-pressure indicator shall be activated when 
air pressure is lowered to not less than 60 psi. 

(3) The governor cut-in pressure shall be not 
lower than 80 psi, and the cut-out pressure shall 
be not higher than 1?j5 psi, unless other values 
are recommended by the \ehicle manufacturer. 

(4) With the vehicle in a stationary position, 
compressed air reserve shall be sufficient to per- 
mit one full service brake application, after the 
engine is stopped and with the system fully 
charged, without lowering reservoir pressure 
more than 20 percent below the initial reading. 

(5) Air brake pressure shall not drop more 
than 2 psi in 1 minute for single vehicles or more 
than 3 psi in 1 minute for combination vehicles, 
with the engine stopped and service brakes re- 
leased. Allow a 1-psi drop in 1 minute for each 
additional towed vehicle. 

(6) With the reservoir (s) fully charged, air 
pressure shall not drop more than 3 psi in 1 
minute for single vehicles or more than 4 psi in 
1 minute for combination vehicles, with the en- 
gine stopped and service brakes fully applied. 
Allow a 1-psi pressure drop in 1 minute for each 
additional towed vehicle. 



Table 2. — Chamber Volumes for Representative 
Brake Chambers 



Chamber Size (Inches) 



Volume (Cubic Inches) 



9 
12 
16 
20 
24 
30 
36 



18 
25 
43 
- .51 
66 
88 
12.5 



C(40 F.R. 5159— February 4, 1975. Effective: 2/4/75)1 

(7) The compressor drive belt shall not be 
badly worn or frayed and belt tension shall be 
sufficient to prevent slippage. 

Inspection procedure. With the air system 
charged, open the drain cocks in the service 
and supply reservoir on the truck or truck- 
tractor. Note the pressure at which the visual 
or audible warning device connected to the low- 
pressure indicator is activated. Close the drain 
cocks and, with the trailer(s) uncoupled, check 
air pressure build-up at the manufacturer's rec- 
ommended engine speed. Observe the time re- 
quired to raise the air pressure from 85 to 100 
psi. Continue running the engine until the gov- 
ernor cuts out and note the pressure. Reduce ^fl 
engine speed to idle, couple the trailer (s), if ^H 
applicable, and make a series of brake applica- 
tions. Note the pressure at which the governor 
cuts in. Increase engine sj^eed to fast idle and 
charge the system to its governed pressure. Stop 
the engine and record the pressure drop in psi 
per minute with brakes released and with brakes 
fully applied. 

(b) Air brake system hoses, tubes and connec- 
tions. Air system tubes, hoses and connections 
shall not be restricted, cracked or improperly 
supported, and the air hose shall not be ."braded. 
Inspection procedure. Stop the engine and 
examine air hoses, tubes and connections visually 
for conditions specified. 

(c) Air-over-KydranVic brake sxibsystem, integ- 
rity. The air-over-hydraulic brake subsystem 
shall demonstrate integrity by meeting the fol- 
lowing requirements : 

(1) The air compressor shall increase the 
pressure in the reservoir(s) from 85 to 100 psi 
in not more than the time specified in Table 1 
with the engine running at the vehicle manufac- 



(Rev. 1/24/75) 



PART 570—8 



Effective: August 14, 1974 



turer's maximum recommended niunhci' of revo- 
lutions per minute. 

(2) Tlie wiirning device (visual or audible) 
connected to the brake system air pressure source 
sliall be activated when the air i)ressure is low- 
ered to not less than o(1 psi. 

(;i) The governor cut-in pressure shall he not 
lower than SO psi, and the cut-out pressure shall 
not be higher than Kj.t psi, unless other values 
are recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. 

(4) Air brake pressui-e shall not drop more 
than 2 psi in 1 minute for single vehicles or 
more than 3 psi in 1 minute for combination 
vehicles, with the engine stopped and service 
brakes released. Allow a 1-psi drop per minute 
for each additional towed vehicle. 

(5) With the reservoir(s) fully charged, air 
pressure shall not drop more than 3 psi in 1 
minute for single vehicles or more than 4 psi in 
1 minute for combination vehicles, with the en- 
gine stopped and service brakes fully applied. 
Allow a 1-psi pressure drop in 1 minute for each 
additional towed vehicle. 

(6) The compressor drive belt shall not be 
badly worn or frayed and belt tension shall be 
sufficient to prevent slippage. 

Impection procedure. With the air system 
charged, open the drain cocks in the service and 
supply reservoir on the truck or truck-tractor. 
Xote the pressure at which the visual or audible 
warning device connected to the low pressure 
indicator is activated. Close the drain cocks and, 
with the trailers uncoupled, check air pressure 
build up at the manufacturer's recommended 
engine speed. Observe the time required to raise 
the air pressure from 85 to 100 psi. Continue 
running the engine until the governor cuts out 
and note the pressure. Reduce engine speed to 
idle, couple trailers, and make a series of brake 
applications. Note the pressure at which the 
governor cuts in. Increase engine speed to fast 
idle and charge the system to its governed pres- 
sure. Stop the engine and record the pressure 
drop in psi per minute with brakes released and 
with brakes fully applied. 

(d) Air-over-hydraulic brake suhsy^tem, hosier, 
master cylinder., tubes and connections. System 
tubes, hoses and connections shall not be cracked 
or improperly supported, the air and hydraulic 



hoses shall not be abraded and the master cylin- 
der shall not show signs of leakage. 
Inspection, procedure. Stop the engine and 
examine air and hydraulic brake hoses, brake 
master cylinder, tubes and connections visually 
for conditions specified. 

§ 570.58 Electric brake system. 

(a) Electric brake system integnty. The av- 
erage brake amperage value shall be not more 
than 20 percent abo\e, and not less than 30 per- 
cent below, the brake manufacturer's maximum 
current rating. In progressing from zero to 
maxinuuu, the ammeter indication shall show no 
fluctuation evidencing a short circuit or other 
interruption of current. 

Inspection procedure. Insert a low range (0 
to 25 amperes for most 2- and 4 brake systems 
and to 40 amperes for a 6-brake system) d.c. 
ammeter into the brake circuit between the con- 
troller and the brakes. AVith the controller in 
the ''off" position, the ammeter should read zero. 
Gradually apply the controller to the "full on" 
position for a brief period (not to exceed 1 
minute) and observe the maximum ammeter 
reading. Gradually return the controller to 
"full off" and observe return to zero amperes. 
Divide the maximum ammeter reading by the 
number of brakes and determine the brake 
amperage value. 

(b) Electric brake wiring condition. Electric 
brake wiring shall not be frayed. Wiring clips 
or brackets shall not be broken or missing. 
Terminal connections shall be clean. Conductor 
wire irauire shall not be below the brake manu- 
facturer's minimum recommendation. 
Inspection procedure. Examine visually for 
conditions specified. 

§ 570.59 Service brake system. 

(a) Service brake performance. Compliance 
with any one of the following performance cri- 
teria will satisfy the requirements of this section. 
Verify that tire inflation pressure is within the 
limits reconunended by the vehicle manufac- 
turer befoi-e conducting either of the following 
tests. 

(1) Roller-type or drive-on platform tests. 
The force applied by the brake on a front wheel 
or a rear wheel shall not differ by more than 25 



PART 570—9 



Effective: August 14, 1974 



percent from the force a]ip]icd by the brake on 
the other front wheel or the other rear wheel 
respectively. 

Inspection 'procedure. The vehicle shall be 
tested on a drive-on platform, or a roller-type 
brake analyzer with the capability of measuring 
equalization. The test shall be conducted in ac- 
cordance with the test equipment manufacturer's 
specifications. Note the brake force variance. 

(2) Road test. The service brake system shall 
stop single unit vehicles, except truck-tractors, 
in a distance of not more than 35 feet, or combi- 
nation vehicles and truck-tractors in a distance 
of not more than 40 feet, from a speed of 20 
mph, without leaving a 12-foot-wide lane. 

Inspection procedure. The road test shall be 
conducted on a le\'el (not to exceed plus or 
minus 1 percent grade), dry, smooth, hard- 
surfaced road that is free from loose material, 
oil or grease. The service brakes shall be ap- 
plied at a vehicle speed of 20 mph and the ve- 
hicle shall be brought to a stop as specified. 
Measure the distance required to stop. 

Note. Inspect for (b), (c) and (d) below on 
vehicles equipped with brake inspection ports or 
access openings, and when removal of wheel is 
not required. 

(b) Disc and drum condition. If the drum is 
embossed with a maximum safe diameter dimen- 
sion or the rotor is embossed with a minimum 
safe thickness dimension, the drum or disc shall 
be within the appropriate specifications. These 
dimensions will generally be found on motor 
vehicles manufactured since January 1, 1971, and 
may be found on vehicles manufactured for sev- 
eral years prior to that time. If the drums and 
discs are not embossed, they shall be within the 
manufacturer's specifications. 

Inspection procedure. Examine visually for the 
condition indicated, measuring as necessary. 

(c) Friction materials. On each brake, the 
thickness of the lining or pad sluill not be less 
than one thirty-second of an inch over the fast- 
ener, or one-sixteenth of an inch over the brake 
shoe on bonded linings or pads. Brake linings 
and ])ads shall not have cracks or breaks that 
extend to rivet holes except minor cracks that 
do not impair attachment. The wire in wire- 



backed lining shall not be visible on the friction 
surface. Drum brake linings shall be securely 
attached to brake shoes. Disc brake pads shall 
be securely attached to shoe plates. 

Inspection procedure. Examine visually for 
the conditions indicated, and measure the height 
of the rubbing surface of the lining over the 
fastener heads. ^Measure bonded lining thick- 
ness over the surface at the thinnest point on the 
lining or pad. 

(d) Stritctural and nnechanical parts. Back- 
ing plates, brake spiders and caliper assemblies 
shall not be deformed or cracked. System parts 
shall not be broken, misaligned, missing, binding, 
or show evidence of severe wear. Automatic 
adjusters and other parts shall be assembled and 
installed correctly. 

Inspection procedure. Examine visually for 
conditions indicated. 

§ 570.60 Steering system. 

(a) System play. Lash or free play in the 
steering system shall not exceed the values shown 
in Table 3. 

Inspection procedure. With the engine on 
and the steering axle wheels in the straight 
ahead position, turn the steering wheel in one 
direction until there is a perceptible movement 
of the wheel. If a jjoint on the steering wheel 
rim moves more than the value shown in Table 3 
before perceptible return movement of the wheel 
under observation, there is excessive lash or free 
play in the steering system. 

Table 3. Steering Wheel Free Play Value 



Steering 
Wheel Diameter (Inches) 



Lash (Inches) 



16 or less 

18 

20 

22 



2 

2% 
2% 
2% 



(b) Linkage play. Free play in the steering 
linkage shall not exceed the values shown in 
Table 4. 

Inspection procedure. Elevate the front end 
of the vehicle to load the ball joints, if the 
vehicle is so equipped. Insure that wheel bear- 
ings are correctly adjusted. Grasp the front and 
rear of a tire and attempt to turn the tire and 



PART 570—10 



Effective: August 14, 1974 



wheel assemble left to right. If the free move- 
ment at the front or rear tread of the tire ex- 
ceeds the applicable value shown in Table 4, 
there is excessive steering linkage play. 

Table 4. Front Wheel Steering Linkage Free Play 



Nominal bead diameter 
or rim, size (inches) 



Play (inches) 



16 or less 

16.01 through 18.00 

18.01 or more 



% 



(c) Free tuiming. Steering wheels shall turn 
freely through the limit of travel in both direc- 
tions. 

Inspection procedure. With the engine running 
on a vehicle with power steering, or the 
steerable wheels elevated on a vehicle without 
power steering, turn the steering wheel through 
the limit of travel in both directions. Feel for 
binding or jamming in the steering gear mech- 
anism. 

(d) Alignment. Toe-in or toe-out condition 
shall not be greater than 1..5 times the values 
listed in the vehicle manufacturer's service speci- 
fication for alignment setting. 

Inspection procedure. Drive the \ehicle over 
a sideslip indicator or measure with a tread 
gauge, and verify that the toe-in or toe-out is 
not greater than 1.5 times the values listed in the 
vehicle manufacturer's service specification. 

(e) Power steering system. Die power steer- 
ing system shall not have cracked, frayed or 
slipping belts, chafed or abrated hoses, show 
signs of leakage or have insufficient fluid in the 
reservoir. 

Inspection procedure. Examine fluid reservoir, 
hoses and pump belts for the conditions indicated. 

NOTE : Inspection of the suspension system 
must not precede the service brake performance 
test. 

§ 570.61 Suspension system. 

(a) Suspension condition. Ball joint seals 
shall not be cut or cracked, other than superficial 
surface cracks. Ball joints and kingpins shall 
not be bent or damaged. Stabilizer bars shall be 



connected. Springs shall not be broken and coil 
springs shall not be extended by sjjacers. Shock 
absorber mountings, shackles, and U-bolts shall 
be securely attached. Rubber bushings shall not 
be cracked, extruded out from or missing from 
suspension joints. Radius rods shall not be 
missing or damaged. 

Inspection procedure. Examine front and rear 
end suspension parts for the conditions indicated. 

(b) Shock absorber corulition. There shall be 
no oil on the shock absorber housings attribut- 
able to leakage by the seal. 

Inspection procedure. Examine shock absorbers 
for oil leakage from within. 

§ 570.62 Tires. 

(a) Treojd deptli. The ti'ead shall be not less 
than four thirty-seconds of an inch deep on each 
front tire of any vehicle other than a trailer and 
not less than two thirty-seconds of an inch on all 
other tires. 

Inspection procedure. For tires with tread- 
wear indicatoi-s, check for indicators in any 
two adjacent major grooves at three locations 
spaced approximately 120° apart around the 
circumference of the tire. For tires without 
treadwear indicators, measure the tread depth 
with a suitable gauge or scale in two adjacent 
major grooves at 3 locations spaced approxi- 
mately 120° apart around the circumference of 
the tire at the area of greatest wear. 

(b) Type. Vehicles should be equipped with 
tires on the same axle tliat are matched in con- 
struction and tire size designation, and dual tires 
shall be matched for overall diameter within 
one-half inch. 

Inspection procedure. Examine \'isually. A 
mismatch in size and construction between 
tires on the same axle, or a major deviation from 
the size recommended by the vehicle or tire 
manufacturer, is a cause for rejection. On a 
dual-tire arrangement the diameter of one of the 
duals must be within one-half inch of the other 
as measured by a gauge block inserted between 
the tire and a caliper. 

(c) General condition. Tires shall be free 
from chunking, bumps, knots, or bulges evidenc- 
ing cord, 2)ly or tread separation from the casing. 



PART 570—11 



InHpectioii procedure. PLxamine visually for the 
conditions indicated. 

(d) Damage. Tire cords or belLing materials 
shall not be exposed, either to the naked eye or 
when cuts on tiie tire are probed. Reinforcement 
repairs to the cord body are allowable on tires 
other than front-mounted tires. 

Inspection procedure. Examine \ isuully for tJie 
conditions indicated, using a blunt instrument if 
necessary to probe cuts and al)r;isions. 

(e) Special purpose tires. Tires marked "Not 
For Highway Use" or "Farm Use Only" or other 
such restrictions shall not be used on any motor 
vehicle operating on public higliAvays. 

inspection procedure. Examine visually for tires 
labeled with specific restrictions. 



§ 570.63 Wheel assemblies. 

(a) Whee/ integrity. A tire rim, wheel disc 
or spider shall have no visible cracks, elongated 
])<)lt holes, or indications of in-service repair by 
welding. 

inspection procedure. Examine visually lor the 
conditions indicated. 

(b) Cast wheels. Cast wheels shall not be 
cracked or show evidence of excessive wear in 
the clamp area. 

Inspection procedure. Examine \-isnnlly for the 
conditions indicated. 

(c) Mounting. All wheel nuts shall be in 
place and tight. 

Inspection procedure. Check wheel retention 
foi- the conditions indicated. 

39 F.R. 26026 
July 16, 1974 



PART 570—12 



SECTION II 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

TITLE STANDARD NO. 

Accelerator Control Systems 124 

Brake Fluids 116 

Brake Hoses 106-74 

Brake Hoses, Hydraulic 106 

Brakes, Air Systems 121 

Brakes, Hydraulic 105-75 

Brakes, Hydraulic Service, Emergency and Parking 105 

Brakes, Motorcycles 122 

Bus Window Retention and Release 217 

Child Seating Systems 213 

Controls and Displays, Motorcycle 123 

Control Location and Identification 101 

Door Locks and Door Retention Components 206 

Exterior Protection 215 

Flammability of Interior Materials 302 

Fuel System Integrity 301—75 

Fuel Tanks, Fuel Tank Filler Pipes and Fuel Tank Connections 301 

Glazing Materials 205 

Headlamp Concealment Devices 112 

Head Restraints 202 

Hood Latch Systems 113 

Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Control System 203 

Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment 108 

Mirrors, Rearview 111 

Motorcycle Helmets 218 

Occupant Crash Protection 208 

Occupant Protection in Interior Impact 201 

Reflecting Surfaces 107 

Roof Crush Resistance 216 

School Bus Body Joint Strength 221 

School Bus Rollover Protection 220 

School Bus Seating and Crash Protection 222 



ALPHABETICAL LISTING— (Continued) 

TITLE STANDARD NO. 

Seat Belt Assemblies 209 

Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages 210 

Seating Systems 207 

Side Door Strength 214 

Steering Control Rearward Displacement 204 

Theft Protection 114 

Tires, New Pneumatic 109 

Tires, New Pneumatic for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars 119 

Tires, Retreaded Pneumatic 117 

Tire Selection and Rims 110 

Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock and Transmission 

Braking Effect 102 

Truck — Camper Loading 126 

Vehicle Identification Number 115 

Warning Devices 125 

Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs and Hub Caps 211 

Window Systems, Power-Operated 118 

Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems 103 

Windshield Mounting 212 

Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems 104 

Windshield Zone Intrusion 219 



Effcctlv*: January 1, 196t 



PREAMBLE TO PART 571 
Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 
(Docket No. 3) 



This order establishes Initial Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles 
and equipment. A notice of rule making pro- 
posing the Initial Standards was issued on No- 
vember 30, 1966 (31 F.R. 15212, corrected 31 
F.R. 15600). All pertinent matter in the written 
and oral comments received has been fully con- 
sidered. Considerations of time prevent discus- 
sion of comments on individual standards. 

The motor vehicle safety standards are rules 
as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. sec. 551(4). 
The established practice is that the public record 
of a rule-making procedure under 5 U.S.C. sec- 
tion 553 ( former sec. 4 Administrative Procedure 
Act), involving a substantive rule and instituted 
upon an agency's own initiative, begins with the 
notice of rule making. An agency is under no 
legal duty to reveal the internal processes that 
shaped the project, and interested persons are 
not entitled to comment thereon, 5 U.S.C. section 
533(b)(3). Where, as here, the addresses of a 
proposed rule are themselves actively engaged 
as experts on the subject matter, their under- 
standing of the meaning and effect of a rule is 
certainly not impaired by the absence of such a 
disclosure. As a practical proposition, this 
Agency intends to adopt a policy of the greatest 
possible disclosure of underlying considerations 
in future substantive rule making when it will 
not operate under an unusually tight time sched- 
ule. In this instance, such disclosure was not 
possible, and administrative due process required 
no more than publication of the notice. The re- 
quirement that the standards be based on a record 
does not operate to require insertion in the record 
of matter not required as part of a rule-making 
notice. 

The following findings are made with respect 
to all standards — 



(1) Each standard is a minimum standard 
for motor vehicle or equipment performance 
which is practicable and meets the need for 
motor vehicle safety, and provides objective 
criteria ; 

(2) Each standard is reasonable, practicable, 
and appropriate for the particular class of motor 
vehicle or item of equipment for which it is 
prescribed ; 

(3) Each standard will contribute substan- 
tially to the purpose of reducing traffic accidents, 
and deaths and injuries to persons resulting 
therefrom, in the United States ; and 

(4) The matter incorporated by reference is 
reasonably available to the persons affected by 
this regulation. 

In addition to the vehicle classes of passengers 
cars, motorcycles, trucks, buses, and trailers pro- 
posed in the Notice, the initial standards as 
herein established introduce the new class of 
"multipurpose passenger vehicles." Only stand- 
ards proposed in the Notice for vehicles now in 
this class are made applicable to this class. Each 
standard applies only to the class of vehicles to 
which it is made applicable by its terms. 

The initial standards may be amended from 
time to time. Each standard remains in effect 
until rescinded or superseded by a Revised 
Standard actually becoming effective. 

The requirements of Standard No. 209 were 
originally published on August 31, 1966 (31 F.R. 
11528), as a revision to the existing seat belt 
standard that had been promulgated by the 
Secretary of Commerce under the authority of 
Public Law 88-201. At that time, it was pro- 
vided that the revised standards would become 
mandatory after February 28, 1967, and would 
be an optional alternative to the existing stand- 
ard until that date. As a result seat belt manu- 



PART 571— PRE 1 



IfhcHv*: January 1, 196S 



facturers had already taken steps to meet the 
March 1, 1967 date before the Notice for the 
Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 
was issued on December 3, 1966. To preserve the 
continuity of this change to the new seat belt 
standard, the March 1, 1967 effective date was 
included in the proposed Initial Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standards. This places no cer- 
tification requirement on the vehicle manufac- 
turer, however, until the effective date of the 
first Standard applicable to a motor vehicle 
rather than motor vehicle equipment. 

In consideration of the foregoing. Chapter II 
of Title 23 [49] of the Code of Federal Regula- 
tions is amended by adding a new Subchapter 
C — Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations, effective 
January 1, 1968 except Motor Safety Standard 
No. 209, "Seat Belt Assemblies — Passenger Cars, 
Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, and 
Buses," which becomes effective March 1, 1967, 
to read as set forth below. 

This regulation was proposed as Part 245 but 
will, for reasons of organization of subject mat- 
ter, be issued as Part 371 [255]. 

This rule-making action is taken under the 
authority of sections 103 and 119 of the National 
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 
(15 U.S.C. sec. 1392, 1407) and the delegations 



\ 



of authority of October 20, 1966 (31 F.R. 13952) /^ 
and January 24, 1967 (32 F.R. 1005). 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on January 31, 
1967. 

Lowell K. Bridwell, 

Acting Under Secretary 

of Commerce for Transportation 

(SUBPART A— GENERAL) 

Sec. 

371.1 Scope 

371 .3 Deflnitiont 

371.5 Matter incorporated by reference 

371.7 Applicability 

371 .9 Separability 

371.11 Equivalent demonstration procedure 

371.13 Labeling of Chassis Cabs 

SUBPART B— STANDARDS 



371.21 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. 

AUTHORITY: The provisions of this part 
371 issued under sees. 103, 119, 80 Stat. 719, 728; 
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407. 

32 F.R. 2408 
February 3, 1967 



PART 671— PRE 2 



EffKtIv*: D«<*mb*r 29, 1967 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENTS TO SUBPART A § 571.3b AND § 571.7b 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Chassis-Cab 
(Docket No. 21) 



A proposal to amend Part 371, Initial Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, by adding a 
definition of "incomplete motor vehicles" and 
specifying labeling requirements was published 
in the Federal Register on December 2, 1967 
(32 F.R. 6534), inviting interested persons to 
comment. 

The proposed amendment has been modified 
to take into account the numerous written and 
oral comments received. Under the proposed 
amendment an incomplete vehicle was consid- 
ered a separable type of motor vehicle. Some 
of the comments noted that it was unrealistic to 
consider a bare chassis a motor vehicle since it 
was no more a motor vehicle and capable of being 
used on the public highways than many other 
parts which are incorporated into a completed 
vehicle. Comments also indicated that the over- 
whelming majority of what was called incom- 
plete motor vehicles are in the form of a chassis 
with a cab attached. As such, chassis-cabs have 
the capability of conforming to the standards 
but the manufacturer of the chassis-cab cannot 
always tell what every end use will be. 

Comments from body manufacturers and truck 
dealers indicated they did not have the expertise 
or the physical apparatus to independently test 
for all standards previously met by the manu- 
facturer of the incomplete motor vehicle nor did 
they think they should have to certify that these 
standards have been met. The consensus of the 
comments indicated that a manufacturer or dealer 
should only be responsible for that which he 
manufactures or affects in assembling the com- 
pleted vehicle. 

On the basis of the comments it appears in- 
appropriate to require persons who merely add 
to a chassis-cab a body or work-performing or 
load-carrying structure to certify and to accept 



legal responsibility for the chassis-cab's conform- 
ance with all motor vehicle safety standards. 
Additionally, it appears inappropriate to con- 
sider bare chassis and similar assemblages motor 
vehicles until they reach the chassis-cab stage at 
which they are capable of meeting standards 
applicable to their principal end use. Accord- 
ingly, the regulation defines a chassis-cab as a 
vehicle and imposes the obligation of conforming 
to all standards applicable to its principal end 
use upon the manufacturer of the chassis-cab 
with a limited exception for the lighting 
standard. 

Chassis-cabs, manufactured on or after January 
1, 1968, are required to meet all motor vehicle 
safety standards applicable to the principal end 
use intended by its manufacturer, except that 
where the chassis-cab is equipped with only part 
and not all of the items of lighting equipment 
referred to in Standard 108, it need not meet 
such standard. The chassis-cab is required to 
meet Standard No. 108 whenever all of the items 
of lighting equipment referred to in Standard 
108 are installed on the chassis-cab. Frequently 
the manufacturer of the chassis-cab will install 
only a part of the lighting equipment because 
he either will not know what end use will be 
made of the vehicle or because the body or other 
structure to be added to the chassis-cab will bo 
required to bear the balance of the lighting 
equipment referred to in Standard No. 108. 

In order to provide a means of identifying the 
chassis-cab, its date of production, the Federal 
motor vehicle safety standards to which it con- 
forms, and to insure that the person combining 
the chassis-cab with a body or other structure 
has adequate information with which to meet 
his statutory responsibilities, the regulation re- 
quires that chassis-cabs manufactured on or after 



PART 571— PEE 3 



Effactiva: December 29, 1967 



January 1, 1968, have a label affixed which sup- 
plies this information. 

Concurrent with the issuance of this amend- 
ment the Federal Highway Administration has 
issued an interpretation (1) describing the re- 
sponsibility under the National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 of persons who com- 
bine bodies or other structures with chassis-cabs 
and sell the same. In brief, the interpretation 
requires that persons combining such a chassis- 
cab with a body or other like structure will be 
responsible for compliance with the lighting 
standard and for certification of such compliance 
under section 114 where such person sells the 
combined assemblage to another dealer. Addi- 
tionally, under section 108(a)(1) the person 
combining the chassis-cab with a body or other 
like structure will be responsible for assuring 
that the completed assemblage complies with all 
applicable standards in effect on the date of 
manufacture of the chassis-cab, compliance with 
which has not been previously certified by the 
manufacturer of the chassis-cab and for assuring 
that compliance with standards previously met 
by the chassis-cab have not been adversely af- 
fected by reason of the addition of the body or 
like structure. 

The interpretive ruling, however, does not re- 
quire a truck, bus, or multipurpose vehicle con- 
sisting of a chassis-cab manufactured prior to 



January 1, 1968, and a body or like structure 
manufactured at any time, to meet any standard. 
For further details interested persons are re- 
ferred to the text of the ruling. 

It is recognized that the problems associated 
with the multistage manufacture of trucks, buses, 
and multipurpose passenger vehicles are various 
and complex. . . . Requests for interpretations 
or modifications will be given appropriate con- 
sideration. 

Because the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 
issued pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 become effective 
January 1, 1968, it is found for good cause that 
this regulation becomes effective upon issuance. 

(1) F.R. Doe. C7-15175, in Notices Section, infra. 

(Sees. 103, 119, National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966; 15 U.S.C. 1392, 
1407; delegation of authority of Mar. 31, 1967 
(32 F.R. 5606), Apr. 6, 1967 (32 F.R. 6495), 
July 27, 1967 (32 F.R. 11276), and Oct. 13, 1967 
(32 F.R. 14277)). 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on December 29, 
1967. 

Lowell K. Bridwell, 

Federal Highway Administrator 

33 F.R. 18 
January 3, 1968 



PART 571— PRE 4 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 571 



Subpart A — General 
'Mobile Structure Trailer" 



A mobile home for purposes of the Federal 
motor vehicle safety standards is considered a 
"trailer" which is defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b) as 
a "motor vehicle with or without motive power, 
designed for carrying persons or property and 
for being drawn by another motor vehicle." On 
August 15, 1968, a notice of request for comments 
was published (33 F.R. 11604) announcing that 
rulemaking was being considered "which would 
either exclude mobile homes, offices, classrooms, 
etc. from applicability of the Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standards * * * or classify them 
as a separate category of vehicle subject to regu- 
lation." Comments were requested pertinent to 
these issues and Docket No. 26 was established to 
receive them. 

The Federal Highway Administrator has 
evaluated these comments and is of the opinion 
thaat a mobile home towed on its own wheels is 
a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of section 
102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act of 1966 (hereafter the Act), and is 
properly categorized as a trailer. However, dif- 
ferences between mobile homes and cargo and 
travel trailers are believed significant enough 
to warrant the creation of a subcategory of 
trailer covering mobile homes only. This new 
subcategory is designated "mobile structure 
trailer." 

The mobile home industry has asserted that its 
products are not "motor vehicles" in view of the 
infrequent use of the average mobile home upon 
the public streets, roads, and highways. Com- 
ments to Docket No. 26 state that the average 
mobile home is moved once every 40 months, that 
it spends less than 12 hours on the public roads 
in 18 to 20 years, and that it only spends 0.055 



percent of its useful life on the highway. Thus, 
it is contended that mobile homes are not "manu- 
factured primarily for use on the public streets, 
roads, and highways" and hence are not "motor 
vehicles" for purposes of the Act. 

The undisputed fact is that mobile homes as 
their name implies, are constructed with a view 
towards over-the-road operations; their capa- 
bility for travel on public highways is their 
principal advantage over fixed-site structures. 
Further, no one denies that mobile homes can 
present a significant safety hazard when they 
perform that function. 

The Administrator views his conclusion that a 
mobile home towed on its own wheels is a motor 
vehicle as being consistent with the criteria ex- 
pressed in the opinion on mini-bikes published 
October 3, 1969 (34 F.R. 15416). It is note- 
worthy that many States in significant ways 
accord mobile homes the same treatment as con- 
ventional motor vehicles. Registration, licensing, 
or other permission for use on the public roads 
is generally required. A number of jurisdictions 
have standards for mobile home lighting, braking, 
hitching, tire loading, and axle number and 
location. 

Not only is a mobile home towed on its own 
wheels operationally capable of being used on 
public thoroughfares, it is almost exclusively so 
used in traveling from plant to dealer to owner 
sit«. Even assuming an infrequent move for the 
average mobile home, mobile homes as a class are 
found with increasing frequency on the public 
roads; industry production in 1967 was 240,000 
units and the estimate for 1969 production was 
400,000 units. The demand for low-cost housing 
makes the industry optimistic that there will be 
similar increases in years to come. 



PART 571— PRE 5 



Clearly, when on the public highways, a mobile 
home towed on its own wheels will present a 
hazard if its tires, brakes, connection to the 
towing vehicle, and other factors affecting road- 
worthiness and traffic safety do not meet 
minimum standards. While some States, in 
recognition of this problem, have adopted their 
own safety standards, the Administrator believes 
that the decision published. today may result in 
eventual uniformity of safety standards for 
mobile homes, and for that reason should be 
welcomed both by the motoring public and by 
the industry. 

The current definition of trailer in § 571.3(b) 
is sufficient to encompass mobile homes. Yet, 
because of its size (10 to 14 feet in overall 
width), construction (a walled and roofed struc- 
ture), and purpose (general off-road dwelling or 
commercial use) a mobile home is different from 
a conventional cargo or travel trailer. Separa- 
tion by subclassification will allow exclusion of 
mobile homes from future rulemaking actions 
relating to trailers which may be inappropriate 
for mobile homes. 

The sole standard presently applicable to 
trailers (No. 108-Lamps, Reflective Devices, and 
Associated Equipment) continues to be con- 
sidered appropriate for mobile homes. In rec- 



ognition of the limited road use of mobile homes, 
manufacturers have been advised for some time 
that compliance may be achieved by use of a 
lighting harness removable upon completion of 
transit. 

The Administrator believes that mobile homes, 
offices, classrooms, etc. or modular portions 
thereof, should be termed mobile structures. In 
consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 571.3(b) 
is hereby amended effective immediately to add 
the following: 

"Mobile structure trailer" means a trailer that 
has a roof and walls, is at least 10 feet wide, and 
can be used offroad for dwelling or commercial 
purposes. 

Since this amendment merely establishes a sub- 
category of trailer without imposing any addi- 
tional burden on any person I find that notice 
and public procedure are imnecessary and that 
good cause exists for making it effective on less 
than 30 days notic*. 

Issued on March 20, 1970. 

F. C. Turner, 

Federal Highway Administrator. 

35 F.R. 5333 
March 31, 1970 



PART 571— PRE 6 



Effcctlv*: ScpUmbsr I, 1970 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 571 

Subpart A — General 

"Fixed Collision Barrier" 

(Docket No. 69-26) 



On December 24, 1969, a proposal to amend 
§ 571.3, Definitions, of Title 49, Code of Federal 
Regulations, by adding a definition for "Fixed 
collision barrier" was published in the Federal 
Register (34 F.R. 20212). The proposed defini- 
tion was intended to replace present references in 
the motor vehicle safety standards to SAE Rec- 
ommended Practice J850, "Barrier Collision 
Tests," and to be used in future standards con- 
taining performance requirements tested by 
impacting a vehicle into a stationary barrier. 

The intent of the definition is to establish a 
firm basis upon which performance character- 
istics of a vehicle may be measured and the re- 
quirements of the standards enforced. Such a 
definition allows manufacturers to have flexi- 
bility in constructing barriers and testing their 
vehicles, since the focus is on the vehicle require- 
ments rather than on the test equipment. 

The core of the definition is that the barrier 
absorbs "no significant portion of the vehicle's 
kinetic energy". It should be remembered that 
this is not intended to be a description of an 
actual test barrier. It is a device used in various 
standards to establish required quantitative per- 
formance levels of a vehicle in a crash situation, 
and means simply that the vehicle must meet the 
requirement no matter how small an amount of 
energy is absorbed by the barrier. 

So viewed, the comment that the use of the 
word "significant" injects an element of sub- 
jectivity into the definition is without merit. 
The question whether an amount of energy ab- 
sorbed by a barrier is significant is to be 
answered by comparing it with the extent to 
which the vehicle exceeds the performance re- 
quirement. A vehicle that exceeds the require- 



ments by 50 percent, for example, when impacted 
into a barrier that absorbs less than 1 percent of 
its kinetic energy, will probably meet the require- 
ments in any case. Obversely, if a vehicle ex- 
ceeds the requirements by an amount on the 
order of only 1 percent when tested, energy 
absorption of the same order will cast doubt on 
the validity of the test or the conformity of the 
vehicle. Thus, it would be inconsistent with the 
purposes of the definition to follow the sugges- 
tion that was made of allowing a specified per- 
centage of energy absorption such as 1 percent. 
Furthermore, it would be necessary for the 
Bureau to test vehicles against a barriet that 
absorbed at least 1 percent of the energy in each 
case, in order to conclusively establish noncon- 
formity. Since the precise amounts of energy 
absorbed in an impact are virtually impossible 
to establish, this would be a serious hindrance 
to enforcement of the standards. 

It was suggested that the definition allow a 
plywood facing material to be used on a barrier. 
It is not necessary, however, to make such a 
specification, since no construction method what- 
ever is prescribed, and manufacturers may use 
such facings or other materials as they see fit. 
Their responsibility is simply to insure that their 
vehicles will meet the performance requirements 
when they are impacted into a barrier whose 
energy absorption approaches zero. 

One comment requested that the first para- 
graph be changed to make it clear that the di- 
mensions of the barrier need not be such as to 
prevent the passage of parts of the vehicle that 
become separated during impact. Presumably 
the passage of separated parts mentioned by the 
commenter would not affect the measured per- 



PART 571— PRE 7 



Effective: September I, 1970 



formance (steering wheel displacement, wind- 
shield retention, etc.). If it would not affect the 
performance, then the vehicle would perform in 
the same way when it impacted an "infinitely 
large" barrier, and such a provision would be 
urmecessary. If it would aflfect performance, 
then the provision would be inappropriate, since 
the point of the definition is to eliminate ambi- 
guity by requiring the vehicle to meet the re- 
quirements upon impact with a barrier large 
enough to intercept the entire vehicle. The sug- 
gestion has therefore not been adopted. 

A comment questioned the phrase "level 
vehicle attitude" in the second paragraph of the 
proposal. The intent of this paragraph was not 
to impose requirements as to vehicle attitude on 
a horizontal surface, but to specify a horizontal 



approach surface large enough to allow complete 
damping of transient transverse or vertical 
vehicle motion. The paragraph has accordingly 
been reworded to specify that the approach sur- 
face be large enough for the vehicle to "attain 
a stable attitude" during the approach. 

The third paragraph has been editorially re- 
worded for clarification without change in its 
substance or intent. 

Issued on July 8, 1970. 

Douglas W. Toms, 

Director, 

National Highway Safety Bureau. 

35 F.R. 11242 
July 14, 1970 



PART 571— PRE 8 



EfFaclive: Fabruary S, 1971 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 571 



Subpart A — General 
"Definitions" 



The purpose of this notice is to amend Sub- 
part A, General, of Part 571, Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standards, in Title 49, Code of 
Federal Regulations, by adding certain defini- 
tions and an explanatory section with respect to 
drafting usage in the standards and regulations 
issued under the National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act. 

1. A problem that arises frequently in the 
drafting and interpretation of standards is ex- 
pression of the concept that a vehicle or item of 
equipment must meet specified requirements 
within a range of values, or in connection with 
all the items in a set, not simultaneously, but at 
whatever point within the range or with what- 
ever item in the set the Administration selects 
for testing. Normal English usage describes this 
concept by use of the word "any," as in the 
following examples: "The vehicle must meet the 
requirements of S4.1 when tested at any point 
between 18 and 22 inches above the ground." 
"Each tire shall be capable of meeting the re- 
quirements of this standard when mounted on 
any rim specified by the manufacturer as suitable 
for use with that tire." 

The interpretive difficulty arises because, al- 
though the requirements of the standards are 
drafted as descriptions of the limits within 
which the Administration will test the vehicles 
and equipment to which the standards apply, 
some members of the public fail to recognize 
this, and tend to view the standards (errone- 
ously) as descriptions of the tests that manu- 
facturers must perform. Thus, in the above ex- 



amples, persons may mistakenly consider the 
requirement as requiring only that the vehicle 
must meet the requirements at some one point 
between 18 and 22 inches from the ground, or 
that a tire need only meet the requirements when 
mounted on a particular one of the rims recom- 
mended by the manufacturer. To correct any 
such misconceptions, and to simplify the draft- 
ing and interpretation of standards and regula- 
tions, an explanatory section is hereby added to 
the "General" subpart of Part 571. 

2. To simplify the drafting and organization 
of standards and regulations, definitions are 
hereby added to the list in 49 CFR 571.3 for the 
terms "longitudinal" or "longitudinally," gross 
vehicle weight rating" or "GV^VR," "gross axle 
weight rating" or "GAWR," "gross combina- 
tion weight rating" or "GCWR," and "unloaded 
vehicle weight." 

Since these amendments are clarifying and in- 
terpretative in nature, notice and public pro- 
cedure thereon are unnecessary, and they are 
effective upon publication in the Federal 
Register (2-5-71). 

In consideration of the foregoing. Subpart A, 
General, of Part 571, Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standards, in Title 49, Code of Federal 
Regulations, is amended. . . . 

Issued on February 2, 1971. 

Douglas W. Toms, 
Acting Administrator. 

36 F.R. 2511 
February 5, 1971 



PART 571— PRE 9-10 



231-0B8 O - 77 - 12 



i 



EffccHv*: Scptombsr ], 1971 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 571— FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE 

SAFETY STANDARDS 
(Docket No. 71-8; Notice 2) 



The purpose of this notice is to amend section 
571.3(b) to add a definition of "firefighting ve- 
hicle," and to add new section 571.8 to provide 
for delayed effective dates of future standards 
to which firefighting vehicles must conform. 

The notice of proposed amendment upon which 
this amendment is based was published in the 
Federal Register on April 16, 1971, (36 F.R. 
7259). This amendment is responsive to the 
potential problems of manufacturers of fire- 
fighting vehicles that may be caused if Federal 
motor vehicle safety standards are issued after 
purchase contracts are signed, to be effective be- 
fore the manufacture of the vehicles in question 
is completed. As noted in the prior notice, many 
of these vehicles are custom-built to the buyer's 
specifications and require up to 18 months or 
more to complete after the contract is signed, and 
the buyer, typically a unit of municipal govern- 
ment, is often not in a position to renegotiate the 
contract and appropriate additional funds. The 
amendment specifies that the effective date for 
any standard or amendment of a standard to 
which a firefighting vehicle must conform shall 



be 2 years after the date that notice of such 
standard or amendment is published in the Fed- 
eral Register^ or the effective date specified in 
the notice, whichever is later, unless such stand- 
ard or amendment otherwise specifically provides 
with respect to firefighting vehicles. This will 
assure manufacturers and buyers that the ve- 
hicles for which contracts are signed need only 
conform to standards on which the final rules 
have been issued at the time the contract is 
signed, as long as the vehicles are completed 
within 2 years of the signing date. 

No objections to the proposal were received. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 571 
is amended .... 

Effective date: September 1, 1971. 

Issued on July 21, 1971. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Acting Administrator 

36 F.R. 13926 
July 28, 1971 



PART 671— PRE 11-12 



EINrtiv*: Fabruary 12, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 571— FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 



This notice amends the definition of "Gross 
axle weight rating" to reflect more clearly the 
intended meaning of the phrase. 

Gross axle weight rating is defined in 49 CFR 
571.3 as follows : 

"Gross axle weight rating" or "GAWR: 
means the value specified by the vehicle 
manufacturer as the loaded weight on a 
single axle measured at the tire-ground 
interfaces. 

GAWR, as it has been interpreted by this 
agency in response to questions from interested 
persons, is intended to reflect the load carrying 
capacity of the axle system, and not necessarily 
the actual load that they may be imposed on an 
axle system by a vehicle in use. The capacity 
should normally be at least equal to the imposed 
load, of course, but it may exceed the imposed 
load to any extent desired by the vehicle manu- 
facturer. 



In order to express this intent more clearly, 
the definition of "Gross axle weight rating" in 
49 CFR § 571.3, Definitions, is hereby amended. 

Effective date : February 12, 1972. 

Since this amendment is interpretative in na- 
ture, and reflects current understanding and 
practice, it is found for good cause that notice 
and public procedure thereon are imnecessary, 
and that an immediate effective date is in the 
public interest. 

This amendment is issued under the authority 
of sections 103 and 119 of the National TraflSc 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 
1407, and the delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.51. 

Issued on February 8, 1972. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

37 F.R. 3185 
February 12, 1972 



PART 571— PRE 13-14 



Elhctiv*: Jun* 1, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 571 

Subpart A — General 
"Definitions" 



This notice extends the applicability of the 
definitions used in the Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standards to other regulations contained 
in Chapter V of Title 49, Code of Federal Regu- 
lations, and deletes the definitions of "Gross axle 
weight rating" and "Gross vehicle weight rating" 
from the regulations governing vehicles manu- 
factured in two or more stages. 

49 CFR 571.3(b) contains the definitions used 
in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. 
Some of the regulations other than standards con- 
tain their own definition sections defining terms 
unique to the regulation, and otherwise incor- 
porating by reference the definitions of Part 571. 
An example of this is the definition section in the 
Certification Regulation, 49 CFR 567.3: "All 
terms that are defined in the Act and the rules 
and standards issued under its authority are used 
as defined therein." However, there is no reverse 
applicability of 49 CFR 571.3(b), which applies 
only to terms "as used in this part." One result 
has been that duplicate definitions appear in cer- 
tain regulations, specifically, the identical defini- 
tions of "Gross axle weight rating" and "Gross 
vehicle weight rating" found in both Part 571 
and the regulation on Vehicles ]\Ianufactured 
in Two or More Stages, Part 568. To prevent 
unnecessary duplication and the possibility of 



confusion in the future, the Administration has 
determined that the definitions used in Part 571 
should apply to all regulations in Chapter V, and 
also that Part 568 should be amended by deleting 
the definitions of "Gross axle weight rating" and 
"Gross vehicle weight rating." In consideration 
of the foregoing 49 CFR 571.3(b) is amended . . . 

Effective date: June 1, 1972. Since this 
amendment is administrative and interpretive in 
nature and imposes no additional burden upon 
any person, notice and public procedure thereon is 
unnecessary and it may be made effective in less 
than 30 days after publication in the Federal 
Register. 

This notice is issued under the authority of 
section 103 and 119 of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 
1392, 1407), and the delegation of authority from 
the Secretary of Transportation to the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR 
1.51. 

Issued on May 9, 1972. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

37 F.R. 10938 
June 1, 1972 



PART 571— PRE 15-16 



EfbcMvai April 1, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 571— FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

Subpart A — General 



This notice deletes the definition of "Occupant" 
from the general definitions applicable to the 
Federal motor vehicle standards. 

At present, "Occupant" is defined in § 571.3 
Definitions, (applicable to all standards) as "a 
person or manikin seated in the vehicle, and, im- 
less otherwise specified in an individual standard, 
having the dimensions and weight of the 95th 
percentile adult male." However, where the word 
"occupant" is used in this chapter, the weight has 
generally been specified if it is a necessary part 
of the requirement. Thus, the definition is super- 
fluous. Moreover, in instances where the use of a 
weight other than that of a 95th percentile male 
is assumed, the definition could be misleading. 



Since this amendment is clarifying and inter- 
pretative in nature, and does not aflfect any re- 
quirements, notice and public procedure thereon 
are found to be unnecessary. 

Accordingly, 49 CFR § 571.3(b) is hereby 
amended by deleting the definition of "occupant". 

Effective date : April 1, 1973. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 15 
U.S.C. 1392, 1407 ; delegation of authority at 49 
CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on February 23, 1973. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

38 F.R. 5636 
March 2, 1973 



PART 571— PRE 17-18 



I 



EfFeclive: January 1, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 571— FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

Subpart A — General 



This notice amends the Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standards, 49 CFR Part 571, by removing 
the general provision excepting motor vehicles of 
1,000 pounds or less curb weight other than 
trailers and motorcycles (hereafter referred to as 
"lightweight vehicles") from the applicability of 
the safety standards. 

The NHTSA published a notice of proposed 
rule making on August 16, 1972 (37 F.S. 16553) 
proposing that the motor vehicle safety standards 
apply to all vehicles regardless of weight. Com- 
ments generally favored the proposal. Those who 
opposed the proposal expressed concern that 
standards compliance would hinder development 
of small urban vehicles. It was recommended 
that different performance requirements be 
adopted for lightweight passenger csirs iji some 
areas of the standards, such as those rel'^ted to 
structural crashworthiness. One commenter re- 
quested that exemption not be discontinued, but 
be made available for vehicles with a curb weight 
of up to 1500 pounds. 

The NHTSA lias determined that the general 
exception of lightweight vehicles from conformity 
with the standards can no longer be justified, and 
is hereby amending 49 CFR § 571.7(a) to remove 
it. In so doing, it is mindful of the potential 
effect of this action upon the development of 
small, economical vehicles. As it observed in 
the notice: 

"It remains true that vehicles in this weight 
class have inherent disadvantages in meeting 
standards requiring, for example, structural 
strength or considerable crush distance. Many 
other important standards, on the other hand, 
such as those on lighting, braking, and glazing, 
should be attainable by lightweight vehicles 
virtually as easily as by heavier ones. It thus 



appears in the public interest to consider the 
needs and problems of lightweight vehicles on 
a standard-by-standard basis (as is presently 
done in the case of heavy vehicles, which re- 
ceive differential treatment in several stand- 
ards), rather than by an across-the-board 
exception." 

A manufacturer has the option of petitioning 
for amendment of any standard it feels is im- 
practicable or inappropriate for lightweight ve- 
hicles. Alternatively, it may be eligible to peti- 
tion for temporary exemption from one or more 
standards upon one of the bases provided in 
Section 123 of the National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 92-548). 

An additional comment concerned the inequity 
in treatment between three- and four-wheeled ve- 
liicles, the former categorized as "motorcycles" 
for jnirposes of the standards and required to 
comply with fewer standards. By a separate 
notice published today (38 F.R. 12818) the 
NHTSA is seeking to correct this inequity by 
proposing a redefinition of "motorcycle" which 
would exclude most three-wheeled vehicles. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.7(a) is revised. . . . 

Effective date: January 1, 1974. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407; delegation of authority at 
38 F.R. 12147). 

Issued on May 10, 1973. 

James E. Wilson 
Associate Administrator 
Traffic Safety Programs 

38 F.R. 12808 
May 16, 1973 



PART 571— PRE 19-20 



^ 



Effective September 1, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 571— FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

Subpart A — General 
(Docket No. 73-12; NoHce 2) 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.3(b), Defini- 
tions, of the Federal motor vehicle safety stand- 
ards, by revising the definition of "motorcycle". 

The NHTSA proposed in the Federal Register 
on May 16, 1973 (38 F.R. 12818) that a "motor- 
cycle" be defined as a "two-wheeled motor vehicle 
with motive power, or a three-wheeled motor 
vehicle with motive power and without a full or 
partial passenger enclosure". 

Interested persons have been afforded an op- 
portimity to participate in the making of this 
amendment and due consideration has been 
given to all comments received in response to 
the notice, insofar as they relate to matters 
within its scope. 

The issue raised most frequently in the com- 
ments was the concern that the addition of a 
sidecar to a two-wheeled motorcycle would create 
a combination vehicle not classifiable as a "mo- 
torcycle". The NHTSA considers a sidecar to 
be an item of motor vehicle equipment which, 
when added to a two-wheeled vehicle, does not 
change that vehicle's original classification as a 
"motorcycle". 

As the agency had anticipated, comments were 
submitted by manufacturers and potential manu- 
facturers of three-wheeled vehicles that would 
be excluded from categorization as "motor- 
cycles". These commenters generally objected 
to the imposition of passenger car and truck 
standards on their vehicles, on the grounds that 
these are inappropriate for low-speed lightweight 
vehicles. One manufacturer argued that it could 
not meet seating and restraint requirements. 
Others suggested that a special category be es- 
tablished for three-wheelers. To one commenter, 
the options of petitioning for amendment of 
"inappropriate" standards, or for temporary 



exemption from "appropriate" ones pending 
compliance did not appear to offer an adequate 
solution, arguing that it represented "a lengthy 
procedure with doubtful outcome". 

Only one petition has been received for amend- 
ment of standards applicable to lightweight or 
three-wheeled vehicles, and pending its resolu- 
tion no separate categories or special require- 
ments for these vehicles have been established. 
Under the certification scheme imposed by the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 
a manufacturer has the responsibility of deter- 
mining whether his vehicle meets the Federal 
standards, and petitioning if an appropriate 
change appears necessary. The NHTSA believes 
that the goals of motor vehicle safety in this 
area are more likely to be realized by considera- 
tion of problems with the standards as they are 
raised by individual ma"nufacturers, than by at- 
tempting to establish a comprehensive regulatory 
scheme for lightweight vehicles on the basis of 
the scanty data presently available. 

The definition that NHTSA proposed was 
opposed on substantive grounds as well. Several 
commenters said the phrase "partial passenger 
enclosure" was ambiguous and would create 
problems of interpretation. It was suggested 
that reference be made to such characteristics of 
two-wheeled motorcycles as saddle seating and 
handlebars. The agency has decided that these 
comments have merit, and that a definition of 
"motorcycle" should emphasize features of three- 
wheeled vehicles to be included in the definition, 
rather than those to be excluded. Accordingly 
the definition is being adopted that three- 
wheeled motorcycles are those "utilizing a han- 
dlebar for steering and having a seat that is 
straddled by the driver". 



PART 571; PRE 21 



Effective: September 1, 1974 

The NHTSA considei-s the adoption of this 
amendment dispositive of recent petitions of the 
Motorcycle Industry Council and Cushman 
Motors for a redefinition of "motorcycle", and 
to the extent that those requests differ from the 
definition adopted today the petitions are denied. 

In consideration of the foregoing the defini- 
tion of "Motorcycle" in 49 CFR 571.3(b) is 
revised 



Effective date: September 1, 1974. 

(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407 ; delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51) 

Issued on November 19, 1973. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

38 F.R. 32580 
November 27, 1973 



i 



PART 571; PRE 22 



> 



Effective: April 30, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 571— FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

Subpart A — General 
(Docket No. 73-12; Notice 3) 



I 



This notice responds to petitions for reconsid- 
eration of the recent redefinition of "motorcycle" 
(38 F.R. 32580), and amends 49 CFR 571.3(b), 
Definitions, by revoking that redefinition. In a 
notice issued today, the NHTSA has proposed 
an amendment to 49 CFR 571.3(b) that would 
redefine the vehicle category "motorcycle." 

In a notice published on May 16, 1973, (38 
F.R. 12818) the NHTSA proposed that a "motor- 
cycle" be defined as "a two-wheeled motor vehicle 
with motive power, or a three-wheeled motor 
vehicle with motive power and without a full or 
partial passenger enclosure." On the basis of 
comments received, on November 27, 1973, (38 
F.R. 32580) 49 CFR 571.3(b) was amended, ef- 
fective September 1, 1974, to define '"motorcycle" 
as a "two-wheeled motor vehicle with motive 
power, a handlebar for steering, and a seat that 
is straddled by the driver." This definition is 
being revoked in light of the agency's decision 
to propose a new definition, leaving the original 
definition in force pending further rulemaking 
action. 

Petitions for reconsideration were submitted 
by White Motor Corporation, EVI, Inc., Otis 
Elevator, and Cushman Motors, all of whom ob- 
jected to the revised definition. Cushman Motors. 
Otis Elevator, and EVI, Inc. argued that the 
revised definition was inappropriate in that no 
safety need had been demonstrated to warrant 
its adoption. The NHTSA does not agree with 
this contention. Safety demands that the exist- 
ing standards apply to vehicle types which have 
similar characteristics and end uses. For in- 
stance, vehicles that are used as passenger cars 
and whose configurations display basic passenger 
car characteristics should, in the interest of 
safety, be subject to passenger car standards. 



Cushman Motors and Otis Elevator asserted 
that the effect of the revised definition, subject- 
ing their three-wheeled vehicles to passenger car 
or truck standards, would be to force their ve- 
hicles out of production since it would be impos- 
sible for them to comply with the applicable 
safety standards. This issue was discussed in a 
notice published May 16, 1973, (38 F.R. 12808) 
removing the provision excepting motor vehicles 
of 1,000 pounds or less curb weight from the 
applicability of the safety standards. The 
NHTSA explained in that notice : 

A manufacturer has the option of petition- 
ing for amendment of any standard it feels is 
impracticable or inappropriate for lightweight 
vehicles. Alternatively, it may be eligible to 
petition for temporary exemption from one or 
more standards upon one of the bases provided 
in section 123 of the National Traffic and Mo- 
tor Vehicle Safety Act (Public Law 92-548). 

Petitioners' most substantial objection was 
that the definition excluded certain vehicles 
whose overall configurations are closer to those 
of motoi'cycles than of passenger cars or trucks, 
while including others for which regulation as 
motorcycles appears inappropriate. Petitioners 
argued that the presence of a steering wheel and 
a bench seat would subject a lightweight, unen- 
closed three-wheeled vehicle to passenger car or 
truck requirements, regardless of other character- 
istics which might render it more suited to regu- 
lation as a motorcycle. They contended that the 
definition also had the effect of allowing fully 
enclosed vehicles, if equipped with handlebars 
and a straddle seat, to meet only the requirements 
applicable to motorcycles regardless of their 
overall similarity to a passenger car or truck. 



PART 571; PRE 23 



Effective: April 30, 1974 



The NHTSA has concluded that some of these 
arguments have merit. Three-wheeled vpliicles, 
though low in volume of production, span a 
variety of types that range from vehicles vir- 
tually identical to motorcycles forward of their 
rear axles to those that have every characteristic 
of small passenger cars except for the number of 
wheels on the ground. The most reasonable and 
appropriate dividing line appears to be one based 
on a vehicle feature crucial to the application of 
conventional passenger car or truck standards — 
an enclosed passenger compartment. The peti- 
tion from White Motor Corporation suggested a 
definition that would divide motorcycles from 
other vehicle types on the basis of a passenger 
enclosure above the level of the handlebars. The 
NHTSA has concluded that the suggestion is 
meritorious, and it forms the basis for the pro- 
posed redefinition published today. 

Several commenters objected to the amendment 
on grounds that it differed from the proposal 
(38 F.R. 12818). In light of the fact that the 



redefinition is being revoked on thfe merits and a 
new definition is proposed, the NHTSA consid- 
ers that issue moot. 

In light of the foregoing, the definition of 
"motorcycle" in 49 CFR 571.3(b), DefinitioTis, 
published November 27, 1973, (38 F.R. 32580), 
to be effective September 1, 1974, is hereby 
deleted. 

Effective date: April 30, 1974. Since this ac- 
tion revokes an amendment that was not yet 
effective, it is found for good cause shown that 
an immediate effective date is in the public 
interest. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407); delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on April 24, 1974. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

39 F.R. 15039 
April 30, 1974 



I 



PART 571; PRE 24 



Effective: August 7, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 571— FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

Subpart A — General 
(Docket No. 74-27; Notice 1) 



The purpose of this notice is to amend 49 CFR 
Part 571 by deleting § 571.11, Equivalent Dem- 
onstration Procedure, which refers to the sub- 
stitution of test procedures by manufacturers for 
those prescribed in the safety standards. 

Section 571.11, which was a part of the origi- 
nal procedural rules, provides that an "apj^roved 
equivalent" demonstration procedure may be 
substituted for the testing procedure specified in 
a particular standard. The implication of this 
l^rovision is that the manufacturer must obtain 
from the XHTSA approval of any testing pro- 
cedures he intends to utilize that deviate from 
the procedures prescribed in the standards. This 
agency's interpretations of the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act since the promul- 
gation of § 571.11, however, are at variance with 
the requirement implied by that section. 

The safety standards establish required per- 
formance levels for motor vehicles and motor 
vehicle equipment. The test procedures in the 
safety standards are simply objective ways of 
phrasing the performance requirements. Gen- 
erally, they represent the procedures that will 
be followed by the agency in its compliance test- 
ing. The manufacturer is not legally obligated 
to follow these test procedures when determining 



tlie compliance of his products for the purposes 
of certification. The legal requirement is that 
he exercise due care in assuring himself that his 
product is capable of meeting the performance 
requirements of applicable standards when 
tested in the manner prescribed. He may do this 
by whatever means he determines to be reliable 
and necessary. 

Accordingly, 49 CFR Part 571 is amended by 
deleting § 571.11, Equivalent Demonstration Pro- 
cedure. 

Effective date: August 7, 1974. This amend- 
ment is clarifying and interpretative in nature, 
and it is therefore found for good cause shown 
that notice and public procedure are unnecessary, 
and that an immediate effective date is in the 
public interest. 

(Sec. 103, 119 Pub. L. 89-563. 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on August 2, 1974. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

39 F.R. 28437 
August 7, 1974 



PART 571; PRE 25-26 



231-088 O - 77 - 13 



i 



Effective: October 22, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 571— FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE 

SAFETY STANDARDS 

(Docket No. 75-9; Notice 2) 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.7, Apflica- 
hility, by the addition of a new parap:rapli to 
specify the conditions under which a track as- 
sembled by combining major new components 
with some used components will be considered 
used for the purpose of the motor vehicle safety 
standards, associated regulations, and the Na- 
tional TraiEc and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. 

The NHTSA proposed a modification of its 
existing interpretation of what constitutes the 
manufacture of a new motor vehicle when used 
components from an existing vehicle are involved 
(40 F.R. 19485, May 5, 1975). Up to this time, 
the NHTSA has considered that tlie addition of 
new components (such as a truck body) to the 
chassis of a used vehicle does not constitute the 
manufacture of a new vehicle, but that the addi- 
tion of used components to a new chassis which 
has never been certified in a vehicle constitutes 
the manufacture of a new veliicle, subject to the 
safety standards in effect for that vehicle class 
on the date of manufacture. This criterion has 
been relied on in the area of chassis-cab multi- 
stage manufacture. 

Two truck manufacturers, the American Truck- 
ing Associations and the National Automobile 
Dealers Association, requested reconsideration of 
this criterion, because the high value of some 
components of a chassis makes their reuse feasible 
although the entire chassis may not be reusable. 
They stressed the savings to an owner in com- 
bining a "glider kit" (typically a cab, frame rails, 
and front suspension) and the used power train 
of a wrecked or badly worn vehicle instead of 
purchasing a complete new vehicle from a ti-uck 
manufacturer. Standard No. 121, Air Brake 
Systems, has heightened the importance of the 
question of what constitutes a new vehicle, since 



bringing vehicles with pre-121 axles into con- 
formity with the standard appears to be econom- 
ically impracticable. 

The NHTSA proposed a statement of what 
constitutes manufacture of a vehicle in these 
cases which agreed with the suggestions of the 
two petitioning manufacturers, International 
Harvester and ^Vliite Motor Corporation. The 
agency considered it important that the retention 
of a minimum number of valuable used com- 
ponents be required as a justification in each case, 
and that retention of the identity of the used 
vehicle, with respect to model year and identifica- 
tion number, be required as evidence that the 
reassembly is a bona fide salvage operation, to 
avoid creating any undue economic incentives 
for evasion of Standard No. 121. 

Manufacturers and users supported the clar- 
ification that permits the continued use of glider 
kits in combination with pre-121 rear axles, but 
International Harvester, Mack, PACCAR, Trans- 
pac, and the State of California objected to the 
second criterion that vehicles be identified as the 
old vehicle. The comments indicate that re- 
quiring the identity of the old vehicle to continue 
in the rebuilt vehicle would have real and unin- 
tended disadvantages in the area of vehicle reg- 
istration by the States. As proposed by the 
NHTSA, the registration would reflect a vehicle 
identification number that would not appear on 
the new vehicle frame or in the new vehicle cab, 
with resulting difficulty in verifying the true 
identity of the vehicle. The external identifica- 
tion on the cab would, in many cases, also dis- 
agree with the vehicle identification documents. 
The NHTSA agrees that State registration prac- 
tices to avoid this confusion should be supported 



PART 571— PRE 27 



EfFeclive: October 22, 1975 



as long as the practice does not encourage the 
salvage of old vehicle components in order to 
avoid safety standards. Therefore, the NHTSA 
issues the provision in a form which includes 
only the requirement for at least two used drive 
train components. 

Rockwell International cautioned the NHTSA 
against a decision that would encourage the re- 
use of unsafe components on the highway. The 
NHTSA always considers the possibility its reg- 
ulations might encourage continued use of ve- 
hicles on the highway after they would normally 
be replaced. As in other cases, the NHTSA will 
monitor the effect of its decision on glider kits 
to ensure that their use without requiring com- 
pliance with all applicable standards does not 
result in a pattern of conscious avoidance of 
Standard No. 121 or other standards. In the 
event the agency should discover evidence of 
such abuse, it will move decisively to appropri- 
ately revise the new statement of applicability. 

Oshkosh Truck Corporation and Mack Trucks, 
Inc., both suggested that the scope of the pro- 
posal be modified to broaden its coverage. 
Oshkosh concluded that because a new cab was 
mentioned, the provision would prohibit the use 
of used cabs in vehicle assembly operations. 
Mack believed that the term "glider kits" would 
better describe the rebuilding operations being 
described. 



The NHTSA would like to make clear to 
Oshkosh and others that the proposed paragraph 
(e) is not intended to regulate all truck rebuild- 
ing operations, but only those in which so many 
major new components are utilized (such as a 
glider kit) that the vehicle is in many respects 
a newly-manufactured vehicle. This provision is 
intended to distinguish the legitimate rebuilding 
operation in which many new vehicle components 
are used from the typical assembly-line produc- 
tion of new vehicles. Oshkosh and other manu- 
facturers may rebuild trucks with used com- 
ponents without falling under § 571.7(e). 

In consideration of the foregoing, a new 
paragraph (e) is added to 49 CFR 571.7, 
Applicahility .... 

E-ffective date : October 22, 1975. Because this 
amendment has the effect of relaxing a require- 
ment for the compliance of vehicles to applicable 
motor vehicle safety standards, it is found for 
good cause shown that an immediate effective 
date is in the public interest. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 



(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; 
at 49 CFR 1.51). 
Issued on October 16, 



delegation of authority 

1975. 

Gene G. Mamiella 
Acting Administrator 

40 F.R. 49340 
October 22, 1975 



PART 571— PRE 28 



Effective: October 27, 1976 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 571 — 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

(Docket No. 75-24; Notice 2) 



Tliis notice amends the definition of "school 
bus" that appears in 49 CFR 571.3, to conform 
to the mandate of the Motor Vehicle and School- 
bus Safety Amendments of 1974 (The Act), 
Pub. L. 93^92, by expanding the present defini- 
tion used by the NHTSA in establishing safety 
requirements. 

The NHTSA's present definition of "school 
bus" (49 CFR 571.3) is based on the design of 
the vehicle: 

"School bus" means a bus designed primarily 
to carry children to and from school, but not 
including buses operated by common carriers in 
urban transportation of school children. 

The Act included a definition of "school bus" 
based on its usage for transporting students, in- 
stead of its design : 

(14) "schoolbus" means a passenger motor ve- 
hicle which is designed to carry more than 10 
passengers in addition to the driver, and which 
the Secretary determines is likely to be signifi- 
cantly used for the purpose of transporting pri- 
mary, pre-primary, or secondary school students 
to or from such schools or events related to such 
schools ; 

The legislative history of the Act specifically 
emphasizes Congress' view that the existing defini- 
tion based on vehicle design is too nari-ow and 
should be expanded to include vehicles likely to 
be used for school student transportation. H.R. 
Rep. No. 93-1191, 93rd Cong., 2d Session 42 
(1974) : 

Your Committee decided that safety regula- 
tion should reach the wide varietj' of passenger 
motor vehicles which are actually and signifi- 
cantly used to transport students, not merely 
those which are primarily designed for this pur- 
pose. 



The Congressional definition directs the 
NHTSA (by reference to a Secretarial determi- 
nation) to establish a regulatory definition that 
encompasses a described category of bus used 
for student transportation. The NHTSA sub- 
sequently proposed a definition that would accom- 
plish the Congressional intent within the regula- 
tory and enforcement framework of the Act (40 
FR 40854, September 4, 1975) : 

"School bus" means a bus which is equipped 
to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to 
the driver and which is sold, or introduced, or 
delivered for introduction in interstate commerce, 
for purposes that include carrying students to 
and from school or related events, but does not 
include buses designed and sold for operation as 
a common carrier in urban transportation. 

Comments were received from manufacturers 
and users of school buses (and their associa- 
tions), the States of Wisconsin and Montana, the 
California Department of Highway Patrol 
(CHP), the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commis- 
sion (VESC), and Mr. George Chambers. The 
major issue in these comments was the degree 
to which the proposed definition conformed to 
Congressional intent. The Motor Vehicle Manu- 
facturers Association (MVMA), Chi'ysler Cor- 
poration, International Harvester (IH), General 
JMotors, and the State of Montana argued that 
the Congressional expectation of I'egulating most 
student -carrying 11-or-more-passenger motor ve- 
hicles on the basis of anticipated use could not 
be reasonably effectuated under the authority of 
the Act. 

The Act provides that "no person shall . . . 
manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or in- 
troduce or deliver for introduction in interstate 
commerce . . . any motor vehicle . . . unless it is 



PART 571— PRE 29 



Effective: October 27, 1976 



in confoi'inity with [applicable] standard [s]. . . ." 
(15 U.S.C. § 1397(a)(1)(A)). This provision 
authorizes placement of responsibility on a seller 
for compliance with standards that apply to 
school buses. The Confjressional definition 
clearly directs that the likely use of the vehicle 
as well as its design be considered in the deter- 
mination of its status as a school bus. The 
NHTSA remains convinced that, of all the per- 
sons in the chain of distribution who are sub- 
ject to the Act, the seller is most likely to have 
Iniowledge of the likely use of the vehicle. 

In essence, the NHTSA proposed that "school 
bus" be defined as a bus that is sold for pur- 
poses that include student transportation. Thus 
the determination of vehicle classification, in close 
cases, can be made on the basis of the sales 
transaction. It would not, however, be based 
solely on an event that occurs after sale, such as 
the actual use of the vehicle. The MVMA and 
others assumed from a reference in the proposal 
to the "intent" of either party that the seller 
would be held responsible for the unexpressed 
intent of the purchaser to use the vehicle for 
student transportation, although this purpose was 
unlvnown to the seller. This is not the case. The 
seller is not held responsible for more than its 
knowledge of the purpose of the sale. If the 
seller has reason to believe that a vehicle will be 
used for student transportation, it can easily 
ascertain intended use by requesting a written 
statement of purpose from the purchaser. 

The MVMA suggested that "school bus" be 
defined as a bus that is equipped for the pur- 
pose of carrying primary, pre-primaiy, or sec- 
ondary school students to or from schools or 
related events. This definition falls short, of the 
Congressional mandate to cover vehicles that are 
"likely to be significantly used for the purpose 
of transporting . . . students". For example, all 
buses purchased for more than a single purpose 
(e.g., student and faculty transportation) would 
be excluded from the definition and from cov- 
erage by the standards. Also the criterion 
"equipped for the purpose" of student trans- 
portation does not make clear what equipment 
(e.g., warning lights, school bus seating) would 
be determinative of the purpose. General Motors' 
suggested "designed or equipped for the pur- 



pose" is also vague as to the meaning of what j 
element of design or equipment would be deter- 'i 
minative of the vehicle's classification. 

General Motors and Wayne Corporation im- 
plied that it is unreasonable to hold manufac- 
turers responsible for what happens to a vehicle 
in the hands of dealers. There is no intent to 
do this, however. A manufacturer or other entity 
in the chain of distribution is only to be held 
lesponsible for what it knows. If a vehicle is 
originally produced as a non-school vehicle (a 
van-type multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), 
for example), and subsequently is sold by a 
dealer for school transportation purposes, it is 
the dealer who will be held for any non-com- 
pliance with school bus standards, not the manu- 
facturer. Actually, final-stage manufacturers 
(in some cases dealers) have always undertaken 
modification of tracks and MPVs that result in 
different requirements from the factory installa- 
tion. This responsibility has not created an 
impossible burden on the original manufacturer. 

Wayne suggested that "school bus" be defined 
to mean only those vehicles that a user or regula- 
tory authority designates as a school bus by use 
of exterior identification such as a label or dis- M 
tinctive lighting or color. This criterion, like V^ 
MVMA's, falls short of Congress' evident interest 
in any vehicle likely to be significantly used for 
student transportation. Evidently vehicles op- 
erated by private schools are not, in many cases, 
given the exteiior identification markings sug- 
gested by Wayne. 

In conforming its proposal to the Congres- 
sional definition, the NHTSA limited "school 
bus" to a bus that carries at least 11 passengers 
in addition to the driver. Based on comments 
received from Wayne and CUP, it appears that 
the definition should be expanded slightly to 
include buses that carry 10 passengers. This 
eliminates a departure from previous NHTSA 
vehicle categorization tliat classifies vehicles with 
10 or fewer occupant seating positions as MPVs 
or passenger cars and vehicles with 11 or more 
seating positions as buses. To adhere strictly 
to the Congressional definition would leave the 
small group of vehicles that transport 10 students 
without coverage under either the school btis, the 
MPV, or the passenger car standards. 



PART 571— PRE 30 



Effective: October 27, 1976 



Some commenters incorrectly assumed that the 
Congressional definition of "school bus" estab- 
lislied an outer limit on the XHTSA's authority 
to regulate vehicles that transport students as 
such. To the contrary, the Congressional defini- 
tion is a direction to the NHTSA that the new 
standards in this area must not be applied to a 
narrower category' of vehicle. As long as that 
direction of Congress is satisfied, the NHTSA 
is, however, authorized to decide the scope of its 
standards, and in this case to expand on the 
Congressional definition to implement the man- 
date effectively. 

In response to Mr. George Chambers' concern 
that the NHTSA definition is too broad, the 
NHTSA considers it reasonable to regulate all 
buses significantly used for transportation of 
students to and from all schools and related 
events, not just pre-primary, primary, and sec- 
ondary schools. The NHTSA concludes that its 
rewording of the Act's "schools or events related 
to such schools" as "schools or related events" 
does not contradict Congressional direction. 

Wayne and the National School Transporta- 
tion Association (NSTA) suggested that buses 
used in urban transportation must be included 
in the definition of "school bus" because they are 
used in some circumstances to transport students 
to and from school. It is true that the phrase 
"likely to be significantly used for the purpose 
of transporting . . . students to or from . . . 
schools" could arguably be considered to cover 
transit buses on regular common-carrier routes. 
Such buses have been explicitly excluded from 
the NHTSA's definition for several years, how- 
ever. In light of the major standard-setting 
activity mandated by Congress in the Act, it is 
unlikely that such a broad change of regulatory 
direction would be contemplated by Congress 
without explicit discussion at some point in the 
legislative history. The legislative history con- 
tains no indication of such a Congressional intent, 
and this agency therefore concludes that such 
coverage was not intended. The boundaries of 
coverage are explicitly left by the statute to 
agency detennination. In light of the purposes 
for which the school bus standards are being 
developed, their expected costs and benefits, and 
the modes of use of transit buses, the NHTSA 
has concluded that the continued exclusion of 



buses designed and sold for operation as common 
carriers in urban transportation is in the public 
interest. 

Mr. George Chambers suggested that limiting 
the exclusion of transit-type buses to those in 
urban areas appeared to be illogical. The 
NHTSA has satisfactorily used this limit for 
several years, and no problems have developed. 
If difficulties should appear in the future, fur- 
ther modification of the definition will be con- 
sidered. 

The MVTNIA and General Motors suggested 
that the existing description of transit-type buses 
("operated" as a common carrier) more simply 
describes the excluded class than NHTSA's pro- 
posed language ("designed and sold"). By limit- 
ing the exclusion to buses designed and sold for 
use as common carriers, the definition conforms 
to the areas (design and sale) over which the 
agency has jurisdiction under the statute. 

Wayne and the States of Wisconsin and 
Montana questioned the wisdom of limiting the 
definition to buses (10 passengers or more), when 
some school vehicles for handicapped students 
are equipped for fewer than 10 passengers and 
would not be required to meet the standards. 
The NHTSA has carefully considered extension 
of school bus standards to vehicles other than 
buses, but concludes that the standards in ques- 
tion have been developed for vehicles with bus 
seating and loading characteristics. For example, 
the proposed bus passenger seating and crash 
protection standard is calculated for cab-chassis- 
and van-type vehicles with seating for 10 pas- 
sengers or more. 

The VESC asked that only buses primarily 
used for transportation of students be considered 
school buses, so that buses used primarily for 
other purposes would not be able to display the 
distinctive school bus markings or be used to 
transport students after their systems had deter- 
iorated in some more abusive use. The agency 
views the Congressional emphasis on "signifi- 
cant" use of a vehicle as a direction to extend 
the school bus standards to all buses that trans- 
port students, whether or not it is their primary 
purpose. For the same reason, the NHTSA does 
not agree with Blue Bird Body Company's 
opinion that "activity" buses should be excluded 
from the Congressionally-mandated standards. 



PAKT 571— PRE 31 



Effective: October 27, 1976 



It appears that Congress intended all the school 
bus standards to apply to buses that cari-y 
students to or from events related to their schools. 

The definition basically relies on the sales trans- 
action for determination of a vehicle's status. 
In some cases veliicles are leased for the purpose 
of transporting students, and it is for this reason 
that the definition refers to "introduction in 
interstate commerce" as well as sale. The de- 
scription of this "no-sale" event has been simpli- 
fied somewhat in response to the comments. 

The California Department of Highway Patrol 
asked whether motor vehicles with a capacity 
of less than 11 occupants (12 as proposed) that 
transport students are preempted from regulation 
by the States as school buses. The answer is no. 
Since motor vehicles with a capacity of fewer 
than 11 occupants are not regulated as school 
buses by the NHTSA, State school bus regula- 
tions, to the extent that they apply to such 
smaller vehicles, would not be preempted by the 
NHTSA school bus standards. For instance, 
brake systems of MPV's are not regulated by the 
NHTSA and may be governed by State regula- 
tions. Of course. State regulations may not con- 
flict with standards applicable to these vehicles as 
passenger cars or MPV's. 



The State of Montana believed that the defini- 
tions of Type I and Type II school buses would 
be ailected by this redefinition. In fact neither 
the present definition nor the new definition con- 
flict with State or Highway Safety Standard 
definitions (such as the Pupil Transportation 
Standard No. 17) that regulate the operation of 
the vehicle, so long as those operational regula- 
tions do not dictate the design and performance 
of the vehicle to the degree that it is subject to 
a safety standard. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the defini- 
tion of "school bus" in Title 49 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (49 CFR § 571.3) is 
amended .... 

Effective date: October 27, 1976. 

(Sec. 102, 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
as amended by Pub. L. 93-492, 88 Stat. 1470 (15 
U.S.C. 1391, 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.50) 

Issued on December 23, 1975. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

December 31, 1975 
40 F.R. 60033 



PART 571— PRE 32 



Effective: January 1, 1968 



PART 571— FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 



SUBPART A— GENERAL 

§571.1 Scope. 

This part contains the Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standards for motor vehicles and motor 
vehicle equipment established under section 103 
of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 
Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 718). 

§571.3 Definitions. 

(a) Statutory definitwns. All terms defined 
in section 102 of the Act are used in their statu- 
tory meaning. 

(b) Other defimtions. As used in this 
chapter "Act" means the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 718). 

"Approved," unless used with reference to an- 
other person, means approved by the Secretary. 

"Boat trailer" means a trailer designed with 
cradle-type mountings to transport a boat and 
configured to permit launching of the boat from 
the rear of the trailer. 

"Bus" means a motor vehicle with motive 
power, except a trailer, designed for carrying 
more than 10 persons. 

"Curb weight" means the weight of a motor 
vehicle with standard equipment ; maximum ca- 
pacity of engine fuel, oil, and coolant; and, if 
so equipped, air conditioning and additional 
weight optional engine. 

"Designated seating capacity" means tlie num- 
ber of designated seating positions provided. 

"Designated seating position" means any 
plan view location intended by the manufacturer 
to provide seating accommodation [while the ve- 
hicle is in motion] for a person at least as large 
as a 5th percentile adult female, except auxiliary 
seating accommodations such as temporary or 
folding jump seats. (35 F.R. 15222— Sept. 30, 
1970. Effective: 1/1/71) 



"Driver" means the occupant of a motor ve- 
hicle seated immediately behind the steering 
control system. 

"Emergency brake" means a mechanism de- 
signed to stop a motor vehicle after a failure of 
the service brake. 

"5th percentile adult female" means a person 
possessing the dimensions and weight of the 5th 
percentile adult female specified for the total age 
group in Public Health Service Publication No. 
1000, Series 11, No. 8, "Weight, Height, and 
Selected Body Dimensions of Adults." 

["Fixed collision barrier" means a flat, 
vertical, unyielding surface with the following 
characteristics : 

(1) The surface is sufficiently large that when 
struck by a tested vehicle, no portion of the ve- 
hicle projects or passes beyond the surface. 

(2) The approach is a horizontal surface that 
is large enough for the vehicle to attain a stable 
attitude during its approach to the barrier, and 
that does not restrict vehicle motion during 
impact. 

(3) When struck by a vehicle, the surface and 
its supporting structure absorb no significant 
portion of the vehicle's kinetic energy, so that 
a performance requirement described in terms of 
impact with a fixed collision barrier must be met 
no matter how small an amount of energy is 
absorbed by the barrier. (35 F.R. 11242— July 
14, 1970. Effective: 9/1/70)] 

[•'P^irefigliting vehicle" means a vehicle de- 
signed exclusively for the purpose of fighting 
fires. (36 F.R. 13926— July 28, 1971. Effective: 
9/1/71)] 

"Forward control" means a configuration in 

which more than half of the engine length is 
rearward of the foremost point of the windshield 
base and the steering wheel hub is in the forward 
quarter of the vehicle length. 



(Rev. May 1972) 



PART 571-1 



Effective: January 1, 1968 



["Gross axle weight rating'' or "GAWR" 
means the value specified by the vehicle manu- 
facturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single 
axle system, as measured at the tire-ground 
interfaces. (37 F.R. 3185— February 12, 1972. 
Effective: 2/12/72)] 

["Gross combination weight rating" or 
"GCWR" means the value specified by the manu- 
facturer as the loaded weight of a combination 
vehicle. (36 F.R. 2511— February 5, 1971. Ef- 
fective: 2/5/71)] 

["Gross vehicle weight rating" or "GVWR" 
means the value specified by the manufacturer as 
the loaded weight of a single vehicle. (36 F.R. 
2511— Feb. 5, 1971. Effective: 2/5/71)] 

"H point" means the mechanically hinged hip 
point of a manikin which simulates the actual 
pivot center of the human torso and thigh, de- 
scribed in SAE Recommended Practice J826. 
"Manikin for Use in Defining Vehicle Seating 
Accommodations," November 1962. 

"Head impact area" means all non-glazed sur- 
faces of the interior of a vehicle that are statically 
contactable by a 6.5-inch diameter spherical head 
form of a measuring device having a pivot point 
to "top-of-head" dimension infinitely adjustable 
from 29 to 33 inches in accordance with the fol- 
lowing procedure, or its graphic equivalent : 

(a) At each designated seating position, place 
the pivot point of the measuring device — 

(1) For seats that are adjustable fore and 
aft, at — 

(i) The seating reference point; and 
(ii) A point 5 inches horizontally forward 
of the seating reference point and vertically 
above the seating reference point an amount 
equal to the rise which results from a 5-inch 
forward adjustment of the seat or 0.75 inches; 
and 

(2) For seats that are not adjustable fore 
and aft, at the seating reference point. 

(b) With the pivot point to "top-of-head" di- 
mensions at each value allowed by the device 
and the interior dimensions of the vehicle, deter- 
mine all contact points above the lower wind- 
shield glass line and forward of the seating 
reference point. 

(c) With the head form at each contact point, 
and with the device in a vertical position if no 
contact point exists for a particular adjusted 



length, pivot the measuring device forward and ^ 
downward through all arcs in vertical planes to 
90° each side of the vertical longitudinal plane 
through the seating reference point, until the 
head form contacts an interior surface or until 
it is tangent to a horizontal point 1 inch above 
the seating reference point, whichever occurs 
first. 

"Includes" means includes but is not limited to. 

"Interior compartment door" means any door 
in the interior of the vehicle installed by the 
manufacturer as a cover for storage space nor- 
mally used for personal effects. 

["Longitudinal" oi; "longitudinally" means 
parallel to the longituduial centerline of the ve- 
hicle. (36 F.R. 2511— February 5, 1971. Effec- 
tive: 2/5/71)] 

["Mobile structure trailer" means a trailer 
that has a roof and walls, is at least 10 feet wide, 
and can be used off'- road for dwelling or com- 
mercial purposes. (35 F.R. 5333 — March 31, 
1970. Effective: 3/31/70)] 

"Motorcycle" means a motor vehicle with mo- 
tive power having a seat or saddle for the use 
of the rider and designed to travel on not more 
than three wheels in contact with the groimd. i 

"Motor-driven cycle" means a motorcycle with " 
a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or 
less. 

"Multipurpose passenger vehicle" means a mo- 
tor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, 
designed to carry 10 persons or less which is con- 
structed either on a truck chassis or with special 
features for occasional off-road operation. 

["Open-body type vehicle" means a vehicle 
having no occupant compartment top or an occu- 
pant compartment top that can be installed or 
removed by the user at his convenience. 

"Outboard designated seating position" means 
a designated seating position where a longitu- 
dinal vertical plane tangent to the outboard side 
of the seat cushion is less than 12 inches from the 
innermost point on the inside surface of the ve- 
hicle at a height between the seating reference 
point and the shoulder reference point (as shown 
in Figure 1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 210) and longitudinally between 
the front and rear edges of the seat cushion. 
(35 F.R. 15222— Sept. 30, 1970. Effective: 
1/1/72)] 



(Rev. 4/24/74) 



PART 571-2 



Effective: January 1, 1968 



["Overall vehicle width" means the nominal 
design dimension of the widest part of the ve- 
hicle, exclusive of signal lamps, marker lamps, 
outside rearview mirrors, flexible fender exten- 
sions, and mud flaps, determined with doors and 
windows closed and the wheels in the straight- 
ahead position. (40 F.R. 8953— March 4, 1975. 
Effective: 3/1/75)] 

"Parking brake" means a mechanism designed 
to prevent the movement of a stationary motor 
vehicle. 

"Passenger car" means a motor vehicle with 
motive power, except a multipurpose passenger 
vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer designed for carry- 
ing 10 persons or less. 

"Pehac impact area" means that area of the 
door or body side panel adjacent to any out- 
board designated seating position which is 
bounded by horizontal planes 7 inches above and 
4 inches below the seating reference point and 
vertical transverse planes 8 inches forward and 
2 inches rearward of the seating reference point. 

"Pole trailer" means a motor vehicle without 
motive power designed to be drawn by another 
motor vehicle and attached to the towing vehicle 
by means of a reach or pole, or by being boomed 
or otherwise secured to the towing vehicle, for 
transporting long or irregularly shaped loads 
such as poles, pipes, or structural members ca- 
pable generally of sustaining themselves as beams 
between the supporting connections. 

["School bus" means a bus that is sold, or 
introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes 
that include carrying students to and from school 
or related events, but does not include a bus 
designed and sold for operation as a common 
carrier in urban transportation. (40 F.R. 60033 
—December 31, 1975. Effective: 10/27/76)] 

"Seating reference point" means the manu- 
facturer's design reference point which — 

(a) Establishes the rearmost normal design 
driving or riding position of each designated 
seating position in a vehicle. 

(b) Has coordinates established relative to the 
designed vehicle structure; 

(c) Simulates the position of the pivot center 
of the human torso and thigh ; and 

(d) Is the reference point employed to posi- 
tion the two dimensional templates described in 
SAE Recommended Practice J826, "Manikins for 



Use in Defining Vehicle Seating Accommoda- 
tions," November 1962. 

"Semitrailer" means a trailer, except a pole 
trailer, so constructed that a substantial part of 
its weight rests upon or is carried by another 
motor vehicle. 

"Service brake" means the primary mechanism 
designed to stop a motor vehicle. 

"Torso line" means the line connecting the "H" 
point and the shoulder reference point as defined 
in SAE Recommended Practice J787b, "Motor 
Vehicle Seat Belt Anchorage," September 196G. 

"Trailer" means a motor vehicle with or with- 
out motive power, designed for carrying persons 
or property and for being drawn by another 
motor vehicle. 

"Trailer converter dolly" means a trailer 
chassis equipped with one or more axles, a lower 
half of a fifth wheel and a drawbar. 

"Truck" means a motor vehicle with motive 
power, except a trailer, designed primarily for 
the transportation of property or special purpose 
equipment. 

"Truck tractor" means a truck designed pri- 
marily for drawing other motor vehicles and not 
so constructed as to carry a load other than a 
part of the weight of the vehicle and the load 
so drawn. 

["Unloaded vehicle weight" means tlie weight 
of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids 
necessary for operation of the vehicle, but with- 
out cargo or occupants. (36 F.R. 2511 — 
February 5, 1971. Effective: 2/5/71)] 

"95th percentile adult male" means a person 
possessing the dimensions and weight of the 95th 
percentile adult male specified in Public Health 
Service Publication No. 1000, Series 11, No. 8, 
"Weight, Height, and Selected Body Dimensions 
of Adults." 

[§571.4 Explanation of usage. 

The word "any," used in connection with a 
range of values or set of items in the require- 
ments, conditions, and procedures of the stand- 
ards or regulations in this chapter, means gen- 
erally the totality of the items or values, any one 
of which may be selected by the Administration 
for testing, except where clearly specified other- 
wise. 

Examples : "The vehicle shall meet the require- 
ments of S4.1 when tested at any point between 



(Rev. 12/23/75) 



PART 571-3 



Effective: January 1, 1968 



18 and 22 inches above the ground." This means 
tliat the veliicle must be capable of meeting the 
specified requirements at every point between 18 
and 22 inches above the ground. The test in 
question for a given vehicle may call for a single 
test (a single impact, for example), but the ve- 
hicle must meet the requirement at whatever 
point the Administration selects, within the 
specified range. 

"Each tire shall be capable of meeting the re- 
quirements of this standard when mounted on 
any rim specified by the manufacturer as suitable 
for use with that tire." This means that, where 
the manufacturer specifies more than one rim as 
suitable for use with a tire, the tire must meet 
the requirements with whatever rim the Ad- 
ministration selects from the specified group. 

"Any one of the items listed below may, at the 
option of the manufacturer, be substituted for 
the hardware specified in S4.1." Here the word- 
ing clearly indicates that the selection of items 
is at the manufacturer's option. (36 F.R. 2511 — 
February 5, 1971. Effective: 2/5/71)] 

§571 .5 Matter incorporated by reference. 

(a) Incorjjoration. There are hereby incor- 
porated, by reference into this Part, all materials 
referred to in any standard in Subpart B of this 
part that are not set forth in full in the standard. 
These materials are thereby made part of this 
regulation. Materials subject to change are in- 
corporated as they are in effect on the date of 
adoption of this Part, unless the reference to 
them provides otherwise. 

(b) Availability. The materials incorporated 
by reference, other than acts of Congress and 
matter published elsewhere in the Federal Reg- 
ister, are available as follows : 

[(1) Standards of the Society of Automo- 
tive Engineers (SAE). They are published 
by the Society of Automotive Engineers, In- 
corporated. Information and copies may be 
obtained by writing to : Society of Automotive 
Engineers, Inc., 2 Pennsylvania Plaza, New 
York, New York, 10001. (33 F.R. 11117— 
Aug 6, 1968)] 

(2) Standards of the American Society for 
Testing and Materials. They are published 
by the American Society for Testing and Ma- 
terials. Information on copies may be obtained 
by writing to the American Society for Testing 



and Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania, 19103. ( 

(3) Standards of the United States of 
America Standards Institute. They are pub- 
lished by the United States of America Stand- 
ards Institute. Information and copies may 
be obtained by writing the United States of 
America Standards Institute, 10 East 40th 
Street, New York, New York, 10016. 

(4) Data from the National Health Survey, 
Public Health Publication No. 1000, Series 11, 
No. 8. This is published by the U.S. Depart- 
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare. 
Copies may be obtained for a price of 35 cents 
from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. 
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 
20402. 

All incorporated materials are available for 
inspection at the Docket Room, National High- 
way Traffic Safety Administration, 400 7th 
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. 

§571.7 Applicability. 

(a) General. [Except as provided in para- 
graphs (c) and (d) of this section, each standard 
set forth in Subpart B of this part applies ac- 
cording to its terms to all motor Vehicles or I 
items of motor vehicle equipment the manufac- 
ture of which is completed on or after the 
effective date of the standard. (38 F.R. 12808— 
May 16, 1973. Effective: 1/1/74)] 

(b) Chassis-cabs. Chassis-cabs, as defined in 
371.3(b), manufactured on or after January 1, 
1968, shall meet all standards in effect on the 
date of manufacture of the chassis-cab as are 
applicable to the principal end use intended by 
its manufacturer except that where the chassis- 
cab is equipped with only part and not all of the 
items of lighting equipment referred to in stand- 
ard No. 108, it need not meet such standards. 
(Revoked 36 F.R. 7055. Effective: 4/14/71) 

(c) Military vehicles. No standard applies to 
a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, 
and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the 
United States in conformity with contractural 
specifications. 

(d) Export. No standard applies to a vehicle 
or item of equipment in the circumstances pro- 
vided in section 108(b) (5) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 
1397(b)(5)). 



(Rev. 5/10/73) 



PART 571^ 



EfFective: Jonuary 1, 1968 



[(e) Combining and neio used components. 
Wh&n a new cab is used in the assembly of a 
truck, the truck will be considered newly manu- 
factured for purposes of paragraph (a) of this 
section, the application of the requirements of 
this chapter, and the Act, unless the engine, 
transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) 
of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at 
least two of these components were taken from 
the same vehicle. (40 F.R. 49340— October 22, 
1975. Effective: 10/22/75)] 

[§ 571 .8 EfFective date. 

Notwithstanding the effective date provisions 
of the motor vehicle safety standards in this part, 
the effective date of any standard or amendment 
of a standard issued after September 1, 1971, to 
which firefighting veliicles must conform shall be, 
with respect to such vehicles, either 2 years after 
the date on which such standard or amendment 
is published in the Rules and Regulations section 
of the Federal Register^ or the effective date 
specified in the notice, whichever is later, except 
as such standard or amendment may otherwise 
specifically provide with respect to firefighting 
vehicles. " (36 F.R. 13926— July 28, 1971. Effec- 
tive: 9/1/71)3 

§571.9 Separability. 

If any standard established in this part or its 
application to any person or circumstance is held 
invalid, the remainder of the part and the appli- 
cation of that standard to other persons or cir- 
cumstances is not affected thereby. 

[§571.13 Labeling of chassis-cabs. 

Each chassis-cab manufactured on or after 
January 1, 1968, shall, at the time of sale, con- 
spicuously display a label affixed by its manu- 
facturer that — 

(a) Identifies it as a chassis-cab and shows the 
date of manufacture; 

(b) Identifies the Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards with which its manufacturer states the 
chassis-cab fully complied for the principal end 
uses of such vehicle ; and 

(c) States in substance that the chassis-cab 
may be used on the public highways for the 
purpose of transit between its manufacturer and 
subsequent manufacturers (including distribution 



incidental thereto) and for no other purpose, 
until such time as the chassis-cab complies with 
ail Federal motor vehicle safety standards ap- 
plicable to any end use of such vehicle. This 
provision does not relieve the manufacturer or 
shipper from any applicable requirement im- 
posed upon such chassis-cabs by Federal, State, 
or local authority. (33 F.R. 19— Jan. 3, 1968)] 
(Revoked 36 F.R. 7055. Effective: 1/1/72) 

Interpretations 

General. Compliance with Initial Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is determined 
by actual date of manufacture, rather than model 
year designation. 

Mini-bikes. 

A number of persons have asked the Federal 
Highway Administrator to reconsider his Feb- 
ruary 4, 1969 interpretation of the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 concerning 
mini-bikes. In that interpretation, the Admin- 
istrator concluded that mini-bikes are "motor 
vehicles" within the meaning of section 102(3) 
of the Act, and are regarded as "motorcycles" 
or "motor-driven cycles" under the Federal 
Highway Administration regulations. Under 
those regulations, motorcycles and motor-driven 
cycles must conform to Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 108, which imposes performance 
requirements relating to lamps, reflective devices, 
and associated equipment. 

The primary basis for the conclusion of the 
February 4 interpretation, as stated therein, was 
that "[i]n the absence of clear evidence that as a 
practical matter a vehicle is not being, or will not 
be, used on the public streets, roads, or highways 
the operating capability of a vehicle is the most 
relevant fact in determining whether or not that 
vehicle is a motor vehicle under the Act . . ." It 
was stated that if examination of a vehicle's 
operating capability revealed that the vehicle is 
"physically capable (either as offered for sale or 
without major additions or modifications) of 
being operated on the public streets, roads, or 
highways, the vehicle will be considered as ha\-ing 
been 'manufactured primarih' for use on the 
public streets, roads, and highways'." It was 
also stated that a manufacturer would need to 
show substantially more than that it has adver- 



(Rev. 10/16/75) 



PART 571-5 



Effective; January 1, 1968 



tised a vehicle as a recreational or private prop- 
erty vehicle or that use of the vehicle on a public 
roadway, as manufactured and sold, Avould be 
illegal in order to overcome a conclusion based 
on examination of the vehicle's operating capa- 
bility. 

Petitioners have urged the Administrator to 
abandon the operating capability test. They have 
argued that many veliicular types, such as self- 
propelled riding mowers, have an "operating 
capability" for use on the public roads and yet 
are obviously outside the class of vehicles which 
Congress subjected to safety regulation. True as 
that may be, the Administrator has decided to 
adhere to the view that tlie operating capability 
of a vehicle is an important criterion in deter- 
mining whether it is a "motor vehicle" within 
the meaning of the statute. As the above-quoted 
portion of the February 4, 1969 interpretation 
states, however, the operating capability test is 
not reached if there is "clear evidence tiiat as a 
practical matter the veliicle is not being used on 
the pubjic streets, roads, or highways." In the 
case of self-propelled riding mowers, golf carts, 
and many other similar self-propelled vehicles, 
such clear evidence exists. 

It is clear from the definition of "motor ve- 
hicle" in section 102(3) of the Act* that the 
purpose for which a \ehicle is manufactured is a 
basic factor in determining whether it was "manu- 
factured primarily for use on the public streets, 
roads, and highways." However, this does not 
mean that the proj^er classification of a particular 
vehicle is wholly dependent on the manufacturer's 
subjective state of mind. Instead, the Adminis- 
trator intends to invoke the familiar principle 
that the purpose for which an act, such as the 
production of a vehicle, is undertaken may be 
discerned from the actor's conduct in the light of 
the surrounding circumstances. Thus, if a ve- 
hicle is operationally callable of being used on 
public thoroughfares and if in fact a substantial 
proportion of the consuming public actually uses 
it that way, it is a "motor vehicle" without regard 
to the manufacturer's intent, howe\er manifested. 



* " 'Motor vehicle' means any vehicle driven or drawn 
by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on 
the public streets, roads, and highways, except any ve- 
hicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails." 15 U.S.C. 
13!)1(3). 



In such a case, it would be incumbent upon a . 
manufacturer of such a vehicle either to alter the y 
vehicle's design, configuration, and equipment to 
render it unsuitable for on-road use or, by com- 
pliance with applicable motor vehicle safety 
standards, to render the vehicle safe for use on 
public streets, I'oads, and highways. 

In borderline cases, other factors must also be 
considered. Perhaps the most important of these 
is whether state and local laws permit the veiiicle 
in question to be used and registered for use on 
public highways. The nature of the manufac- 
turer's promotional and marketing activities is 
also evidence of the use for which the vehicle is 
manufactured. Some relevant aspects of those 
activities are: (1) whether the vehicle is adver- 
tised for on-road use or whether the manufacturer 
represents to the public that the vehicle is not for 
use on public roads; (2) whether the vehicle is 
sold through retail outlets that also deal in con- 
ventional motor vehicles; and (3) whether the 
manufacturer affixes a label warning owners of 
the vehicle not to use it for travel over public 
roads. 

In the first instance, each manufacturer must 
decide whether his vehicles are manufactured ^ 
primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and W 
highways. His decision cannot be conclusive, 
however. Under the law, the authority to deter- 
mine whether vehicles are subject to the provi- 
sions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act is vested in the Secretary. As delegee 
of the Secretary, the Administrator will exercise 
that power in the light of all of tlie relevant facts 
and circumstances (including the manufacturer's 
declaration of his intent) with the objective of 
reducing the toll of injuries and deaths on the 
public highways. 

Analysis of the available data about mini-bikes, 
including the contents of petitions for reconsid- 
eration of the February 4, 1969 interpretation, 
has convinced the Administrator that, for the 
most part, mini-bikes should not be considered 
motor vehicles under the above criteria. Mini- 
bikes do have an operating capability for use on 
public roads. It now appears that incidents of 
their actual operation on public streets, roads, and 
highways, while undoubtably extant, are com- 
paratively rare. "Wliat is more important, their 
use and registration for use on public thorough- 



PART 571-6 



EffecKve: January 1, 1968 



^ fares is precluded by the laws of virtually every 
w jurisdiction, unless the mini-bike is equipped with 
lami)s, reflective devices, and associated eq>iip- 
ment of the sort that Safety Standard No. 108 
requires. Most manufacturers of mini-bikes do 
not advertise or otherwise promote them as being 
suitable for use on public roads, and some actually 
attach a label to their vehicles, warning against 
on-road use. Those manufacturers do not furnish 
retail purchasers with tlie documentation needed 
to register, title, and license the veliicles for use 
on public roads under the relevant State laws. 
Finally, mini-bikes are commonly sold to the 
public through retail outlets that are not licensed 
dealers in motor vehicles. 

Accordingly, so long as the great majority of 
the States do not permit the registration of mini- 
bikes for use on the public highways and streets, 
and imtil such time as there is clear evidence that 
mini-bikes are being used on public streets to a 
significant extent, the Administrator is of the 
view that, at a minimum, persons who manufac- 
ture mini-bikes are not manufacturers of "motor 
vehicles" within the meaning of the National 
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 if 
they (1) do not equiji them with devices and 
H accessories that render them lawful for use and 
registration for use on public highways under 
state and local laws; (2) do not otherwise partici- 
pate or assist in making the vehicles lawful for 
operation on public roads (as by furnishing cer- 
tificates of origin or otlier title documents, unless 
those documents contain a statement that the ve- 
hicles were not manufactured for use on public 
streets, roads, or highways) ; (3) do not advertise 
or promote them as vehicles suitable for use on 
public roads; (4) do not generally market them 
through retail dealers in motor vehicles; and (5) 
affix to the mini-bikes a notice stating in substance 
that the vehicles were not manufactured for use 
on public streets, roads, or highways and warning 
operators against such use. Cases of manufac- 
turers who fiilfill some, but not all, of the above 
criteria will be dealt with individually imder 
those criteria and such others as may be relevant. 

A manufacturer of mini-bikes is, of course, at 
liberty to design and construct his products so 
that they conform to tlie provisions of the motor 
vehicle safety standards tliat are applicable to 
motorcycles and thereby to manufacture motor 



vehicles within the meaning of the National 
Traffic and IMotor Vehicle Safety Act. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the petitions 
for reconsideration of the February 4, 1969 inter- 
pretation relating to mini-bikes are granted to 
the extent set forth above, and that interpretation 
is withdrawn. 

Issued on Sept. 30, 1969. 

[Limits on State Enforcement Procedures 

The Japan Automobile Manufacturers Associa- 
tion has brought to the attention of the NHTSA, 
in a petition for reconsideration of Standard 
No. 209, some leadtime problems that may be 
caused by the safety standard enforcement prac- 
tices of some of the States. These States require 
manufacturers to submit samples of motor ve- 
hicle equipment covered by one of the standards, 
such as seat belt assemblies, to a State-authorized 
test laboratory. The test reports from the lab- 
oratory are then submitted to a State agency or 
an outside agency such as the American Associa- 
tion of Motor Vehicle Administrators, which 
issues an "approval" to the manufacturer. The 
problem arises in cases where the State does not 
permit the manufacturer to sell the equipment 
in that State until the approval is received. If 
the leadtime between the issuance of a standard 
or amendment and its effective date is fairly 
short, the manufacturer may not have time to 
prepare and submit samples and to obtain the 
State-required approval before the effective date 
of the standard. Thus, the manufacturer may be 
prohibited from selling his product in the State 
on and after the effective date, even though it 
fully complies with all applicable Federal stand- 
ards and regulations. 

The substantive relationship between Federal 
and State safety standards was established by 
Congress in section 103(d) of the National Traf- 
fic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which pro- 
vides : 

"Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety 
standard established under this title is in 
effect, no State or political subdivision of a 
State shall have any authority either to estab- 
lish, or to continue in effect, with respect to 
any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle 
equipment any safety standard applicable to 
the same aspect of performance of such ve- 



(Rev. July 1971) 



PART 571-7 



Effective: January 1, 1968 



hide or item of equipment which is not iden- 
tical to the Federal Standard." 

Although this section makes it clear that State 
standards must be "identical" to the Federal 
standards to the extent of the latter's coverage, 
the procedural relationship between State and 
Federal enforcement of the standard is not ex- 
plicitly stated in tlie Act. It has been the posi- 
tion of this agency that the Act permits the 
States to enforce the standards, independently 
of the Federal enforcement effort, since otherwise 
there woxdd have been no reason for the Act to 
allow the States to have even "identical" stand- 
ards. The question raised by the JAMA petition 
is to what extent the States may utilize an en- 
forcement scheme that differs from the Federal 
one established by the Act. 

The basic structure of the Act places the bur- 
den of conformity to the standards on the manu- 
facturers, who must exercise due care to deter- 
mine that all their products comply with appli- 
cable standards (§§103, 108, 15 U.S.C. 1.392, 
1397). They must certify each vehicle and item 
of covered equipment as conforming to the stand- 
ards (§ 114, 15 U.S.C. 1403). No prior approval 
of a manufacturer's products is provided for or 
contemplated by the Act. The NHTSA does 
not issue such approvals, but tests the products 
after they come onto the market to determine 
whether they conform. Thus, the effective date 
of a standard is established on the basis of the 
agency's judgment as to the length of time it will 
take manufacturers to design and prepare to 
produce a vehicle or item of equipment, and is 
not intended to allow time for obtaining gov- 
ernmental approval after production begins. 

In this light, a State requirement of obtaining 
prior approval before a product may be sold con- 
flicts with the Federal regulatory scheme. The 
legislative history does not offer specific guidance 
on the question, except for general statements 
such as the following by Senator Magnuson: 

"Some States have more stringent laws than 
others, but concerning the car itself we must 
have uniformity. That is why the bill sug- 
gests to States that if we set a minimum 
standard, a car complying with such stand- 
ard should be admitted to all States.'''' 112 
Cong. Rec. 13585, June 24, 1966. 



"[W]e have provided in the bill for foreign 
cars, that they must comply with the stand- ( 
ards; and we have even allowed them to 
come in under a free-port arrangement, 
where, if they are not in compliance, dealers 
can bring them up to the standard." 12 
Cong. Rec. 13587, June 24, 1966. (Emphasis 
supplied. ) 

It is true that Senator Magnuson in the above 
statements was not directly considering the ques- 
tion of State enforcement. But Congress does 
not appear to have contemplated the existence 
of State procedures that would restrict the free 
mo^■ement of vehicles and equipment, or place 
significant burdens on the manufacturers, in 
areas covered by the Federal standards, beyond 
those imposed by the standards themselves. 

It is the position of this agency, therefore, that 
under the Act and the regulatory scheme that has 
been established by its authority a State may not 
regulate motor vehicles or motor vehicle equip- 
ment, with respect to aspects of performance 
covered by Federal standards, by requiring prior 
State approval before sale or otherwise restrict- 
ing the manufacture, sale, or movement within 
the State of products that conform to the stand- 
ards. This interpretation does not preclude State f 
enforcement of standards by other reasonable 
procedures that do not impose undue burdens on 
the manufacturers, including submission of prod- 
ucts for approval within reasonable time limits, 
as long as manufacturers are free to market 
their products while the procedures are being 
followed, as they are under the Federal scheme. 
(36 F.R. 10744— June 2, 1971)] 

Issued on May 13, 1971. 

SUBPART B— STANDARDS 

§ 571 .21 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ards. 

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 
are set forth in this subpart. 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Numbers 
and Titles 

101 Control Location, Identification and Illu- 
mination — Passenger Cars, Multipurpose 
Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses 

102 Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter 
Interlock and Transmission Braking Ef- 



(Rev. June 19711 



PART 571-8 



Effective: January 1, 1968 



ect — Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passen- 
ger Vehicles, Trucks, and Buses 

103 Windshield Defrosting and Befogging S5's- 
tems — Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Pas- 
senger Vehicles, Trucks, and Buses 

104 Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems — 
Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger 
Vehicles, Trucks, and Buses 

105 Hydraulic Service Brake, Emergency 
Brake, and Parking Brake Systems — Pas- 
senger Cars 

105-75 Hydraulic Brake Systems 

106 Hydraulic Brake Hoses — Passenger Cars 
and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles 

106-74 Brake Hoses 

107 Reflecting Surfaces — Passenger Cars, Multi- 
purpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, and 
Buses 

108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated 
Equipment — Passenger Cars, Multipurpose 
Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, Trailers 
and Motorcycles 

109 New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 

110 Tire Selection and Rims — Passenger Cars 

111 Rearview Mirrors — Passenger Cars and 
Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles 

112 Headlamp Concealment Devices — Passenger 
Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, 
Trucks, Buses and Motorcycles 

113 Hood Latch Systems — Passenger Cars, 
Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, 
and Buses 

114 Theft Protection — Passenger Cars 

115 Vehicle Identification Number — Passenger 
Cars 

116 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids — Passenger 
Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, 
Trucks, Buses and ilotorcycles 

117 Retreaded Pneumatic Tires 

118 Power-Operated Window Systems — Pas- 
senger Cars and Multipurpose Passenger 
Vehicles 

119 New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other 
Than Passenger Cars 

121 Air Brake Systems — Trucks, Buses and 
Trailere 



122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
201 

202 
203 

204 

205 
206 



207 



208 



209 



210 



211 



212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
301 

301- 

302 



Motorcycle Brake Systems 
Motorcycle Controls and Displays 
Accelerator Control Systems 
Warning Devices 
Truck-Camper Loading 
Occupant Protection in Interior Impact — 
Passenger Caj-s 

Head Restraints — Passenger Cars 
Impact Protection for the Driver From the 
Steering Control System — Passenger Cars 
Steering Control Rearward Displacement — 
Passenger Cars 
Glazing Materials 

Door Locks and Door Retention Compo- 
nents — Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Pas- 
senger Vehicles and Trucks 
Seating Systems — Passenger Cars, Multi- 
purpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and 
Buses 

Occupant Crash Protection — Passenger 
Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, 
Trucks and Buses 

Seat Belt Assemblies — Passenger Cars, 
Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks 
and Buses 

Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages — Passenger 
Cars, ]\Iultipurpose Passenger Vehicles, 
Trucks and Buses 

Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps — 
Passenger Cars and Multipurpose Passen- 
ger Vehicles 

Windshield Mounting — Passenger Cars 
Child Seating Systems 
Side Door Strength — Passenger Cars 
Exterior Protection — Passenger Cars 
Roof Crush Resistance — Passenger Cars 
Bus Window Retention and Release 
Motorcycle Helmets 
Windshield Zone Intrusion 
School Bus Rollover Protection 
School Bus Body Joint Strength 
School Bus Seating and Crash Protection 
Fuel Tanks, Fuel Tank Filler Pipes, and 
Fuel Tank Connections — Passenger Cars 
-75 Fuel System Integrity 
Flammability of Interior IMaterials — Pas- 
senger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Ve- 
hicles, Trucks and Buses 



(Rev. 6/9/75) 



PART 571-9 



EfFecHve: January ], 1972 
(Except as noted in the Rule) 



PREAMBLE TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 101 

Control Location, Identification and Illumination — Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger 

Vehicles, Trucks and Buses 
(Docket No. 1-18) 



This notice amends § 571.21 of Title 49, Code 
of Federal Eegulations, Motor "Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identifica- 
tion, and Illumination, to establish new require- 
ments and extend its application to multipurpose 
passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. A pro- 
posal to amend Standard No. 101 (Docket No. 
1-18; Notice No. 2) was published in the Fed- 
eral Register on April 15, 1970 (35 F.R. 6151). 
Interested persons have been afforded an op- 
portunity to participate in the rule making 
process, and their comments have been carefully 
considered. 

As proposed, the applicability of the standard 
is being extended to multipurpose passenger ve- 
hicles, trucks, and buses, and these vehicles must 
now meet the requirements previously applicable 
only to passenger cars. Location, identification, 
and illumination requirements for spring brake 
valve, emergency spring brake release valve and 
tractor protection valve have not been adopted 
because of new proposals covering these controls 
contained in the proposed standard on air brake 
systems (Docket No. 70-17; 35 F.R. 10368). 

The location requirement is that controls be 
accessible to an operator seated at the controls 
and restrained by nonextending upper torso and 
pelvic restraints. The restraint specification 
should be viewed as a hypothetical rather than a 
literal guideline. In the absence of data which 
allow the use of specific tolerances, the Bureau 
believes that the most acceptable substitute in- 
suring accessibility of controls is that they be 
available to an operator seated in the position he 
would be in were the vehicle equipped with non- 
extending restraints and were those restraints 
properly fastened. This limitation on driver 



movement is intended to implement the safety 
purpose of the standard which is "to reduce the 
hazards caused by the diversion of the driver's 
attention from the motoring environment". The 
location requirement applies to controls for steer- 
ing, horn, transmission shift, ignition, head- 
lamps, turn signals, illumination intensity con- 
trol, windshield wiping, windshield washing, 
manual choke, and driver's sun visor. Eleven 
controls are now required to be identified: 
Engine start, engine stop, choke, throttle, head- 
lamps and taillamps, clearance lamps, identifica- 
tion lamps, vehicular hazard warning signal, 
windshield wiping system, windshield washing 
system, and windshield defrosting and defogging 
system. The proposal that foot-operated con- 
trols be identified has not been adopted. The 
Bureau concurs with the comments pointing out 
that identification of such controls would be dif- 
ficult to read, and that relative position on the 
floorboard is a more important guide to 
identification. 

Comments were received expressing the view 
that use of both words and symbols to identify 
controls was unnecessary and space consuming. 
In the absence of internationally accepted sym- 
bols, it has been decided that symbols should 
not be made mandatory, and the proposed re- 
quirement that symbols identify certain controls 
has not been adopted. However, the Bureau 
has surveyed symbols proposed by various na- 
tional and international organizations, and has 
selected several for optional use by manufac- 
turers as encouragement for their universal 
adoption. As originally proposed the use of 
symbols other than those shown and for other 
than the controls specified (head and taillamps, 



PART 571; S 101— PRE 1 



effective: January 1, 1972 
(Except as noted in the Rule) 

vehicular hazard warning signal, clearance 
lamps, windshield wiping system, and wind- 
shield washing system) is prohibited, to insure 
that there is no proliferation of confusing and 
unacceptable symbols. Identification and illumi- 
nation of a key locking system used to control 
engine starting or stopping will not be required. 
Tlie profjosal that certain vehicle controls be 
illuminated has been adopted with modifications. 
The nine controls for which illumination is re- 
quired are : engine stop, automatic vehicle speed 
control, vehicular hazard warning signal, clear- 
ance lamps, identification lamps, windshield 
wiping system, windshield washing system, 
windshield defrosting and defogging system, 
and the heating and air conditioning system. 
However, foot-operated controls and controls 
mounted on the steering column will not be re- 
quired to be illuminated because lighting would 
cause glare, distraction to the driver and excess 
light in the driver's compartment. In addition 
only the identification of the control, and not the 
control itself, will have to be illuminated since 
enough light is normally present to mark the 
control. 



In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.21, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 101, Control Location and Identification, is 
amended as set forth below. 

Elective date. Passenger cars: Control loca- 
tion and identification requirements, January 1, 
1972; control illumination requirements, Septem- 
ber 1, 1972. Multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
trucks, and buses: All requirements, September 
1, 1972. Because of the need, demonstrated in 
the comments, for adequate leadtime for manu- 
facturers to make the design changes required by 
this standard, it is found that effective dates 
later than 1 year from the date of issuance are 
in the public interest. 

Issued on December 31, 1970. 

Douglas W. Toms, 

Director, 

National Highway Safety Bureau. 

36 F.R. 503 

January 14, 1971 4 



PART 571; S 101— PRE 2 



Effective: January 1, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 101 

Control Location, Identification and Illumination — Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger 

Vehicles, Trucks and Buses 

(Docket No. 1-18) 



Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, es- 
tablishing requirements for location, identifica- 
tion, and illumination of motor vehicle controls, 
was amended on January 14, 1971 (36 F.R. 503). 
Thereafter, pursuant to 49 CFR 553.35 (35 F.R. 
5119) petitions for reconsideration of the amend- 
ment were filed by Mercedes-Benz of North 
America, Inc. (Mercedes), Ford Motor Co. 
(Ford), General Motors Corp. (GM), Interna- 
tional Harvester Co. (Harvester), and Recrea- 
tional Vehicle Institute (RVI). 

In response to information contained in several 
of the petitions the standard is being amended. 
The Administrator has declined to grant re- 
quested relief from other requirements of the 
standard. 

1. Effective date for vehicles with GVWR over 
10,000 pounds. GM petitioned for an exemption 
from the standard for trucks and buses with a 
gross vehicle weight rating over 10,000 pounds, 
on the grounds that these vehicles have a greater 
number of controls, which makes them signifi- 
cantly different from passenger cars, and that 
control requirements for these vehicles merit a 
separate rulemaking action. GM also alleged 
that the standard "would require a complete re- 
design and retooling of the control panels on our 
large vehicles." Harvester petitioned for a 
similar exemption from control illumination re- 
quirements for heavy vehicles for a period of 5 
years and, in the alternative, for an extension 
of 6 months of the effective date for this require- 
ment to allow phasing out of models for which 
retooling is impracticable. 

Although vehicles with a GVWR in excess of 
10,000 pounds are equipped with certain controls 
lacking in lighter vehicles, the controls which 
Standard No. 101 presently covers are similar 



for all trucks and buses. The NHTSA denies 
GM's request for exemption of heavy vehicles 
from the requirements of Standard No. 101 and 
Harvester's request for a stay of 5 years of the 
requirements of S4.3. However, good cause has 
been shown for a delay in the effective date of 
the illumination requirements of Standard No. 
101 for vehicles with a GVIVR in excess of 
10,000 pounds and therefore the effective date of 
S4.3 for these vehicles is hereby extended to 
March 1, 1973. 

2. Si.2 Control identification. GISI, Ford, and 
Mercedes have petitioned for reconsideration of 
certain control identification requirements, and 
have requested clarification of other points. 
GM has asked that S4.2 be amended to allow 
the use of symbols or words or symbol-word 
combinations and Mercedes has made a similar 
request. GM has also asked permission to use 
the word "Flasher" rather than "Hazard," and 
"Deice" for "Defrost." The NHTSA denies 
these petitions. Use of symbols to identify con- 
trols is a comparatively recent development in 
control identification of American-made vehicles, 
and the time is premature for controls to be iden- 
tified on the basis of symbols alone. Use of the 
word "'Hazard" in conjunction with the per- 
missible symbol of the warning triangle will 
highlight the purpose of this switch in a manner 
that use of the word "Flasher" will not. Finally, 
it has been decided that the word "Defrost" is 
the most appropriate identification of the system 
in question. 

General Motors asked whether the published 
headlamp identification symbol with nine rays of 
light was only representative of the required 
symbol, or definitive in the sense that it must be 
copied exactly. The NHTSA intends this 



PART 571; S 101— PRE 3 



Effective: Januray 1, 1972 



symbol to be representative only. A symbol 
resembling the one published, with as few as 
three rays of light, may be used to comply with 
the identification requirement for headlamps and 
clearance lamps. 

Petitioners have asked whether symbols may 
be used on controls not listed in Table I, whether 
arrows may be employed to indicate direction of 
control operation, whether color coding is per- 
mitted (e.g. red to indicate heat, blue to indicate 
cold), whether both primary and secondary con- 
trols must be identified and illuminated (e.g. 
diesel engine stop), and whether additional 
words may be used to describe control operation 
or function (e.g. "Pull to defrost"). The 
answer in each instance is yes as long as the ad- 
ditional words or symbols do not conflict with 
the required words and permissible symbols. 

This agency was also asked whether, literally, 
''each position of the heating and defrosting and/ 
or air-conditioning control must be identified." 
Variable temperature increments from "off" to 
"high" of an adjustable control need not be 
identified. 

Clarification was also requested on the require- 
ment that "identification * * * shall appear to 
the operator in an up-right position." GM has 
interpreted this language "to mean perceptually 
right side up, as opposed to being in a vertical 
or horizontal plane," and the Administration 
concurs in this interpretation. 

Ford has asked whether controls visible to the 
driver but not in the normal forward line of 
sight must be identified. Examples of such con- 
trols are column-mounted hazard warning signal 
controls which may be partially obscured by the 
steering wheel, and air-conditioning controls on 
some vehicles which are in an area adjacent to or 
behind the driver's seat, and can be seen by a 
seated operator only when he turns his head. 
Although these controls are designed to be op- 
earble by touch, their function is not clear to an 
operator unfamiliar with the vehicle in which 
they are installed, and their identification is 
necessary. 

3. 8^.3 Control illumination. Ford has asked 
whether steering- wheel -mounted controls are ex- 
empt from illumination requirements. Since the 
steering wheel itself is mounted on the steering 



column, the exemption from the illumination re- ^ 
quirements for steering column-mounted controls f 
extends to those mounted on the steering wheel 
as well. 

GM requested an exemption for illumination 
of door side panel controls, alleging that glare 
may be produced. No sufficient grounds have 
been shown to exist for such an exemption, how- 
ever, and therefore this petition is denied. 

Air-conditioning controls on certain Harvester 
vehicles are mounted in the roof area over the 
driver, and in the Ford Econoline to the driver's 
rear. Both manufacturers have questioned the 
appropriateness of requiring illumination of 
these controls. Since neither system directs air 
on the windshield and thus cannot create a safety 
hazard through mis-operation which would befog 
the windshield, these petitions have been found 
to have merit, and S.43 is amended to exempt a 
system of this nature from the illumination re- 
quirements. 

4. S5. Conditions. GM has petitioned for an 
amendment of S5.1 "to allow use of an inertia 
reel in testing to the location requirements of 
S4.1 where such a restraint system is standard 
equipment, and nonextending restraints are not 
offered." GM has misinterpreted the test con- 4 
dition of restraint by nonextending devices, 
whose intent, expressed at 36 F.R. 503, is "to 
implement the safety purpose of the standard 
which is 'to reduce the hazards caused by the 
diversion of the driver's attention from the 
motoring environment'." The NHTSA has de- 
termined that a minimum of driver movement 
in location and operation of controls meets the 
need for motor vehicle safety, and a nonextend- 
ing restraint system, even if such a system is used 
only for this purpose, is the means chosen to 
limit the degree of movement needed. GM's 
petition is therefore denied. 

In consideration of the foregoing, S4.3 of 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101 in 49 
CFR 571.21 is revised, effective January 1, 1972. 

Issued on April 29, 1971. 

Douglas W. Toms, 
Acting Administrator. 

36 F.R. 8296 
May 4, 1971 



PART 571; S 101— PRE 4 



Effeclivs: January 1, 1972 

September 1, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 101 
Control Location, Identification, and Illumination 



The purpose of this notice is to amend Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101 to clarify con- 
trol identification, and illumination requirements, 
and the control location test conditions. 

Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identifica- 
tion, and Illumination, was amended on January 
14, 1971 (36 F.R. 503) and, as a result of re- 
consideration petitions, was amended again on 
May 4, 1971 (36 F.R. 8296). General Motors 
Corporation has asked for a clarification of the 
requirement in S4.2 that "Each position of . . . 
a lieatinp or air conditioning; system control shall 
be identified." It points out the virtual impos- 
sibility of identification of intermediate positions 
for rocker-type and push-pull-type switches. The 
NHTSA agrees that intermediate positions for 
these types of switches are difficult to identify, 
and consequently has amended S4.2 to exclude 
them from the identification requirement. 

Ford Motor Company has petitioned for a 
clarification of the requirement in S4.3 that ". . . 
A control shall be provided to adjust the in- 
tensity of control illumination variable from an 
'off' position to a position providing illumination 
sufficient for the vehicle operator to readily iden- 
tify the control under conditions of reduced 
visibility." Specifically, Ford wishes an inter- 
pretation that a simple on-off switch is a suffi- 
cient variable control. 

The NHTSA has determined that a motor ve- 
hicle operator should be able to set control 



illumination levels according to his own eye 
comfort and the specific condition of reduced 
visibility that requires control illumination. Ad- 
ditionally, it is important for a driver to reduce 
control illumination when tlie illumination is re- 
flected in the windshield creating a glare condi- 
tion. The NHTSA intended in the January 14 
issuance that a continuously variable "rheostat"- 
type control be provided, and is amending S4.3 to 
reflect this intention. 

The NHTSA is also amending the restraint 
test condition of S5.2 to correspond with the 
recent amendment to Standard No. 208, Seat 
Belt InstaJlafio7hs, (36 F.R. 9869) that requires 
Type 1 seat belt assemblies in, among other ve- 
hicles, walk-in van-type trucks, and multipur- 
pose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle 
weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.21, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 101, Co^xtrol Locatiai}. Identification and 
Illumination, is amended. . . . 

Issued on July 9, 1971. 



Douglas W. Toms 
Acting Administrator 



36 F.R. 13215 
July 16, 1971 



PART 571; S 101— PRE 5-6 



r 



EffccNv*: January I, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 101 

Control Location, Identification and Illumination 

(Docket No. 1-18; Notice 6) 



The purpose of this notice is to amend Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101 to clarify con- 
trol identification and illumination requirements 
and to specify an effective date of September 1, 
1973, for continuously variable control illumi- 
nation. 

Standard No. 101, Control Location^ Identifica- 
tion, and Illumination (36 F.R. 503) was 
amended on May 4, 1971 (36 F.R. 8296) and 
July 16, 1971 (36 F.R. 13215). As a result of 
the latter amendment petitions for reconsidera- 
tion were received from Ford Motor Company, 
International Harvester Company, and Jensen 
Motors, Ltd. American Motors and Chrysler 
Corporation have also asked for a clarification of 
control illumination requirements, to which this 
notice is responsive. 

1. S4..2 Control identification. The preamble 
to the amendment published on May 4, 1971, 
stated that "Variable temperature increments [of 
a heating and air conditioning system control] 
from 'off' to 'high' of an adjustable control need 
not be identified." The amendment of S4.2 pub- 
lished on July 16 excluded identification onl}' of 
intermediate positions of rocker-type or push- 
pull type heating and air conditioning system 
controls. Ford Motor Company has inquired 
whether the amendment contradicts the preamble 
statement of May 14, thus requiring identification 
of each position of heating and air conditioning 
controls other than rocker or push-pull type. 
In addition, Chyrsler believes the terminology 
"rocker-type or push-pull type control" may not 
be sufficiently inclusive or descriptive of controls 
intended to be covered by the requirement. The 
Administration believes that these points are well 
made, and is amending paragraph S4.2 in a 
manner that clarifies the agency's intent: that 



identification shall be provided for each function 
of any automatic vehicle speed system control 
and any heating and air conditioning system 
control, regardless of the type of control, and 
for the extreme positions of any such control 
that regulates a function over a quantitative 
range. 

2. Si..3 Control illumination. The requirement 
that control illumination be continuously variable 
was questioned by Harvester, Jensen, and Amer- 
ican Motors, who employ or wish to employ a 
three-position switch, and Ford, who argued that 
a simple on-off switch meets the need for motor 
vehicle safety. 

In denying similar petitions for reconsidera- 
tion in the July 16 notice, the NHTSA com- 
mented that "a motor vehicle operator should be 
able to set control illumination levels according 
to his own eye comfort and the specific condition 
of reduced visibility that requires control illumi- 
nation." Additionally, the Administration noted 
that "it is important for a driver to reduce con- 
trol illumination when the illumination is re- 
flected in the windshield creating a glare 
condition." An on-off or three-position switch 
cannot provide optimal illumination for the va- 
riety of driving situations and driver perception 
that continuously variable illumination can, and 
the petitions are therefore denied. However, be- 
cause compliance will require modifications in 
the control systems ol vehicles manufactured by 
the petitioners, the agency finds, for good cause 
shown, that an effective date for this require- 
ment later than September 1, 1972, is in the 
public interest. Accordingly, paragraph S4.3 is 
being amended to set a new effective date of 
September 1, 1973, for continuously variable con- 
trol illumination. 



PART 571; S 101— PRE 7 



EfFaclIva: January 1, 1972 



3. S5 Conditions. Ford petitioned that para- 
graph S5 be amended to specify use of seat re- 
straints in accordance with the requirements of 
Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protectian. 
The Ford request has generally been found 
meritorious. In the case of passenger cars, it has 
been found appropriate and practicable to main- 
tain the present requirement that the controls be 
within reach of a driver restrained by a non-ex- 
tending pelvic and upper torso restraint. For 
other vehicles, the amended restraint requirement 
is based upon whether an upper torso restraint 
is required. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.101, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 



No. 101, Control Location., Identification, and 
Illumination, is amended. . . . 

Effective date: January 1, 1972. Since this 
amendment clarifies existing requirements effec- 
tive January 1, 1972, and imposes no additional 
burden, it is found for good cause shown that 
an effective date earlier than one hundred 
eighty days after issuance is in the public in- 
terest. 



Issued on November 24, 1971. 



Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

36 F.R. 23067 
December 3, 1971 



PART 571; S 101— PRE 8 



Effective: September 1, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 101 
Control Location, Identification and Illumination 
(Docket No. 1-18; Notice 9) 



This notice amends Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 101 to allow a control position 
providing minimal illumination, effective Sep- 
tember 1, 1973. 

On February 27, 1973 the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration proposed (38 F.R. 
5261) that paragraph S4.3 of 49 CFR 571.101, 
Control location., identification., and illumination 
be amended to allow vehicle manufacturers the 
option of providing an instrument illumination 
control with either an "off" position, or one pro- 
viding illumination "barely discernible to a ve- 
hicle operator whose eyes have adapted to dark 
ambient roadway conditions." The standard 
mandated an "off" position only as of Septem- 
ber 1, 1973 and the agency's notice of February 27 
granted the petition of Mercedes-Benz of North 
America for initiation of rulemaking to allow 
the option. Mercedes justified its request with 
its opinion that "under no circumstances should 
the driver ... be without a certain amount of 
control illumination, and ... a driver who is 
unfamiliar with (a) vehicle 'cannot possibly rec- 
ognize the identification of the specified controls 
upon activating the head lamps switch when the 
rheostat has been turned off' ". 

The comments received supported the proposal. 
Some reservations were expressed over the sub- 
jectivity of the proposed wording. The NIITSA 
recognized this problem in the notice when it 
commented "While this option does not provide 



a quantitative performance level per se, it is 
assumed that 'barely discernible' illumination 
would be of such low intensity that it does not 
produce glare on the instrument panel or a re- 
flection in the windshield". However, no one 
suggested language more objective in nature, and 
the NHTSA has decided to adopt its proposed 
wording in the absence of a quantitative expres- 
sion of light output. The NHTSA may conduct 
research that possibly could lead to further rule 
making in this area. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the last 
sentence of paragraph S4.3 of 49 CFR 571.101, 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, is re- 
vised .... 

Effective date: September 1, 1973. Because 
the amendment is of a requirement effective 
September 1, 1973, and allows an optional means 
of compliance, it is found for good cause shown 
that an effective date earlier than 180 days after 
issuance is in the public interest. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407; delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51). 

Issued on August 9, 1973. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

38 F.R. 22125 
August 16, 1973 



PART 571; S 101— PRE 9-10 



r 



Effective: July 29, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 101 

Control Location, Identification and Illumination 
(Docket No. 1-18; Notice 11) 



This notice amends 49 CFE 571.101, Standard 
No. 101, Control Location, Identification and 
lUuminafion, to permit the identification of cer- 
tain controls witli sj'mbols designated by the 
International Standards Organization (I.S.O.). 

On September 27. 1973, the XHTSA proposed 
(38 F.R. 269-10) (Docket No. 1-18; Notice 10) 
to amend Standard No. 101 to permit the iden- 
tification of certain controls with symbols 
slightly different from those currently permitted. 
Several, though not all, of the proposed symbols 
were I.S.O. symbols. Comments on the proposal 
were generally favorable, although most of the 
vehicle manufacturers favored the outright 
adoption of I.S.O. symbols. The NHTSA has 
concluded that the cost savings inherent in an 
internationally uniform symbol scheme are sig- 
nificant, and that the I.S.O. symbols should be 
adopted. 

The final form of the I.S.O. symbols was not 
decided upon until several months after the pro- 
posal was issued, so the I.S.O. symbols for head- 
lamps, taillamps, clearance lamps, and the 
windshield wiping system differ slightly from 
those printed in Notice 10. Because of the gen- 
eral agreement on the desirability of the I.S.O. 
symbols, and the need to give definitive guidance 
to manufacturers, this agency has concluded that 
further notice and opportunity to comment are 
unnecessary and not in the public interest. 



To facilitate an orderly changeover to the 
I.S.O. symbols, the present amendment, effective 
immediately, allows manufacturers at their op- 
tion to use either the symbols specified up to 
now in Standard No. 101 or newly-specified 
I.S.O. symbols. The NHTSA plans to issue a 
further proposal within the next year to make 
the I.S.O. symbols mandatory, including new 
symbols for the heating and/or air conditioning 
fan and a combined windshield wiper and 
washer. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.101, Standard No. 101, is amended. . . . 

Effective date: July 29, 1975. Because the 
amendment allows an optional means of compli- 
ance, the NHTSA finds, for good cause shown, 
that an immediate effective date is in the public 
interest. 

(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718. 
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407; delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on July 23, 1975. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

40 F.R. 31770 
July 29, 1975 



PART 571; S 101— PRE 11-12 



Effective: January 1, 1972 
(Except OS notecJ in the Rule) 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 101 

Control Location, Identification and Illumination — Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger 

Vehicles, Trucks and Buses 

(Docket No. 1-18) 



ST. Scope. This standard specifies require- 
ments for the location, identification, and illumi- 
nation of motor vehicle controls. 

52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is 
to insure the accessibility of motor vehicle con- 
trols and to facilitate their selection under day- 
light and nighttime conditions, in order to re- 
duce the hazards caused by the diversion of the 
driver's attention from the motoring environ- 
ment. 

53. Application. This standard applies to 
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger ^■ehicles, 
trucks, and buses. 

54. Requirements. Each passenger car, multi- 
purpose passenger vehicle, truck, and bus manu- 
factured with any control listed in S4.1 or 
Column 1 of Table 1, shall meet the requirements 
of this standard for the location, identification, 
and illumination of such control. 

S4.1 Control location. This section applies to 
each passenger car manufactured on or after 
January 1, 1972, and to each multipurpose pas- 
senger vehicle, truck, and bus manufactured on 
or after September 1, 1972. Each of the follow- 
ing controls shall be operable, under the condi- 
tions of S5, by a person seated at the controls : 

(a) Steering wheel. 

(b) Horn control. 

(c) Transmission shift lever, except transfer 
case. 

(d) Ignition switch. 

(e) Headlamp switch. 

(f) Turn signal control. 

(g) Illumination intensity control, 
(h) Windshield wiper control. 

(i) Windshield washer control, 
(j) Manual choke, 
(k) Driver's sun visor. 



S4.2 Control identification. [This section ap- 
plies to eacli passenger car manufactured on or 
after January 1, 1972, and to each multipurpose 
passenger veliicle, truck, and bus manufactured 
on or after September 1, 1972. 

54.2.1 [If any control listed in Column 1 of 
Table 1 is manually operated, the conti-ol shall be 
identified by the word or abbreviation specified 
in Column 2. A control may, in addition, be 
identified by a symbol, but only a symbol shown 
in Column 3 or Column 4 shall be used. How- 
ever, if the word "None" appears in Column 3, 
no symbol shall be provided. Identification 
shall be placed on or adjacent to the control, 
visible to the vehicle operator, and shall appear 
to the operator in an upright position. (40 F.E. 
31770— July 29, 1975. Effective: 7/29/75)] 

54.2.2 Identification shall be provided for each 
function of any automatic vehicle sj^eed system 
control and any lieating and air conditioning 
system control, and for the extreme positions of 
any such control that regulates a function over a 
quantitative range. 

Example 1 : A slide lever controls the tem- 
perature of the air in the vehicle heating 
system over a continuous range, from no heat 
to maximum lieat. Since the control regu- 
lates a single function over a quantitative 
range, only the extreme positions require 
identification. 

Example 2: A switch has three positions, for 
heat, defrost, and air conditioning. Since 
each position regulates a different function, 
each position must be identified. (3G F.R. 
23067 — December 3, 1971. Effective: 
1/1/72)] 



(Rev. 6/23/75) 



PAKT 571; S 101-1 



EfFective: January 1, 1972 
(Except OS noted in the Rule) 

S4.3 Control illumination. [This section ap- 
plies to each passenger car, and to each multi- 
purpose passenger vehicle, truck, and bus with a 
GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less manufactured 
on or after September 1, 1972, and to each multi- 
purpose passenger vehicle, truck, and bus with a 
GVAVR of more than 10,000 pounds manufac- 
tured on or after March 1, 1973. Except for 
foot-operated controls or manually operated 
controls mounted upon the steering column, the 
identification of any control listed in Column 1 
of Table 1 and accompani'^d by the word "yes" in 
the corresponding space in Column 5 shall be 



illuminated whenever the headlamps are acti- 
vated. Control identification need not be illumi- 
nated when the headlamps are being flashed. 
Control identification for a heating and air- 
conditioning system need not be illuminated if 
the system does not direct air directly upon the 
windshield. On each vehicle to which this 
paragraph applies manufactured on or after 
September 1, 1973, a control shall be provided 
to adjust the intensity of control illumination, 
so that it is continuously variable from a posi- 
tion of cither no illumination, or illuminntion 
that is barely discernible to a vehicle operator 



Table 1 — Control Irtentification and lUuraination 



COLUMN 1 


COLUMN 2 


COLUMN 3 


COLUMN 4 


COLUMN 5 


Motor Vehicle Equipment Control 


Word or Al)l)reviation 


Permissiljle 
Symbol 


Alternate 

Permissible 

Symbol 


Illumination 


Engine Start 


En.sine Start' 


None 


None 




Engine Stop 


Engine Stop' 


None 


None 


Yes' 


Manual Cholve 


( 'holie 


None 


None 




Hand Throttle 


Throttle 


None 


None 




Automatic Vehicle Speed Control 




None 


None 


Yes 


Headlamps and Taillamp.s 


Lights- 


m 


id 




Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal 


Hazard 


A 


A' 


Yes 










Clearance Lamps 


Clearance Lamps' or CL LPS 




3.4 

-OD- 


Yes 


Identification Lamps 


Identification Lamps ar ID LPS 


None None 


Yes 


Windshield Wiping System 


Wiper or Wipe 


^ 


«P 


Yes 


Windshield Washing System 


Washer or Wash 


1 


1 


Yes 


Windshielil Defrosting and 
Defoggiiig System 


Defro.st or Def 


None 


None 


Yes 


Heating and Air Conditioning 
System 




None 


None 


Y'es 



' Use when engine control is separate from the l^ey loclving system. 

"Use also when clearance, identification lamps and/or side niarl;er lamps are cnntrolleil with the headlamp switch. 

' r.se also when clearance lamps, identification lamps and/or side marlcer lamps are controlled with one switch 

other than tlie headlamp switch. 
* Framed areas may lie filled. 

no F.R. 31770— July 29, 197o. Effective: 7/29/75] 



(Rev. 6/23/75) 



PART 571; S 101-2 



whose eyes have adapted to dark ambient road- 
way conditions, to a position providing ilUimina- 
tion sufficient for tlie veliicle operator to readily 
identify the control under conditions of reduced 
visibility. (38 F.R. 22125— August 16, 1973. 
Effective: 9/1/73)] 

S5. Conditions. 

55.1 [Except as provided in S5.2, the per- 
son seated at the controls is restrained by a non- 
extending pelvic restraint fastened so that there 
is no slack between the lap belt and the pelvis. 

55.2 The person seated at the controls of a 
passenger car (except for a convertible passen- 



Effective: January 1, 1972 
(Except as noted in the Rule) 

ger car), and of any luultiiJiirpose passenger ve- 
hicle, truck, or bus required by Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 208 to have a Type 2 seat 
belt assembly installed at the driver's seating 
[)osition, is i-estrained by non-extending upper 
torso and pelvic restraints fastened so that the 
upper torso restraint can be mo\ed 4 inclies away 
from the sternum and there is no slack between 
the lap belt and the pelvis. (36 F.R. 23067— De- 
cember 3, 1971. Efl'ective: 1/1/72)] 

36 F.R. 503 
January 14, 1971 



(Rev. 8/9/73) 



PART 571; S 101-3 



231-088 O - 77 - 15 



I 



« 



Effacliv*: January 1, 1968 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 102 

Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect — 
Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, and Buses 



51 . Purpose and scope. This standard spec- 
ifies the requirements for the transmission shift 
lever sequence, a starter interlock, and for a 
braking effect of automatic transmissions, to re- 
duce the likelihood of shifting errors, starter 
engagement with vehicle in drive position, and to 
provide supplemental braking at speeds below 25 
miles per hour. 

52. Application. This standard applies to pas- 
senger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
trucks, and buses. 

53. Requirements. 

S3.1 Automatic transmissions. 

S3. 1.1 Location of transmission shift lever posi- 
tions on passenger cars. A neutral position shall 
be located between forward drive and reverse 
drive positions. If a steering-column-mounted 
transmission shift lever is used, movement from 
neutral position to forward drive position shall 
be clockwise. If the transmission shift lever 
sequence includes a park position, it shall be lo- 



cated at the end, adjacent to the reverse drive 
position. 

53. 1.2 Transmission braking effect. In vehicles 
having more than one forward transmission gear 
ratio, one forward drive position shall provide 
a greater degree of engine braking than the 
highest speed transmission ratio at vehicle speeds 
below 25 miles per hour. 

53.1.3 Starter interlock. The engine starter 
shall be inoperative when the transmission shift 
lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. 

S3. 2 Automatic and manual transmissions. 
Identification of shift lever positions of auto- 
matic transmissions and of the shift lever pat- 
tern of manual transmissions, except three 
forward speed manual transmissions having the 
standard "H" pattern, shall be permanently dis- 
played in view of the driver. 

32 F.R. 2410 
February 3, 1967 



PAET 571; S 102-1 



♦ 



m 



Effactiva: January 1, 1969 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 103 

Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems — Passenger Cars, 
Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses 

(Docket Nos. 9, 1-12) 



Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103 (32 
F.R. 2410) requires that each passenger car and 
multipurpose passenger vehicle manufactured for 
sale in the Continental United States be provided 
with a windshield defrosting and defogging sys- 
tem. A proposal to amend section 371.21 of 
Part 371, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ards, by amending Standard No. 103, was pub- 
lished in the Federal Register on December 28, 
1967 (32 F.R. 20867). 

Interested persons have been afforded an op- 
portunity to participate in the making of the 
amendment. Their comments, as well as other 
available information, have been carefully con- 
sidered. 

The purpose of the amendment is to increase 
driver visibility, and thereby enhance safe ve- 
hicle performance, by (1) adding test conditions 
and performance requirements for passenger car 
defrosting and defogging systems; and (2) 
broadening the standard's application to cover 
trucks and buses, which were not subject to the 
initial standard. In addition, the standard was 
modified to improve its clarity. 

Paragraph S4.3 in the notice of proposed rule- 
making required testing of pmssenger car wind- 
shield defrosting and defogging systems in ac- 
cordance with the test conditions specified in 
paragraph 4 of SAE Recommended Practice 
J902, August 1964. Several comments asked that 
this requirement be modified to permit optional 
use of the test conditions set out in paragraph 4 
of SAE Recommended Practice J902a, March 
1967, a revised version of the Recommended Prac- 
tice. The Administrator has determined that 
there are only minor differences between the test 
equipment, instrumentation, conditions and pro- 
cedures in paragraphs 4.1 through 4.4.7 of these 



two versions, and that these minor differences do 
not affect the level of safety attained with the 
use of either one. Accordingly, S4.3 of the notice 
has been changed to permit the use of the demon- 
stration procedures described in paragraphs 4.1 
through 4.4.7 of either SAE Recommended Prac- 
tice J902 or SAE Recommended Practice J902a. 

Another feature of paragraph S4.3 which 
evoked comments was its provision for use of 
the test procedures in section 4 of Recommended 
Practice J902 to the extent they are "applicable 
to" the particular system being tested. Any pos- 
sible ambiguity that might appear upon super- 
ficial examination of the quoted words disappears 
when this requirement is read in conjunction with 
the operative provisions of section 4 of the SAE 
Recommended Practices. Section 4 makes refer- 
ence to certain components that are not incor- 
porated in every passenger car (e.g. defroster 
blowers) . The use of the section 4 test procedures 
is restricted to those procedures "applicable to" 
the particular passenger car system being tested 
to make it clear that procedures which, by their 
terms, apply to components that are not a part 
of the car being tested need not be complied with. 

Three comments asked that paragraph S4.2 
of the standard be changed to permit optional 
use of the defrosted area and defrosting time 
requirements prescribed in section 3 of SAE 
Recommended Practice J902a in lieu of those set 
forth in section 3 of Recommended Practice 
J902. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, 
paragraph S4.2 incorporated, with minor modi- 
fications, the defrosted area and defrosting time 
requirements of Recommended Practice J902. 
Comparison of the two versions of the SAE 
Recommended Practice reveals that there are 
great differences between the areas and times 



PART 571; S 103— PRE 1 



Eff«cliv«: Jonuary 1, 1969 



prescribed by J902 and those prescribed by 
J902a. The requests for a change in paragraph 
S4.2 acknowledged that compliance with one pro- 
cedure is not necessarily more difficult than com- 
pliance with the other. The submissions did not 
indicate that adherence to the J902 requirements 
would impose any significant burden or would 
be impracticable in any sense. In view of the 
absence of sufficient substantiation to justify 
changing the standard, paragraph S4.2 has not 
been modified to allow alternative defrosted area 
and defrosting time requirements. 

One comment requested that the standard be 
changed to allow 5 minutes more to meet the 
defrosted area requirements of the critical or "C" 
area. It was said that reasonable performance 
tolerances should be taken into account, and that, 
therefore, the requirement of paragraph 3.1 of 
SAE Recommended Practice J902, as adopted 
in modified form in paragraph S4.2 of the stand- 
ard, that the "C" area must be 80 percent de- 
frosted after 20 minutes of operation should be 
changed to allow manufacturers 25 minutes to 
attain the 80 percent defrosted goal. Such a 
modification would permit a significant reduc- 
tion of the defrosting performance of defrosting 
and defogging systems and this, in turn, would 
be contrary to the interest of safety. While it 
is true that variations in such things as the per- 
formance of the thermostat and the outlet nozzle 
will affect the system's capability to defrost a 
given windshield area within a stated time, there 



is no apparent reason why it is impracticable to 
design and construct the system so that, at a 
minimum performance level, it will comply with 
the requirements of paragraph S4.2. For these 
reasons, the Administrator has rejected this re- 
quest for modification of the standard. 

Many comments submitted suggestions that 
went beyond the scope of the notice. For ex- 
ample, submissions that discussed the problems 
of establishing performance requirements for de- 
frosting and defogging systems on multipur- 
pose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses were 
received. These, and other comments of this 
nature, will be considered in connection with 
future rulemaking action. 

In consideration of the foregoing, § 371.21 of 
Part 371, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ards, is amended, effective January 1, 1969, by 
amending Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
103 ... . 

This amendment is made under the authority 
of sections 103 and 119 of the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 
1392, 1407) and the delegation of authority of 
April 24, 1968. 

Issued in Washington, D. C. on April 24, 1968. 

Lowell K. Bridwell, 

Federal Highway Administrator. 

33 F.R. 6468 
April 27, 1968 



PART 571; S 103— PRE 2 



Effective: September 1, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 
Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems 
(Docket No. 73-6; Notice 2) 



103 



The purpose of this notice is to amend Motoi- 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103, Windshield 
Defrosting and Defogging Systems^ to revise the 
wind test condition. 

On Marcli 20, 1973, the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration publislied a notice 
(38 F.R. 7339) proposing a change in the stand- 
ard's wind velocity test condition which would 
clarify the NHTSA's intent that the perform- 
ance requirements be met at all levels within the 
specified wind speed range. Tlie present provi- 
sion specifying that "the wind velocity may not 
exceed 5 mjjh" may be mterpreted by manufac- 
turers as requiring compliance at only one point 
within the range. Such an interpretation could 
result in enforcement {problems if the NHTSA 
discovered a failure to comply when testing a 
vehicle at one jjoint within the range while the 
manufacturer had attained compliance during 
testing at another point within the specified wind 
speed range. Perpetuation of this type of en- 
forcement situation might retard the develop- 
ment of complying vehicle systems and under- 
mine the level of performance the NHTSA 
intends to accomplish. Tlierefoi-e, the NHTSA 
proposed in its March 20, 1973, notice that the 
standard specify that the wind velocity test con- 
dition be at any level from to 2 mph. Reading 
this requirement together with tJie interpretive 
prov-isions of § 571.4, the vehicle would be re- 
quired to be capable of complying with the 
standard when the wind velocity is at any speed 
within that range. Tliis would prevent any dis- 
crepancy between the manufacturers' and the 
NHTSA's conception of what the standard 
actually requires. 



Se\'eral comments submitted in response to the 
proposal to i-evise the wind speed test condition 
asserted that wind speeds cannot be accurately 
measured below 2 mph, and therefore the require- 
ment should remain unchanged. This objection 
lacks merit, since the standard only requires that 
a vehicle be capable of complying with the stand- 
ard at wind speeds from to 2 mph. A manu- 
facturer may generally conduct his testing at 
higher wind speeds to determine compliance, 
since the greater the wind speed, the more diffi- 
cult it is to defrost the windshield within the 
specified time span. 

The March 20, 1973, notice also proposed that 
the test chamber temperature sensor be located 
in a position not substantially affected by the 
heat from the engine. Comments from Ford and 
General Motors, submitted in response to this 
aspect of the proposal, objected to the proposed 
tempei"ature location as unobjective and ambig- 
uous and suggested establishment of a more 
specific location. The NHTSA is in tentative 
agreement with commenters' suggestion and is 
proposmg in a separate notice issued today an 
exact location for the temperature sensor. 

In consideration of the foregoing, in S4.3 of 
49 CFR § 571.103, Motor Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ard No. 103, paragraph (g) is amended. . . . 

Ejfective date: Sejitember 1, 1975. 

(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407; delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on March 17, 1975. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

40 F.R. 12991 
March 24, 1975 



PART 571; S 103— PRE 2,-A 



(0 



m 



Effective: September 1, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 103 

Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems 
(Docket No. 73-6; Notice 4) 



The purpose of this notice is to amend Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103, Windshield 
Defrosting and Defogging Systems, 40 CFR 
.571.103, to specify a relocation of the test cham- 
ber temperature and wind velocity sensors. 

On March 24, 1975, the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration published a notice 
(40 F.R. 13002) proposing a change in the loca- 
tion of the test chamber temperature and wind 
velocity sensors to a position where they would 
not be afi'ected by air released from vehicle en- 
gines during testing. A petition from Jaguar 
Cars Division of British Leyland UK Limited, 
describing compliance problems for vehicles that 
direct engine heat at the windshield as part of 
the defrosting process, prompted the rulemaking 
action. 

It was proposed that the temperature and 
wind sensors be positioned at the forwardniost 
point of the vehicle or 36 inches from the base 
of the windshield, whichever is farther forwai'd. 
at a level halfway between top and bottom of the 
windshield. At this location, the NHTSA con- 
cluded that the temperature measurement would 
not be affected by expelled engine heat and the 
wind measurement would not be aifected by aii' 
released from hood ducts. 

Comments to the proposal were received from 
Chrysler, Jaguar, and General jVIotors. Both 
Chrysler and General Motors supported adop- 
tion of the amendment. 



Jaguar took issue with the proposed thermo- 
couple location and asked that the sensors be 
placed 3 feet forward of the vehicle. The 
NHTSA denies this request, having found that 
the proposed thermocouple position provides for 
reliable and objective temperature and wind ve- 
locity measurements. Location of the sensors at 
the position suggested by Jaguar is therefore 
unnecessary and would tend to penalize those 
manufacturers using short cold chambers for 
compliance testing. The purpose of the amend- 
ment is to relocate the temperature and wind 
sensors to locations where they will not be af- 
fected by air released from vehicle engines. The 
agency concludes that the proposed location ac- 
complishes this goal and should therefore be 
adopted. 

In consideration of the foi'egoing, Standard 
No. 103 (49 CFR 571.103) is amended by adding 
in S4.3 a new paragraph (h). . . . 

Effective date: September 1, 1975. 

(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407; delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on July 28, 1975. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

40 F.R. 32336 
August 1, 1975 



PART 571; S 103— PRE 5-6 



($ 



# 



% 



Effective: January 1, 1969 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 103 

Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems — Passenger Cars, Multipurpose 

Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, and Buses 



ST. Scope. This standard specifies require- 
ments for windshield defrosting and defogging 
systems. 

52. Application. This standard applies to pas- 
senger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
trucks, and buses, manufactured for sale in the 
Continental United States. 

53. Definitions. "Road load" means the power 
output I'equired to move a given motor vehicle 
at curb weight plus 400 pounds on level, clean, 
dry, smooth Portland cement concrete pavement 
(or other surface with equivalent coefficient of 
surface friction) at a specified speed through still 
air at 68°F and standard barometric pressure 
(29.92" of Hg.) and includes driveline friction, 
rolling friction, and air resistance. 

54. Requirements. 

54.1 Each vehicle shall have a windshield de- 
frosting and defogging system. 

54.2 Each passenger car windshield defrost- 
ing and defogging system shall meet the re- 
quirements of section 3 of SAE Recommended 
Practice J902, "Passenger Car Windshield De- 
frosting Systems," August 1964, when tested in 
accordance with S4.3, except that "the critical 
area" specified in paragraph 3.1 of SAE Recom- 
mended Practice J902 shall be that established 
as Area C in accordance with Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 104, "Windshield Wiping 
and Washing Systems," and "the entire wind- 
shield" specified in pai'agraph 3.3 of SAE Recom- 
mended Practice J902 shall be that established 
as Area A in accordance with Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 104. 

54.3 Demonstration procedure. The passenger 
car windshield defrosting and defogging system 
shall be tested in accordance with the portions of 
paragraphs 4.1 through 4.4.7 of SAE Recom- 



mended Practice J902, August 1964, or SAE 
Recommended Practice J902a. ]March 1967. ap- 
plicable to that system, except that — 

(a) During the first five minutes of the test, 
the engine speed or speeds may be those which 
the manufacturer recommends as the warm-up 
procedure for cold weather starting; 

(b) During the last 35 minutes of the test 
period (or the entire test period if the five-minute 
warm-up procedure is not used), either — 

(i) The engine speed shall not exceed 1500 
rpm in neuti-al gear; or 

(ii) The engine speed and load shall not ex- 
ceed the speed and load at 25 mph in the manu- 
facturer's recommended gear with road load; 

(c) A room air change of 90 times per hour is 
not required; 

(d) The windshield wipers may be used dur- 
ing the test if they are operated without manual 
assist ; 

(e) One or two windows may be open a total 
of one inch; 

(f) The defroster blower may be turned on at 
any time; and 

is) [The wind velocity is at any level from 
to 2 mph. (40 F.R. 12991— March 24, 1975. 
Effective: 9/1/75)] 

Q(h) The test chamber temperature and the 
wind velocity shall be measured, after the engine 
has been started, at the forwardmost point of 
tlie vehicle oi- a point 36 inches from the base of 
the windshield, whichever is farther forward, at 
a level halfway between the top and bottom of 
the windshield on the vehicle centerline. (40 
F.R. 32336— August 1. 1975. Effective: 9/1/75)] 

33 F.R. 6469 
April 27, 1968 



(Rev. 7/28/75) 



PART 571; S 103-1 



r# 



# 



Effcctiv*: January 1, 1969 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 104 

Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems — Passenger Cars, Multipurpose 
Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, and Buses 

(Docket No. 7) 



Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104 (32 
F.R. 2410) specifies requirements for windshield 
wiping and washing systems for passenger cars 
68 or more inches in overall width. A proposal 
to amend section 371.21 of Part 371, Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, by amending 
Standard No. 104 was published in the Federal 
Register on December 28, 1967 (32 F.R. 20867). 

Interested persons have been afforded an oppor- 
tunity to participate in the making of the amend- 
ment. Their comments, as well as other avail- 
able information, have been carefully considered. 

The primary purpose of the amendment is to 
broaden the application of the Initial Standard 
to cover smaller passenger cars, multipurpose pas- 
senger vehicles, trucks, and buses. The wiped- 
area performance requirements have been ex- 
tended to cars smaller than 68 inches wide, and 
tables which prescribe the minimum size of wiped 
areas have been added for such cars. The 
overall effect is that the wiper systems of various 
passenger cars must wipe areas to provide ap- 
proximately equivalent driver vision. The wiper 
frequency requirement, modified to prescribe that 
the highest and lowest frequencies must differ by 
at least 15 cycles per minute, has been extended 
to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and 
buses. A requirement for a windshield washing 
system has also been extended to smaller cars, 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and 
buses. Other modifications to the standard were 
made in order to improve its clarity. 

The material received in response to the notice 
of proposed rulemaking evinced almost universal 
acknowledgement that broadening of the cover- 
age of the standard would improve overall driver 
visibility and thus contribute to safety on the 
highways. With a few minor exceptions, dis- 



cussed below, there was no suggestion that manu- 
facturers would have any difficulty in complying 
with the revised requirements by the January 
1, 1969, effective date. 

Some of the comments indicated some misun- 
derstanding of the reference to SAE Recom- 
mended Practice J903a, "Passenger Car Wind- 
shield Wiper Systems," May 1966, in paragraph 
S4.1.2 of the standard. Paragraph S4.1.2 is part 
of the wiped area requirement and it provides, 
among other things, for testing "in accordance 
with" SAE Recommended Practice J903a. This 
does not mean that all of section 4, "Test Meth- 
ods," of SAE Recommended Practice J903a is 
incorporated by reference into the wiped area 
requirements of the standard. The reference to 
the SAE Recommended Practice relates only to 
its procedure for testing wiper systems for com- 
pliance with wiped area requirements. Therefore, 
the ozone test, wiper system stall test, 1,500,000- 
cycle durability test, and other details of section 
4 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a are not 
included in the scope of Standard No. 104. 

Several comments asked that the standard con- 
tain a demonstration procedure for testing wind- 
shield wiper systems for compliance with the 
45-cycle-per-minute frequency requirement and 
the 15-cycle-per-minute frequency differential re- 
quirement. Apparently, these persons were con- 
cerned that the ability of systems to meet both 
requirements might be judged under abnormal 
conditions rather than under those encountered 
in normal driving. Considering these requests 
reasonable, the Administrator has provided that 
windshield wiper systems will be deemed to have 
met the frequency differential requirements of the 
standard (sections S4.1.2 and S4.1.1.3) if they 
meet those requirements when tested in accor- 



PART 571; S 104— PRE 1 



Effactiva: January 1, 1969 



dance with sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 of SAE Rec- 
ommended Practice J903a. 

One comment requested clarification of the lo- 
cation of the plan view reference line in the 
"eyellipse." The "eyellipse" is the "95 percent 
eye range contour" specified in SAE Recom- 
mended Practice J941, "Passenger Car Driver's 
Eye Range," November 1965. The author of this 
comment pointed out that ii'igure 2 in Recom- 
mended Practice J903a incorrectly shows the plan 
view reference line as located through the geo- 
metric center of the 95 percent eye range con- 
tour. The drawings referred to in Recommended 
Practice J941 show the "eyellipse" centerline as 
disecting the left ellipse of the two intersecting 
ellipses in the plan view. In paragraph S3 of the 
standard, the definition of the "95 percent eye 
range contour" makes reference to SAE Recom- 
mended Practice J941, which correctly positions 
the plan view reference line in the left-hand 
ellipse of the "eyellipse." Accordingly, the Ad- 
ministrator has determined that subparagraph 
(a) of the definition of "plan view reference line" 
in paragraph S3 of the standard correctly reflects 
this position as defined, but subparagraph (b) 
of the same definition has been modified to 
clarify the location of the "eyellipse." Sub- 
paragraph (b), as revised by this amendment, 
places the plan view reference line outboard of 
the longitudinal centerline of the driver's desig- 
nated seating position, thus locating the "eyel- 
lipse" itself geometrically in the center of the 
seat. 

In the notice of proposed rulemaking, para- 
graph S4.2 required a windshield washing system 
meeting the requirements of SAE Recommended 
Practice J942, "Passenger Car Windshield 
Washer Systems," November 1965. Section 3.1 of 
that Recommended Practice sets washer system 
capability requirements by reference to the pas- 
senger car wiped area requirements of SAE Rec- 
ommended Practice J903. Several comments 
pointed this out and requested modification of^ 
the standard in view of the fact that the wiped 
area requirements of the standard are different 
from those of Recommended Practice J903. In 
addition, some comments sought revision of this 
particular provision on the ground that the wiped 
areas of Recommended Practice J903 were created 
for passenger cars, while the washer provisions 



of the standard apply to multipurpose passenger / a 
vehicles, trucks, and buses as well. In view of \% 
these comments, the Administrator has deleted the 
cross-reference, and S4.2 of the standard has 
been modified. The passenger car wiped-area re- 
quirement is now defined as that established 
under paragraph S4. 1.2.1 of the standard; the 
wiped area for multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
trucks, and buses is now defined as the wiped 
area pattern designed by the manufacturer for 
the windshield wiping system on the exterior of 
the windshield glazing. 

One comment sought a change in the wiper 
frequency differential requirement from 15 cycles 
per minute to 10 cycles per minute, claiming that 
production tolerances did not permit exact com- 
pliance with the 15-cycle-per-minute differential 
requirement. The comment did not indicate why, 
assuming a 5— cycle-per-minute tolerance is 
needed, the system could not be constructed to 
operate in the frequency differential range of be- 
tween 15 and 20 cycles per minute rather than a 
10-15 cycle range. The standard, like all stand- 
ards, is a minimum one, and nothing in it pro- 
hibits a higher standard of performance than the 
one specified as minimal. For these reasons, and /j^k 
because the deviation requested would, if granted, ^P 
lower the safety performance of this segment of 
the standard, the request has been denied. 

Similarly, the Administrator has denied a re- 
quest for deletion of the requirement that wind- 
shield washing systems must, when tested, deliver 
approximately 15 cc. of fluid to the windshield 
glazing surface. The requirement is embodied 
in section 2.11 of SAE Recommended Practice 
J942, which is incorporated by reference in para- 
graph 4.2 of the standard. The amount of fluid 
placed on the windshield's exterior is a central 
performance characteristic of a washing system, 
and a decrease in the required amount would 
clearly diminish the capability of the system to 
promote safety. Neither the comments in gen- 
eral nor any other known data indicate that the 
requirement incorporated in the standard is un- 
feasible. The one comment that sought a change 
in this aspect of the standard contained no detail 
demonstrating that systems in current production 
would be unable to meet the requirement by the 
effective date of the amendment. Consequently, 
the Administrator has decided not to deviate 



PART 571; S 104— PRE 2 



Effacliva: January 1, 1969 



from the adoption of section 2.11 of Recom- 
mended Practice J942, as announced in the notice 
of proposed rulemaking. 

Several comments pointed out the difficulties 
involved in prescribing wiped-area requirements 
for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and 
buses. The Administrator is cognizant of the 
problems that arise because of the wide variety 
of windshield sizes and configurations as well as 
the differing relationships between the drivers' 
positions and the windshields in these vehicles. 
Owing to these factors, he has concluded that it 
is not possible to prescribe uniform wiped areas 
for the wiper systems of these vehicles generally 
or for vehicles within any generic type at this 
time. Hence, the standard's minimum wiped- 
area requirements apply only to passenger cars. 
The possibility of prescribing such requirements 
for other vehicular types will continue to be 
studied. 

In addition, the Administration will also study 
the question of whether there should be standards 
applicable to so-called "hidden" windshield wipers 



to insure their operability under snow and ice 
conditions. Although a number of comments 
sought the inclusion of such a provision in this 
standard, it was deemed inadvisable to do so 
in view of the absence of any such provision from 
the notice of proposed rulemaking. 

In consideration of the foregoing, § 371.21 of 
Part 371, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ards, is amended effective January 1, 1969, by 
amending Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
104 

This amendment is made under the authority 
of sections 103 and 119 of the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 
1392, 1407) and the delegation of authority of 
April 24, 1968. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on April 24, 1968. 

Lowell K. Bridwell 

Federal Highway Administrator. 

33 F.R. 6466 
April 27, 1968 



PART 571; S 104— PRE 3-4 



(0 



i 



iffMHva: Jonuoiy I, 1969 



\ 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 104 

Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems — Passenger Cars, Multipurpose 

Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, and Buses 

(Docket No. 7) 



An amendment to Motor Vehicle Standard No. 
104, which specifies requirements for windshield 
wiping and washing systems in passenger cars, 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and 
buses, was issued on April 24, 1968 (33 F.R. 
6466). The amendment is effective January 1, 
1969. 

Paragraph S3 of the amended standard, en- 
titled "Definitions," contains a definition of the 
"plan view reference line" which, as it applies 
to vehicles with individual-type seats, locates the 
line parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal center- 
line so that the 95 percent eye range contour, or 
eyellipse, is geometrically positioned around the 
longitudinal centerline of the driver's designated 
seating position. 

The purpose of the definition, as stated in the 
preamble to the standard, was to position the 
eyellipse geometrically in the center of the seat. 
The Administrator has determined that the defini- 
tion may be construed to permit a different loca- 
tion of the eyellipse, since it provides that the 95 
percent eye range contour must be geometrically 
positioned "around" the longitudinal centerline of 
the driver's seat. Therefore, the definition is 
being amended to clarify the location of the 
eyellipse by requiring its geometric center to be 
positioned on the longitudinal centerline of the 
driver's designated seating position. 

Several petitions for reconsideration of the 
amendment have raised the possibility that the 
definition of plan view reference line may im- 
pose an unintended hardship on manufacturers of 
smaUer cars. The effect of the definition is to 
relocate the eyellipse slightly outboard of the 
location prescribed in the standard prior to the 
amendment. This change may make it imprac- 
ticable for manufacturers of smaller cars to com- 



ply with the wiped-area requirements of the 
standard. Therefore, the definition is being 
further amended to permit optional positioning of 
the eyellipse on the plan view reference line in 
the manner prescribed in the standard prior to 
the previous amendment. 

Neither of these revisions appreciably alters 
the amount of the windshield surface which wip- 
ing systems must wipe under the standard. Hence 
the amendments will have no adverse effect on 
motor vehicle safety. 

Paragraph S4.1.1.3 of the amendment provides, 
in part, that the lowest frequency or speed of 
windshield wiping systems must be at least 20 
cycles per minute regardless of engine speed and 
engine load. The Administrator has received 
petitions asking that a frequency or speed lower 
than 20 cycles per minute be allowed. The peti- 
tioners state that such a lower frequency or speed 
will be useful under conditions of very light 
precipitation or wheel spray, and that retention 
of the 20-cycle-per-minute minimum will preclude 
the use of so-called "intermittent" windshield 
wiping systems. The Administrator has con- 
cluded that the standard should be amended to 
allow manufacturers to use systems which can 
operate at a frequency or speed of less than 20 
cycles per minute so long as the driver of the 
vehicle has available a system capable of op- 
erating at at least two other frequencies or speeds, 
differing by at least 15 cycles per minute, the 
lower of which is at least 20 cycles per minute. 
The net effect of this change is to allow as 
many different frequencies or speeds as the manu- 
facturer desires as long as at least two of these 
speeds or frequencies meet the specified require- 
ments. 



PART 571; S 104— PRE 6 



231-088 O - 77 - IG 



fffcctlva: January 1, 1969 

Sine© these amendments provide clarification, (Sees. 103, 119, National Traffic and Motor / * 

relieve a hardship and impose no additional Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392, y* 

burden on any person, notice and public proce- 1470) ; delegation of authority of April 24, 1968 

dure thereon are unnecessary. (33 F.R. 6538)). 

In consideration of the foregoing, § 371.21 of j^^^^ j^ Washington, D.C., on July 31, 1968. 
Part 371, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ards, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104 (32 

F.R. 2410), as amended (33 F.R. 6466), is ^<*^®" ^- indwell, 

amended, effective July 31, 1968. . . . F*'^^^'^^ Highway Administrator. 

It is found, for good cause shown, that an effec- 
tive date sooner than 180 days after the issuance 33 F.R. 11117 
of these amendments is in the public interest. August 6, 1968 



i 



PART 571; S 104— PRE 6 



Elfactiv*: January 1, 1969 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 104 

Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems — Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger 

Vehicles, Trucks, and Buses 



S{. Scope. This standard specifies require- 
ments for windshield wiping and washing sys- 
tems. 

52. Application. This standard applies to pas- 
senger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
trucks, and buses. 

53. Definitions. The term "seating reference 
point" is substituted for the terms "manikin H 
point" and "H point" wherever either of those 
terms appears in any SAE Standard or SAE 
Recommended Practice referred to in this 
standard. 

"Daylight opening" means the maximum un- 
obstructed opening through the glazing surface, 
as defined in paragraph 2.3.12 of section E, 
Ground Vehicle Practice, SAE Aerospace-Auto- 
motive Drawing Standards, September 1963. 

"Glazing surface reference line" means the 
line resulting from the intersection of the glazing 
surface and a horizontal plane 25 inches above 
the seating reference point, as shown in Figure 
1 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a, "Pas- 
senger Car Windshield Wiper Systems," May 
1966. 

"Overall width" means the maximum overall 
body width dimension "W116," as defined in sec- 
tion E, Ground Vehicle Practice, SAE Aero- 
space-Automotive Drawing Standards, Septem- 
ber 1963. 

"Plan view reference line" means — 

(a) For vehicles with bench-type seats, a line 
parallel to the vehicle longitudinal centerline out- 
board of the steering wheel centerline 0.15 times 
the difference between one-half of the shoulder 
room dimension and the steering wheel center- 
line-to-car-centerline dimension as shown in 
Figure 2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a, 
May 1966; or 



[(b) For vehicles with individual-type seats, 
either — 

(i) A line parallel to the vehicle longitudinal 
centerline which passes through the center of 
the driver's designated seating position; or 

(ii) A line parallel to the vehicle longitu- 
dinal centerline located so that the geometric 
center of the 95 percent eye range contour is 
positioned on the longitudinal centerline of the 
driver's designated seating position. (33 F.R. 
11117— Aug. 6, 1968)3 

"Shoulder room dimension" means the front 
shoulder room dimension "W3" as defined in sec- 
tion E, Ground Vehicle Practice, SAE Aerospace- 
Automotive Drawing Standards, September 1963. 
"95% eye range contour" means the 95th per- 
centile tangential cutoff specified in SAE Recom- 
mended Practice J941, "Passenger Car Driver's 
Eye Range," November 1965. 
S4. Requirements. 

S4.1 Windshield wiping system. Each vehicle 
shall have a power-driven windshield wiping sys- 
tem that meets the requirements of S4.1.1. 
S4.1 .1 Frequency. 

54.1.1.1 Each windshield wiping system shall 
have at least two frequencies or speeds. 

54.1.1.2 One frequency or speed shall be at 
least 45 cycles per minute regardless of engine 
load and engine speed. 

54.1.1.3 [Regardless of engine speed and en- 
gine load, the highest and one lower frequency 
or speed shall differ by at least 15 cycles per 
minute. Such lower frequency or speed shall be 
at least 20 cycles per minute regardless of engine 
speed and engine load. (33 F.R. 11117— Aug. 6, 
1968)] 

54.1.1.4 Compliance with subparagraphs S4.1- 
.1.2 and S4.1.1.3 may be demonstrated by testing 
under the conditions specified in sections 4.1.1 and 



PART 571; S 104^1 



Effcctiv*: January 1, 1969 



4.1.2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 
1966. 

S4.1.2 Wiped area. When tested wet in ac- 
cordance with SAE Recommended Practice 
J903a, May 1966, each passenger car windshield 
wiping system shall wipe the percentage of 
Areas A, B, and C of the windshield (established 
in accordance with S4.1.2.1) that (1) is specified 
in column 2 of the applicable table following 
subparagraph S4.1.2.1; and (2) is within the 
area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing 
surface one inch from the edge of the daylight 
opening. 

S4.1.2.1 Areas A, B, and C shall be estab- 
lished as shown in Figures 1 and 2 of SAE 
Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966, using 
the angles specified in Columns 3 through 6 of 
Table I, II, III or IV, as applicable. 

S4.2 Windshield washing system. 

54.2.1 Each passenger car shall have a wind- 
shield washing system that meets the require- 
ments of SAE Recommended Practice J942, 
"Passenger Car Windshield Washer Systems" 
November 1965, except that the reference to "the 
effective wipe pattern defined in SAE J903, para- 
graph 3.1.2" in paragraph 3.1 of SAE Recom- 
mended Practice J942 shall be deleted and "the 
areas established in accordance with subpara- 
graph S4.1.2.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 104" shall be inserted in lieu thereof. 

54.2.2 Each multipurpose passenger vehicle, 
truck and bus shall have a windshield washing 
system that meets the requirements of SAE 
Recommended Practice J942, November 1965, 
except that the reference to "the effective wipe 
pattern defined in SAE J903, paragraph 3.1.2" in 
paragraph 3.1 of SAE Recommended Practice 
J942 shall be deleted and "the pattern design by 
the manufacturer for the windshield wiping sys- 
tem on the exterior surface of the windshield 
glazing" shall be inserted in lieu thereof. 

33 F.R. 6467 
April 27, 1968 



Table I. 


Passenger cars of less than 60 inches 


in overall 


width. 












Column 1 


Column 2 


Column 3 


COLUMN 4 


Column 5 


Column 6 




Minimum 




Angles in Degrees 






Percent 
TO be 










Area 












Wiped 


Lept 


Right 


Up 


Down 


A 


80 


16 


49 


7 


5 


B 


94 


13 


46 


4 


3 


C 


99 


7 


15 


3 


1 


Table II 


. Passenger cars i 


of 60 or 


more but less than 


64 inches in overall width. 








COLDMN 1 


Column 2 


Column 3 


Column 4 


Column 5 


Column 6 




Minimum 




Angles in Degbees 






Percent 
TO be 










Abea 












Wiped 


Leit 


Right 


Up 


Down 


A 


80 


17 


51 


8 


5 


B 


94 


13 


49 


4 


3 


C 


99 


7 


15 


3 


1 


Table III. Passenger cars 


of 64 or 


more but less than 


68 inches in overall width. 






Column l 


Column 2 


Column 3 


Column i 


Column 5 


Column 6 




Minimum 




Angles in Degrees 






Percent 
TO be 










Area 












Wiped 


Lept 


Right 


Up 


Down 


A 


80 


17 


53 


9 


5 


B 


94 


14 


51 


5 


3 


C 


99 


8 


15 


4 


1 


Table IV. Passenger cars 


1 of 68 


or more 


inches in 


overall 


width. 










Column 1 


Column 2 


Column 3 


Column 4 


Column 8 


Column 6 




Minimum 




Angles in Degrees 






Percent 

TO BE 










ABEA 












Wiped 


Lett 


Right 


Up 


Down 


A 


80 


18 


56 


10 


5 


B 


94 


14 


53 


5 


3 


C 


99 


10 


15 


5 


1 



PART 571; S 104r-2 



EffacNva: January 1, 196S 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 105 

Hydraulic Service Brake, Emergency Brake, and Parking Brake 
Systems — Passenger Cars 

(Docket No. 9) 



A proposal to amend §371.21 of Part 371— 
Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 (32 F.R. 
2410) to include specified emergency system per- 
formance of the braking system on passenger 
cars was published in the Federal Register on 
February 3, 1967 (32 F.R. 2418). 

Interested persons have been afforded an op- 
portunity to participate in the making of the 
amendment. Two conmients suggested increasing 
the average emergency brake deceleration rate 
from 6 fps^ to 8 fps'. Another comment sug- 
gested adopting the 8.5 fps^ deceleration rate 
of the proposed standards of the Economic Com- 
mission for Europe. Since these suggestions are 
beyond the scope of the notice of proposed rule 
making, they were not considered for this amend- 
ment. A higher deceleration rate was not pro- 
posed in the notice, because the National Traffic 
Safety Agency determined that a rate greater 
than that proposed would not be reasonable nor 
practicable for 1968 cars. One comment requested 
a change in the pedal pressure requirement of 



SAE J843a as applied to the emergency braking 
system. Since the requirements and test proce- 
dures of SAE J843a (except for vehicle loading) 
do not apply to the emergency braking system 
when determining compliance with paragraph 
S4.2.1, there is no emergency braking system 
pedal pressure requirement. Therefore no 
changes have been made in the amendment. 

This amendment is made under the authority 
of sections 103 and 119 of the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 
1392, 1407) and the delegation of authority of 
March 31, 1967 (32 F.R. 5606), as amended April 
6, 1967 (32 F.R. 6495), and becomes effective 
January 1, 1968. 

Issued in Washington, D. C, on June 30, 1967. 

Lowell K. Bridwell, 

Federal Highway Administrator. 

32 F.R. 10072 
July 8, 1967 



PART 571; S 105— PRE 1-2 



# 



EffKHva: May 23, 1970 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 105 

Hydraulic Service Brake, Emergency Brake and Parking Brake Systems; Passenger Cars 

(Docket No. 70-5) 



On February 19, 1970, a proposal to amend 
section S4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 105 was published in the Federal Register 
(35 F.R. 3177). 

Under present S4.1 a service brake system, 
after exposure to water, must recover "within 
+20%, —40% of check stop pedal force by stop 
15. (Based on the average of initial pedal force 
of the three check stops)." The option to re- 
cover "within +20%, —40% of check stop pedal 
force by stop 15 or within +20 lbs., —40% of 
check stop pedal face by stop 10" was proposed. 
Interested persons have been afforded an op- 
portunity to comment. All comments favored 
the proposal; there were no objections. 



It is therefore determined that the option will 
encourage the development of better balanced 
braking systems, thus reducing the tendency for 
early front or rear wheel lock up. For this rea- 
son, there is good cause for finding that an 
earlier effective date than 180 days after issuance 
of this amendment is in the public interest. 
Therefore, the amendment is effective May 23, 
1970. 

Issued on May 18, 1970. 

Robert Brenner, 

Deputy Director, 

National Highway Safety Bureau. 

35 F.R. 7900 
May 22, 1970 



PART 571; S 105— PRE 3-4 



(I 



Effective: June 9, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 105 

Hydraulic Service Brake, Emergency Brake, and Parking Brake 

Systems 

(Docket No. 70-27; Notice 15) 



This notice amends Standard No. 105-75, Hy- 
draulic hrake system-'i, 49 CFR 571.105-75, to 
delay its effective date 4 months from September 
1, 1975, to January 1, 1976, and to establish in- 
terim control force values for water recovery 
testing. This notice also amends the present 
hydraulic brake system standard for passenger 
cars (Standard Xo. 105, HycJravlic brake sys- 
tems, (49 CFR 571.105)) to permit compliance 
with that standard or the new standard at the 
option of the manufacturer until January 1, 
1976. 

As issued. Standard No. 105-75 applied to 
passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles (MPV's) equipped with hy- 
draulic brake systems. Its scheduled effective 
date was September 1, 1975. Thirteen petitions 
for rulemaking to postpone or revoke the standard 
were filed with the NHTSA earlier this year. 
Following a comprehensi\-e evaluation of the 
petitions, NHTSA proposed and made final an 
indefinite delay of the standard as it applied to 
tnicks. buses, and MPV's (40 F.R. 10493, March 
6, 1975; 40 F.R. 18411, April 28, 1975). 

At the same time, the agency denied petitions 
for substantial postponement or revocation of the 
standard as it applies to passenger cars, having 
considered the cost of compliance for those ve- 
hicles, and having determined that significant 
safety benefit will derive from better stopping 
performance, stability, and pedal force levels (40 
F.R. 10483, March 6, 1975). A discussion of the 
potential benefits accompanied that decision. An 
economic evaluation of the impact of the standard 
will be available in the public docket. The only 
revisions of the standard proposed by the 
NHTSA were an interim pedal force value and 



a 4-month delay of effective date, to permit some 
flexibility in new model introduction dates where 
technical changes or isolated compliance prob- 
lems had not lieen resolved. 

Manufacturer comments on the proposal were 
generally unresponsi\'e to the proposed delay of 
four months and the interim pedal force value of 
110 pounds in wet recovery stops. The Vehicle 
Equipment Safety Commission considered the 
proposed ]iedal force values to be overgenerous. 
Chrysler Corporation indicated its support for 
the 4-month delay and interim value but em- 
phasized other argmnents in its submission. Gen- 
eral ^Motors requested that the pedal force value 
be made permanent. It appears that manufac- 
turers .support the short delay and pedal force 
modification to simplify introduction of the 1976 
models. Accordingly, the standard is modified 
as proposed, to establish and amend effective date 
of January 1, 1976, and a pedal force increase 
of 60 pounds up to a total of 110 pounds (in 
S5.1.5.2) until September 1, 1976. 

The majority of comments restated manufac- 
turer positions on the issue of substantial delay 
or revocation of the standard for passenger cars. 
The NHTSA has already considered this issue 
and, as noted above, concluded that the benefits 
of improved stopping performance, stability, and 
pedal force values outweigh the costs of imple- 
mentation. ]\Ianufactui-ers submitted no new data 
that would justify a re\ersal of the NHTSA's 
earlier decision. 

Although the NHTSA limited its proposal to 
a choice between the effective dates of September 
1, 1975, and January 1, 1976, several manufac- 
turers compared the cost savings of a short delay 
to January 1, 1976, with a substantially longer 



PART 571; S 105— PRE 5 



Effective: June 9, 1975 



delay to September 1, 1976. Actually, the Jan- 
nary 1 date was proposed in order to ease the 
introduction of new models after SejJtember 1, 
197o, and was not proposed as a means of re- 
ducing costs. The proposal was largely in re- 
sponse to manufacturers' comments that some 
1976 models would be introduced substantially 
later than normal so that 1975 model production 
might be extended beyond September 1, 1975. 
The NHTSA believes that the three yeai-s of lead- 
time since promulgation of Standard No. 105-75 
have been sufficient to permit the design and test- 
ing of complying brake systems in nearly all 
cases. With the 4-month transitional period, a 
manufacturer will be free to introduce the new 
brake systems along with its new model introduc- 
tion, as dictated by the economic situation of the 
automoti\-e industry. 

Ford and Chrysler suggested that the standard 
could be improved by reduced loading during 
brake fade testing. These companies argue that 
present-day brake balance must be modified to 
meet the brake- fade and fourth efrecti\^eness test 
of Standard No. 105-75 and that the new balance 
is not optimum. Agency testing demonstrates 
that many present-day vehicles can in fact meet 
the requirements as their brakes are balanced and 
suggests that major departures from current brake 



balance design will generally not be required to 
comply with fade requirements under the present 
test conditions. The NHTSA accordingly con- 
cludes that the presently-specified loading does 
not result in characteristics which would justify 
delay of the standard and the consequent loss of 
benefits during the period of delay. 

In consideration of the foregoing Paragraph 
S4 of Standard No. 105 (49 CFR 571.105) is 
amended. . . . 

Effective date: The date on which Standard 
No. 105-75 becomes mandatory for all passenger 
cars is .January 1, 1976. However, the effective 
date of the amendments to both Standard No. 
105-75 and Standard No. 105 is June 9, 1975, and 
passenger cars manufactured between that date 
and January 1, 1976, may conform to either 
standard at the discretion of the manufacturer. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407); delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on June 5, 1975. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

40 F.R. 24525 
June 9, 1975 



PART 571; S 105— PRE 6 



Effective: Januory 1, 1968 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 105 

Hydraulic Service Brake, Emergency Brake, and Parking Brake 
Systems — Passenger Cars 

(Docket No. 9) 



ST. Purpose and scope. This standard spec- 
ifies requirements for hydraulic service brake, 
emergency brake, and parking brake systems in- 
tended to ensure adequate braking performance 
under normal and emergency conditions. 

52. Application. This standard applies to pas- 
senger cars. 

53. Definitions. "Pressure component'" means 
any internal component of the bi-ake master cyl- 
inder or master control unit, wheel brake cylinder, 
brake line, brake hose, or equivalent, except 
vacuum assist components. 

54. Requirements. [Each vehicle shall meet, 
at the option of the manufacturer, eitlier the re- 
quirements of S4.1 through S4.3 of this standard, 
or the requirements of Standard No. 105-75 of 
this Part. (40 F.R. 24525— June 9, 1975. Effec- 
tive: 6/9/75)] 

S4.1 Service brake system. [The performance 
ability of the fully operational service brake sys- 
tem for passenger cars sliall be not less than that 
described in Section D of Society of Automotive 
Engineers Recommended Practice J937, "Serv- 
ice Brake System Performance Requirements — 
Passenger Cars", June 1966, and tested in ac- 
cordance with SAE Recommended Practice 
J843a, "Brake System Road Test Code- 
Passenger Cars'', June 1966, except that the fol- 
lowing is substituted for section (D)(7)(a) of 
SAE Recommended Practice J937: 

"Brake to recover within -f20%, —40% of 
check stoj) pedal force by stop 15 or within 
-f 20 lbs., —40% of check stop pedal force by 
stop 10. (Based on the average of initial pedal 
force of the three check stops)." (35 F.R. 7900 — 
May 22, 1970. Effective: 5/23/70)] 



S4.2 Emergency brake system. Rupture or 
leakage-type failure of any single pressure com- 
ponent of the service brake system, except struc- 
tural failures of the brake master cylinder body 
or effectiveness indicator body, shall not result 
in complete loss of function of the vehicle brakes 
when force on the brake pedal is continued. 

54.2.1 [Emergency system performance. If 

failure of a pressure component or insufficient 
hydraulic fluid in the system causes loss of pres- 
sure in any part of the brake system, the re- 
maining portion of the brake system shall pro- 
vide a stop of the vehicle loaded in accordance 
with SAE Recommended Practice J843a, June 
1966, from a speed of 60 mph, in not more than 
646 feet, without pulling or swerving to the 
extent that would cause the vehicle to leave a 
level, 12-foot wide lane on a clean, dry, smooth, 
Portland cement concrete pavement (or other 
surface with equivalent coefficient of surface fric- 
tion). (32 F.R. 10072— July 8, 1967)] 

54.2.2 Emergency brake system efFectiveness in- 
dication. An electrically operated red light, 
mounted on the instrum.ent panel in view of the 
driver, shall illuminate before or upon applica- 
tion of the brakes in the event of a hydraulic- 
type complete failure of a partial system. The 
indicator light shall have sufficient luminous in- 
tensity to be plainly visible in daylight and shall 
include a means for testing by the vehicle op- 
eratx)r to ensure that the bulb is operable. No 
single failure in the internal components of the 
system effectiveness indicator, except the body of 
tlie device, shall permit the total loss of effective- 
ness of the braking system. 



(Rev. 6/5/75) 



PART 571: S 105-1 



Effective: January 1, 1968 



S4.3 Parking brake system. A parking brake 
system of a friction type with a solely mechan- 
ical means to retain engagement shall be pro- 
vided that will hold the vehicle loaded in ac- 
cordance with SAE Recommended Practice 
J843a, June 19C6, to the limit of traction of the 
braked wheels in both forward and reverse di- 
rections on clean, dry, smooth, Portland cement 
concrete pavement (or other surface with equiv- 
alent coefficient of surface friction) of a 30 per- 
cent grade. 

[Interpretations 

(1) The definition of the term "emergency 
brake" contained in section 371.3(b) does not 
refer to a system that would provide a means 
of bringing a vehicle to a stop after a total 
failure of the entire hydraulic service ])rake 
system, since paragraph S4.2 of the Standard 
provides that rupture or leakage-type failure 
of any single pressure component of the service 
brake system, except structural failures of the 



brake master cylinder body or effectiveness in- 
dicator body shall not result in complete loss of 
function of the vehicle brakes when force on the 
brake pedal is continued. 

(2) Paragraph S4.2.1 applies to loss of pres- 
sure in a part of the brake system resulting 
from failure of a pressure component or insuf- 
ficient hydraulic fluid in that part of the brake 
system. 

(.'!) The requirement of paragraph 84.2.2 that 
an indicator light illuminate before or upon ap- 
plication of the brakes in the event of a hy- 
draulic-type complete failure of a partial system 
may be met with a master cylinder reservoir 
level indicator light or system pressure indicator 
light. The indicator light need not illuminate 
during the application of brake pressure that 
contributed to the failure. (32 F.E. 3390— 
March 1, 1967). 3 

32 F.R. 2410 
February 3, 1967 



PART 571; S 105-2 



Effective: September 1, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 105a 

Hydraulic Brake Systems 
(Docket No. 70-27; Notice 5) 



This notice amends Part 571 of Title 49, Code 
of Federal Regulations, to add a new Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105a (49 CFR 
§ 571.105a) that establishes requirements for 
motor vehicle hydraulic brake systems and park- 
ing brake systems. A notice of proposed rule- 
making on this subject was published on Novem- 
ber 11, 1970 (35 F.R. 17345). 

Federal Standard No. 105, in effect since Jan- 
uary 1, 1968, represents the initial Federal effort 
to specify braking requirements for motor ve- 
hicles. The standard requires that passenger 
cars be equipped with a split service brake sys- 
tem, and liave stopping ability based upon de- 
celeration rates specified in an SAE Recom- 
mended Practice. Requirements for fade and 
recovery, water recovery, and stability while 
braking are also included in the standard. These 
requirements do not, however, represent the full 
capabilities of modern braking technology. 
Braking continues to be the most important 
single element of accident avoidance from the 
standpoint of vehicle performance. The full 
utilization of the industry's technological capa- 
bility in this area, within the limits of reasonable 
cost, is therefore of highest importance to the 
safety effort. 

The requirements of this standard are specified 
in terms of performance on a surface of rela- 
tively high skid number. The NHTSA recog- 
nizes the importance to safety of good braking 
performance on surfaces such as wet or icy roads. 
It is monitoring closely the development work 
in progress en methods, such as antilock systems, 
designed to enhance vehicle performance over a 
wide variety of surfaces, in preparation for fu- 
ture rulemaking action adding performance re- 
quirements in this area. Until such requirements 
are made effective, this agency assumes that 



manufacturers will design their vehicles for safe 
braking performance on all types of road sur- 
faces, while continuing to work on, and make 
provision for, more advanced braking systems. 

The notice issued in November 1970 proposed 
extension of applicability of Standard No. 105 
to other vehicle types and covered the same fac- 
tors deemed important in the earlier standard. 
These include stopping distance, linear stability 
while stopping, fade resistance, and fade recov- 
ery. The notice also proposed features in hy- 
draulic braking systems that could warn against 
malfunction, and stop the vehicle should a mal- 
function appear in the normal service system. 
The amended standard covers each of these as- 
pects as discussed below. 

1. Applicability. Standard No. 105 applies to 
passenger cars, and has been extended to specify 
requirements for the first time for multipurpose 
passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses equipped 
with hydraulic brake systems. A definition of 
brake power unit has been adopted and appro- 
priate modifications made in the text to clarify 
that vehicles with central hydraulic power sys- 
tems were included in the Notice. Standard No. 
105a does not apply to vehicles equipped with 
"air over hydraulic" systems, which remain 
within the purview of Standard J^o. 121, Air 
Brake Systems. 

2. Elective date: to meet the proposed effec- 
tive date of October 1, 1972, equipment and 
performance requirements would have been sub- 
stantially weaker than those that have been 
adopted and the NHTSA has determined that a 
later effective date is, overall, in the public in- 
terest. It is therefore set at September 1, 1974. 

3. Service brake system. All vehicles with hy- 
draulic brake systems are required to have a 



PART 571; S 105a— PRE 1 



Effaclive: September 1, 1974 



split service brake system, with partial failure 
or "emergency" braking features. Effectiveness 
of the system is demonstrated by a series of road 
tests covering stopping distance, stability, and 
fade and recovery, water recovery, and spike 
stops. 

A. Stopping distance. As the proposal noted, 
"perhaps the most important indication of brake 
performance is the distance in which a brake 
system can stop a vehicle from a given speed." 
Stopping distances were proposed from 30 mph, 
60 mph, and 80 mph and maximum attainable 
vehicle speed, under various load and system 
conditions, based upon vehicle category or weight. 
These tests included stops with the vehicle at a 
lightly loaded weight, and stops imder partial 
failure cx)nditions. The following illustrate ex- 
amples of the proposal and amendment. In ad- 
dition to the stopping distances discussed below, 
stopping distances from 30 mph, 80 mph, and 
maximum attainable vehicle speed are also speci- 
fied. 

Passenger cars. It was proposed that passen- 
ger cars demonstrate the ability to stop in 185 
feet from 60 mph under adverse loading condi- 
tions. The stopping distance adopted, 194 feet, 
is only slightly longer. According to Consumer 
Information data submitted by manufacturers of 
1972 passenger cars, contemporary vehicles 
ranked 26th to 61st would be unable to meet this 
stopping distance requirement. This new re- 
quirement will result in a substantial upgrading 
of passenger car stopping ability. Curi-ently 
under Standard No. 105, passenger cars must 
demonstrate the ability to stop in 646 feet from 
60 mph under jmrtial failure conditions. The 
new standard lowers this distance to 431 feet, 
an increase from the proposed 388 feet. The 
same stopping distance requirement must be met 
with an inoperative brake power assist or brake 
power unit. 

Vehicles with GVWR of lOpOO pounds or less. 
Vehicles other than passenger cars with a gross 
vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less, 
must demonstrate the ability to stop from 60 
mph in 216 feet under adverse loading condi- 
tions, and in 484 feet under partial failure 
conditions. 

Vehicles with GVWR greater than 10,000 
pounds. Vehicles in this category must demon- 



strate an ability to stop from 60 mph in 245 feet / 
under adverse loading conditions, and in 553 feet ' 
under partial failure conditions. 

B. Stability of vehicle while stopping. As 
proposed, a vehicle will be required to stop 
(other than in spike stops) without any part of 
it leaving a 12-foot-wide lane. Wheel lockup is 
permitted at a speed below 10 mph and lockup 
of only one wheel not controlled by an antilock 
system is permissible at speeds in excess of 
10 mph. 

C. Fade and recovery. Brake fade character- 
istics are critical from the standpoint of retaining 
adequate stopping power despite the high tem- 
peratures created by prolonged or severe use. A 
vehicle will demonstrate fade and recovery capa- 
bility in two tests, by making a number of fade 
stops from 60 mph if it is a vehicle with a GVWR 
of 10,000 pounds or less, or fade snubs from 40 
mph to 20 mph, if it is a heavier vehicle. The 
latter represents a modification of the proposed 
snub speed range of 50 mph to 15 mph. The 
proposed maximum speed fade recovery test has 
not been adopted; the effectiveness test at maxi- 
mum attainable vehicle speed should indicate 
whether a brake system will experience problems k 
with fade. 

D. Water recovery. Service brake systems must 
also demonstrate an acceptable recovery after 
exposure to water. The method of immersion 
has been modified on the basis of comments that 
the method proposed would necessitate use of a 
trough 880 feet long. Instead, the amendment 
specifies that the vehicle shall be driven for not 
less than 2 minutes at a speed of 5 mph, in any 
combination of forward and reverse directions, 
through a trough having a water depth of 6 
inches. This change should clarify the test re- 
quirement as well as simplifjring enforcement 
procedures. 

E. Spike stops. The spike stop proposal has 
been adopted, with a revision to allow 6 check 
stops (instead of one), at least one of which 
meets the requirements of the specified distance 
and pedal force. This allowance recognizes 
variability of test drivers and vehicles. 

4. Parking brake system. The parking brake 
system proposal has also been adopted. When 
the parking brakes are applied, with a force not 
exceeding 90 pounds for a hand-operated system 



PART 571; S 105a— PRE 2 



Effactlva: Saptambar 1, 1974 



^ or 125 pounds for a foot-operated system, the 
" parking brake system shall be capable of holding 
the vehicle stationary for 5 minutes on a 30 per- 
cent grade (20 per cent for vehicles of more 
than 10,000 pounds GVWR) in both forward 
and reverse directions. Optional requirements 
have been adopted for vehicles with a GVIVR 
of 10,000 pounds or less, equipped with a trans- 
mission utilizing a parking pawl or detent mech- 
anism within the transmission assembly. Vehicles 
so equipped may demonstrate compliance by 
(1) parking with both the parking brake and 
pawl engaged on a 30 per cent grade, (2) park- 
ing on a 20 per cent grade with only the parking 
brake engaged, and (3) being impacted front 
and rear, on a level surface, by a 4,000 pound 
moving barrier without disengagement or frac- 
ture of the pawl or detent mechanism. 

5. Reservoirs. The master cylinder reservoir 
proposal has been adopted with modifications 
that allow balance ports and compartmentalized 
reservoirs in a single integrated master cylinder 
body and reservoir assembly, and that reduce 
fluid reservoir capacity requirements from 150 
per cent to 100 per cent. The proposed cover, 

V seal, and retention devices have not been adopted 
* since pressure differential warning and low fluid 
level warning should provide a sufficient safety 
factor. The proposal was intended also to cover 
reservoir requirements in systems not using 
master cylinders and the revised wording of the 
section clarifies this point. 

6. Brake system indicator lamp. The proposal 
would have required separate lamps to indicate 
when the parking brake is applied, and when a 
failure has occurred in the service brake system. 
Standard No. 105a requires only one lamp to 
serve these functions, to be labeled "Brake". 
Either the wording or the lens may be the color 
red. The lamp must light in the event of pres- 
sure failure in any part of the service brake 
system, other than a structural failure of a hous- 
ing that is common to two or more subsystems, 
before or upon application of 50 pounds of pedal 
force upon a manually-operated service brake, 
or 25 pounds upon a service brake with a brake 
power assist unit, or when the supply pressure 
in a brake power unit drops to not less than one- 
half of the normal system pressure. The lamp 
must also light, without the application of pedal 



force, when the level of brake fluid in the master 
cylinder reservoir drops to less than the recom- 
mended safe level specified by the manufacturer, 
or to not less than one-fourth the fluid reservoir 
capacity in any reservoir compartment, which- 
ever is greater. This does not preclude the use 
of translucent covers or sight gauges in addition 
to the required lamp. Additionally, the lamp 
must illuminate when there is a total electrical 
failure in an antilock or brake proportioning 
system. All indicator lamps shall be activated 
when the ignition switch is turned from the "on" 
to the "start" position, which includes the air 
start condition on diesel-engine vehicles. The 
lamps will be deactivated upon return of the 
switch to the "on" position. No time interval is 
specified for deactivation, as the NHTSA recog- 
nizes that instant deactivation is impracticable 
for continuous sensing units. 

7. Miscellaneous. The NHTSA proposed that 
service brakes be installed so that the lining 
thickness of drum brake shoes and disc brake 
pads might be visually inspected without remov- 
ing the drums or pads. The possibility that 
contaminants may enter the system if plugs are 
removed, the differences between riveted and 
bonded lining thickness, and the location of in- 
spection ports, were some of the technical and 
safety factors weighing in the conclusion to 
abandon this proposal. 

The agency decided against the proposal that 
would have established suspension system dur- 
ability requirements to be met following comple- 
tion of tests. Since the vehicle must remain 
within a 12-foot-wide lane as a condition of the 
stopping distance tests, this will be a satisfactory 
demonstration of suspension system integrity. 

Effective date: September 1, 1974. Because 
of the necessity to allow manufacturers sufficient 
production leadtime, it is found for good cause 
shown that an effective date later than one year 
after issuance of this rule is in the public interest. 

In consideration of the foregoing, Title 49, 
Code of Federal Segulations, is amended by 
adding | 571.105a, Motor Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ard No. 105a, Hydraulic Brake Systems, as set 
forth below. 

This notice is issued under the authority of 
sections 103 and 119 of the National Traffic and 



PART 571; S 105a— PRE 3 



EfFactlve: S*pt*mb«r 1, 1974 



Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. Issued on : August 23, 1972. | 

1392, 1407) and the delegation of authority from Douglas W. Toms ¥ 

the Secretary of Transportation to the National Administrator 

Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, 49 CFR 37 p.R. 17970 

1.51. September 2, 1972 



PART 571; S 105a— PRE 4 | 



Effective: September 1, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 105a 

Hydraulic Brake Systems 
(Docket No. 70-27; Notice 7) 



The purpose of this notice is to announce that 
the effective date of Motor Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ard No. 105a will be September 1, 1975. Full 
response to petitions for reconsideration is sched- 
uled for May 1, 1973. 

Standard No. 105a, Hydraulic Brake Systems. 
was published on September 2, 1972 (37 F.R. 
17970 with corrections at 37 F.R. 19138) with an 
effective date of September 1, 1974. On Decem- 
ber 19, 1972, the NHTSA advised (37 F.R. 
27629) that it intended to issue a notice by Feb- 
ruary 1, 1973, in response to petitions for recon- 
sideration of the standard. The volume of the 
petitions received and the comjslexity of the 
issues involved are such that the agency has not 
found it possible to publish a full response to the 
petitions by the date indicated. 

The NHTSA has, however, decided to grant 
petitions requesting a delay in the effective date, 
to the extent of a one-year postponement. Peti- 
tioners have demonstrated to the satisfaction of 
the agency that because of critical lead-time 



problems the original effective date is impractic- 
able. The NHTSA believes that in the addi- 
tional year provided the industry will have 
sufficient time to increase the reliability of the 
systems that otherwise would have been incor- 
porated beginning September 1, 1974, with the 
result that consumers will be provided with brak- 
ing systems that have been optimized with re- 
spect to safety, performance, and cost. 

The full response and discussion of issues raised 
by the petitioners is planned for issuance by 
May 1, 1973. 

(Sec. 103, 119 P.L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 15 
use 1392, 1407; delegation of authority at 49 
CFR 1.51). 

Issued on January 30, 1973. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

38 F.R. 3047 
February 1, 1973 



PART 571; S 105a— PRE 5-6 



231-088 O - 77 - n 



r 



I 



Effective: September 1, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 105a 

Hydraulic Brake Systems 
(Docket No. 70-27; Notice 8) 



This notice responds to petitions for reconsid- 
eration of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
105a and amends the standard in certain re- 
spects, effective September 1, 1975. 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
105a, 49 CFR § 571.105a, was published on 
September 2, 1972 (37 F.R. 17970). Thereafter, 
pursuant to 49 CFR § 553.35 petitions for recon- 
sideration of the rule were received from many 
interested corporations. A discussion of the 
major issues raised by the petitions and their 
resolution follows. 

1. Policy. Several petitioners questioned the 
need for stringent braking requirements. The 
claim was made that NHTSA has shown neither 
a need based on accident data relating brake 
performance to deaths, injuries, or property 
damage, nor the benefits to be obtained from 
changed braking systems. Additionally, com- 
ments were received that most consumers could 
not utilize enhanced braking capabilities under 
most circumstances. Some also questioned the 
cost to implement the standard (allegedly $40 
an average per vehicle as a minimum, and up to 
$75 in some instances for passenger cars). 

The NHTSA does not agree with its critics on 
these policy issues. Braking system performance 
has consistently rated high on the safety critical - 
ity list. The dominance of the role of braking 
systems in accident avoidance maneuvers has 
long been recognized and undisputed. The im- 
portance of braking in motor vehicle safety is 
evidenced by the fact that of all vehicle defects 
which cause or contribute to accidents, brake 
failures lead the list. In the Consumer Infor- 
mation data on braking stopping distances pro- 
vided by the automobile manufacturers, the 
better performing vehicles are reported to stop 



from 60 mph in slightly more than one half the 
distance of the poorer performing vehicles. 
Large stopping distance differentials among ve- 
hicles operating in a common traffic stream are 
recognized as creating serious hazards to the 
motorist. 

Data have shown that in many accidents a 
more effective service brake system would haA-e 
lessened the severity of the collision or possibly 
averted it. Existing vehicles in many instances 
do have good braking capabilities but require 
excessive control forces to utilize these capabili- 
ties. Many drivers are not able to exert these 
forces and hence do not utilize existing systems 
to the fullest. With reduced stopping distances 
within the specified pedal forces required by 
Standard No. 105a, it is the opinion of NHTSA 
that deaths, injuries, and property damage will 
be reduced. 

Since the requirements also specify that the 
stopping distances shall be achieved with the 
vehicle under control, stopping without locked 
wheels in a 12-foot-wide roadway lane, motorists 
will be afforded a greater opportunity to operate 
their brakes effectively in accident avoidance 
maneuvers. 

Cost estimates submitted by petitioners are in 
agreement with those of the NHTSA. Based 
upon the information received from petitioners 
and the changes made as a consequence thereof, 
however, it is the opinion of this agency that the 
cost of implementation will be reduced to a figure 
commensurate with the safety benefits expected 
to be derived. 

With respect to the performance levels speci- 
fied, the NHTSA has determined that the values 
are reasonable and do not exceed the inherent 
capabilities of any of the various vehicle classes. 



PART 571; S 105a— PRE 7 



Effective: September 1, 1975 



The values specified for vehicles other than pas- 
senger cars will considerably reduce the existing 
stopping distance differentials among vehicle 
classes. 

Several petitioners commented on what they 
considered to be a lack of consistency in perform- 
ance levels between vehicle types. For example, 
in the second effectiveness test, passenger cars, 
light trucks and heavy trucks have different per- 
formance requirements based upon weight and 
speed. Standard No. 105a was criticized also 
because the required stopping distances for heavy 
trucks with hydraulic brakes were more stringent 
than recjuirements for heavy trucks with air 
brakes (Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems). 
It was argued that requirements should be the 
same for similar vehicles regardless of the type 
of brake system. Petitioners requested that par- 
tial failure system requirements, and require- 
ments for failed power units, be identical to 
those for air-braked vehicles. 

Other petitioners requested that emergency- 
type tests should allow locked wheels as in Stand- 
ard No. 121. Petitioners, in several instances, 
requested changes in light load test requirements 
for the various vehicles. These requests were 
based on differences in load conditions, inertia 
load differences in stopping, center of gravity 
locations, and braking balance differences. 

The standard has been amended to recognize 
the changes in performance due to vehicle weight 
differences, considering the effects of center of 
gravity location and weight shifts occurring 
during decelerations. Also, speed sensitivity 
effects have been recognized as occurring in all 
vehicles and appropriate modifications in re- 
quirements at the various test speeds have been 
made. Heavy vehicle requirements have been 
adjusted where appropriate to make them identi- 
cal to those existing in Standard No. 121. Some 
differences have been retained, however. For 
example, fade tests in Standard No. 105a are run 
on the vehicle in a road test as compared with a 
dynamometer test in Standard No. 121. Dyna- 
mometer tests were selected in Standard No. 121 
since vehicles used primarily in combinations are 
included in that standard. Compatibility be- 
tween vehicles (tractor and trailer) was consid- 
ered to be an important factor in the brake 



system evaluation and could most easily be de- /* 
termined on the dynamometer. \ 

Revisions to Standard 105a also have been 
made to allow wheel lockup on emergency-type 
tests such as spike stops, tests with failed power 
units, and partial system tests. Also, in the 
parking brake test, the limit of traction of the 
braked wheels is used in specifying parking 
brake system performance on a 30 per cent grade. 
There are no changes in parking braking system 
requirements because of weight differences. The 
NHTSA is of the opinion that all vehicles, re- 
gardless of weight class, are frequently parked 
in a lightly loaded condition and hence should 
be tested under this condition. 

2. Effective date. The NHTSA has previously 
announced an overall delay of one year in the 
effective date of Standard No. 105a (38 F.R. 
3097). 

Petitioners generally considered the original 
effective date of September 1, 1974, to be un- 
reasonable and impracticable. The earlier effec- 
tive date as it applied to trucks, buses and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles coincided with 
the same effective date for Standard No. 121, 
issued some time before Standard No. 105a. The ^ 
air brake systems will generally have new and 
larger foundation brakes, new suspensions and 
other related components, antilock or brake pro- 
portioning systems and new split systems as well 
as controls. Hydraulic-braked vehicles require 
in most instances similar changes to meet i05a 
requirements. However, manufacturers and sup- 
pliers had prior commitments to concentrate 
much of their available manpower, equipment 
and facilities to the development of conforming 
air brake systems. These manpower, equipment, 
and facilities are generally the same required for 
the development of conforming hydraulic-braked 
vehicles, and thus the changes to hydraulic- 
braked vehicles cannot be made simultaneously 
with air brake system changes. In addition, 
sufficient recognition must be given to the lead- 
time necessary for application studies, production 
standardization in areas where this is possible, 
drawing and specification preparation, tooling 
design time and procurement, and establishing 
manufacturing facilities. In some instances, 
plant facilities must be built along with con- 



PART 571; S 105a— PRE 8 



Effactiv*: Saplembar 1, 1975 



struction of development and test facilities. Pe- 
titioners also mentioned the significance of 
reduced product reliability if it is necessary to 
completely redesign entire vehicle lines simul- 
taneously. Additional problems that can arise 
are related to the capability of the manufactur- 
ers to train adequately technical personnel to 
assemble, service, and maintain the new vehicles. 

Several petitioners requested an extension of 
the effective date for vehicles other than passen- 
ger cars beyond September 1, 1975. International 
Harvester requested a date of September 1, 1976 
for these vehicles. Others would not predict a 
date on which they could meet the requirements. 

Several commenters stressed the fact that me- 
tallic, semi-metallic, or ceramic linings, considered 
exotic materials presently, would probably be 
required to meet Standard No. 105a as of Sep- 
tember 1, 1974. Resulting penalties would occur 
in cost (high wear, scoring, etc.) and poor or 
erratic performance under normal conditions. 

Comments were also received concerning four- 
wheel drive vehicles. Low volume and conse- 
quent high costs for necessary changes are prob- 
lems in this segment of the industry. Suppliers 
of components for these vehicles are allegedly 
reluctant to design and tool parts. In addition, 
manpower and facilities are not available for 
these jobs since most time and efforts must be 
utilized for the higher volume vehicles. An in- 
definite delay in an effective date for these ve- 
hicles has been requested. 

After careful evaluation of all the petitions, 
the NHTSA considered that good cause had been 
shown for a delay of one year in the effective 
date of the standard. But it has been determined 
that a further delay, either for the standard or 
for separate vehicle categories is not in the in- 
terest of motor vehicle safety, and those petitions 
for a further extension of time are denied. 

3. Definitions. Numerous comments were re- 
ceived on the definitions. In some instances 
amendments are made, in others, none. Clarifi- 
cations have been provided where they were 
requested. 

Questions relating to brake power assist units 
and brake power units have been raised. The 
distinction between the two is that a brake power 
assist unit has a push-through capability, i.e., the 



operator can apply additional muscular effort and 
obtain braking action. A brake power unit does 
not have this capability. If power is lost, a 
driver cannot increase braking force by addi- 
tional muscular effort on the control. 

Some petitioners mentioned units which func- 
tion in both modes, i.e., as a brake power unit in 
one condition, and as a brake power assist unit 
in a second condition. For example, a unit may 
function as a brake power unit under normal 
operating conditions, but when a power failure 
occurs, it operates as a brake power assist unit. 
For purposes of compliance, the failed mode of 
operation would be the critical mode. Therefore, 
with inoperative power units, the test require- 
ments should be met depending on how the sys- 
tem, operates in the failed mode. The example 
discussed above would be tested as a brake power 
assist unit. 

The definition of "brake proportioning system" 
raised the question whether a fixed or variable 
system was intended. The term has been redes- 
ignated ''variable brake proportioning system" to 
clarify the agency's intent. 

The definition of "lightly loaded vehicle" does 
not specify an additional weight allowance for a 
load platform or body to be added to an incom- 
plete vehicle, but in the opinion of some peti- 
tioners it should. Since the standard applies to 
complete vehicles, a manufacturer must use his 
discretion in applying additional weight to in- 
complete vehicles, taking into account the result- 
ing changes in weight and center of gravity, 
when providing information on Standard No. 
105a to subsequent multistage vehicle manufac- 
turers. 

Some manufacturers questioned the adequacy 
of the test surface specification: the "skid num- 
ber" produced by American Society for Testing 
and Materials Method E-274, using a test trailer 
to measure the coefficient of friction. The com- 
plaint was made that the measurement results 
vary from one trailer to another, and vehicle 
performance results vary from one surface to 
another with supposedly the same skid number, 
on the order of 20 percent. It was also argued 
that the ASTM test was qualitatively inadequate, 
in that it measured sliding friction rather than 
peak or incipient friction. 



PART 571; S 105a— PRE 9 



Effective: September 1, 1975 



The NHTSA does not accept these arguments. 
In the first place, it should be noted that thrust 
of the manufacturers' arguments is not only to 
abort this rulemaking, but to cast doubt on the 
validity of the existing braking standard. What- 
ever its shortcomings, the ASTM test is the only 
one to the knowledge of this agency that provides 
an objective and quantitative measure of the 
frictional characteristics of a road surface, and 
no other was suggested by petitioners. The 
present passenger car braking standard incor- 
porates an SAE Recommended Practice (J843d) 
that specifies only a "dry, smooth, hard-surfaced 
roadway of Portland cement concrete (or other 
surface with equivalent coefficient of surface 
friction) that is free from loose materials," a far 
vaguer description. 

Furthermore, the NHTSA does not find tlie 
argument based on variations in test results to 
be persuasive. The variations of 15 and 20 per- 
cent cited are extreme figures. With carefully 
calibrated and controlled test instruments and 
conditions, as specified in the standard, evidence 
before this agency indicates that the normally 
experienced variations are much smaller. Manu- 
facturers have attempted to impose a criterion 
of perfect repeatability on the safety standards. 
Perfect repeatability, however, is an illusion. In 
the "real world" of materials testing, particularly 
of gross characteristics such as vehicle brakmg 
capability or crashworthiness, variation in re- 
sults is inevitable; the question is not whether, 
but how much, variation is acceptable. Ob- 
viously, the standard should be designed to rea- 
sonably minimize the variability of test results, 
from the standpoint both of manufacturing costs 
and of efi'ective regulation. 

In this case, the ASTM method chosen was 
developed in 1965, and has been widely used since 
then for the purpose of vehicle performance 
testing. Moreover, it has been in force since 
1970 in a closely similar NHTSA regulation : 
the Consumer Information regulation on Vehicle 
Stopping Distance (49 CFR 575.101), under 
which manufacturers have been required to test 
their vehicles' stopping-distance capabilities, and 
report them to consumers and to the NHTSA. 
The same statutory penalties have applied to a 
failure to meet these reported stopping distances 
when tested by the government as would apply 



PART 571; S 105a— PRE 10 



to a failure to meet the stopping distance re- i 
quired by a standard. In light of these factors, 
the arguments that the method for specifying 
the test surface is inadequate are found to be 
without merit. 

The NHTSA also rejects the suggestion by the 
Recreational Vehicle Institute that this agency 
should supply or measure the test surface, be- 
cause of the limited capabilities of motor home 
manufacturers. The clearly intended result of 
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 
Act is that the private sector should bear the 
cost of regular conformity and certification test- 
ing. There is no requirement that each vehicle 
manufacturer have his own measured test track. 
Small manufacturers can have their vehicles 
tested by contract with testing companies; they 
can use their trade associations to arrange for 
use of measured test tracks in convenient regional 
locations; or they can work with the chassis 
manufacturer and use his test results. 

The sudden application of force in a "spike 
stop" is 200 pounds applied in 0.08 second. 
Chrysler Corporation suggested a "band" of 
0.05-0.20 seconds as permitted in SAE Recom- ,i 
mended Practice J229 Service Brake Structural II 
Integrity Test Procedure, March 1971. The 
purpose and legal significance of a test condition 
in a Federal motor vehicle safety standard are 
different from those of an industry test practice, 
and a band or tolerance as requested by Chrysler 
is inappropriate and unnecessary in the former. 
Assuming that a faster application is more de- 
manding of vehicle performance, Chrysler in 
effect has a band from to 0.08 second for its 
tests, which should be designed to show that the 
vehicle is capable of meeting the requirements 
with spike stops of 0.08 second. 

The definition of "stopping distance" varied 
from the notice of proposed rulemaking in that 
the phrase "start of the brake application" was 
changed to "point of application of force to the 
brake control." Wagner Electric Co. considers 
the modified definition as more stringent since, 
in its view, the notice allowed both "force" and 
"movement" while the amendment allows only 
the former. The NHTSA disagrees with Wag- 
ner. Both versions refer purely to the brake 
pedal, and not to more remote parts of the brake 

( 



Effective: September 1, 1975 



system. This agency is unaware of any measur- 
able difference in time between the introduction 
of force to the pedal and the initiation of pedal 
movement, and Wagner has supplied no evidence 
to the contrary. The modified wording has been 
adopted for purposes of clarity. 

General Motors objected to stopping distances 
as performance requirements, and expressed its 
views that deceleration rates provide more ob- 
jective performance criteria. This represented a 
departure from GM's previous views that build- 
up and maintenance of a fixed deceleration 
depended upon varying driver skills, affecting 
reproducibility. The variety in driver skills is 
one reason the NHTSA considers measurement 
of a specified distance more desirable than main- 
tenance of a fixed deceleration rate. Insertion 
of a fixed build-up time would introduce a com- 
plication. The stopping distances specified do 
not include a fixed build-up time but instead 
allow use of various characteristics, including 
greater or lesser build-up times, as long as the 
vehicle does not exceed the stopping distance 
specified. A specified maximum (but not fixed) 
build-up time is used in fade tests where decele- 
rations are specified. Further, the distances 
expressed in Standard No. 105a are maximum 
distances, and manufacturers will necessarily 
design their vehicles to perform with a margin 
within those limits, thus reducing problems of 
objective measurement. 

4. Required stopping distances and pedal con- 
trol forces. The stopping distance values, in 
most instances, were considered by petitioners to 
require redesigned braking systems. In some 
cases, larger brake systems would be required, 
incorporating front disc brakes with power assist 
and larger rear drum brakes. Other vehicles, 
particularly trucks, buses, and multipurpose pas- 
senger vehicles, would require the addition of 
antilock systems or brake proportioning systems, 
along with new types of split systems (or com- 
pletely redundant systems). These systems, it 
is alleged, would be required to meet the full 
system effectiveness and the partial system effec- 
tiveness requirements. 

The 30 mph and maximum speed stopping 
distances were considered too stringent by most 
petitioners. The very short stops involved, along 



with the buildup or actuation time necessary, 
were the main problems in the 30-mph tests. 
The problem of the speed sensitivity of lining 
materials was the main factor noted in comments 
relating to the high speed and maximum speed 
tests. 

For first effectiveness test, recommended 
changes in stopping distances ranged at 30 mph 
from no increase to an increase of 9 feet for 
passenger cars, 7 feet for light trucks, and 20 
feet for heavy trucks. At 60 mph, requests for 
increases of up to 17 feet for passenger cars, 
7 feet for light trucks, and 75 feet for heavy 
trucks were received. Two petitioners suggested 
deleting heavy truck requirements, eitlaer to be 
consistent with Standard No. 121 or until "more 
realistic data" was available. 

The second through fourth effectiveness tests 
were more severely criticized by petitioners. 
Several suggested that fourth effectiveness test 
values be increased to at least those used in the 
first effectiveness tests (involving increases of 
5, 7 and 10 feet at 30 mph, and changes of 20, 
26, and 32 feet at 60 mph, for passenger cars, 
light trucks and heavy trucks, respectively). 
Several commenters recommended deletion of 
tests at speeds greater than 80 mph. For light 
and heavy trucks, maximum speeds of 60 mph 
to 80 mph were recommended. 

Certain modifications in stopping distances 
and test speeds have been made in response to 
these comments. The maximum test speed for a 
vehicle with a GVIVR that exceeds 10,000 pounds 
has been reduced from 80 mph to 60 mph. The 
maximum test speed will be 100 mph, specified 
only for those passenger cars which attain a 
speed of 104 mph or greater in 2 miles. If the 
speed that a passenger car is capable of attaining 
in 2 miles is from 99 to 104 mph, its maximum 
test speed will be 95 mph. Intermediate test 
speeds between 80 and 95 mph, and 60 and 80 
mph have also been eliminated for all vehicles; 
thus if a vehicle's top speed is from 84 to 99 
mph, its top test speed is 80 mph; if the top 
speed is from 64 to 84 mph, its top test speed is 
60 mph. Stopping distances have been increased 
slightly in most instances from those previously 
required; an example is the second effectiveness 
test where the 60-mph stopping distance for pas- 



PART 571; S 105a— PRE 11 



Effective: September 1, 1975 



senger cars at GVAVR will be 204 feet rather 
than 194. Under partial failure conditions at 
the same speed, the stopping distance for pas- 
senger cars has been increased from 431 to 456 
feet. 

Standard No. 105a required stops to be made 
at pedal forces that varied from 15 to 100 pounds 
at stops from 30 mph, to 20 to 150 pounds at 
stops from 65 mph or higher. Pedal control 
force values were objected to and requests for 
changes were made, ranging from an increase 
at 30 mph to 120 pounds to an across the board 
increase to 150 pounds maximum for all tests. 
Petitions were based generally on the need either 
to allow higher pedal forces to reduce brake 
sensitivity or to provide a simple single value 
for all tests. A change to allow 200 pounds of 
maximum pedal force on parking brake tests for 
light trucks was also requested. Several peti- 
tioners also requested modifications in fade re- 
covery test pedal force values. 

The NHTSA considers that most of these re- 
quests are meritorious. The standard is being 
amended to specify a uniform force range of 
15 to 150 pounds for all stops that must be made 
within required stopping distances, and this will 
be expressed as a test condition in paragraph S6. 
However, the parking brake test pedal forces 
must, in the opinion of the NHTSA remain 
uniform at 125 and 90 pounds (foot and hand) 
and the petition on this point is denied. General 
Motors requested a force for the 5th (final) fade 
recovery stop that is within plus 50 pounds and 
minus 5 pounds or minus 40 percent (whichever 
is greater) of the average control force for the 
baseline check. These values are considered too 
broad. Some relief is deemed warranted, how- 
ever, and Japan Automobile Manufacturers As- 
sociation's suggested value of minus 10 pounds 
has been adopted. 

5. Inoperative power units. In addition to the 
requests for clarification between brake power 
assist units and brake power units petitioners 
requested changes in requirements that would 
recognize the reserve capabilities that have been 
designed into the inoperative mode of some power 
systems. These petitions have been granted, and 
tests with an inoperative brake power unit or 
power assist unit have been modified to allow 



optional utilization of reserve capabilities in 
stopping. Under the optional procedure a ve- I 
hide makes a series of stops from 60 mph at 
specified decelerations when the inoperative unit 
is not initially depleted of all reserve capability 
and in a final stop within 554 feet when the unit 
has been depleted of its reserve. 

6. Fade and recovery requirements. Standard 
No. 105a required that vehicles with a GVWR 
of 10,000 pounds or less demonstrate fade re- 
sistance in two fade and recovery tests of 10 and 
15 stojjs each from 60 mph at 15 fpsps. 

Fade and recovery requirements were consid- 
ered extremely stringent by petitioners. Several 
petitioners suggested a reversion to the existing 
requirements with minor modifications. Others 
suggested changes in test weights. Most were 
willing to accept the 150-pound pedal force 
limitation if other modifications proposed were 
acceptable. GM recommended that two different 
fade test procedures be adopted, the first simu- 
lating a mountain type fade test at GVWR with 
increased distance intervals, and the second being 
similar to that adopted except at a reduced test 
load. 

These petitions have been deemed in large (I 
part to have merit, and the two fade tests will 
be revised to consist of 5 and 10 fade stops at 
15 fpsps, each followed by an additional 5 stops 
at the maximum deceleration attainable between 
5 and 15 fpsps. The fade test requirements for 
vehicles with a GVWR in excess of 10,000 pounds 
remains unchanged. However, no procedure 
simulating mountain descents has been developed, 
and GM's request is denied. International 
Harvester, in the fade test procedure, requested 
that the time to attain the required deceleration 
presently 1 second, be increased to 5 seconds. 
This request is denied, since an increase has been 
found unnecessary. 

7. Water recovery. GM petitioned for sub- 
stantial changes in the water recovery test, ask- 
ing relocation within the test sequence, modified 
control forces, and increassed number of recovery 
stops for heavy trucks. None of these requests 
has been found to have merit. A change in se- 
quence would necessitate reevaluation of the 
effect of the standard with a possible consequent 
further delay in the effective date. 



PART 571; S 105a— PRE 12 



Effective: September 1, 1975 



8. Spike stops. With regard to the spike stop 
requirements, Bendix requested that tlie stopping 
distance for the effectiveness (check) stops be the 
equivalent of the first effectiveness test rather 
than that of the other effectiveness tests. The 
request has merit, and the stopping distance re- 
quirements of the first effectiveness test have 
been adopted. 

GM requested that for the spike stop test 
manufacturers be allowed to use separate vehicles 
not used in the other tests, while Harvester re- 
quested a reduction in stopping speed from 60 
mph to 30 mph. Because of the changes in stop- 
ping distance that have been adopted, no further 
relief is deemed necessary and the petitions are 
denied. 

9. Parking brake systems.- The parking brake 
system requirements, particularly in the lightly 
loaded vehicle condition, were objected to as 
violating the laws of physics. As mentioned 
earlier, petitioners generally requested inclusion 
of a "limit of traction" condition. Vehicles with 
a great range of loading conditions are allegedly 
incapable of holding on grades specified in the 
requirements (20 percent or 30 percent). Par- 
ticular stress was placed on brake holding capa- 
bility on a 75 skid number surface. One com- 
menter requested that the same requirements 
apply to all vehicles, claiming it unrealistic for 
light vehicles to meet the 30 percent grade re- 
quirement while heavy vehicles only had to meet 
a 20 percent requirement, and suggested use of a 
Swedish standard (16 percent grade, 110 pounds 
of foot brake force, 88 pounds of hand brake 
force). Ford requested allowance for use of a 
multistroke parking brake application. Ameri- 
can Motors Corporation requested reinstatement 
of existing Standard No. 105 requirements. GM 
and Chrysler objected to the requirement that 
the parking brake be of a "friction type" which 
they considered design restrictive, prohibiting 
other acceptable parking brake systems. 

The parking brake system test remains sub- 
stantially as adopted. The performance require- 
ments have been found feasible with jDresent 
technology. A multistroke application is permis- 
sible, and limit of traction language has been 
added to the 30 percent grade requirement, to 
eliminate the irrelevant problem of tire slippage. 



The requirement for a friction-type parking 
brake is also retained. In a case of complete 
loss of service brake capability, a friction-type 
parking brake furnishes a residual stopping 
capability for a moving vehicle that is absent in 
a pawl-type system (such as the "park" position 
transmission stop). If the phrase "friction 
type" appears design restrictive of other types 
of parking brake systems that would provide 
equivalent capability, this agency will be recep- 
tive to suggestions for substitute language, with 
adequate supporting information. 

Wagner petitioned for deletion of the parking 
brake test with the vehicle at lightly loaded 
weight. This request is denied as the NHTSA 
believes that vehicles are frequently parked in a 
lightly loaded condition, and that a test should 
therefore be run at this vehicle weight. 

10. Indicator lamps. The standard has been 
amended so that indicator lamps may now be 
activated as a check of lamp function when the 
ignition is in the on position and the engine is 
not running, or in any position between on and 
start that is designated by the manufacturer as 
a check position. Ford petitioned that the brake 
fluid level indicator be deleted, but its request 
is denied as the NHTSA has determined that a 
warning should be provided in the event of slow 
leaks. Conversely, Mercedes-Benz of North 
America petitioned for deletion of the pressure 
differential warning, alleging that the fluid level 
indicator is sufficient. This, too, is denied, as the 
fluid level indicator will not indicate pressure 
failure until the fluid is at the level specified for 
a warning, an entirely different function. Sev- 
eral petitions asked that the 200-psi brake fluid 
pressure level be adopted (this had been proposed 
in Notice 1 for measurement at master or slave 
cylinder outlets), and these petitions have been 
granted. In response to several petitions, the 
illumination provided when an indicator lamp is 
activated may be flashing as well as steady- 
burning. 

11. Reservoirs. In the requirements for the 
master cylinder reservoir, clarifications have been 
provided in the determination of a fully worn, 
fully applied lining position. Reservoir labeling 
has been modified to require color contrasts of 
printed labels only, the contrast in lettering and 



PART 571; S 105a— PRE 13 



Effacrlve: September 1, 1975 



background on stamped or embossed labels 
deemed a sufficient contrast in those instances. 
GM asserted that the reservoir capacity require- 
ments were unnecessary in light of the require- 
ment for a fluid level indicator, and petitioned 
that the requirements be deleted. The petition 
is denied; the volume requirements are necessary 
to proxade sufficient fluid for a full range of 
brake travel. 

12. Test conditions. The specified test load of 
50 to 725 pounds per cubic foot has been refined 
by assigning density distribution to various ve- 
hicle areas, for example 50 to 125 pounds per 
cubic foot in the seating area of all vehicles. 
Several manufacturers requested that the trans- 
mission selector control be in gear during all 
test decelerations, alleging that the neutral posi- 
tion is not representative of consumer usage. 
These requests are denied. Deceleration in gear 
by adding driveline drag masks the true effec- 
tiveness of the brake system. Comments were 
also directed to the prohibition against lockups, 
generally alleging inconsistency with Standard 
No. 121. These comments had merit, and the 
test condition has been amended to allow lockups 
during spike stops, partial failure stops and in- 
operative brake power or power assist unit stops. 
On the other hand, a request to allow more than 
one locked wheel is denied. Provision has been 
made for installation of a second thermocouple 
at the beginning of the test sequence if the lining 
wear is expected to reach a point causing the 
first thermocouple to contact the metal rubbing 
surface of a drum or rotor. Since the brake 
control forces have been modified to a uniform 
range of 15 to 150 pounds, except as otherwise 
specified, control forces have been added to the 
list of test conditions. 

13. Test procedures and sequence. Most Amer- 
ican manufacturers and suppliers commented on 
the severity of the sequential procedure, with 
arguments of the following nature: The high 
speed effectiveness tests early in the sequence 
result in changes in lining characteristics which, 
in turn, affect the capability of the vehicles to 
comply with parking brake and partial systems 
requirements. Since no reburnish is allowed 
until after the first fade test, additional lining 
deterioration occurs as light load tests and fade 



tests are run. When final effectiveness tests are 
run, organic linings (normally used in today's 
vehicles) have deteriorated appreciably. This 
sequential testing, without reconditioning at in- 
tervals, results in brake torque balance changes 
as the test sequence progresses. To offset these 
changes and to enable a vehicle to go through 
compliance tests satisfactorily, many vehicles 
would have to be designed with an initial high 
gear brake capacity. This results in an unsafe 
early rear brake lockup, particularly at the initial 
light load test. As the sequence progresses, brake 
balance shifts toward a more reasonable balance, 
where all wheels approach lockup at or near 
same point. A brake balance which is designed 
initially for GVWR test conditions to meet 
Standard 105a requirements, would be dangerous 
to consumers for normal usage at 2 to 3 passenger 
loads due to rear wheel lockup and resultant 
uncontrollable skids. Recommendations by pe- 
titioners generally favored less testing at GVWR, 
reduced maximum test speeds, lessened fade re- 
quirements, and lessened final effectiveness re- 
quirements. The various changes would allow 
design of a brake system more suitable to normal 
consumer usage rather than the usage encountered 
in 105a tests. Ford recommended some changes 
in sequence but submitted a procedure incorporat- 
ing the 105a sequence with modified performance 
requirements. GM suggested a drastically re- 
vised sequence along with reduced performance 
requirements. Several petitioners recommended 
additional burnish stops and adjustments at 
several points, generally after each effectiveness 
series. Ford proposed a 200 stop additional 
burnish after the second fade test. 

In responding to petitions for reconsideration, 
the NHTSA has not modified the sequence of the 
test procedure. Recognizing the validity of 
many of the comments, the NHTSA instead has 
adjusted all vehicle performance values to more 
closely correlate sequential testing with normal 
everyday driving performance. This has been 
accomplished by (1) reducing the high speed 
performance requirements, (2) eliminating high 
speed performance requirements at early sequence 
test points and retaining them only in the last 
effectiveness test, (3) allowing extra burnish 
stops for reconditioning of the lining materials, 
(4) modifying fade performance requirements, 



PART 571; S 105a— PRE 14 



Effective: September 1, 197S 



(5) allowing a broader range of control force 
requirements while maintaining a maximum 
force limit of 150 pounds, (6) allowing extra 
adjustments of the brake system during the test 
sequence to provide more optimum brake per- 
formance, (7) modifying fade and wet-brake 
control force requirements to allow a broader 
range of forces without allowing a range that 
might produce severe over- or under- recovery. 
These modifications are intended to allow manu- 
facturers to design braking systems with a bal- 
ance that will provide satisfactory overall 
performance. 

At Ford's request, the general test procedure 
instructions have been modified to require lock- 
out of automatic adjusters prior to burnish and 
for the remainder of the test sequence. 

For the pretest instrumentation check, requests 
were received to specify a minimum number of 
instrumentation check stops or snubs, as well as 
the presently specified maximum. Such a speci- 
fication would, however, be meaningless. With 
the maximum number specified, each manufac- 



turer knows precisely the "worst case" that his 
vehicles must be designed for, and should test his 
vehicles at or above that level. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
§ 571.105a, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
105a, is revised to read as set forth below. 

Effective date: September 1, 1975. Because 
these amendments relate to a standard that is 
effective September 1, 1975, it has been deter- 
mined for good cause shown that an effective 
date later than 180 days after issuance is in the 
public interest. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
15 use 1392, 1407; delegation of authority at 
38 F.R. 12147). 

Issued on : May 11, 1973. 

James E. Wilson 
Associate Administrator 
Traffic Safety Programs 

38 F.R. 13017 
May 18, 1973 



PART 571; S 105a— PRE 15-16 



r 



(I 



Effective: September I, )975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 105-75 

Hydraulic Brake Systems 
(Docket No. 70-27; Notice 10) 



This notice responds to further petitions for 
reconsideration of Motor Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ard Xo. 105a and amends the standard in certain 
minor respects effective September 1, 1975. 

Federal ISIotor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
105a, 49 CFR 571.105a, Hydraulic 'brake systems, 
was published on September 2, 1972 (37 F.R. 
17970). Thereafter, pursuant to 49 CFR 553.35, 
petitions for reconsideration of the rule were 
received and, in response, a revised Standard 
No. 105a was published on May 18, 1973 (38 F.R. 
13017). Timely petitions for reconsideration of 
the revised rule were received from American 
Motors Corporation (AMC), Wagner Electric 
Corporation (Wagner), General ^Motors Cor- 
poration (GM), International Harvester Com- 
pany (Harvester), Japan Automobile Manufac- 
turers Association (JAMA), Ford Motor 
Company (Ford), Recreational Vehicle Institute 
(RVI), and Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. 
(Toyota). This notice discusses the major issues 
raised and their resolution. The Administrator 
does not consider repetitious petitions and to the 
extent that these further petitions were repeti- 
tious of the initial ones {e.g. deletion of tests 
above 80 mi/h for heavy vehicles, modification of 
pedal forces, running tests in gear rather than 
in neutral), they have not been considered, pur- 
suant to NHTSA regulations (49 CFR 553.35 
(c)). 

GM petitioned for rulemaking that would re- 
scind Standard No. 105a on the grounds that the 
brake systems it has designed for the 1976 model 
year would have to undergo substantial changes 
in subsequent model years when it plans to intro- 
duce lighter vehicles with improved fuel con- 
sumption. This agency considers energy needs 
along with other factors relevant to its rulemak- 



ing actions. The information available to the 
NHTSA does not indicate, liowever, that Stand- 
ard No. 105a is incompatible with increased fuel 
mileage, or would add substantially to tlie weight 
of the \ehicles covered. The NHTSA does not 
consider a change in a manufacturer's own de- 
sign plans to be a justification for discarding an 
important new set of requirements foi' which the 
world industry has been preparing for several 
years. The petition by GM to rescind the stand- 
ard is therefore denied. 

Effective date: Harvester and RVI petitioned 
for a delayed effective date for certain categories 
of vehicles. Harvester requested a one-year de- 
lay in the effective date for vehicles whose 
GVAVR exceeds 10,000 pounds, stating its doubt 
that acceptable antilock systems will be available 
to it by September 1, 1975, and that the advance 
hardware proposals from its brake system sup- 
pliers indicate that considerable design and de- 
velopment time is still needed. RVI wished an 
extension of 2 years for recreational vehicles 
built upon truck and multipurpose passenger 
vehicle chassis, alleging that time will be needed 
for testing and retooling after receipt of the first 
chassis or vehicle certified as conforming to the 
new braking standard. 

The NHTSA does not consider further exten- 
sion of the effective date to be in the public 
interest, and the petitions are denied. The broad 
outlines of the performance requirements have 
been known to industry since publication of the 
initial proposal in November, 1970, with its pro- 
posed effective date of September 1, 1972. Since 
publication of the new standard in September, 
1972, the effective date has been delayed one year 
to September 1, 1975. and considerable relief pro- 
vided for vehicles whose GVAVR exceeds 10,000 
pounds. 



PART 571: S 105-75— PRE 17 



EfFecHve: September 1, 1975 



De-finitions. In response to a petition by 
JAMA, a definition of "backup system" is 
adopted. Such a system is "a portion of a service 
brake system, such as a pump, that supplies 
energy in the event of a primary brake power 
source failure". 

Effective requirements. Clarifying words are 
added throughout in response to various requests. 
For example, the fourth effectiveness test now 
makes it clear that if the speed attainable in 2 
miles is 99 mi/h or greater, stops must be made 
from both 80 mi/h and a specified higher speed, 
and not from the higher speed alone. In response 
to GM's comments on inoperative brake power 
and power assist units (S5.1.3), a new S5.1.3.4 
has been adopted that allows brake power assist 
units to be tested under the optional procedure 
if the unit utilizes a backup system. 

The word "average" has been deleted from 
S5.1.4.2 (fade and recovery) which specified fade 
stops in excess of "an average deceleration" floor, 
at the request of Wagner, as the inclusion of the 
word was erroneous and does not reflect the test 
procedures of S7.11.2.1. 

The brake system indicator lamp requirements 
(S5.3.1) were the subject of numerous petitions, 
most of which have been granted. The NHTSA 
reiterates that the methods of pressure failure 
indication in S5.3.1(a) are alternative rather 
than inclusive. Harvester asked that S5.3.1(a) 
be amended to delete the qualification of pressure 
measurement at a slave cylinder outlet "if the 
master cylinder controls slave cylinders at a 
booster unit". It argues that with this design 
configuration it should be allowed to measure 
pressure at the master cylinder outlet. The 
NHTSA agrees that the original wording of 
85.3.1 (a) is design restrictive and that measure- 
ment at either the master or slave cylinder outlet 
is satisfactory for monitoring pressure, and the 
qualifying phrase is removed. S5.3.1 (a)(1) re- 
quires activation of the indicator upon activation 
of "a line pressure of not more than 200 psi". 
Ford requested an amendment to clarify that the 
intent is to specify a differential pressure between 
the operational and failed brake systems. The 
clarifying amendment has been made and the 
pressure differential increased to 225 psi to com- 
pensate for certain power-assisted units. As a 



failure indicator GM prefers a switch that would . 
activate the warning lamp when the brake pedal ' 
has been depressed past a certain point, rather 
than a lamp activated by fluid pressure failure. 

The petition is denied, as the NHTSA has 
determined that the brake pedal travel involved 
to activate the lamp would not provide an ade- 
quate warning. 

JAMA and Toyota asked for an amendment 
or interpretation of S5.3.2 that would allow the 
indicator lamp to remain activated when the ig- 
nition is returned to "on", after the engine is 
started. To allow the lamp to remain on after 
the engine is started might degrade the impor- 
tance of the check that the system is intended to 
indicate, and that the request is denied. JAMA 
also requested that if there is a separate parking 
brake indicator that it be labelled "Park", and 
this petition has been granted. 

GM requested that the volume requirements of 
master cylinder reservoirs on large trucks be 
reduced to one-third that required by the new 
standard. Since NHTSA has reduced the re- 
quirement in response to previous petitions, from 
150 per cent to 100 per cent of fluid displacement, 
it does not deem it in the interest of safety to /| 
reduce it further. GM's petition is denied. The V 
agency wishes to clarify, however, that the vol- 
ume concerned is only that within the storage 
compartment, and does not include that fluid 
which may remain in pipes, hoses, and fittings. 
At Harvester's request, S5.4.2 is amended slightly 
to clarify that the minimum reservoir capacity 
is that of the total reservoir system rather than 
each reservoir compartment. 

S5.6, Brake system integrity, had been amended 
in May 1973 to specify that friction facing tear- 
out of the lining must "not exceed 10 percent of 
the lining on any frictional element" rather than 
"10 percent of the lining surface areas". GM 
requested reinstatement of the original require- 
ment. The request is denied. The language that 
was adopted in May 1973 clarified a previously 
existing ambiguity while providing a measure of 
relief that had been previously requested. 

Conditions. Ford interpreted the words "test 
load" in S6.1.1 as the load required to be added 
to bring a vehicle to its GVIVK. In some in- 
stances, if this added weight were distributed 



PART 571; S 105-75— PRE 18 



Effective: September 1, 1975 



proportionally to GAAVR the front GAWR 
' would be exceeded. NHTSA intended that a 
veliicle be loaded at GVAVR so that its gross 
vehicle weight is distributed proportionally to 
its GAWR, and S6.1 is amended appropriately. 
Ford, JAilA, Toyota, and RVI petitioned for a 
change in the load material density specification 
of S6.2 to allow use of iron shot or bars in the 
passenger seating area, or in cargo areas of light 
and heavy trucks. The RVI request would allow 
use of lead shot in drawers, cupboards, and cabi- 
nets of recreational \ehicles. In large part, these 
requests have been granted; maximum material 
densities have been increased from 125 to 450 
pounds per cubic foot in seating areas of passen- 
ger cars, and in cargo areas of vehicles with a 
G\^VR of 10,000 pounds or less. To allow the 
use of cast iron in the cargo areas of heavy trucks 
the minimum density has been lowered slightly 
from 450 to 400 pounds per cubic foot. The RVI 
request, however, is not adopted as this would 
permit too broad a range for testing and conse- 
quent difficulty of reproducing test results. It 
was to alleviate this problem that the original 
Standard Xo. 105a was amended on this point 
in May 1973. AMC and GJI asked that the tire 
I inflation pressure be that specified for the test 
weight, rather than for the GVIVR of the ve- 
hicle. In NHTSA's view, the time to reset tire 
pressures after allowing tires to cool would com- 
plicate and lengthen test procedures. There are 
only three tests run at the lightly loaded weight, 
and no data have been submitted to show that 
the tire pressure required causes a substantial 
increase in stopping distances. 

S6.10 allows only one uncontrolled wheel to 
lock at braking speeds above 10 mph on any 
given stop. GM suggested that this section al- 
lowed one wheel per axle to lock. GM's inter- 
pretation is incorrect, however; "one wheel" 
means one wheel on the vehicle. Ford wanted 
to reset thermocouples during brake inspections. 
This requested amendment is denied. Except for 
normal adjustment, inspections for thermocouple 
depths are not allowed once a test series has be- 
gun, in order that brake systems not be disturbed. 
The NHTSA may consider different depths for 
thermocouples in the future if data are obtained 
showing a need. 



Test procedures. GM, JAMA, Toyota, and 
RVI petitioned that lockout of automatic brake 
adjusters be optional rather than required. On 
review the NHTSA has decided that there is no 
reason not to allow use of adjusters during test- 
ing. However, if a manufacturer locks out brake 
adjusters, this will now occur when linings are 
installed after the thermocouple installation; i.e. 
before the test series rather than before burnish. 
This is intended to save time in the test proce- 
dures. 

The service brake burnish procedure for heavy 
vehicles is being amended pursuant to a petition 
by GM, to be in accord with the procedure re- 
cently proposed for such vehicles in Standard 
No. 121. Minor clarifying amendments have 
been made at various places in the test proce- 
dures. Toyota asked whether S7.9.4 applied 
only to mechanical proportioning systems. This 
paragraph applies to any variable proportioning 
system whether mechanical, electrical, hydraulic 
or otherwise. It does not apply to a fixed me- 
chanical proportioning system. 

Figures and tables. Pursuant to a request 
from Ford, the dimensional specification of "li/^ 
inches" has been added to Lever A on Figure II. 
JAMA and Toyota want to consider a modified 
T lever as a "T" rather than as an "L" type. 
The NHTSA will consider this design a "T" 
type if the short side is no less than one-third 
the long side. JAMA and Toyota requested that 
the load point on the "L" type handle be revised 
to 11/4 inches from the handle end instead of 
from the center line. This request is denied, as 
the original requested dimension (30 mm) has 
been previously increased to li^ inches (approxi- 
mately 37 mm) and no further change is deemed 
necessary. 

Harvester was the sole petitioner to request an 
increase in the stopping distances of Table II, 
asking that vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 
pounds or less in the lightly loaded condition be 
afforded the same maximum stopping distance 
from 60 mph as required of similarly loaded 
vehicles under the same conditions in Standard 
No. 121. It also requested an increase in the 
fourth effectiveness stopping distance to give the 
same difference in deceleration at 80 mi/h as al- 
lowed by Standard No. 105 at 60 mi/h. Both 



PART 571; S 105-75— PRE 19 



Effective: September 1, 1975 



petitions are denied. Air-braked vehicles covered 
by Standard No. 121 include truck-tractors with 
a high center of gravity and usually a higher 
front-to-rear weight distribution than light 
trucks, so that the lesser stopping distance in 
Standard No. 105 is justified. The test value of 
the fourth effectiveness test reflects previous 
modifications for requirements at 60 mi/h. The 
industry in general has not disclosed any prob- 
lem in complying with the deceleration values 
from 80 mi/h. The correct stopping distance for 
heavy vehicles from 50 mi/h in the first, fourth, 
and spike effectiveness tests is 193 feet, not 183 
feet as previously iJublished. 

G5I, Toyota, and JAMA requested an increase 
in the deceleration values of Table III as an 
allowance for larger vehicles tested to optional 
brake power and assist unit procedures. This 
request is denied. These \ehicles are presently 
required to meet only a 6.3 ft/s/s deceleration 
which is considered the minimum value accept- 
able. 

Finally, Harvester wanted an inclusive pedal 
force range of 15 to 150 pounds for all phases of 
compliance activity including baseline checks. 
The NHTSA considers a 150-pound pedal force 
too high for baseline tests at low speeds and 



relatively low decelerations, and the petition is 
denied. 

Although the NHTSA has on occasion used 
the subletter "a" to denote comprehensive revi- 
sion of existing standards effective at a future 
date, such standards will lienceforth be identified 
in terms of their effective dates. Thus "Standard 
No. 105a" becomes "Standard No. 105-75 (effec- 
tive September 1, 1975)". 

In consideration of the foregoing 49 CFR 
571.105a, ]Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 105a, 
hydraulic brake systems, is amended as follows: 

Ejfectire date: September 1, 1975. Because 
these amendments relate to a standard that is 
effective Sej^tember 1, 1975, it has been deter- 
mined for good cause shown that an effective 
date later than 1 year after issuance is in the 
public interest. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1107; delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51.) 



Issued on February 14, 1974. 



James B. Gregory 
Administrator / 

39 F.R. 6708 \ 

February 22, 1974 



PART 571; S 105-75— PRE 20 



Effective: September I, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 105-75 

Hydraulic Brake Systems 
(Docket No. 70-27; Notice 11) 



This notice responds to petitions for reconsid- 
eration of the amendments to 49 CFR .571.105- 
75, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105-75, 
published in the Federal Register on February 
22, 1974 (39 F.R. 6708). The standard is 
amended to defer for one year the requirements 
for a brake fluid level sensor for vehicles with a 
GVWR over 10,000 pounds, and for two years, 
a 60-pound maximum baseline pedal effort on 
vehicles with a GVWK over 15,000 pounds. 
Slightly increased stopping distances in the third 
effectiveness test are adopted for one 3'ear for 
certain heavy vehicles at lightly loaded vehicle 
weight. 

Timely petitions for reconsideration of the 
amendments were received from Girling, Ltd., 
Wagner Electric Corporation (AVagner), Ford 
Motor Company (Ford), General Motors Cor- 
poration (GM), and Recreational Vehicle Insti- 
tute, Inc. (RVI). International Harvester 
Company (Harvester), subsequent to the time 
allowed for filing petitions for reconsideration, 
raised certain issues in writing to the Adminis- 
trator, and its presentation, in accordance with 
NHTSA regulations, has been considered as a 
petition for rulemaking. This notice discusses 
the major issues raised and their resolution. 

Ejfecth'e date: RVI again petitioned for a 
delayed effective date for recreational \ehicles 
built upon truck and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles chassis, alleging that time will be needed 
by final-stage manufacturers for testing and re- 
tooling after receipt of the first chassis or vehicle 
manufactured after the effective date of Stand- 
ard Xo. 105-75. 

RVI's petition is found to be repetitious of 
arguments raised , previously, and accordingly, 
pursuant to NHTSA regulations (49 CFR 



553..35(c)), has not been granted. The denial of 
Notice 10 therefore stands, on the grounds set 
forth in Notice 10 of this docket. In brief, the 
NHTSA expects a manufacturer of incomplete 
vehicles to provide final-stage manufacturers, 
pursuant to 49 CFR 568, with information suf- 
ficient to indicate how the final-stage manufac- 
turer may achieve compliance with Standard No. 
10.5-75. Since the effective date of the standard 
is over a year away, there remains sufficient time 
for final-stage manufacturers to discuss with 
manufacturers of incomplete vehicles the kind 
of information that is to be provided, and to 
resolve such problems as may appear. 

Har\ester and Wagner have apprised the 
NHTSA of unexpected leadtime problems asso- 
ciated with the incorporation of brake fluid in- 
dicators into master cylinders of heavy vehicles. 
The agency has confirmed the seriousness of 
these problems, and has determined that they 
derive from factors substantially beyond the 
control of the affected vehicle manufacturers. 
It has accordingly concluded that a 1-year delay 
in the required date for introduction of fluid 
level sensors for vehicles whose GVAVR exceeds 
10,000 pounds would be in the public interest. 

Harvester also requested a year's delay of the 
third effectiveness test requirements (S5.1.1.3). 
It stated that vehicles with 151 inches or less 
wheelbase and 8,000 pounds or gi'eater GVAVR 
will require anti-lock systems to meet the stoji- 
ping distance requirements for lightly loaded 
vehicles, and that suitable anti-lock systems can- 
not be developed for 1976 model j'ear production. 
The NHTSA does not consicler that a year's 
delay of the third effectiveness test requirements 
is in the public interest. It finds, however, on 
the basis of the information before it that the 



PART 571; S 105-75— PRE 21 



Effective: September 1, 1975 



incorporation of anti-lock systems into this class 
of vehicles by the September 1, 1975, effective 
date is probably impracticable. The standard 
accordingly is being amended to permit, for a 
period of 1 year, somewhat longer stopping dis- 
tance requirements for lightly loaded vehicles of 
8,000 pounds or more GV^VR. The NHTSA 
finds these distances to be achievable without 
anti-lock systems, and that the change for the 
interim period is justifiable in terms of the costs 
and the safety benefits involved. As an example, 
the maximum stopping distance permissible from 
60 mph at lightly loaded vehicle weight is 
ciianged from 216 feet to 242 feet for vehicles 
with a GVWR between 8,000 and 10,000 pounds. 

Effectiveness requirements. Clarifying words 
are again added to the effectiveness requirements 
and test procedures in response to various re- 
quests. Heretofore the performance require- 
ments for vehicles with inoperative brake power 
assist units and brake power units specified four 
stops at a deceleration figure, with the fifth and 
final stop specified in feet. This has apparently 
proved confusing, and the final stop will now 
be expressed in a manner consistent with the re- 
mainder of the performance requirements, as "an 
average deceleration of not lower than 7 fpsps". 
This value, however, applies only to passenger 
cars. Ford argued that the heavy truck stop- 
ping distance values are unrealistic, in the op- 
tional procedures provided by S5.1.3.2 and 
S5.1.3.3 for inoperative brake power assist units 
and brake power units. It petitioned for less 
stringent values. The agency has considered 
that Ford's views have merit, and is amending 
the standard to require a final stop at an average 
deceleration of not lower than 6 fpsps. Table 
III has been amended to reflect this change. 

Two petitioners contested the pedal force 
baseline \alue range of 15 to 60 pounds for the 
fade and recovery and water recovery demon- 
strations. GM asked that the minimum be re- 
duced to 10 pounds, while Harvester requested 
an increase in the maximum to 88 pounds. GM 
submitted new test data to substantiate its re- 
quest and its petition is granted; but a floor of 
5 pounds is placed on the recovery minimum 
value. Harvester's petition is predicated on the 
results of "extensive tests" that show "that no 
vehicle over 15,000 lbs. GVWR can be brought 



into compliance with this requirement for model ^ 
year 1976." In recognition that even exerting " 
its best efforts Harvester cannot comply by 
September 1, 1975, the NHTSA has determined 
that a relaxation of this requirement for two 
years would be in the public interest. Therefore, 
Harvester's petition is granted, and between 
September 1, 1975, and September 1, 1977, the 
maximum baseline pedal effort will be 90 pounds 
with a restriction on fade recovery of 100 pounds 
maximvun, and of 110 pounds on water recovery. 

With respect to the brake failure indicator 
lamp, Ford and Wagner requested clarification 
that the pressure failure condition is a rupture 
type, rather than one resulting from slow leaks. 
This request is granted, and S5.3.1(a) is amended 
to specify that the failure causing the lamp to 
operate is "A gross loss of i:)ressure (such as 
caused by a rupture of a brake line) . . . ." Wag- 
ner also asked whether an automatic reset pres- 
sure failure valve would violate the standard. 
When there is a slow leak in the service brake 
system, the warning valve will shuttle, activating 
the indicator lamp, but the lamp will not remain 
activated when the jiedal is released and then 
reapplied. The NHTSA intends the fluid level ^ 
indicator to warn of fluid loss due to slow leaks, 
and the pressure diiferential indicator to warn 
of gross pressure loss. The faihu'e of the lamps 
to remain activated by the valve does not violate 
Standard No. 105-75. 

Some petitioners cited an apparent conflict in 
the previous denial of Toyota's petition to allow 
an indicator lamp to remain activated when the 
ignition is returned to "on" after the engine is 
started, and the fact that some systems do not 
instantly deactivate. NHTSA has i)reviously 
noted in the notice of September 2, 1972 (37 
F.R. 17970). that no time interval is specified, 
and that instantaneous deactivation could not be 
required of continuous sensing units. The indi- 
cators considered acceptable to NHTSA are those 
that may remain activated for a limited time 
(such as 1 to 10 seconds) after the ignition is 
returned to "on". 

Finally, Wagner petitioned for reinstatement 
of the limiting phrase "in any reservoir compart- 
ment" in the requirement that an indicator lamp 
be activated whenever there is a drop in the level 
of brake fiuid in a master cylinder reservoir to 



PART 571; S 105-75— PRE 22 



Effective: September 1, 1975 



less than one-fourtli of fluid reservoir capacity. 
The phrase was deleted in the notice of February 
22, 1974, but it should have been retained to 
clarify that a low level in any reservoir com- 
partment must be indicated. Wagner's petition 
is granted. 

Test conditions. Ford requested an amend- 
ment of the test weight condition of S6.1 to 
clarify how, in the G"\nVR test condition, added 
weight is to be distributed, since even at lightly 
loaded weight on some vehicles the front axle 
load exceeds its proportional share of the GVWR. 
The clarification is now provided by adding to 
S6.1.1 "However, if the weight on any axle at 
lightly loaded vehicle weight exceeds the axle's 
proportional share of the gross vehicle weight 
rating, the load required to reach GVAVR is 
placed so that the weight on that axle remains 
the same as at lightly loaded vehicle weight." 

Ford also asked that S6.2 Test loads be revised 
so that the manufacturer could designate the 
density of the test load selected, rather than to 
anticipate values that may be selected from 
witliin the prescribed range in the agency's com- 
pliance testing program. This petition is denied. 
Ford's suggestion would result in each manu- 
facttirer setting its own unique performance 
requirements, and would not be appropriate for 
standards required by law to be uniform for the 
types of vehicles to which they apply. Each 
vehicle must comply with the requirements of 
the standard when loaded with materials of any 
density within the applicable ranges. This is 
made clear by the second sentence of S6., Test 
eonditiovs: "Where a range of conditions is 
specified, the vehicle shall be capable of meeting 
the requirements at all points within the range." 

GM once again petitioned for an amendment 
of S6.4, Transmission selector control, to allow 
stopping of the test vehicle in gear rather than 
neutral. Since the agency, pursuant to 49 CFR 
§ 553.35, does not consider repetitious petitions, 
no action has been taken. 

Test 'procedures and sequence. S7. allows 
automatic adjusters to be locked out prior to 
burnish and for the remainder of the test se- 
quence. Girling has petitioned that lockout 



should only be in accordance with manufacturer's 
recommendations. NHTSA agrees and is amend- 
ing S7. accordingly. At the request of GM the 
agency has also amended S7. to outline a test 
procedure for conducting stops when the gear 
selector is required to be in the neutral position. 

Girling also asked that the postburnish brake 
adjustment test procedure (S7.4.1.2 and S7.4.2.2) 
be amended to make clear that these sections do 
not prohibit postburnish adjustment of man- 
ually adjustable brakes. Girling is correct, and 
appropriate amendments are made to reflect the 
agency's intent. 

Ford and Wagner both asked that the burnish 
procedure of S7.4.2.1.2 be amended in a manner 
consistent with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 121, to allow brake applications at a point 
1.5 miles from the previous brake application for 
vehicles unable to attain any required speed in 
1 mile. The petition is granted, and the standard 
is amended accordingly. 

Finally, Ford suggested that the test proce- 
dure for first reburnish, S7.6, be changed to re- 
flect the optional procedure of S7.4.2.1.2, and 
this request has also been granted. 

Other minor amendments have been made to 
correct printing errors and for internal consist- 
ency. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.105-75, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
105-75, is amended .... 

Effective date: September 1, 1975. Because 
these amendments relate to a standard that is 
effective September 1, 1975, it has been deter- 
mined for good cause shown that an effective 
date later than 1 year after issuance is in the 
public interest. 

(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407; delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51.) 



Issued on July 9, 1974. 



James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

39 F.R. 25943 
July 15, 1974 



PART 571; S 105-75— PRE 23-24 



f 



u 



Effective: September 1, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 105-75 

Hydraulic Brake Systems 
(Docket No. 70-27; Notice 13) 



Thi.s notice amends Standard No. 105-75, Hy- 
draulic hrake systems^ 40 CFR 571.105-75, as it 
ai)plies to passenger cars, in response to peti- 
tions for reconsideration of amendments pub- 
lislied July 15, 1974 (39 F.E. 25943) (Notice 11). 
The amendments defer for one year the require- 
ment for a bralve fluid level indicator and modify 
tlie permissible pedal force values used in re- 
covery stops. 

Manufacturers of hydraulic-braked motor ve- 
hicles resi)onded to the Notice 11 amendments 
of the standard with petitions for reconsideration 
of specific teclmical cluinges in some performance 
requirements, and also with far-ranging recjuests 
for substantial modification, delay, or revocation 
of the standard. These broad requests are an- 
swered in a separate proposal to delay the effec- 
tive date of the standard for four months in the 
case of passenger cars, and indefinitely in the case 
of multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's), 
trucks, and buses. For this reason, only the spe- 
cific technical elements that necessarily aft'ect 
passenger cars are addressed in this notice. 

Brake fluid level indicator. Chrysler Corpora- 
tion, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, and 
Wagner Electric Corporation responded to the 
1-year delay in fluid level indicator requirements 
for heavy vehicles by asserting that procurement 
and reliability problems also exist for lighter 
vehicle categories. The NHTSA contacted several 
manufacturers of brake fluid level indicators and 
discussed the availability and reliability of their 
products. It appeared that further field evalua- 
tion of available indicators could improve their 
reliability and that some delay should solve the 
availability problems which existed. At the Feb- 
ruary 11 public meeting, American Motoi-s Cor- 
poration confirmed that availability problems 



still exist for brake fluid level indicators. Con- 
sequently, the NHTSA amends the standard to 
defer requirements for brake fluid level indicators 
until September 1, 1976. 

International Harvester requested clarification 
in the wording of S5.3.1(b), which appears to 
require a signal if tlie amount of brake fluid in 
a small, nearly fidl compartment of a split sys- 
tem reservoir does not equal one-quarter of the 
\'olume of the larger compartment. The NHTSA 
agrees that confusion may arise from the present 
wording, and, without changing the intended 
meaning of the requirement in any way, amends 
the wording as requested by Harvester. 

Foi'd requested a clarification of wording in 
S5.3.1(a), which presently calls for a signal when 
"any" one of several pressure losses is experienced. 
Ford correctly notes that the NHTSA use of 
"any" means that the vehicle or system must be 
capable of meeting the specified requirement upon 
the occurrence of every condition listed, and that, 
in this case, such was not intended. The NHTSA 
has corrected the wording to make clear that 
only one of the conditions (at the option of the 
manufacturer) must be indicated by the brake 
system indicator lamp. 

Maximum and mirwmini brake pedal force — 
recovery stofs. Chrysler and the Japan Auto- 
mobile ^lanufacturers Association (JAMA) sup- 
ported the Notice 11 reduction of baseline pedal 
force limits to permit optimization of braking 
characteristics o\'er the whole range of system 
operating conditions. Their petitions argued for 
an additional change to the minimum pedal 
effort in the first through fourth recovery stops 
to encourage optimal recovery characteristics. 
Specifically, Chrysler i-ecommended that the 
present 15-pouii(l limit (S6.1.13) on minimum 



PART 571; S 105-75— PRE 25 



Effective: September 1, 1975 



pedal force in the early recovery stops be re- 
placed by a formula tied to the average control 
force for the baseline check. To avoid over- 
sensitive brakes, a minimum pedal force of five 
pounds would be required. 

The NHTSA concludes that such a requirement 
would allow o-reater design freedom in optimizing 
brake recovery without sacrificing limits on brake 
sensitivity. Accordingly, the NHTSA reconsiders 
its action on minimum brake control force re- 
quirements, and amends the standard in response 
tx) JAMA and Chrysler. 

Chrysler also raised the issue of maximum al- 
lowable pedal force in the fifth stop of the water 
recovery requirements. Presently this pedal force 
can be a maximum of 90 pounds (60 pounds for 
average control force in the baseline check plus 
30 pounds), but this formula requires lower pedal 
force on a ^'ehicle with lower average baseline 
pedal force. Chrysler has considered changes in 
brake lining to lower the wet recovery stop values, 
but the modifications include major disadvantages 
such as increased brake imbalance, lai-ger boosters, 
noise, and wear. The NHTSA finds that the 
formula can be revised to avoid penalizing good 
baseline performance, while maintaining a 90- 
pound maximimi effort. Accordingly, S5.1.2.5 
is amended to jjermit a 45-pound increase of pedal 
effort, as long as the maximum effort does not 
exceed 90 poimds. 

Other requirement!^ of the standard. Wagner 
requested that the Notice 11 revisions of "in 
neutral" procedures be made consistent with other 
provisions of the standard, or that they be re- 
placed with other procedures. The NHTSA finds 
the present procedure more rei^roducible than 
that suggested by Wagiier and therefore denies 
this petition. Wagner correctly pointed out that 
the procedure to "exceed the test speed by approx- 
imately seven mph" may contradict the require- 
ment of testing at speeds only four m^Dh lower 
than maximum attainable speeds (S5.1). Ac- 
cordingly, "four to eight mph" is substituted for 
"approximately seven mph" in S7. 



In a related area, JAMA requested that the /" 
test procedure for wet brake recovery stops be ' 
modified (S7.16.2). The NHTSA did not ad- 
dress these procedures in Notice 11, and does 
not find that this new subject matter is appro- 
priate for consideration at this time. The JAMA 
petition will be considered as a petition for rule- 
making which will be addressed in the near 
future. 

Bendix requested clarification of the Notice 8 
preamble discussion of "power assist" and 
"power"" units. Bendix"s question arose with re- 
gard to its "hydro-boost" unit, which is described 
as designed with a "push through"" capability in 
both tiie "normal"" and "failed power"' operating 
conditions, and with an accumulator that permits 
low pedal effort for a limited number of brake 
applications after a power failure has occurred. 
The NHTSA concludes that, because the Bendix 
"hydro-boost" does not pre\ ent the operator from 
braking the \ehicle by an application of muscular 
force in the "failed power"" condition, it qualifies 
as a brake power assist unit under the definitions 
of Standard No. 105-75. 

Se^'eral minor amendments ha\'e been made to 
correct a i)rinting error in Table I as it appeared 
in Notice 8 (38 F.R. 13017. May 18, 1973) and 
for consistency in the use of abbreviations and 
terminology. 

In consideration of the foregoing. Standard 
No. 105-75 (-19 CFR 571.105-75) is amended. . . . 

Effective date: September 1, 1975: Because the 
amendments relax a requirement and because the 
present effective date of the standard is Septem- 
ber 1, 1975, it is found for good cause shown 
that an effective date sooner than 180 days fol- 
lowing publication of the amendments in the 
Federal Register is in the public interest. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407); delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.51) 

Issued on March 6, 1975. 

Noel C. Bufe 
Acting Administrator 

40 F.R. 11584 
March 12, 1975 



PART 571; S 105-75— PRE 26 



Effective: September 1, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 105-75 

Hydraulic Brake Systems 
(Docket No. 70-27; Notice 14) 



This notice amends Standard No. 105-75, Hy- 
draulic hrake systems, 49 CFE 571.105-75, to 
make it applicable only to passenger cars equipped 
with hj'draulic brake systems. This amendment 
has the effect of -withdrawing the standard's ap- 
plicability to multipurpose passenger vehicles 
(MPVs), trucks, and buses equipped with hy- 
draulic brake systems. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Admin- 
istration (NHTSA) proposed a 4-month delay of 
the standard as it applies to passenger cars and 
indefinite delay as it applies to other hydraulic- 
braked vehicles (40 FR 10483, March 6, 1975). 
Manufacturers responded to the proposed 4-month 
delay for passenger cars with objections to tech- 
nical features of the standard, the costs of mid- 
year changes, and the NHTSA's estimate of the 
standard's safety benefits. While consideration 
of these issues continues, a decision has been 
made to withdraw the standard's applicability to 
trucks, buses, and MPVs. 

The NHTSA proposed withdrawal of the 
standard because of uncertainty that the particu- 
lar performance levels established for tracks, 
MPVs, and buses by Standard No. 105-75 were 
justified in view of their costs. It is clear that 
truck braking is in many cases substantially 
poorer than passenger car braking, and that the 
generally longer stopping distances and the 
greater severity of truck accidents justify a safety 
standard for tliese vehicles. At the same time, 
the costs of meeting Standard No. 105-75 in all 
truck, bus, and MPV model lines are substantial 
and the NHTSA is not prepared to conclude that 
they are justified in view of achievable safety 
benefits. 



The Center for Auto Safety (CFAS) ques- 
tioned tlie NHTSA's right to propose witlidrawal 
of a promulgated nile in response to manufac- 
turer cost objections witliout publication of the 
agency's evaluation of the submitted cost data. 
As authority, CFAS cites the newly-enacted cost 
information provisions of the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. § 1402). 

In this case manufacturers submitted costs for 
light- to medium-d>ity trucks that ranged from 
$54 to $775 per unit (depending on model con- 
figuration) to attain compliance with the stand- 
ard. The NHTSA compared these figures with 
independently-gathered detailed cost and mark- 
up information and substantiated that the manu- 
facturer's estimates were accurate. This material 
has been formally compiled as required by the 
Act and has been made public in the docket (70- 
27; Notice 12). 

CFAS. the Consumers TTnion. Ms. Susan P. 
Baker of Johns Hopkins University, the Insur- 
ance Institute for Highway Safety, and the 
Permanente Medical Group stressed tlie import- 
ance of a brake standard for these vehicles. 
Tlie NHTSA agrees and intends to issue interim 
requirements for MPVs, tracks, and buses 
equipped with hydraulic brake systems. How- 
ever, the NHTSA concludes that the Standard 
105-75 requirements in their present form cannot 
be justified for tracks, buses, and MPVs on the 
basis of the data available at this time. 

In consideration of the foregoing. Standard 
No. 105-75 (49 CFR 571.105-75) is amended 

Effective date: September 1, 1975. Because 
the effective date of the standard for trucks, 
buses, and MPVs was less than 180 days after 
the date of publication of this amendment in the 



PART 571; S 105-75— PRE 27 



EfFeclive: September 1, 1975 

Federal Register, it is found for good cause Issued on April 25, 1975. Z' 

sliown that an effective date less than 180 days 

from the date of publication is in the public t td r^ 

' ^ James B. Grregory 

interest. . , ... , 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563. 80 Stat. 718 (15 Administrator 

U.S.C. 1392, 1407); delegation of authority at 40 F.R. 18411 

49 CFE 1.51). April 28, 1975 



PAET 571; S 105-75— PEE 28 



Effective: June 9, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 105-75 



Hydraulic Brake Systems 
(Dockef No. 70-27; Notice 15) 



This notice amends Standard No. 105-75, Hy- 
draulic brake si/sfetns. 49 CFR 571.105-75, to de- 
lay its eflfective date four montlis from September 
1, 1975, to January 1, 1970. and to establish in- 
terim control force values for water recovery 
testing. This notice also amends the present hy- 
draulic brake system standard for passenger cars 
(Standard No. 105, Hydraulic brake systems, (49 
CFR 571.105)) to permit compliance with that 
standard or the new standard at the option of 
the manufacturer until January 1, 1976. 

As issued, Standard No. 105-75 applied to 
passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose 
jiassenger vehicles (MPVs) equipped with hy- 
draulic brake systems. Its scheduled etfective 
date was September 1, 1975. Thirteen petitions 
for rulemaking to postjione or revoke the stand- 
ard were filed with the NHTSA earlier this year. 
Following a comprehensive evaluation of the 
petitions, the NHTSA proposed and made final 
an indefinite delay of the standard as it applied 
to trucks, buses, and :MPV's (40 F.R. 10483. 
March 6, 1975; 40 F.R. 18411, April 28, 1975). 

At the same time, the agency denied petitions 
for substantial postponement or revocation of the 
standard as it applies to passenger cars, having 
considered the cost of compliance for those ve- 
hicles, and having determined that significant 
safety benefit will derive from better stopping 
performance, stability, and pedal force levels (40 
F.R. 1048.3, March 6," 1975). A discussion of the 
potential benefits accompanied that decision. An 
economic evaluation of the impact of the standard 
will be a\-ailable in the public docket. The only 
revisions of the standard proposed by the NHTSA 
were an interim pedal force value and a 4-month 
delay of effective date, to permit some flexibility 
in new model introduction dates where technical 



changes or isolated compliance problems had not 
been resolved. 

Manufacturer comments on the proposal were 
generally unresponsixe to the proposed delay of 
four months and the interim pedal force value of 
110 pounds in wet recovery stops. The Vehicle 
Equipment Safety Commission considered the 
proposed pedal force \alues to be overgenerous. 
Chrysler Corporation indicated its support for 
the 4-month delay and interim value but em- 
phasized other arguments in its submission. Gen- 
eral Motors requested that the pedal force value 
l)e made permanent. It appears that manufac- 
turers support the short delay and pedal force 
modification to simplify introduction of the 1976 
models. Accordingly, the standard is modified 
as proposed, to establish an amended effective 
date of Januai-y 1, 1976, and a pedal force in- 
crease of 60 pounds up to a total of 110 pounds 
(in S5.1.5.2) until September 1, 1976. 

The majority of comments restated manufac- 
turer positions on the issue of substantial delay 
or revocation of the standard for passenger cars. 
The NHTSxV has already considered this issue 
and, as noted above, concluded that the benefits 
of improved stopping performance, stability, and 
pedal force values outweigh the costs of imple- 
mentation. Manufacturers submitted no new data 
that would justify a reversal of NHTSA's earlier 
decision. 

Although the NHTSA limited its i)roposal to 
a choice between the effective dates of September 
1, 1975, and January 1, 1976, several manufac- 
turers compared the cost savings of a short delay 
to January 1, 1976, with a substantially longer 
delay to September 1, 1976. Actually, the Jan- 
uary 1 date was proposed in order to ease the 
introduction of new models after September 1, 



PART 571; S 105-75— PRE 29 



Effective: June 9, 1975 



1975, and was not proposed as a means of re- 
ducing costs. The proposal was largely in re- 
sponse to manufacturers' comments that some 
1976 models would be introduced substantially 
later than normal so that 1975 model production 
might be extended beyond September 1, 1975. 
The NHTSA believes that the three years of lead- 
time since promulgation of Standard No. 105-75 
have been sufficient to permit tlie design and test- 
ing of complying brake systems in nearly all 
cases. With the 4-month transitional period, a 
manufacturer will be free to inti'oduce the new 
brake systems along with its new model introduc- 
tion, as dictated by the economic situation of the 
automotive industi-y. 

Ford and Chrysler suggested that the standard 
could be improved by reduced loading during 
brake fade testing. These companies argue that 
present-day brake balance must be modified to 
meet the brake-fade and fourth effectiveness test 
of Standard No. 105-75 and that the new balance 
is not optimum. Agency testing demonstrates 
that many present-day vehicles can in fact meet 
the requirements as their brakes are balanced 
and suggests that major departui^es from current 
brake balance design will generally not be re- 



quired to comply with fade requirements under 
the present test conditions. The NHTSA accord- 
ingly concludes that the presently-specified load- 
ing does not result in characteristics which would 
justify delay of the standard and the consequent 
loss of benefits during the period of delay. 

In consideration of the foregoing, Standard 
No. 105-75 (49 CFR 571.105-75) is amended 

Effective date: The date on which Standard 
No. 105-75 becomes mandatory for all passenger 
cars is January 1, 1976. However, the effective 
date of the amendments to both Standard No. 
10,5-75 and Standard No. 105 is June 9, 1975, and 
passenger cars manufactured between that date 
and January 1, 1976, may conform to either 
standard at the discretion of the manufacturer. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 (15 
U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51.) 



Issued on June 5, 1975. 



James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

40 F.R. 24525 
June 9, 1975 



PART 571; S 105-75— PRE 30 



Effective: September 17, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 105-75 

Hydraulic Brake Systems 
(Docket No. 70-27; Notice 16) 



This notice responds to three petitions for 
reconsideration of recent amendments of Stand- 
ard No. 105-75, Hydraulic brake systems, 49 CFR 
571.105-75 (40 F.R. 11584, March 12, 1975) 
(Notice 13). The petitions requested clarifica- 
tion of new language that specifies minimum 
control force application values (S5.1.4.3(a) (2) 
and S5.1.5.2(a) (2) ) and objected to the NHTSA 
decision to defer for 1 year the requirement for 
a brake fluid level indicator in passenger cars. 

Wagner Electric Corporation requested clari- 
fication of the description of minimum permis- 
sible control force application value, which reads, 
"A minimum of 10 pounds or 40 percent (which- 
ever is greater) less than the average control 
force for the baseline check (but in no case less 
than 5 pounds)." Starting with a baseline 
value, the manufacturer must utilize the lower 
of two values which result when different 
amounts are subtracted from the baseline value. 
Because there is some ambiguity in the language 
used to describe these calculations, the NHTSA 
hereb}' revises the language to improve its clar- 
ity. The new wording in no way modifies the 
meaning of S5.1.4.3(a) (2) and S5J.5.2(a) (2). 

Ford Motor Company, Wagner, and Mercedes- 
Benz requested reconsideration of the decision to 
defer for 1 year the requirement of S5.3.1(b) 
that specifies a brake fluid level indicator. Ford 
and Wagner requested that the indicator be 
permanently deleted from the lequirements in 
view of expense and reliability problems, claim- 
ing that its function is adequately served by the 
pressui'e differential warning that is also re- 
quired by the standard. 

The fluid level indicator detects and signals a 
loss of fluid from the system, whether the loss is 
swift or gradual. In the event of such a dan- 



gerous condition, the vehicle operator is warned 
early that braking function will be lost in the 
future. Unlike the pressure differential indi- 
cator, the fluid level indicator warns the oper- 
ator before one subsystem is effectively depleted 
of all fluid, and permits a repair to be under- 
taken before braking is lost. The indicator 
would also signal leakage at a wheel cylinder 
which could contaminate brake linings and 
create a side-to-side imbalance in braking. 

At the same time, the petitions raise questions 
about the reliability, availability, and cost of 
these devices that cannot be answered without 
further data. The NHTSA is in the process of 
gathering these data, and for this reason is un- 
able to respond to these two petitions within the 
120-day period established for actions on peti- 
tions for reconsideration. The NHTSA antici- 
pates publication of its response no later than 
October 31, 1975. 

Mercedes-Benz argued that the 1-year deferral 
of the brake fluid level indicator discriminated 
against those manufacturers who presently pro- 
vide such a device to meet the present Standard 
No. 105 (49 CFR 571.105). As interpreted. 
Standard No. 105 specifies a pressure differential 
indicator (used by most manufacturers) oi' a 
fluid level indicator (used by Mercedes) to signal 
a complete hydraulic-type failure of a partial 
system. Mercedes aslced that the new standard 
be modified to continue this manufacturer option 
until both systems are required, reasoning that 
either system provides an equal safety benefit. 

As noted in the earlier discussion, a review of 
the benefits found in one warning indicator that 
are not found in the other demonstrates that 
there are separate and significant benefits in each 
warning. The new hydraulic brake standard 



PART 571; S 105-75— PRE 31 



ffFective: September }7, 1975 



specifies both warnings for this reason. The 
fluid level indicator was deferred only because 
of unresolved reliability and availability issues. 
The pressure differential indicator is a proven 
and available device which can be incorporated 
in vehicles at reasonable cost. While the XHTS^V 
does not wish to encourage removal of Mercedes' 
fluid level indicator, it has decided that all pas- 
senger cars should be equipped with the pi'essure 
differential indicator. For these reasons, Mei'- 
cedes' petition is denied. 

In an area unrelated to the rulemaking which 
underlies this response to i^etitions for reconsid- 
eration, Toyota Motor Sales, Inc., has requested 
confirmation that S5.3.2 of the standard requires 
a check of the brake system indicator lamp func- 
tion only when the transmission shift lever is in 
the "P" (park) or "N" (neutral) position (in 
the case of vehicles with automatic transmis- 
sion). The literal wording of S5.3.2 requires a 
check of lamp function without regard to the 
position of the transmission shift lever, whenever 
the ignition switch is turned to the "on" position 
when the engine is not running, or when the 
ignition switch is in a position between "on" and 
"start" that is designated by the manufacturer 
as a check position. In the case of vehicles with 
an automatic transmission, however, this word- 
ing does not reflect the NHTSA's intent with 



respect to the check function. To properly re- 
flect this intent, the language of S5.3.2 is hereby 
modified in accordance with Toyota's request. 
This is an intei'pretative ruling, adding no addi- 
tional burden on any person, concerning which 
the NHTSA finds that notice and opportunity 
for comment are unnecessary, under provisions 
of the Administrative Procedures Act (6 U.S.C. 
§ 553(b) (3) (A)). 

In a separate area, the date of September 1, 
197."), appearing in S7.4.2.1 of the standard is 
changed to January 1, 1976, to conform to the 
standard's new effective date. 

In consideration of the foregoing, Standard 
No. 105-75 (49 CFR 571.10.5-75) is amended. . . . 

Effective date: September 17, 1975. Because 
this amendment relieves a restriction and im- 
poses no additional burden on any person, it is 
found for good cause shown that an immediate 
effective date is in the public interest. 

(Sec. 103, 119 Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407); delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on September 11, 1975. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

40 F.R. 42872 
September 17, 1975 



PART 571; S 105-75— PRE 32 



EfFective: January 1, 1976 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 105-75 



Hydraulic Brake Systems 



ST. Scope. This standard specifies require- 
ments for hydraulic service brake and associated 
parking brake systems. 

52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard 
is to insure safe bralving performance under 
normal and emergency conditions. 

53. Application. [This standard applies to 
passenger cars equipped with hydraulic service 
brake systems, and to school buses manufactured 
on and after October 12, 1976, with hydraulic 
service brake systems. (41 F.E. 2391 — January 
16,1976. Effective: 10/12/76)] 

54. Definitions. "Antilock system" means a 
portion of a service brake system that auto- 
matically controls the degree of rotational wheel 
slip at one or more road wheels of the vehicle 
during braking. 

[•'Backup system" means a portion of a service 
brake system, such as a pump, that supplies 
energy, in the event of a primary brake power 
source failure. (39 F.R. 6708— February 22, 
1974.)] 

"Brake power assist unit" means a device in- 
stalled in a hydraulic brake system that reduces 
the operator effort required to actuate the system, 
and that if inoperative does not prevent the 
operator from braking the vehicle by a continued 
application of muscular force on the service 
brake control. 

"Brake power unit" means a device installed 
in a brake system that provides the energy re- 
quired to actuate the brakes, either directly or 
indirectly througli an auxiliary device, with the 
operator action consisting only of modulating 
the energy application level. 

"Hydraulic brake system" means a system that 
uses hydraulic fluid as a medium for transmit- 
ting force from a service brake control to the 



service brake, and that may incorporate a brake 
power assist unit, or a brake power unit. 

"Initial brake temperature" means the average 
temperature of the service brakes on the hottest 
axle of the vehicle 0.2 mile before any brake 
application. 

"Lightl)' loaded vehicle weight" means: 

(a) for vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 
pounds or less, unloaded vehicle weight plus 300 
pounds (including driver and instrumentation) ; 

(b) for vehicles with a G"\nVR greater than 
10,000 pounds, unloaded vehicle weight plus 500 
poimds (including driver and instrumentation). 

"Parking mechanism" means a component or 
subsystem of the drive train that locks the drive 
train when the transmission control is placed in 
a parking or other gear position and the ignition 
key is removed. 

"Pressure component" means a brake system 
component that contains the brake system fluid 
and controls or senses the fluid pressure. 

"Skid number" means the frictional resistance 
of a pavement measured in accordance with 
American Society for Testing and Materials 
Method E-274-6.5T at 40 mph, omitting water 
delivery as specified in paragraph 7.1 of that 
method. 

"Snub" means the braking deceleration of a 
\ehicle from a higher reference speed to a lower 
reference speed that is greater than zero. 

"Speed attainable in 2 miles" means the speed 
attainable by accelerating at maximum rate from 
a standing start for 2 miles on a level surface. 

"Spike stop" means a stop resulting from the 
application of 200 pounds of force on the service 
brake control in 0.08 second. 



(Rev. 1/17/761 



PART 571; S 105-75-1 



Effective: January 1, 1976 



"Split service brake system" means a brake 
system consisting of two or more subsystems 
actuated by a single control designed so that a 
leakage-type failure of a pressure component in 
a single subsystem (except structural failure of 
a housing that is common to two or more sub- 
systems) shall not impair the operation of any 
other subsystem. 

"Stopping distance" means the distance trav- 
eled by a vehicle from the point of application 
of force to the brake control to the point at which 
the vehicle reaches a full stop. 

"Variable proportioning brake system" means 
a system that automatically adjusts the braking 
force at the axles to compensate for vehicle static 
axle loading and/or dynamic weight transfer 
between axles during deceleration. 

S5. Requirements. 

S5.1 Service brake system. [Each vehicle shall 
be capable of meeting the requirements of 
S5.1.1 through S5.1.6, under the conditions speci- 
fied in S6, when tested according to the proce- 
dures and in the sequence set forth in S7. 
Except as noted in S5.1.1.2 and S5.1.1.4, if a 
vehicle is incapable of attaining a speed specified 
in S5.1.1, S5.1.2, S5.1.3, or S5.1.6, its service 
brakes shall be capable of stopping the vehicle 
from the multiple of 5 mph that is 4 mph to 
8 mph less than the speed attainable in 2 miles, 
within distances that do not exceed the corre- 
sponding distances specified in Table II. If a 
vehicle is incapable of attaining a speed specified 
in S5.1.4 in the time or distance interval set 
forth, it shall be tested at the highest speed at- 
tainable in the time or distance interval specified. 
(40 F.R. 47789— October 10, 1975. Effective: 
10/10/75)] 

S5.1.1 Stopping distance. The service brakes 
shall be capable of stopping each vehicle in four 
effectiveness tests within the distances, and from 
the speeds specified below. 

55. 1.1.1 In the first (preburnished) effective- 
ness test, the vehicle shall be capable of stopping 
from 30 mph and 60 mph within the correspond- 
ing distances specified in Column I of Table II. 

55.1.1.2 [In the second effectiveness test, the 
vehicle shall be capable of stopping from 30 and 
60 mph within the corresponding distances 



specified in Column II of Table II. If the speed 
attainable in 2 miles is not less than 84 mph, 
a passenger car shall also be capable of stopping 
from 80 m))h within the corresponding distance 
specified in Column II of Table II. (41 F.R. 
2391— January 16, 1976. Effective: 10/12/76)] 

55.1 .1 .3 [In the third effectiveness test the ve- 
hicle shall be capable of stopping at lightly 
londed vehicle weight from 60 mph within the 
corresponding distance specified in Column III 
of Table II. (41 F.R. 2391— January 16, 1976. 
Effective: 10/12/76)] 

55.1.1.4 [In the fourth effectiveness test, a 
vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less 
shall be capable of stopping from 30 and 60 mph 
within the corresponding distances specified in 
Column I of Table II. If the speed attainable 
in 2 miles is not less than 84 mph, a passenger 
car shall also be capable of stopping from 80 
mph within the corresponding distance specified 
in Column I of Table II. 

If the speed attainable in 2 miles is not less 
than 99 mph, a passenger car shall, in addition, 
be capable of stopping from the applicable speed 
indicated below, within the corresponding dis- 
tance specified in Column I of Table II. (41 F.R. 
2391— January 16, 1976. Effective: 10/12/76)] 

Speed aUahiable Required to 

hi 2 miJes (mph) stop from (mph) 

not less than 99 but less 

than 104 95 

104 or more 100 

S5.1.2 Partial failure. 

[S5.1 .2.1 In vehicles manufactured with a 
split service brake system, in the event of a rup- 
ture or leakage type of failure in a single sub- 
system, other than a structural failure of a 
housing that is common to two or more sub- 
systems, the remaining portion (s) of the service 
brake system shall continue to operate and shall 
he capable of stopping a vehicle from 60 mph 
within the corresponding distance specified in 
Column IV of Table II. 

S5. 1.2.2 In vehicles not manufactured with a 
split service brake system, in the event of any 
one rupture or leakage type of failure in any 
component of the service brake system the ve- 
hicle shall, by operation of the service brake 



(Rev. 1/17/76) 



PART 571; S 105-75-2 



Effective: January 1 , 1 976 

Table I— BRAKE TEST PROCEDURE SEQUENCE AND REQUIREMENTS 



No. 



Sequence 



Test Load 



Light 



GVWR 



Test 
Procedure 



Require- 
ments 



1. 
2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 
10. 
11. 
12. 
13. 
14. 
15. 
16. 
17. 
18. 



Instrumentation check 

First (preburnish) effectiveness test 

Burnish procedure 

Second effectiveness 

First reburnish 

Parking brake 

Third effectiveness (lightly loaded vehicle) 

Partial failure 

Inoperative brake power and power assist units 

First fade and recovery 

Second reburnish 

Second fade and recovery 

Third reburnish 

Fourth effectiveness 

Water recovery 

Spike stops 

Final inspection 

Moving barrier test 



X 
X 
X 
X 

X 

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 



S7.2 

S7.3 

S7.4 

S7.5 

S7.6 

S7.7 

S7.8 

S7.9 

S7. 10 

S7.ll 

S7.12 

57. 13 

57. 14 

57. 15 

57. 16 

57. 17 

57. 18 

57. 19 



S5. 1.1.1 

S5. 1.1.2 

S5.2 

S5. 1.1.3 
S5. 1.2 
S5. 1.3 
S5. 1.4 

S5. 1.4 

S5.1.1.4 
S5. 1.5 
S5. 1.6 
S5.6 
S5.2.2.3 



control, be capable of stopping 10 times conse- 
cutively from 60 mph within the corresponding 
distance specified in Column IV of Table II. 
(40 F.E. 47789— October 10, 1975. Effective: 
10/10/75)] 

S5.1.3 Inoperative brake power assist unit or 
brake power unit. £A passenger car equipped 
with one or more brake power assist units shall 
meet the requirements of either S5.1.3.1, S5.1.3.2, 
or S5.1.3.4 (chosen at the option of the manu- 
facturer) , and a passenger car equipped with one 
or more brake power units shall meet the require- 
ments of either S5.1.3.1, S5.1.3.3, or S5.1.3.4 
(chosen at the option of the manufacturer). A 
vehicle other than a passenger car shall meet the 
requirements of S5.1.3.1. (41 F.R. 2391— Janu- 
ary 16, 1976. Effective: 10/12/76)] 

55. 1.3.1 The service brakes on a vehicle 
equipped with one or more brake power assist 
units or brake power units, with one such unit 
inoperative and depleted of all reserve capabil- 
ity, shall be capable of stopping a vehicle from 
60 mph within the corresponding distance speci- 
fied in Column IV of Table II. 

55.1.3.2 Brake power assist units. The service 
brakes on a vehicle equipped with one or more 



brake power assist units, with one such unit in- 
operative, shall be callable of stopping a vehicle 
from 60 mi:)h — 

(a) In six consecutive stops at an average de- 
celeration for each stop that is not lower than 
that specified in Column I of Table III, when 
the inoperative unit is not initially depleted of 
all reserve capability; and 

(b) [In a final stop, at an average decelera- 
tion that is not lower than 7 fpsps (equivalent 
stopping distance 554 feet) when the inoperative 
unit is depleted of all reserve capability. (41 
F.R. 2391— January 16, 1976. Effective: 
10/12/76)] 

S5. 1.3.3 Brake power units. [The service 
brakes of a vehicle equipped with one or more 
brake power imits with an accumulator-type re- 
serve system, with any one failure in any one 
unit, shall be capable of stopping the vehicle 
from 60 mph, (40 F.R. 47789— October 10, 1975. 
Effective: 10/10/75)] 

(a) In 10 consecutive stops at an average de- 
celeration for each stop that is not lower than 
that specified in Column II of Table III, when 
the unit is not initially depleted of all reserve 
capability; and 



IRev. 1/17/76) 



PART 571; S 105-75-3 



Effective: January 1, 1976 



Table II— STOPPING DISTANCES 







STOPPING DISTANCE 


IN FEET FOR TESTS INDICATED 


VEHICLE 


I 


II 


Ill 


IV 


TEST SPEED, 
MPH 


1st (Preburnish) 
and 4th Effective- 
ness; Spike Effec- 
tiveness Check 


2n<i 


Effectiveness 


3rd (Lightly 

Loaded Vehicle) 

Effectiveness 


Inoperative Brake 

Power and Power 

Assist Unit ; 

Partial Failure 




(a) 


(b) 


(c) 


(a) 


(b) 


(c) 


(a) 


(b) 


(c) 


(a) 


(b) 


(c) 






69>" * 






















30 


57* 


65^'* * 


88* 


54* 


65* 


81* 


51 


65 


81 


114 


194 


218 


35 


74 


110 


132 


70 


110 


132 


67 


110 


132 


155 


264 


312 


40 


96 


144 


173 


91 


144 


173 


87 


144 


173 


202 


345 


388 


45 


121 


182 


218 


115 


182 


218 


110 


182 


218 


257 


436 


490 


50 


150 


225 


264 


142 


225 


264 


135 


225 


264 


317 


538 


605 


55 


181 


272 


326 


172 


272 


326 


163 


272 


326 


383 


651 


732 


60 


216* 


323* 


388* 


204* 


323* 


388* 


194* 


323* 


388* 


456* 


775* 


872* 


80 


405* 


N.A 


N.A. 


383* 


N.A. 


N.A. 


N.A. 


N.A. 


N.A. 


N.A. 


N.A. 


N.A. 


95 


607 


N.A. 


N.A. 


N.A. 


N.A. 


N.A. 


N.A. 


N.A. 


N.A. 


N.A. 


N.A. 


N.A. 


100 


673 

























I 



Distances for specified tests. N.A. Not Applicable. 

(a) Passenger cars 

(b) Vehicles other than passenger cars with GVWR of 10, 000 pounds or less. 

(c) Vehicles other than passenger cars with GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. 
[(41 F.R. 2391— January 16, 1976. Effective: 10/12/76)1 



i 



Table III— INOPERATIVE BRAKE POWER ASSIST AND BRAKE POWER UNITS 



(Passenger Cars) 





Average Deceleration, FPSPS 


Equivalent Stopping Distance, Feet 


Stop. No 










Column 1 1 Column 2 


Column 3 


Column 4 




Brake Power Assist 


Brake Power Unit 


Brake Power Assist 


Brake Power Unit 


1. 


16 


16 


242 


242 


2. 


12 


13 


323 


298 


3. 


10 


12 


388 


323 


4. 


9 


11 


431 


352 


5. 


8 


10 


484 


388 


6. 


7.5 


9.5 


517 


409 


7. 


(Depleted) 










7.0 


9.0 


554 


431 


8. 


N.A. 


8.5 


N.A. 


456 


9. 


N.A. 


8.0 


N.A. 


484 


10. 


N.A. 


7.5 


N.A. 


517 


11. 


N.A. 


(Depleted) 
7.0 


N.A. 


554 



[(41 F.R. 2391— January 16, 1976. Effective: 10/12/76)3 



IRev. 1/17/76) 



PART 571; S 105-75^ 



« 



EfTeclive: January 1, 1976 



(equivalent stopping distance 646 feet), as ap- 
plicable, wlien the inoperative unit is depleted 
of all reserve capability. (39 F.R. 25944— 
July 15, 1974)] 

S5. 1.3.4 Brake power assist and brake power 
units. £T)ie service brake of a vehicle equipped 
with one or more brake j^ower assist units or 
brake power units with a backup system, with 
one brake power assist unit or brake power unit 
inoperative and depleted of all reserve ca23ability 
and with only the backup system operating in 
the failed subsystem, shall be cajsable of stopping 
the vehicle fi'om 60 inph in 15 consecutive stops 
at an average deceleration for each stop that is 
not lower than 12 fpsps (equivalent stopping dis- 
tance 32.3 feet). (40 F.R. 11584— March 12, 1975. 
Effective: 9/1/75)] 

S5.1.4 Fade and recovery. The service brakes 
shall be capable of stopping each vehicle in two 
fade and recovery tests as specified below. 

55. 1.4.1 [The control force used for the base- 
line check stops or snubs shall be not less than 
10 pounds, nor more than 60 pounds, except that 
the control force for a vehicle with a GVWR of 
15,000 pounds or more manufactured between 
.September 1, 1975, and September 1, 1977. may 
be between 10 and 90 pounds. (39 F.E. 25944-^ 
July 15, 1974)] 

55.1.4.2 [(a) Each vehicle with GTWU of 
10,000 pounds or less shall be capable of making 
five fade stops (10 fade stops on the second test) 
from 60 mph at a deceleration not lower than 15 
ft/s/s for each stop, followed by five fade stops 
at the maximum deceleration attainable from 5 
to 15 ft/s/s. (39 F.R. 6708— February 22, 1974.)] 

(b) Each vehicle with a GVAVR greater than 
10,000 jDounds shall be capable of making 10 
fade snubs (20 fade snubs on the second test) 
from 40 mph to 20 mph at 10 fpsps for each 
snub. 

S5. 1.4.3 (a) [Each vehicle with a G^^VR of 
10,000 i:)ounds or less shall be capable of making 
five recovery stops from 30 mph at ten fpsps for 
each stop, with a control force application that 
falls within the following maximum and mini- 
mum limits: 

(1) A maxinumi for the first four recovery 

stops of 150 pounds, and for the fifth stop, of 



20 poimds more than the average control force 
for the baseline check; and 
(2) [A minimum of — 

(a) The average control force for the 
baseline check minus 10 pounds, or 

(b) The average control force for the 
baseline check times 0.60, 

whichever result is lower (but in no case lower 
than 5 pounds). (40 F.R. 42872— September 17, 
1975. Effective: 9/17/75)] 

(b) Each vehicle with a G^'^VR between 
10.000 pounds and 15.000 pounds, and each ve- 
hicle with a GVWR greater than 15,000 pounds 
manufactured on and after SejDtember 1, 1977, 
shall be capable of making five recovery snubs 
from 40 mph to 20 mph at 10 fjisps for each 
snub, with a control force for the fifth snub that 
is within plus 20 pounds and the greater of 
minus 10 pounds or minus 40 percent (but not 
less than 5 pounds) of the average control force 
for the baseline check. 

(c) Each vehicle with a G^HYR greater than 
15,000 pounds manufactured between September 
1. 1975 and September 1, 1977, shall be capable 
of making five recovery snubs from 40 mph to 
20 mph at 10 fjisps for each snub, with a control 
force for the fifth snub that is within the lesser 
of plus 20 pounds of the average control force 
for the baseline check or 100 pounds, and the 
greater of minus 10 pounds or minus 40 per cent 
(but not less than 5 pounds) of the average 
control force for the baseline check. (39 F.R. 
25944— July 15, 1974)] 

S5.1.5 Woter recovery. The service brakes 
shall be capable of stopping each vehicle in a 
water recovery test, as specified below. 

S5. 1.5.1 [The control force used for the base- 
line check stops or snubs shall be not less than 
10 pounds, nor more than 60 pounds, excei)t that 
the control force for a \ehicle with a G\1VR of 
15,000 pounds or more manufactured between 
September 1, 1975, and September 1, 1977. may 
be between 10 and 90 pounds. (39 F.R. 25944^ 
July 15. 1974)] 

S5.1.5.2(a) [Except as provided in i)aragraph 
(b), after being driven for two minutes at a speed 
of five mph in any combination of forward and 
reverse directions through a trough having a 
water depth of six inches, each vehicle shall be 



(Rev. 9/11/75) 



PART 571; S 105-75-5 



231-088 0-77-19 



Effective: January 1, 1976 



capable of making five recovery stops from 30 
mph at ten fpsps for each stop with a control 
force application that falls within the following 
maximum and mininiiun limits: 

(1) A maxinunn for the first four recovery 
stops of 150 pounds, and for the fifth stop, of 
45 poimds more tlian the average control force 
for the baseline cheek (but in no case more than 
90 pounds) ; and 

(2) [A minimum of — 

(a) The average control force for the 
baseline check minus 10 pounds, or 

(b) The average control force for the 
baseline check times 0.60, 

whichever result is lower (but in no case lower 
than 5 pounds). (40 F.R. 42872 — September 17, 
1975. Effective : 9/17/75 ) ] 

[How^ever, the maximum control force for the 
fifth stop in the case of a vehicle manufactured 
before September 1, 1976, shall be not more 
than plus 60 i)ounds of the average control force 
for the baseline check (but in no case moi-e than 
110 pounds). (40 F.R. 24524— June 9, 1975. 
Effective: 6/9/75)3 

[(b) Each vehicle with a GVWR greater than 
15,000 pounds manufactured between September 
1, 1975, and September 1, 1977, after being 
driven for 2 minutes at a speed of 5 mph in any 
combination of forward and reverse directions 
through a trough having a water depth of 6 
inches, shall be capable of making five recovery 
stops from 30 mph at 10 fpsps for each stop 
with a control force for the fifth recovery stop 
that is within the lesser of plus 30 pounds of the 
average control force for the baseline check or 
110 pounds, and the greater of minus 10 pounds 
or minus 40 percent (but not less than 5 pounds) 
of the average control force for the baseline 
check. (39 F.R. 25945 — July 15, 1974)] 

S5.1.6 Spike stops. Each vehicle shall be 
capable of making 10 spike stops from 30 mph 
followed by 6 effectiveness (check) stops from 
60 mph, at least one of which shall be within 
a corresponding stopping distance specified in 
Column I of Table II. 

S5.2 Parking brake system. Each vehicle shall 
be manufactured with a parking brake system 
of a friction type with a solely mechanical means 
to retain engagement, which shall under the con- 



ditions of S6, when tested according to the pro- 
cedures specified in S7, meet the requirements 
specified in S5.2.1, S5.2.2, or S5.2.3 as applicable, 
when the system is engaged with a force applied 
to the control not to exceed 125 pounds for a 
foot-operated system and 90 pounds for a hand- 
operated system. 

55.2.1 Except as provided in S5.2.2, the park- 
ing brake system on each passenger car, and on 
each multipurpose jsassenger vehicle, truck or 
bus, with a GVIVR of 10,000 pounds or less, 
shall be capable of holding the vehicle stationary 
(to the limit of traction of the braked wheels) 
for 5 minutes, in both a forward and reverse 
direction on a 30 j^ercent grade. 

55.2.2 A vehicle of a type described in S5.2.1 
at the option of the manufacturer may meet the 
requirements of S5.2.2.1, S5.2.2.2, and S5.2.2.3 
instead of the requirements of S5.2.1 if: 

(a) The vehicle has a transmission or trans- 
mission control which incorj^orates a parking 
mechanism, and 

(b) The parking mechanism must be engaged 
before the ignition key can be removed. 

55.2.2.1 The vehicle's parking brake and park- 
ing mechanism, when both are engaged, shall be 
capable of holding the vehicle stationary (to the 
limit of traction of the braked wheels) for 5 
minutes, in both forward and reverse directions, 
on a 30 percent grade. 

55.2.2.2 The vehicle's parking brake, with the 
parking mechanism not engaged, shall be capable 
of holding the vehicle stationary for 5 minutes, 
in both forward and reverse directions, on a 20 
percent grade. 

55.2.2.3 AVith the parking mechanism engaged 
and the parking brake not engaged, the parking 
mechanism shall not disengage or fracture in a 
manner jDermitting ^■ehicle movement, when the 
vehicle is impacted at each end, on a level sur- 
face, by a barrier moving at 21/2 mph. 

55.2.3 The parking brake system on each 
multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, or bus, 
with a GT\VR greater than 10,000 pounds, shall 
be cajjable of holding the vehicle stationary for 
5 minutes, in both forward and reverse direc- 
tions, on a 20 percent grade. 

S5.3 Brake system indicator lamp. Each ve- 
hicle shall have one or more brake system indi- 



IRev. 9/11/75) 



PART 571; S 105-75-6 



Effective: January 1 , 1 976 



cator lamps, mounted in front of and in clear 
view of the driver, wliich meet the requirements 
of S5.3.1 through S5.3.5. 

55.3.1 An indicator lamp shall be activated 
when the ignition (start) switch is in the "on" 
("run") position and whenever any of the fol- 
lowing conditions occur : 

(a) [xV gross loss of pressure (such as caused 
by rupture of a brake line but not by a structural 
failure of a housing that is common to two or 
more subsystems) due to one of the following 
conditions (chosen at the option of the manufac- 
turer) : (40 F.E. 1158-J— March 12, 1975. Effec- 
tive: 9/1/75)] 

(1) Before or uj^on application of a differ- 
ential pressure of not more than 225 lb/in- 
between the active and failed brake sj'stem 
measured at a master cylinder outlet or a slave 
cylinder outlet. 

(2) Before or upon application of 50 pounds 
of control force upon a fully manual service 
brake. 

(3) Before or upon application of 25 pounds 
of control force upon a service brake with a 
brake power assist unit. 

(4) "WHien the supply pressure in a brake 
power unit drops to a level not less than one- 
half of the normal system pressure. (39 F.R. 
6708— February 22. 1974.)] 

(b) [A drop in the level of brake fluid in any 
master cylinder reservoir compartment to less 
than the recommended safe le\-el specified by the 
manufacturer or to one-fourth of the fluid ca- 
pacity of that reservoir compartment, whichever 
is greater. (40 F.R. 11584— March 12, 1975. Ef- 
fective: 9/1/75)] 

(c) A total functional electrical failure in an 
antilock or variable proportioning brake system. 

(d) Application of the parking brake. 

[A vehicle manufactured before September 1, 
1976, need not meet the requirements of subpara- 
graph (b). (40 F.R. 11584— March 12, 1975. 
Effective: 9/1/75)] 

55.3.2 [All indicator lamps shall be activated 
as a check of lamp fimction either when the ig- 
nition (start) switch is turned to the "on" 
("run") position when the engine is not running, 



or when (he ignition (start) switch is in a posi- 
tion between "on" ("run") and "start" that is 
designated by the manufacturer as a check 
position. However, in vehicles equipped with 
an automatic transmission, the activation as a 
check of lamp function is not required when the 
transmission shift lever is in a forward or re- 
verse drive position. (40 F.E. 42872 — Septem- 
ber 17, 1975. Effective: 9/17/75)] 

55.3.3 Each indicator lamp activated due to a 
condition specified in S5.3.1 shall remain acti- 
vated as long as the condition exists, whenever 
the ignition (start) switch is in the "on" ("run") 
Ijosition, whether or not the engine is running. 

55.3.4 When an indicator lamp is activated it 
may be steady burning or flashing. 

55.3.5 [Each indicator lamp shall have a lens 
labeled in letters not less than one-eighth inch 
high, which shall be legible to the driver in day- 
light when lighted. The lens and the letters shall 
have contrasting colors, one of which is red. If 
a single common indicator is used, the lens shall 
be labeled "Brake." If separate indicator lamps 
are used for one or more of the various functions 
described in S5.3.1(a) to S5.3.1(d), the lens shall 
include the word "Brake" and appropriate addi- 
tional labeling (use "Brake Pressure," "Brake 
Fluid" for S5.3.1(a) and S5.3.1(b)) except that 
if a separate parking indicator lamp is provided, 
the single word "Park" may be used. An anti- 
lock system may have a separate lens labeled 
"Antilock," in letters not less than one-eighth of 
an inch high, which shall be legible to the driver 
in daylight when lighted, if the indicator is used 
only for the antilock system. The lens and the 
letters shall have contrasting colors, one of which 
is yellow. (39 F.R. 6708— February 22, 1974.)] 

S5.4 Reservoirs. 

55.4.1 Master cylinder reservoirs. A master 
cylinder shall have a reservoir compartment for 
each service brake subsystem serviced by the 
master cylinder. Loss of fluid from one com- 
partment shall not result in a complete loss of 
brake fluid from another compartment. 

55.4.2 Reservoir capacity. [Reservoirs, whether 
for master cylinders or other type systems, shall 
have a total minimum capacity equivalent to the 
fluid displacement resulting when all the wheel 
cylinders or caliper pistons serviced by the reser- 



(Rev. 9/11/75) 



PART 571; S 105-75-7 



Effective: January 1, 1976 



voirs move from a new lining, fully retracted 
position (as adjusted initially to the manufac- 
turer's recommended setting) to a fully worn, 
fully applied position, as determined in accord- 
ance with S7.18(c) of this standard. Reservoirs 
shall have completely separate compartments for 
each subsystem except that in reservoir systems 
utilizing a portion of the reservoir for a common 
supply to two or more subsystems, individual 
partial compartments shall each have a minimum 
volume of fluid equal to at least the volume dis- 
placed by the master cylinder piston servicing 
the subsystem, during a full stroke of the piston. 
Each brake power unit reservoir servicing only 
the brake system shall have a minimum capacity 
equivalent to the fluid displacement required to 
charge the system piston (s) or accumulator (s) 
to normal operating pressure plus the displace- 
ment resulting when all the wheel cylinders or 
caliper pistons serviced by the reservoir or ac- 
cumulator(s) move from a new lining fully re- 
tracted position (as adjusted initially to the 
manufacturer's recommended setting) to a fully 
worn, fully applied position. (39 F.R. 6708 — 
February 22, 1974.)] 

S5.4.3 Reservoir labeling. Each vehicle shall 
have a brake fluid warning statement that reads 
as follows, in letters at least % of an inch high : 
"WARNING, Clean filler cap before removing. 



Use only 



fluid from 



a sealed container." (Inserting the recommended 
type of brake fluid as specified in 49 CFR 
§571.116, e.g. "DOT 3".) The lettering shall 
be— 

(a) Permanently affixed, engraved, or em- 
bossed ; 

(b) Located so as to be visible by direct view, 
either on or within 4 inches of the brake fluid 
reservoir filler plug or cap ; and 

(c) Of a color that contrasts with its back- 
ground, if it is not engraved or embossed. 

S5.5 Antilock and variable proportioning brake 
systems. In the event of failure (structural or 
functional) in an antilock or variable propor- 
tioning brake system the vehicle shall be capable 
of meeting the stopping distance requirements 
specified in S5.1.2 for service brake system par- 
tial failure. 



S5.6 Brake system integrity. Each vehicle 
shall be capable of completing all performance | 
requirements of S5 without — 

(a) Detachment or fracture of any component 
of the braking system, such as brake springs and 
brake shoe or disc pad facing, other than minor 
cracks that do not impair attachment of the 
friction facing. All mechanical components of 
the braking system shall be intact and func- 
tional. Friction facing tearout (complete de- 
tachment of lining) shall not exceed 10 per cent 
of the lining on any single frictional element. 

(b) Any visible brake fluid or lubricant on 
the friction surface of the brake, or leakage at 
the master cylinder or brake power unit reservoir 
cover, seal and filler openings. 

S6. Test conditions. The performance require- 
ments of S5 shall be met under the following 
conditions. Where a range of conditions is speci- 
fied, the vehicle shall be capable of meeting the 
requirements at all points within the range. 

S6.1 Vehicle v^eight. 

56.1.1 [Other than tests specified at lightly 
loaded vehicle weight in S7.7, S7.8, and S7.9, the 
vehicle is loaded to its GVWR such that the ( 
weight on each axle as measured at the tire- 
ground interface is in proportion to its GAWR, 
with the test load material densities specified in 
S6.2, except that the fuel tank is filled to any 
level from 100 per cent of capacity (correspond- 
ing to full GVAVR loading) to 75 per cent of 
capacity. (39 F.R. 6708— February 22, 1974.)] 

[However, if the weight on any axle of a ve- 
hicle at lightly loaded vehicle weight exceeds 
the axle's proportional share of the gross vehicle 
weight rating, the load required to reach GVWR 
is placed so that the weiglit on that axle remains 
the same as at lightly loaded vehicle weight. 
(39 F.R. 25945— July 16, 1974)] 

56.1.2 For the applicable tests specified in 

S7.7, S7.8, and S7.9, vehicle weight is lightly 
loaded vehicle weight, with the added weight 
distributed in the front passenger seat area in 
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles 
and trucks, and in the area adjacent to the driv- 
er's seat in buses. 



(Rev. 6/5/751 



PART 571; S 105-75-8 



Effective: January 1 , 1 976 



56.2 Test loads. The load material is of the 
density specified below and is distributed in ve- 
hicle cargo areas and/or seating areas as follows : 

[Seating areas: 50 to 450 Ib/ft^ (all vehicles) 
Cargo areas: 50 to 450 Ib/ft^ (all vehicles, 
including passenger cars, with a G"V^VR of 
10.000 lbs or less), 

400 to 725 Ib/ft^ (vehicles with a G"V1VR that 
exceeds 10,000 lbs). 
(39 F.E. 6708— February 22, 1974.)] 
The load material for trucks with a tanker type 
body is water. If GTWR is not reached, weight 
is added to obtain G'SHVE, distributed propor- 
tionally to GAWE. 

56.3 Tire inflation pressure. Tire inflation 
pressure is the pressure recommended by the 
vehicle manufacturer for the GVWR of the 
vehicle. 

56.4 Transmission selector control. For S7.3, 
S7.5, S7.S, S7.15, S7.17, S7.11.1.2, S7.11.2.2, 
S7.11.3.2, and as required for S7.13, the trans- 
mission selector control is in neutral for all 
decelerations. For all other tests during all de- 
celerations, the transmission selector is in the 
control position, other than overdrive, recom- 
mended by the manufacturer for driving on a 
level surface at the applicable test speed. To 
avoid engine stall during tests required to be 
run in gear a manual transmission may be shifted 
to neutral (or the clutch disengaged) when the 
vehicle speed decreases to 20 mph. 

56.5 Engine. Engine idle speed and ignition 
timing settings are according to the manufac- 
turer's recommendations. If the vehicle is 
equipped with an adjustable engine speed gov- 
ernor, it is adjusted according to the manufac- 
turer's recommendation. 

56.6 Vehicle openings. All vehicle openings 
(doors, windows, hood, trunk, convertible top, 
cargo doors, etc.) are closed except as required 
for instrumentation purposes. 

56.7 Ambient temperature. The ambient tem- 
perature is any temperature between 32° F. and 
100° F. 

56.8 Wind velocity. The wind velocity is zero. 

56.9 Road surface. Eoad tests are conducted 
on a 12-foot-wide, level roadway having a skid 
number of 75. Burnish stops are conducted on 



any surface. The parking brake test surface is 
clean, dry, smooth Portland cement concrete. 

56.10 Vehicle position. [The vehicle is aligned 
in the center of the roadway at the start of each 
brake application . Stops, other than spike stops, 
are made without any part of the vehicle leaving 
the roadway. Except as noted below, stops are 
made without lockup of any wheel at speeds 
greater than 10 mph. There may be controlled 
lockup on an antilock-equipped axle, and lockup 
of not more than one wheel jjer vehicle, uncon- 
trolled by an antilock system. Locked wheels at 
speeds greater than 10 mph are allowed during 
spike stops (but not spike check stops) partial 
failure stops and inoperative brake power or 
power assist unit stops. (39 F.R. 6708— Feb- 
ruary 22, 1974.)] 

56.1 1 Thermocouples. The brake temperature 
is measured by plug-type thermocouples installed 
in the ai^proximate center of the facing length 
and width of the most heavily loaded shoe or 
disc pad, one per brake, as shown in Figure 1. 
A second thermocouple may be installed at the 
beginning of the test sequence if tlie lining wear 
is exjiected to reach a point causing the first 
thermocouple to contact the metal rubbing sur- 
face of a drum or rotor. For center-grooved 
shoes or jDads, thermocouples are installed within 




ceoniiLNaii 
aiooizMiMAK 



FIGURE 1 - TYPICAL PLUG THERMOCOUPLE INSTALLATIONS 



Not* 


Th* Mcond tharmocoupla ihall b* imttllad 


■1 .080 •net' 




dtfitti •wiltlin 1 inch circumfarvntiillv o< tt> 






liWtdlMt at .040 inch (taplh. 





(Rev. 6/S/75) 



PART 571; S 105-75-9 



Effective: January 1, 1976 



one-eightli of an inch to one-quarter inch of the 
groove and as close to the center as possible. 

56.12 Initial brake temperature. Unless other- 
wise specified the brake temperature is 150° F. 
to 200° F. 

56.13 Control forces. Unless otherwise speci- 
fied, the force apjilied to a brake control is not 
less than 15 pounds and not more than 150 
pounds. 

S7. Test procedures and sequence. [Each ve- 
hicle shall be capable of meeting all the require- 
ments of S5 when testing according to the 
procedures and in the sequence set forth below, 
without replacing any brake system part or 
making any adjustments to the brake system 
other than as permitted in burnish and reburnish 
procedures and in S7.9 and S7.10. Automatic 
adjusters may be locked out, according to the 
manufacturer's recommendation, when the ve- 
hicle is prepared for testing. If this option is 
selected, adjusters must remain locked out for 
entire sequence of tests. A vehicle shall be 
deemed to comply with the stopping distance 
requirements of S5.1 if at least one of the stops 
at each speed and load specified in each of S7.3, 
S7.5, S7.8, S7.9, S7.10, S7.15, or S7.17 (check 
stops) is made within a stopping distance that 
does not exceed the corresponding distance speci- 
fied in Table II. (39 F.R. 25915— July 15, 1974)3 

[When the transmission selector control is re- 
quired to be in neutral for a deceleration, a stop 
or snub shall be obtained by the following pro- 
cedures: (1) Exceed the test speed by four to 
eight mph; (2) close the throttle and coast in 
gear to approximately two mph above the test 
speed; (3) shift to neutral; and (4) when the 
test speed is reached, apjily the service brakes. 
(40 F.R. 11584— March 12, 1975. Effective: 
9/1/75)3 

57.1 Brake warming. If the initial brake 
temperature for the first stop in a test jjrocedure 
(other than S7.7 and S7.16) has not been reached, 
heat the brakes to the initial brake temperature 
by making not more than 10 snubs from not 
more than 40 mph to 10 mph, at a deceleration 
not greater than 10 fpsps. 

57.2 Pretest instrumentation check. Conduct a 
general check of instrumentation by making not 
more than 10 stops from a speed of not more 



than 30 mph, or 10 snubs from a speed of not 
more than 40 mph to 10 mph, at a deceleration 
of not more than 10 fpsps. If instrument repair, 
replacement, or adjustment is necessary, make 
not more than 10 additional stops or snubs after 
such repair, replacement or adjustment. 

57.3 Service brake system — first (preburnish) 
effectiveness test. Make six stops from 30 mph. 
Then make six stops from 60 mph. 

57.4 Service brake system — burnish procedure. 

57.4.1 Vehicles with GVWR of 10,000 pounds 
or less. 

57.4.1.1 Burnish. Burnish the brakes by mak- 
ing 200 stops from 40 mph at 12 fpsps (the 150 
pound control force limit does not apply here). 
The interval from the start of one service brake 
application to the start of the next shall be either 
the time necessary to reduce the initial brake 
temperature to between 230° F. and 270° F., or 
the distance of 1 mile, whichever occurs first. 
Accelerate to 40 mph after each stop and main- 
tain that speed until making the next stop. 

57.4.1.2 Brake adjustment — post burnish. 
[After burnishing, adjust the brakes manually 
in accordance with the manufacturer's recom- 
mendation if the brake systems are manual or if 
the automatic adjusters are locked out, or by 
making stops as recommended by the manufac- 
turer if the automatic adjuster are operative. 
(39 F.R. 2594.5— July 15, 1974)] 

57.4.2 Vehicles with GVWR greater than 10,000 
pounds. 

S7 .4.2.1 Burnish. [The brakes of a vehicle 
manufactured between January 1, 1976 and 
September 1, 1976 may be burnished according 
to S7.4.2.1.1 or S7.4.9.1.2. The brakes of a ve- 
hicle manufactured on or after September 1, 
1976 shall be burnished according to S7.4.2.1.2. 
(40 F.R. 42872— September 17, 1975. Effective: 
9/17/75)] 

S7.4.2.1.1 [Burnish the brakes by making 400 
snubs from 40 mph to 20 mph at 10 fpsps (the 
150-lb control force limit does not apply here). 
After each brake application, accelerate to 40 
mph and maintain that speed until making the 
next brake application at a point 1.5 miles from 
the initial point of the previous brake applica- 
tion. (39 F.R. 6708— February 22, 1974)] 



IRev. 9/H/75) 



PART 571; S 105-75-10 



Effective: January 1, 1976 



pound control force limit does not apply here). 
The interval from the start of one service brake 
application to the start of the next shall be either 
the time necessary to reduce the initial brake 
temperature to between 230° F. and 270° F., or 
the distance of 1 mile, whichever occurs first. 
Accelerate to 40 mph after each stop and main- 
tain that speed until making the next stop. 

S7.4.1.2 Brake adjustment — post burnish. 

[After burnishing, adjust the brakes manually 
in accordance with the manufacturer's recom- 
mendation if tlie brake systems are manual or if 
the automatic adjusters are locked out, or by 
making stops as recommended by the manufac- 
turer if the automatic adjusters are operative. 
(.",9 F.R. 2.5945— July 1.5. 1974)] 

S7.4.2 Vehicles with GVWR greater than 10,000 
pounds. 

S7 .4.2.1 Burnish. [Burnish the brakes by mak- 
ing 500 snubs at 10 f psps in the sequence specified 
in Table IV and within the speed ranges indi- 
cated. After each brake application accelerate to 
the next speed specified and maintain that speed 
until making the next brake application at a 
point 1 mile from the initial point of the previous 
brake application. If a vehicle cannot attain any 
speed specified in 1 mi, continue to accelerate 
until the speed specified is reached or until a 
point 1.5 mi from the initial point of the previous 
brake application is reached, whichever occurs 
first. If during any of the brake applications 
specified in Table IV the hottest brake reaches 
500° F. make the remainder of the 500 applica- 
tions from that snub condition, except that a 
higher or lower snub condition shall be followed 
(up to the 60 mph initial speed) as necessary to 
maintain a temperature of 500° F.±50° F. (41 
F.R. 2391— January 16, 1976. Effective: 
10/12/76)] 

Table IV 
Series Snubs Snub conditions 

(highest speed indicated) 

1 175 40 to 20 mph 

2 25 45 to 20 mph 

3 25 50 to 20 mph 

4 25 55 to 20 mph 

5 250 60 to 20 mph 

[(39 F.R. 6708— February 22, 1974.)] 



S7.4.2.2 Brake adjustment — post burnish. 

[After burnishing, adjust the brakes manually 
in accordance with the manufacturer's recom- 
mendation if the brake systems are manual or 
if the automatic adjusters are locked out, or by 
making stops as recommended by the manufac- 
turer if the automatic adjusters are operative. 
(39 F.R. 25945— July 15, 1974)] 

57.5 Service brake system — second effectiveness 
test. [Repeat S7.3. Then (for passenger cars) 
make four stops from 80 mph if the speed attain- 
able in 2 miles is not less than 84 mph. (41 F.R. 
2391— January 16, 1976. Effective: 10/12/76)] 

57.6 First reburnish. [Repeat S7.4. except 
make 35 burnish stops or snubs. Reburnish a 
vehicle whose brakes are burnished according to 
S7.4.2.1 by making 35 snubs from 60 mph to 
20 mph, but if the hottest brake reaches 500° F.± 
50° F. make the remainder of the 35 applications 
from such initial speed divisible by five but less 
than 60 mph as necessary to maintain a tempera- 
ture of 500° F.±50° F. (39 F.R. 25945— July 
15, 1974)] 

57.7 Parking brake test. [The parking brake 
tests for any vehicle on different grades, in dif- 
ferent directions, and for different loads may be 
conducted in any order. The force required for 
actuation of a hand-operated brake system shall 
be measured at the center of the hand grip area 
or at a distance of li/^ inches from the end of 
the actuation lever, as illustrated in Figure II. 
(41 F.R. 1066— January 6, 1976. Effective: 
1/6/76)] 



R ■ 
R— 4- 



T-' R 





-H h"* 




LEVER TYPE A 



F = APPLIED 
R = REACTION 



LEVER TYPE B 



LOCATION FOR MEASURING BRAKE APPLICATION FORCE 
(HAND BRAKE) 



(Rev. 1/17/76) 



PART 571; S 105-75-11 



Effective: January 1, 1976 



S7.7. [Test procedure for requirements of S5.2.1. 

S7.7.1.1. Condition the parking brake friction 
elements so that tiie temperature at the beginning 
of the test is at any level not more than 150° F. 
(when the temperature of components on both 
ends of an axle are averaged). 

S7.7.1.2 Drive the vehicle, loaded to G'S^VR, 
onto tlie specified grade with the longitudinal 
axis of the vehicle in the direction of the slope 
of the grade, stop the vehicle and hold it sta- 
tionary by application of the service brake con- 
trol, and place the transmission in neutral. (41 
F.R. 1066— January 6, 1976. Effective: 1/6/76)] 

[S7.7.1 .3 With the vehicle held stationary 
by means of the service brake control, apply the 
parking brake by a single application of the 
force specified in (a) or (b), except that a seiies 
of applications to achieve the specified force may 
be made in the case of a parking brake system 
design that does not allow the application of the 
specified force in a single application : 

(a) In the case of a passenger car, not more 
than 125 pounds for a foot-operated system, and 
not more than 90 pounds for a hand-operated 
system; and 

(b) In the case of a school bus, not more than 
150 pounds for a foot-operated system, and not 
moi-e than 125 pounds for a liand-operated 
system. 

S7.7.1.4 Following the application of the park- 
ing brake in accordance with S7.7.1.3, release all 
force on the service brake control and commence 
the measurement of time if the vehicle remains 
stationaiy. If the vehicle does not i-emain sta- 
tionary, reapplication of tlie service brake to 
hold the vehicle stationary, with reapplication 
of a force to the parking bralce control at the 
level specified in S7.7.1.3(a) or (b) as appro- 
priate for the vehicle being tested (without re- 
lease of the ratcheting or other liolding mecha- 
nism of the parking brake) may be used twice 
to attain a stationary position. (41 F.R, 2391 — 
January 16, 1976. Effective: 10/12/76)] 

[S7.7.1.5 Following observation of the vehicle 
in a stationary condition for the specified time 
in one direction, repeat the same test procedure 
with the vehicle orientation in the opposite direc- 
tion on the specified gi'ade. 



S7.7.1.6 Check the operation of the parking 
brake application indicator required by S5.3.1(d). 
(41 F.R. 1066— January 6, 1976." Effective: 

1/6/76)] 

57.7.2 [Test procedures for requirements of 
S5.2.2. 

(a) Check that transmission must be placed in 
park position to release key ; 

(b) Test as in S7.7.1, except in addition place 
the transmission control to engage the parking 
mechanism; and 

(c) Test as in S7.7.1 except on a 20 per cent 
grade, with the parking mechanism not engaged. 
(41 F.R. 1066— January 6, 1976. Effective: 
1/6/76)] 

57.7.3 Lightly loaded vehicle. [Repeat S7.7.1 
or S7.7.2 as applicable except witli the vehicle 
at lightly loaded vehicle weight. (39 F.R. 6708— 
February 22, 1974.)] 

57.7.4 Non-service brake type parking brake 
systems. For vehicles witJi parking brake sys- 
tems not utilizing the service brake friction 
elements, burnisli the friction elements of such 
systems prior to parking brake tests according 
to the manufacturer's 2>ublished recommendations 
as furnished to the purchaser. If no recommen- 
dations are furnished, run the veliicle in an un- 
burnished condition. 

57.8 Service brake system — lightly loaded ve- 
hicle (third effectiveness) test. Make six stops 
from 60 mph witli vehicle at lightly loaded 
vehicle weight. 

57.9 Service brake system test — partial failure. 

S7.9.1 [With the vehicle at lightly loaded 
vehicle weight, alter the service brake system 
to produce any one rupture or leakage type of 
failure, other than a structural failure of a hous- 
ing that is common to two or more subsystems. 
Determine the control force or pressure level 
necessary to cause the brake system indicator to 
operate. Make four stops if tlie vehicle is 
equipped with a split service brake system, or 
10 stops if the ^'ehicle is not so equipped, each 
from 60 mph, by a continuous application of the 
service brake control. Restore the service brake 
system to normal at completion of this test. 
(40 F.R. 47789— October 10, 1975. Effective: 
10/10/75)] 



(Rev. 1/17/76) 



PART 571; S 105-75-12 



Effective: January 1, 1976 



> S7.9.2 Eepeat S7.9.1 for each of the other 

' siibsj'stems. 

57.9.3 Repeat S7.9.1 and S7.9.2 with vehicle 
at GTWR. Determine that the brake system 
indicator is operating when the reservoir fluid 
level is at or greater tlian the level specified in 
S5.3.1(b). Check for proper operation with each 
reservoir in turn at a low level. Restore the 
service brake system to normal at completion of 
tliis test. 

57.9.4 (For vehicles witli antilock and/or 
variable proportioning brake systems). With 
vehicle at G\nVR, disconnect functional power 
source, or otlierwise render antilock system in- 
operative. Disconnect variable proportioning 
brake system. Make four stops, each from 60 
mi)h. If more than one antilock or variable 
proportioning brake subsystem is provided, dis- 
connect or render one subsystem inoperative and 
run as above. Restore system to normal at com- 
l^letion of this test. Repeat for each subsystem 
provided. Disconnect electrical power source to 
unit. Check for ojDeration of warning indicator. 

S7.10 Service brake system — inoperative brake 
I pov/er unit or brake power assist unit test. (For 
vehicles equipped with brake power unit or brake 
power assist unit). 

57.10.1 Regular procedure. [(This test need 
not be run if the option in S7.10.2 is selected.) 
On vehicles witli brake power assist units, render 
the brake power assist unit inoperative, or one of 
the brake power assist unit subsystems if two or 
more subsystems are provided by disconnecting 
the relevant power supply. Exhaust any residual 
brake power reserve capability of the discon- 
nected system. On vehicles witli brake power 
units, disconnect the primary source of power. 
Make four stops, each from 60 mph, by a con- 
tinuous application of the service brake control. 
Restore the system to normal at completion of 
tliis test. For vehicles equipped with more than 
one brake power unit or brake power assist unit, 
conduct tests for eacli in turn. (39 F.R. 6708 — 
February 22, 1974.)] 

57.10.2 Optional procedures — passenger cars 
only. On vehicles witli brake power assist units, 
the unit is charged to maximum prior to start of 



test. (Engine may be run up in speed, then 
throttle closed quickly to attain maximum charge 
on vacuum assist units) . Brake power units shall 
also be charged to maximum accumulator pres- 
sure prior to start of test. No recharging is 
allowed after start of test. 

(a) (For vehicles with brake power assist 
units.) 

Disconnect the primary source of powei'. Make 
six stops each from 60 mpli, to acliieve tlie aver- 
age deceleration for each stop as specified in 
Table III. Apply the brake control as quickly 
as possible. Maintain control force until vehicle 
has stopped. 

[At the completion of the stops specified above, 
deplete the system of any residual brake power 
reserve capability. Make one stop from 60 mph 
at an average deceleration of not lower than 
7 fpsps for passenger cars (equivalent stopping 
distance .554 feet), or 6 fpsps for vehicles other 
than passenger cars (equivalent stopping dis- 
tance 646 feet) and detei-mine whether the con- 
trol force exceeds 150 pounds. (39 F.R. 25945— 
July 15, 1974)] 

(b) [(For vehicles with brake power units 
with accumulator type systems) Test as in 
S7.10.2(a), except make 10 stops instead of 6 
and, at the completion of the 10 stops, deplete 
the failed element of the brake power unit of any 
residual brake power reserve capability before 
making the final stop. (40 F.R. 47789— October 
10, 1975. Effective: 10/10/75)] 

[(c) (For vehicles with brake power assist or 
brake power units with backup systems.) If the 
brake power or brake power assist unit operates 
in conjunction with a backup system and the 
backup system is activated automatically in the 
event of a primary power failure, the backup 
system is operative during this test. Disconnect 
tlie primary source of i^ower of one subsystem. 
Make 15 stops, each from 60 mph. with the 
backup system activated for the failed subsystem, 
to achieve an average deceleration of 12 fpsps 
for each stop. (39 F.R. 6708— February 22, 
1974.)] 

(d) Restore systems to normal at completion 
of these tests. For vehicles equipped with more 
than one brake power assist or brake power unit, 
conduct tests of each in turn. 



IRev. 1/17/76) 



PART 571; S 105-75-13 



Effective: January 1, 1976 



S7.ll Service brake system — first fade and re- 
covery test. 

57.11.1 Baseline check stops or snubs. 

57.1 1.1.1 Vehicles with GVWR of 10,000 pounds 
or less. Make three stops from 30 mpli at 10 
f[)si)s for each stop. Control force readings may 
be terminated when vehicle speed falls to 5 mph. 
Average the maximum brake control force re- 
quired for the three stops. 

57.1 1.1.2 Vehicles with GVWR greater than 
10,000 pounds. With transmission in neutral (or 
declutched), make three snubs from 40 to 20 
mph at 10 fpsps for each snub. Average the 
maximum brake control force required for the 
three snubs. 

57.11.2 Fade stops or snubs. 

57.1 1.2.1 Vehicles with GVWR of 10,000 pounds 
or less. [Make 5 stops from GO mph at 15 fpsps 
followed by 5 stops at the maximum attainable 
deceleration between 5 and 15 fpsjos for each 
stop. Establish an initial brake temperature 
before the first brake application of 130° to 
150° F. Initial brake temi^eratures before 
brake applications for subsequent stops are 
those occurring at the distance intervals. Attain 
the required deceleration within 1 second and, as a 
minimum, maintain it for the remainder of the 
stopping time. Control force readings may be 
terminated when vehicle speed falls to 5 mph. 
Leave an interval of 0.4 mile between the start 
of brake applications. Accelerate immediately 
to the initial test speed after each stop. Drive 
1 mile at 30 mph after the last fade stop, and 
immediately follow the recovery procedure sjjeci- 
fied in S7.11.3.1. (39 F.R. 6708— February 22, 
1974.)] 

57.1 1.2.2 Vehicles with GVWR greater than 
10,000 pounds. With transmission in neutral 
(or declutched) make 10 snubs from 40 to 20 
mph at 10 fpsps for each snub. Establish an 
initial brake temperature before the first brake 
application of 130° F. to 150° F. Initial brake 
temperatures before brake application for subse- 
quent snubs are those occurring in the time in- 
tervals specified below. Attain the required 
deceleration within 1 second and maintain it for 
the remainder of the snubbinir time. Leave an 



interval of 30 seconds between snubs (start of 
brake application to start of brake application). 
Accelerate immediately to the initial test speed 
after each snub. Drive for 1.5 miles at 40 mpli 
after the last snub and immediately follow the 
recovery procedure specified in S7.1 1.3.2. 

S7.11.3 Recovery stops or snubs. 

57.1 1 .3.1 Vehicles with GVWR of 10,000 pounds 
or less. ]Make five stops from 30 mph at 10 
fpsps for each stop. Control force readings may 
be terminated when vehicle speed falls to 5 mph. 
Allow a braking distance interval of 1 mile. 
Immediately after each stop accelerate at maxi- 
mum rate to 30 mph and maintain that speed 
until making the next stop. Record the maxi- 
mum control force for each stop. 

57.1 1.3.2 Vehicles with GVWR greater than 
10,000 pounds. With transmission in neutral 
(or declutched) make five snubs from 40 to 20 
mph at 10 fpsjis, for each snub. After each snub, 
accelerate at maximum rate to 40 mph and main- 
tain that speed until making the next brake 
application at a point 1.5 miles from the point 
of the previous brake apialication. Record the 
maximum control force for each snub. 

57.12 Service brake system — second reburnish. 

Repeat S7.6. 

57.13 Service brake system — second fade and 
recovery test. Repeat S7.ll except in S7.11.2 run 
15 fade stops or 20 snubs instead of 10. 

57.14 Third reburnish. Repeat S7.6. 

57.15 Service brake system — fourth effective- 
ness test. [Repeat S7.5. Then (for passenger 
cars) make four stops from either 95 mph if 
the speed attainable in 2 mi is 99 to (but not 
including) 104 mph, or 100 mph if the sfoeed 
attainable in 2 mi is 104 mph or greater. 
(41 F.R. 2391— January 16, 1976. Effective: 
10/12/76)] 

57.16 Service brake system — water recovery 
test. 

S7.16.1 Baseline check stop. Make three stops 
from ;!() mph at 10 fpsps for each stop. Control 
force readings may be terminated when vehicle 
speed falls to 5 mph. Average the maximum 
brake control force required for the three stops. 



(Rev. 1/17/76) 



PART 571: S 105-75-14 



Effective: January 1, 1976 



S7.16.2 Wet brake recovery stops. With the 
brakes fully released at all times, drive the ve- 
hicle for 2 minutes at a speed of 5 mpli, in anj- 
combination of forward and reverse directions, 
through a trough having a water depth of 6 
inches. After leaving the trough, immediately 
accelerate at maximum rate to 30 mph without a 
brake application. Immediately upon reaching 
that speed make five stops, eacli fi'om 30 mph at 
10 fpsps for each stop. After each stop (except 
the last), accelerate the vehicle immediately at a 
maximum rate to a speed of 30 mph and begin 
the next stop. 

57.17 Spike stops. Make 10 successive spike 
stops from 30 mph with the transmission in 
neutral, with no reverse stops. Make spike stops 
by applying a control force of 200 pounds while 
recording control force versus time. Maintain 
control force until vehicle has stopped. At com- 
pletion of 10 spike stops, make six effectiveness 
stops from 60 mph. 

57.18 Final inspection. Inspect — 

(a) The service brake system for detachment 
or fracture of any components, such as brake 
springs and brake shoes or disc pad facing. 

(b) The friction surface of the brake, the 
master cylinder or brake power unit reservoir 
cover and seal and filler openings, for leakage 
of brake fluid or lubricant. 



(c) The master cylinder or brake power imit 
reservoir for compliance with the volume and 
labeling requirements of S5.4.2 and S5.4.3. In 
determining the fully applied worn condition 
assume that the lining is worn to (1) rivet or 
bolt heads on riveted or bolted linings or (2) 
within 1/^2 'i^ch of shoe or pad mounting surface 
or bonded linings, or (3) the limit recommended 
by the manufacturer, whichever is larger relative 
to the total possible shoe or p&d movement. 
Drums or rotors are assumed to be at nominal 
design drum diameter or rotor thickness. Lin- 
ings are assumed adjusted for normal operating 
clearance in the released position. 

(d) The brake system indicator light (s), for 
compliance with operation in various kej' posi- 
tions, lens color, labeling and location, in accord- 
ance with S5.3. 

S7.19 Moving barrier test. (Only for vehicles 
that have been tested according to S7.7.2). Load 
the vehicle to GVWR, release jjarking brake and 
place the transmission selector control to engage 
the parking mechanism. With a moving barrier 
as described in paragraph 3.3 of SAE Recom- 
mended Practice J972 "Moving Barrier Collision 
Tests," November 1966, impact the vehicle from 
tlie front at 21/2 mph. Keep the longitudinal 
axis of the barrier parallel with the longitudinal 
axis of the vehicle. Repeat the test, impacting 
the vehicle from the rear. Note : The vehicle 
used for this test need not be the same vehicle 
that has been used for the braking tests. 



(Rev. 1/17/76) 



PART 571; S 105-75-15 



Effective: September 1, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 106 

Brake Hoses 
(Docket No. 1-5; Notice 8) 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.106, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard 106, Hydraulic Brake 
Hoses, by (1) extending its requirements to all 
motor vehicles and hydraulic, air, and vacuum 
brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake 
hose end fittings for use in those vehicles, (2) 
repLacing some design-oriented requirements with 
performance requirements for brake hose, brake 
hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings, and 
(3) establishing comprehensive labeling require- 
ments for brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and 
brake hose end fittings. 

A notice of proposed rulemaking on this sub- 
ject was published on March 30, 1971 (36 F.R. 
5855). It revised and corrected earlier proposed 
amendments and proposed the elimination of 
many design specifications in favor of broad 
performance requirements. This reorientation 
generated little comment, but extensive comments 
were received on the details of the proposed 
requirements. 

Tests conducted by the NHTSA Safety Sys- 
tems Laboratory and comments to the docket 
both indicated that the extensive sequential test- 
ing proposed in the NPRM could be an unpre- 
dictable measure of brake hose performance and 
much sequential testing was eliminated. One of 
the remaining sequential tests requires that all 
hose assemblies meet the constriction test as well 
as any other single test. 

Several comments indicated confusion con- 
cerning the rule's applicability to components of 
the brake system. The definition of brake hose 
now limits the standard to flexible conduits that 
transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum 
used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes. This 
excludes such hose as that from the brake fluid 
reservoir to the master cylinder, and that from 



the air compressor discharge to its reservoir. 
Chassis plumbing which is flexible falls within 
the definition of brake hose, as does hose from 
the engine to the vacuum booster. 

In response to continued requests for physical 
tolerances and related accommodations for test- 
ing, it is reiterated that the safety standards 
should in all cases be considered as performance 
levels that each vehicle or item of equipment 
must meet, and not as instructions for manu- 
facturer testing. Thus, a 35-hour continuous 
flex test procedure sets the minimum perform- 
ance le\-el that the hose must meet when the 
NHTSA tests for compliance. The manufacturer 
may certify this performance level on the basis 
of interrupted tests as long as, in the exercise of 
due care, these tests provide assurance that his 
hose complies and will withstand 35 hours of 
continuous flexing. In response to another ques- 
tion, the manufacturer must determine for him- 
self how frequently he should test his products 
to ensure that they comply. 

The standard does not establish varying burst 
strength requirements for different size hose, 
because all sizes may be subject to extreme pres- 
sure conditions. Neither does the standard re- 
move wire-braided air brake hose from the 
adhesion requirements as requested, because the 
NHTSA has concluded that properly embedded 
wire-braided hose will sustain an 8-pound pull, 
and that no sufficient data exists to exempt wire- 
braided hose at this time. 

Labeling requirements have been modified in 
response to comments to permit (1) lettering to 
fit smaller size hoses, (2) antitorque stripes that 
are "clearly identifiable'" in order to accommo- 
date a molding process as well as color-striping, 
(3) use of fractions to express the hose inside 



PART 571; S 106— PRE 1 



Effective: September 1, 1974 

diameter, and (4) interruption of the second 
stripe with optional additional information not 
permitted in the legend that interrupts the first 
stripe. In this way, the labeling provision re- 
quires certain safety-related information ex- 
pressed in a specified format, and it also permits 
labeling with additional information by the 
manufacturer at his option. For example, sev- 
eral comments suggested the use of "air-brake" 
in lieu of "A" and inclusion of SAE air brake- 
hose type designations as. a part of labeling air 
brake components. Another comment requested 
metric labeling. As modified, the standard now 
permits all this information to be placed on the 
hose as additional information. 

Labeling requirements for brake hose end fit- 
ting manufacturers no longer include the as- 
sembly completion date. Instead, the assembler 
is required to place a band on each hose assembly 
which indicates the assembly completion date. 
"Brake hose assembly" has been redefined to ex- 
clude assemblies containing used components, 
and this effectively excludes repair operations 
from the requirements of the standard. 

The amendment has been reorganized to 
clearly indicate that it applies to three types of 
hose, hose assemblies, and end fittings. The re- 
quirements and test procedures for each type of 
hose have been grouped together for clarity, in 
response to docket comments. 

Changes to the hydraulic brake hose require- 
ments include revision of many sequential tests. 
The 1,500 psi air pressure resistance test was 
eliminated as an inappropriate measure of hy- 
draulic brake hose performance. The water 
absorption test proposed in the NPRM was di- 
vided into three distinct tests. The test tem- 
perature in the brake fluid compatibility test 
has been lowered to more accurately reflect ve- 
hicle operating conditions and to approach a 
more suitable test temperature for the specified 
procedure. 

Few changes were made to the vacuum brake 
hose section. In response to the request of its 
manufacturers, %2-inch hose has been added to 
the performance requirements data. Distinctions 
between light and heavy duty hose were largely 
eliminated. 



All sequential testing except for the constric- 
tion test and one water absorption-tensile 
strength test has been eliminated from the air 
brake hose requirements. Comments indicated 
that the extensive combination of tests was in- 
appropriate to measure the adequacy of tradi- 
tionally constructed air brake hose. The 
ultraviolet test has been eliminated until suf- 
ficient data is generated to support a minimum 
performance requirement. The standard has 
also been modified to allow use of permanent as 
well as reusable end fittings. As anticipated in 
the NPRM, outside and inside diameter specifi- 
cations have been added to the requirements for 
two types of air brake hose, although these 
specifications do not require the use of Standard 
SAE 100R5 fittings as proposed in the NPRM. 

The suggested standardization on 100R5 fit- 
tings generated the greatest number of comments 
on the rulemaking. Comments generally agreed 
that thread engagement and component attach- 
ment should be standardized. However, dis- 
agreement exists on which fitting is most suitable 
for standardization. Many comments indicated 
that type E fittings are predominant in the in- 
dustry and will be more so in the future and that 
their non-proprietary design permits manufac- 
ture by anyone. The NHTSA has decided, on 
the basis of the comments received, not to stand- 
ardize on any type of fitting at this time. This 
amendment only establishes hose diameters and 
tolerances intended for use in reusable air brake 
hose assemblies as a first step toward standardi- 
zation of the air brake hose assembly. Notice 
and further opportunity to comment will pre- 
cede any rulemaking on the standardization of 
air brake hose assemblies. 

In consideration of the foregoing, Standard 
No. 106, Brake Hoses, 49 CFR Part 571.106, is 
amended to read as set forth below. 

Effective date: September 1, 1974. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407 ; delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on November 5, 1973. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

38 F.R. 31302 
November 13, 1973 



PART 571; S 106— PRE 2 



Effective; Januory 29, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 106 

Brake Hoses 
(Docket No. 1-5; Notice 9) 



This notice amends Standard No. 106, Brake 
hoses, 49 CFR 571. lOG, to require a manufacturer 
designation in place of the manufacturer identifi- 
cation code assigned by the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NIITSA) whicii 
is presently required by the labeling provision. 

The NHTSA has not completed consideration 
of comments to its manufacturer's identification 
code proposal published Ju.ne 7, 197;^> (38 F.R. 
14968). General Motors has stated that produc- 
tion of 1975 model vehicles that conform to 
Standard 106 will require the immediate manu- 
facture of brake hose that conforms to Standard 
106. This amendment modifies the identification 
requirements to permit the use of manufacturer 
designations, such as those presently in use, until 
the NHTSA issues a final rule on the manufac- 
turer's identification code proposal. At that time 
the standard would be amended again to require 
whatever code might be assigned by the NHTSA. 

Other matters raised by petitions for recon- 
sideration are presently under consideration and 



will be answered in accordance with the proce- 
dures of 49 CFR 553.;55, Petitions for recon- 
sideration. 

In consideration of the foregoing, Standard 106 
(49 CFR 571.106) is amended .... 

Effective date : January 29, 1974. Because this 
amendment creates no additional burden, and be- 
cause of the immediate need for an effective re- 
quirement applicable to equipment to be produced 
for the 1975 model year, it is found for good 
cause shown that notice and public procedure 
thereon are impracticable, and that an immediate 
effective date is in the public interest. 

(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407; delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on January 23, 1974. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

39 F.R. 3680 
January 29, 1974 



PART 571; S 106— PRE 3-4 



Effective: September 1 , 1 974 
January 1, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 106-74 

Brake Hoses 
(Docket No. 1-5; Notice 10) 



This notice responds to petitions for recon- 
sideration of amended Standard lOfi, Brake hoses, 
49 CFR 571.10G, publislied No\ember 13, 1973 
(38 F.R. 31302). In response to comments by 
36 manufacturers and users of brake hoses, the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) amends the definitions, Labeling, and 
performance provisions of the standard in several 
respects. 

The ^lotor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, 
the American Trucking Association, and three 
manufacturers questioned the applicaliility of the 
standard to nylon and thermoplastic tuljing used 
in the chassis plumbing of air brake systems. 
They asserted that Notice 7 ottered no opportunity 
for comment on the properties and use of this 
material and that no safety need could justify 
its inclusion in the standard. Tlie comments 
point to a distinction in industry terminology be- 
tween "tubing" and "hose" to argue that NHTSA 
use of the term "hose" limited the proposal to 
traditional applications of six SAE hose types 
at articulating points in the air brake system. 

The NHTSA considers that the broad defini- 
tion of "Airbrake hose" provided an opportunity 
to comment on the issue of tubing. Notice 7 de- 
fined "Airbrake hose" as "a flexible hose for use 
in an airbrake system . . ." and it clarified this 
definition in the preamble to the notice. 

Major revisions have been made in the air- 
brake hose portion of the proposal by elim- 
inating the six types previously specified. 
Thus an airbrake hose under the proposal may 
be manufactured from any material as long as 
the hose can meet the performance require- 
ments of the standard. 

The NHTSA included "flexible" in its definition 
of hose, despite the common meaning of hose as 



flexible pipe or tubing, to emphasize the exclusion 
of relatively inflexil)le elements of an airbrake 
system such as copper tubing commonly found in 
chassis tubing. Finally, the broad term "air 
brake system" adequately gives notice of the 
standard's applicability to the chassis plumbing 
portion of that system. The NHTSA deter- 
mined that a safety need exists to include flexible 
chassis plumbing in this standard because it is 
used in the same environment as hose located at 
articulating points and is subject to many of the 
same types of stress, including heat, cold, and 
pressure. A failure of either flexible conduit 
creates as great a safety hazard. For these rea- 
sons, the petitions that tubing be excluded from 
the standard ai-e denied. 

Manufacturers who commented on the use of 
nylon and thermoplastic in air brake systems ex- 
pressed confidence that their products, which are 
in widespread use as chassis plumbing, will meet 
the requirements of the standard. They re- 
quested testing to exclude inadequate materials 
which might alsa meet the present requirements. 
The NHTSA expects to propose additional re- 
quirements after review and testing demonstrate 
that traditional hose materials presently in use 
will not be excluded arbitrarily. In the interim, 
the NHTSA's safety defect authority can pre- 
vent the use of inadequate materials. 

To accommodate the inclusion of nylon and 
thermoplastic, the comments also requested a 
revision of the tensile strength value for the 
smaller nylon and thermoplastic hose. This 
change has been made. It should be stressed 
that the applicability of this standard to nylon 
and thermoplastic tubing does not afl'ect tubing 
construction or characteristics. 



PART 571; S 106-74— PEE 5 



231-088 O - 77 



Effective: September 1, 1974 
January 1, 1975 



"Brake hose" is defined in the final rule as "a 
flexible conduit that transmits or contains the 
fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to 
a vehicle's brakes." Wagner Electric and several 
other manufacturers argued that a definition like 
this which differs from accepted industry term- 
inology should include a list of the parts of the 
brake system it covers. Actually, the use of 
general language different from industry term- 
inology is specifically intended to avoid identifica- 
tion with specific designs and thereby permit 
the definition to accommodate future designs as 
they develop. The preamble refers to specific 
lines only in response to manufacturer requests 
for interpretations, and the NHTSA will con- 
tinue to provide interpretations to interested 
persons upon request. The NHTSA interprets 
the term "flexible" to exclude copper or steel 
tubing. In response to Chrysler, General Motors, 
Ford, and Mercedes-Benz, the NHTSA reiterates 
that the vacuum and hydraulic booster lines that 
service power brake systems transmit or contain 
pressure used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes 
within the meaning of the definition. Accessory 
air lines such as those to the power air horn and 
windshield wipers are, of course, excluded. 

The definition of "brake hose assembly" in the 
rule covered both combinations of clamps and 
hose and combinations of end fittings and hose. 
The NHTSA has deleted reference to clamps, in 
agreement with manufacturers who pointed out 
that the mounting of a slip-on clamp and hose is 
an essentially different manufacturing operation 
that, if regulated, should be subject to different 
performance requirements from brake hose as- 
semblies. The clamp assemblies are subject to 
NHTSA safety defect authority. Comments dis- 
agreed for various reasons on the exclusion of 
hose assemblies containing used components from 
the standard. The NHTSA concludes that the 
exclusion is realistic and justified. 

The standard now defines "permanently at- 
tached end fittings" to make clear that 3-piece 
hose fittings which utilize sacrificial sleeves or 
ferrules are permanently attached end fittings 
and that the hose used with them is not pro- 
hibited by S7.1. In addition to the action taken 
with respect to the definition, %-in and i^-in 
hose sizes have been added to Table III undei' 



both Type I and Type II hose in order tliat their V 
use may be continued. 

The definition of "rupture" has been modified 
slightly to make clear that the two types of 
failure included in the definition are "separation 
of the hose from its end fitting" and "leakage". 
Both a small leak and a hose Inirst constitute 
"leakage" under this definition. 

Manufacturers of brake hose assemblies and 
vehicles petitioned for numerous variations in 
the labeling provisions. The many proposed 
changes in brake hose assembly labeling illustrate 
the importance of uniform labeling in a field 
where differing combinations of responsibility 
exist between manufacturers and installers of 
hose assembly components. 

The NHTSA has determined that the basic 
assembly banding technique set forth in Notice 
8 remains the clearest uniform identification 
method for assembly manufacturers. The band 
may be freely attached at any point on the as- 
sembly to minimize binding and wear as long as 
it is retained by the end fittings. An exception 
to the banding requirement has been made for the 
vehicle manufacturer who assembles and installs ^ 
his own brake hose assemblies, because his assem- " 
blies are integrally related to the vehicle, and the 
vehicle certification and identification informa- 
tion serves to identify and certify the hose as- 
sembly. The manufacturer may choose to band 
those hose assemblies subject to l)eing rebuilt, to 
delimit his responsibility in the e\ent a rebuilt 
assembly fails. 

JNIanufacturers will be permitted to mark the 
date of manufacture by day or month on the 
assembly and hose. The identification code re- 
quired on each component is not yet available for 
issuance and therefore an amendment of the 
standai'd has already been issued to jiermit use 
of a manufacturer designation in i)lace of the 
code (39 F.R. 3680, January 29, 197-1). That 
language has been re\ised to allow the use of a 
manufacturer designation that does not consist of 
the block capital letters otherwise required by 
S5.2.2, Sr).2.3, and S5.2.4. 

The labeling requirements now reflect the use 
of nominal inside and outside diameter desig- 
nations. The hose labeling has been modified 
from "not less than inches" to "not more than 



PART 571; S 106-74— PRE 6 



Effective; September 1, 1974 
January 1, 1975 



6 inches" in response to many requests. Toyotirs 
request for one-stripe lahelinjj;- of required and 
optional information has been denied, to ensin-e 
that the required information appears at least 
onee on hose as sliort as 4 inches. The NHTSA 
has denied requests for rearranjrements of tiie 
required infonnation, conchiding tliat tliey wouhl 
not mal^e it clearer to the user. In resjionse to 
Midland-Ross' request for clarification, it is re- 
iterated that, while the XIITSA requires certain 
safety-related information expressed in a certain 
format, it does not prohibit the addition of other 
information elsewhere on hydraulic, air, or 
vacuum hose. 

Several manufacturers of hydraulic brake hose 
assemblies argued that end-litting labeling in- 
formation becomes meaningless once a fitting is 
permanently attached to a hose. They reasoned 
that the crimping process deforms the fitting, its 
coating, and possibly the lettering, so that no 
fitting manufacturer would certify his product 
to the assembler, and that the responsibility for 
the fitting's conformity would in any case fall 
on the assembler. 

While the NHTSA expects the labeling in- 
formation to serve a useful purpose on reusable 
and 3-piece permanently attached end fittings, 
the limited benefit of markings on a crimped 
fitting justifies their elimination. In fact the 
one performance requirement that applies to fit- 
tings has been modified to reflect the crimping 
process and it effectively becomes the asseml>ler"s 
responsibility to meet this corrosion resistance 
provision. 

There were several general connnents on the 
performance requirements and the test i)roce- 
dures. There were requests for physical toler- 
ances, especially for the exi)ansion test apparatus, 
and related accommodations for test purposes. 
These arise from misimderstanding of the legal 
nature of the safety standards, which are per- 
formance levels that each vehicle or item of motor 
vehicle equipment must meet, and not instructions 
for manufacturer testing. In the case of a cali- 
bration factor, for example, the XPITSA set an 
exact performance level by stating its require- 
ment without a tolerance. Then, in compliance 
testing, it determines the calibration factor of 
its equipment and gives the benefit of that factor 
to the manufacturer in assessinjr the test results. 



(Correspondingly, the manufacturer should deal 
with an exact performance level by determining 
the calibration factor of his equipment and pe- 
nalizing his test results by that amoiuit. ^lanu- 
facturer testing should be directed at proxing the 
equipment's capability in the exercise of due care, 
by testing imder conditions at least as adverse 
as any that could be established in accordance 
with the procedures. For example, to accept 
Goodyear's suggested room temperature range 
of 65° to 90°F. would penmt the NHTSA to 
test at any temperature witliin tlie i-ange, and a 
manufacturer would correspondingly have to test 
to assure himself that his [)roduct would conform 
at e\ery point within the range. 

Toyota expressed some confusion about sequen- 
tial testing. As stated in S.").?, ST.o, and S9.2, a 
particular hose, end fitting, or hose assembly 
need not meet further requirements after ha\ing 
met the constriction reqnirements and any one 
other requirement listed. A particular hose as- 
sembly, therefore, would ha\e to meet the con- 
striction requirement in each case and then one 
other selected requirement, of which Sr).3.6. Watef 
absorption and tensile strengtJi, is one example. 

The constriction requirement requires that any 
cross section which the NHTSA chooses to ex- 
amine will be a certain percentage of the nominal 
diameter. Again the manufacturer may utilize 
whatexer test method con\-inces him in the exer- 
cise of due care that his prochict conforms to the 
constriction requirement. Chrysler objected to 
the application of the constriction test to hose 
assemblies, citing sitiuitions where restrictions 
are designed into brake systems for pressure con- 
trol. The NHTSA has determined that the estab- 
lished percentages limit constrictions to a safe 
level. 

With regard to the requirements as a group. 
it is noted that, while a hose must conform to 
any of the requirements, it need not be tested 
to requirements that are ob\iously inapplicable. 
For instaiice, thermoplastic tubing need not be 
subjected to the adhesion test because it is ob- 
vious that there are no layers in this constric- 
tion which could fail to adhere. 

Numerous comments were addressed to specific 
hydraulic performance requirements. The exjian- 
sion and burst-strength requirements included a 



PART 571; 8 106-74— PRE 7 



Effective: September 1, 1974 
January 1, 1975 



30-minute waiting- period, wliich lias been elim- 
inated as unnecessary. The procedure is modified 
to better describe the test sequence, and two 
values in Table I are corrected. 

With regard to mounting hose assemblies hav- 
ing L-shaped end fittings in a flexing machine. 
the test procedures have been modified to permit 
the use of adapters to secure the assembly to the 
machine with the same orientation as a straight 
assembly. 

Tlie low-temperature resistance test for hy- 
draulic hose has been modified from — r)5°F. 
to — 40°F. in line with air and vacuum hose test 
values. 

A hydraulic hose assembler objected that use 
of SAE ElNI-l compatibility fluid had not been 
proposed in Notice 7 and therefore could not be 
specified in the final rule. Notice 7 proposed use 
of "brake fluid conforming to Standard No. 116.'' 
This means that the NIITSA could ha\e chosen 
any such fluid for use in its tests, and that the 
manufacturer would have to test with each fluid 
or otherwise assure himself in the e.xercise of 
due care that his hose assembly could meet the 
requirements using each fluid conforming to 
Standard No. 116. Specification of a single fluid 
is therefore a relaxation of the proposed require- 
ment. The Society of Automotive Engineers 
Referee Materials Subcommittee, which contracts 
for production of R]M-1 fluid, has assured the 
NHTSA of its continued availability for at least 
the next 3 years. A modification of the require- 
ments has been made for mineral-type systems. 

The NHTSA agrees with Wagner Electric 
that the end fitting corrosion requirement must 
accommodate the crimping and labeling process, 
and the requirement is amended to permit dis- 
placement of the protect i\e coating necessary to 
mark the fittings and attach it to a hose. 

Several comments were addressed to the air 
brake hose requirements. Clarifying language 
has been added to make clear that air brake hose 
assemblies may be constructed with permanent 
or reusable end fittings. Table III now includes 
A- and B-type hose in %- and V2"ii^ special 
diameters to assure its continued availability, 
particularly for replacement purposes. The con- 
striction test value of 66 percent remains un- 
changed because the calculation method is 



already consistent with hydraulic value of 64 V 
percent. 

Table IV is revised to include outside dimen- 
sions. New, smaller radii for tubing tests can- 
not be adopted, however, until there has been 
notice and oi^portunity to comment. In answer 
to Toyota's request for interpretation, it is cor- 
rect that the test cylinder radii are directly pro- 
portional to the diameter of the hose being tested. 
Suggestions to examine the inner as well as 
outer layers of hose subjected to the low-tem- 
perature resistance test will be considered in 
future rulemaking, since interested persons 
should be given notice and opportunity to com- 
ment. The same considerations api^ly to Samuel 
IMoore Company's suggested higher test tempera- 
ture in the oil-resistance requirement, more 
demanding percentages in the length change 
requirement and the high-temperature burst 
strength test. The oil resistance test specimen 
has been modified to one-third of an inch in 
width because i/^-in specimens can not be cut 
from the smaller hose sizes. The burst strength 
value is reduced to 800 psi to accommodate nylon 
and thermoplastic tubing while retaining a safety _ 
performance level five times that of normal ™ 
operating conditions. 

The application of air pressure has been re- 
tained in the length change test and the air 
pressure test, despite requests for "optional" pres- 
sure sources. Hidden options of this type are 
generally undesirable in the safety standards, 
since they make uncertain the level of required 
performance, and complicate the comparison of 
manufacturer and NHTSA test results. The 
manufacturer is free to use pressure sources other 
than air as long as his results assure him that 
the hose would meet the requirement if air were 
used. 

INIanufacturers proposed alternative means of 
testing the adhesion of hose layers because of the 
difficulty associated with testing wire-braided 
and small diameter hose. As pointed out in the 
petitions, sufficient care in conducting the present 
test will prevent these difficulties. Any manu- 
facturer who believes that the alternative pro- 
cedure has significant advantages should submit 
a petition for rulemaking with supporting data. 



PART 571; S 106-74— PRE 8 



Effective: September 1, 1974 
January 1, 1975 



Some comments on the adhesion test argued 
for the averaging of test i-esults witliout specifj-- 
ing any objection to the present procedure. At 
this time, it does not appear that averaging 
would be desirable for purposes of this standard. 
In another area, some tensile strength test values 
have been reduced in recognition of the use of 
tubing in nonarticulating applications. The dis- 
tinction betwten permanent and reusable fittings 
is eliminated, consistent with the rationale that 
the components may operate under the same con- 
ditions. 

The NHTSA denies AVagner Electric's re- 
quested re-establishment of the air pressure test 
procedures which appeared in Notice 7. These 
procedures were modified because comments ob- 
jected to the measuring technique. As noted 
previously, the manufacturer may use any test 
method which assures Iiim the equipment meets 
the requirement as stated. 

One significant question was raised with regai'd 
to the vacuum hose requirements. Table V in- 
advertently listed the- same hose lengths and 
cylinder radii for the low and high temperature 
resistance tests. A new column of values is 
added to that table. 

Because of the additional leadtime required 
to purchase conforming brake hose and assemblies 
for use in vehicles which must conform to the 
standard, the effective date of the standard as it 
applies to vehicles is delayed 4 months to Jan- 



uary 1, 1075. An amendment to tlie presently 
effective Standard lOG permits compliance either 
with that standard or with this standard, as it 
is effective September 1, 1974. 

Interested persons are reminded that, in addi- 
tion to the amendments set forth below, an amend- 
ment of Standard 106 has already been issued 
which permits the use of a manufacturer desig- 
nation in place of the identification code called 
for in the rule as first issued. (;]9 F.R. 3G80, 
January 29, 1974.) 

In consideration of the foregoing, both Stand- 
ard No. 106, 49 CFR 571.106, in its presently 
effective form and Standard No. 106 as it is effec- 
tive September 1, 1974, and January 1, 1975, are 
amended. 

The present Standard No. 106 is amended by 
the addition of a new paragraph .... 

Ejfective dates: September 1, 1974, for equip- 
ment covered by the standard: January 1. 1975, 
for vehicles to whicli tlie standard applies. 

(Sees. 103, 119. Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407; delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on February 20, 1974. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

39 F.R. 7425 
February 26, 1974 



PART 571; S 106-74— PRE 9-10 



r 



Effective: September 1, 1974 
March 1, 1975 
September 1, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 106-74 

Brake Hoses 

(Docket No. 1-5; Notice 11) 



This notice amends Standard No. 100, Brnl-e 
hoses, 49 CFR 571.106, by modifying the defini- 
tion of "permanently attached end fitting", the 
effective date for brake hose assemblies and ^■e- 
hicles. several labeling requirements, and certain 
tensile strength, constriction, and corrosion re- 
sistance requirements, in response to petitions for 
reconsideration of amendments published Jan- 
uary 29, 1974 (39 FR. 3680) (Notice 9) and 
February 26, 1974 (39 FR 7425) (Notice 10). 
In addition, Toyo Kogyo Company, in a letter 
request for interpretation, pointed out an in- 
advertent change of language in Notice 8 (38 FR 
31302, November 13, 1973) whicli is corrected in 
this notice. 

Notice 9 

Notice 9 amended the standard to permit tlie 
use of "a designation that identifies the manufac- 
turer" of an end fitting, liose or hose assembly 
in place of a manufacturer identification code 
which the NHTSA is not yet prepared to issue. 
Any designation which is filed with the NHTSA 
may be used until the permanent code is imple- 
mented. The only comment on Notice 9 was 
made by Weatherhead Company, which objected 
to any interim marking on grounds of expense 
and advocated elimination of all label identifica- 
tion from' the hose. The NHTSA considers iden- 
tification other than a colored thread to be 
reasonable and necessary for rapid recognition, 
and Weatherhead's first petition is denied. 

Although not raised by Weatherhead in its 
petition, several assemblers ha\e objected that the 
manufacturer designation requirement conflicts 
with the general indnsti-y practice of marking 
hose with the distributor's designation. The 
NHTSA requirement that tiie manufacturer des- 
ignation appear on one side of the hose in the 



required format does not in any way prevent 
labeling of hose with the distributor's designa- 
tion on the opposite side of the hose along with 
other optional information. 

Weatherhead petitioned for revision of the 
identification requirements to permit designations 
other than block capital letters and numerals. 
The necessary language has already been added 
to the standard in Notice 10. 

Weatherhead also requested a modification of 
the definition of "end fitting'' that would exclude 
end fitting components from the labeling require- 
ments in order to accommodate the practice of 
assembler intermixing of components made by- 
different manufacturers. Such an exclusion of 
components, combined with the present exclusion 
of labeling crimped-on fittings, would eliminate 
all identification requirements for all fittings. 
While imlabeled crimped fittings may be traced 
through the hose assembler's band, "renewable" 
or renseable fittings must be labeled at least once 
to permit location of any defective fitting which 
was attached to new liose and then reused after 
it passed out of the control of the assembler and 
the NHTSA. Although the NHTSA does not 
find labeling of each part of a fitting to be fea- 
sible, it does not consider it unduly burdensome 
for an assembler to ensure that the newly as- 
sembled fitting is composed entirely of parts 
made by the manufacturer whose designation 
appears on one part. This also responds to Inter- 
national Harvester's request for interpretation on 
labeling multi-piece fittings. 

Notice 10 

Notice 10 amended the standard in response to 
petitions for reconsideration of the regulation as 
it liiul been issued in final form November 13, 



PART 571; S 106-74— PRE 11 



Effective: September 1, 1974 
March 1, 1975 
September 1, 1975 

1973 (38 FR 31302). The twehe petitions for 
reconsideration of tliis notice emphasized con- 
fusion over tlie status of hose, fittings, and as- 
semblies manufactured before the effective date, 
and disagreement witli certain labeling require- 
ments and the applicability of the standard to 
particular hose types and applications. 

The use of hose and fittings manufactured 
before the September 1, 1974, effective data raises 
two problems. The most difficidt of these prob- 
lems is that the components may not conform to 
any or all of the performance requirements of 
Standard 106, and therefore could not be made 
into assemblies or vehicles after the ai>propriate 
effective date. To alleviate this "existing stock" 
problem, Notice 10 delayed the effective date of 
the standard for vehicles 4 months to permit the 
utilization of non-106 components. This did not 
solve the problem, however, as pointed out by 
Ford and by White IVIotor Coi'iJoration, because 
the hose and fittings made immediately before 
the effective date must be made into assemblies 
after the effective date before they can be used 
in vehicles. This notice therefore delays the 
effective date of the standard for six months as 
it applies to assemblies. The March 1, 1975, date 
is set with reference to materials submitted by 
vehicle and hose and fitting manufacturers that 
support a delay somewhat longer than 4 months 
to absorb existing stocks. Because it will take 
some months to stock inventories with conform- 
ing assemblies after IMarch 1, 1975, the effec- 
tive date of the standard for vehicles is delayed 
until September 1, 1975. 

The delay in effective date for assemblies and 
vehicles will minimize difficulties in the transition 
to hose marked with the DOT syml)ol. This 
transition problem arises because of the require- 
ment that the DOT appear on conforming hose, 
fittings, and assemblies, but that it not appear 
on hose to which no safety standard apj^lies, that 
is, hose manufactured before the standard's effec- 
tive date. This principle has been consistently 
followed in the labeling of tires and other items 
of motor vehicle equipment to avoid confusion 
in the meaning of the symbol and the concept of 
compliance. The problem does not arise in the 
labeling of hydraulic hose for use in passenger 
cars because a standard already applies and the 

PART 571 ; S 



DOT symbol can be used to indicate compliance 
with it. 

The difficulty in labeling brake hose with the 
DOT symbol is not that of a September 1, 1974, 
"midnight changeover"'. The problem is that any 
hose assemblies used in new vehicles iliust con- 
form to the standard as of the effective date for 
vehicles. With the present change, the hose and 
fittings used as original equipment must bear the 
DOT symbol as of September 1, 1975. The new 
effective dates provide six months to absorb pre- 
standard stock in assemblies and then six more 
months to prepare conforming assemblies for 
use in 1976 model vehicles. What stock remains 
can, of course, be sold in the replacement market. 

The greatest number of petitions concerned the 
applicability of the standard to specific hose 
types and applications in the vehicle. Three 
petitions again sought the exclusion of plastic 
tubing from the standai-d, stating reasons which 
have already been responded to in detail in the 
preamble to Notice 10. The major concern in 
this area appears to be whether specific tubing- 
assemblies are subject to the high tensile strength ^ 
tests for "relative motion". This term has raised ^F 
numerous requests for interpretation, and to 
make clearer the tensile strength distinction, 
"relative motion" has been replaced with more 
specific wording. The new language specifies 
that hose assemblies (other than coiled nylon 
tube assemblies which meet the requirements of 
I3MCS Regulations (49 CFR §393.45)) used be- 
tween chassis and axles or between towing and 
towed vehicles must meet the higher tensile 
strength I'equirements. 

The American Trucking Association (ATA) 
mistakenly concluded that the signal line between 
tractor and trailer was totally excluded from the 
standard, and also the line to any reservoir and 
to the spring brakes. All these lines fall within 
the definition of brake hose because the signal 
pressure, the pressure to the reservoir, and the 
pressure to the spring brake chamber in each 
case is "used to ajjply force to the brakes". This 
wording should not be misread as restricted to 
pressure directly used to appJij the brakes. 

The definition of brake hose has been reworded 
to avoid a problem in another area. As presentlj' 
worded only hose actually used in the brake sys- ^ 

106-74— PRE 12 



tern would qualify as brake hose and be entitled 
to be labeled vrith the DOT symbol. The re- 
wording permits liose "manufartured for use in 
a brake system" to be labeled with the DOT 
symbol even if it is used, for example, as a 
supply line to the windshield wiper system. 

Weatherhead requested furtlier definition of the 
term '"flexible" as it is used in the definition of 
brake hose. The NHTSA continues to believe 
that this concept can best be treated on a case- 
bj'-case request for interpretation and, as noted 
in Notice 10, will continue to make interpreta- 
tions upon request. 

Chrysler petitioned for a change in the word- 
ing of the definition of "brake hose", apparently 
directed toward the exclusion of the hydraulic 
brake booster assembly from the standard. Ford. 
General Motors, and the ilotor Vehicle Manufac- 
turers Association (MVMA) also jjetitioned to 
exclude the hydraulic booster lines on the grounds 
that they are subject to a different working en- 
vironment than brake hose. The most important 
difference is the constant flow of fluid through 
I them, requiring a long, complicated, tuned, and 
expandable hose. Tlie NHTSA has concluded 
that the difference in requirements for the hy- 
draulic booster system justifies special perform- 
ance requirements for this application. Until 
these requirements are developed, hj-draulic 
brake booster hose running from pump to ac- 
cumulator will be considered to be exempt from 
the requirements of this standard. Hose numing 
from accumulator to booster will also be exempted 
if redundant booster is provided. This exemp- 
tion applies to hoses for which Rolls Royce 
petitioned for exemptions fi'om certain test re- 
quirements. 

White Motor Corporation petitioned to include 
"the chassis portion" in the definition of brake 
hose assembly, incorrectly assmning that tiie dis- 
cussion of chassis plumbing in the preamble to 
Notice 10 limited the definition to brake line 
mounted to the frame at one point. Chassis 
plumbing was emphasized in Notice 10 only be- 
cause inclusion of that part of the brake system 
in the standard had been questioned by several 
petitioners. In answer to White. Standard No. 
106 is not limited to hose "installed on the chassis 
i to the point of the last mechanical connection". 



Effective: September 1, 1974 
March 1, 1975 
September 1, 1975 

but includes any hose equipped with end fittings 
for use in a brake system. 

The ATA expressed dissatisfaction at the 
applicability of hose assembly requirements to 
assemblies made in the field from all-new com- 
ponents. The NHTSA has accommodated emer- 
gency repairs by excluding hose assemblies wliich 
contain used components, whether renewable or 
reusable. There is no reason, however, to rou- 
tinely exempt the smaller assemblers from the 
requirements of the standard simply because 
past practices ha\e permitted fabrication of as- 
semblies in the field by anyone who has the 
necessary equipment. In this regard, the NHTSA 
believes the practice of refabrication of hose 
assemblies in the correct length in the field for 
emergency repairs promotes safety, by not forcing 
substitution of a permanent assembly which is 
only a "close fit". For this reason Weatherhead's 
petition to require permanent fittings on all brake 
hose is denied. 

Several questions were raised with regard to 
end fittings. Most important to manufacturers 
is elimination of the reference to two- and three- 
piece end fittings in the definition of permanently 
attached end fittings. This definition, as well as 
the reference in So. 2.3, has been changed to 
eliminate this design restriction. 

The status of intake manifold connectors and 
booster check valves typically clamped to the ends 
of vacuum booster hose were also questioned. 
"Brake hose end fitting" is defined as "a coupler, 
other than a clamp, designed for attachment to 
the end of a brake hose." As typically configured, 
the couplers are tlie clamps, and the intake mani- 
fold connection and brake booster check valve 
are engine components to wliich tlie brake hose 
has been attached by the clamp couplers. Tliere- 
fore neither component is subject to Standard 106. 

Several petitions addressed the labeling of fit- 
tings, as well as hose and assemblies. Two of the 
major concerns, use of the DOT symbol and the 
marking of multi-piece end fittings, have been 
discussed earlier. 

Labeling of brake hose "at intervals of no more 
than six inclies, measured from tlie end of one 
legend to the beginning of the next" can create 
several problems; for examjile. spray painting 
of a vehicle frame in which liose has been 



PART 571; S 106-74— PRE 13 



Effective: September 1, 1974 
March 1, 1975 
September 1, 1975 

mounted. jNLack argued that the leoend need ap- 
pear only once on hose wiiich lias l)een made 
into an assembly and mounted in a \eliicle. The 
NHTSA has concluded that tlie value of the con- 
tinuous line and legend, as a ready source of the 
hose characteristics on bulk hose and as aid to 
untwisted installation, is exhausted when an as- 
sembly has been inoimted. Therefore 85.2.1^ has 
been modified to require only that the legend 
ajDpear at least once on assemblies mounted in 
vehicles. It is emphasized that masking material 
used in painting nuist be removed .so that the 
labeling does appear on the completed vehicle. 
Only the required information may a[)pear along 
one side of the hose. 

The labeling distance of a maximum 6 inches 
between legends is intended to ensure adequate 
repetition on bulk hose without restricting the 
size of the legend. A manufacturer is free to 
make the legend as short or long as he feels is 
necessary to make the information clear, and on 
this basis, Midland-Ross' petition to require 
labeling at 6-inch intervals measured from the 
beginning of one legend to the beginning of the 
next is denied. Weatherhead expresses confu- 
sion over a Notice 10 preamble reference to the 
complete legend appearing in 4 inches. This 
statement was only intended to illustrate a situa- 
tion where a mixtui-e of optional and required 
labeling would interfere with the appearance of 
complete labeling on some hose assemblies, and 
it did not imply a requirement that the legend 
must be 4 inches long. 

Although no manufacturer specifically re- 
quested a change, the NHTSA has concluded 
that clarity would not be substantially degraded 
by permitting required label information to ap- 
pear in any order. The requirement for a si)ecific 
order of label information has accordingly been 
deleted in order to reduce waste associated with 
hose cutting. The lettering height of one-eighth 
of an inch is considered necessary for clarity and 
will be retained. 

Mack requested confirmation that end fitting 
labeling may be covered with paint until a jierson 
strips ofl' the paint to read the labeling. This 
interpretation is incorrect. To l)e useful, label 
information must be clearly \isible for easy 
reference. 



Alidland-Ross requested clarification of the use 
of the letters "SP". These letters distinguish, 
two ty[)es of air brake ho.se: regulai' i/2"iiicii 
hose and hose tiiat requires special reusable ht- 
tings. This is the only situation where different 
hoses share the same size designation. The 
NIITSA cannot agree with Midland that wider 
use of the letters would clarify the use of other 
components. 

Weatherhead challenged as discriminatory the 
required labeling by manufacturers of hose as- 
semblies other than those assembled and installed 
by a vehicle manufacturer in vehicles manufac- 
tured by him. The argument relied in part on 
a statutory requirement that "e\ery manufac- 
turer . . . shall furnish to the distributor or 
dealer at the time of deli\ery of such \ehicle 
or equipment . . . the certification that . . . [it] 
conforms ... in the form of a label or tag . . ." 
(15 U.S.C. §1403). 

This section covers vehicles and equipment only 
"at that time of delivery" to a distributor or 
dealer. In contrast, the exception in question 
applies to hose assemblies mounted in vehicles jM 
by their manufacturers which do not fall under ^ 
the language of § 1403. 

Weatherhead also requested an alternative la- 
beling procedure in place of banding which the 
NHTSA has determined is not desirable because 
it detracts from the imiformity of the labeling 
lirocedure, and accoi'dingly this petition is 
denied. 

Several manufacturers have requested approval 
of specific banding techniques, including a molded 
rubber ring, a metal band crimped together, and 
an adhesive label which adheres to the hose. 
The NHTSA interi)rets a band as a label which 
encircles the hose completely', and attaches to 
itself. To constitute labeling at all, the band 
must, of cour.se, be affixed to the hose in such a 
manner that it can not be easily removed. 

Manufacturers raised objections to the specific 
performance requirements as they apply to hose 
types. Manufacturers of hydraulic hose assem- 
blies requested exclusion of various types of end 
fittings from the constriction requirements to 
permit L-shaped and T-shaped fittings, distribu- 
tion blocks, and residual valves, which are de- 
signed to have small diameters. The NHTSA ^ 



PART 571; S 106- 



PRE 14 



has concluded tliat the major constriction proli- 
lems occur in joining the hose to tlie fitting, and 
has amended the constriction requirements so 
that they apply only to tliat part of the fitting in 
which hose is inserted. 

Weatherhead requested a calibration factor 
for the expansion test procedure used witli hy- 
draulic hose. The NHTSA explained in its last 
notice that, although calibration factors exist and 
must be taken into account in any performance 
test, it is inappropriate to state a calibration 
factor as part of the performance requirement. 
"Weatherhead's petition is accordingly denied. 

Several manufacturers pointed out the inad- 
vertent substitution of "rupture" as tlie perform- 
ance requirement to be met in the tensile strength 
tests of hydraulic hose and air brake hose. This 
language has been replaced with a i-equirement 
of no separation of the end fittings from the 
hose. With regard to "rupture", it shoidd be 
noted that the definition of the term was not sub- 
stantively changed in Notice 10. but only re- 
arranged for clarity. 

Another omission has l^een corrected liy tlie ad- 
dition of language to the corrosion resistance re- 
quirements of air and vacuum brake hose fittings 
to allow the same displacement of a protective 
coating which is permitted for hydraulic hose end 
fittings. It is noted for the benefit of manufac- 
turers who have requested interpretation that dis- 
coloration of a brass end fitting is not of itself 
considered to be corrosion. 

Most manufacturers objected to the restrictive 
elements of Table III, making various arguments 
for increasing the numljer of sizes available for 
use with reusable fittings. Table III, however, 
is intended to be a first step toward standardiza- 
tion of reusable fittings and iiose. and dislocations 
of former practices must be expected in restrict- 
ing the choice of available sizes and types. The 
petitions to eliminate Table III restrictions, or 
to add new sizes to it. are denied for tliese reasons. 
AVeatherhead argued that permanent as well as 
reusable hose should be subject to size limits, but 
the NHTSA has found that this would be a de- 
sign restriction without corresponding safety 
benefit. The hose used with permanent fittings 
is generally assembled by higli vohune manufac- 
turers, not repair operations in tlie field, and tlie 



Effective: September 1, 1974 
Morch 1, 1975 
September 1, 1975 

mismatch problem, to which standardization of 
reusable hose is addressed, should not occur. The 
petition is thei'efore denied. 

In response to Parker-Hannifin's inquiry, the 
NHTSA favors no one fitting type among tlie 
choice of reusable air brake fittings. 

Stratoflex questioned a leakage requirement in 
a hydrostatic test of air brake hose when at the 
same time an air i)ressure test permits a limited 
amount of air leakage. The NHTSA makes the 
distinction on the basis of the rubber composition 
which permits air but not water to permeate the 
hose wall. 

With regard to vacuum hose requirements, 
Midland-Ross petitioned for the use of wording 
in S9.2.9 that appeared in Notice 8, believing it to 
be more clear than the language substituted for 
it in Notice 10. On balance, the NHTSA agrees 
that "adjacent layers" accurately describes heavy 
as well as light hose construction, and it is re- 
established. It should be understood that this 
wording includes separation of the outer cover 
from the tube. 

Toyo Kogyo, in a letter request for interjireta- 
tion, questioned a language change between the 
Notice 7 proposal (30 FR 5855, March 30, 1971) 
and the Notice 8 rule, in S9.2.8. The swell test 
of vacuum hose called for "no leakage . . . after 
which there shall be no separation of the inner 
tube from the fabric reinforcement of the hose." 
By error, the Notice 8 requirement instead called 
for no "collapse," which would require absolutely 
no deformation of the hose in terms of decreased 
interior diameter. The NHTSA did not intend 
to increase the requirement and this notice re- 
establishes the intended performance level. It 
should be noted that a "no collapse" requirement 
would have been inconsistent with the shorter 
vacuum test requirements of S9.2.7. 

One manufacturer asked for an explanation of 
the use of "[Reserved]". This term is used in the 
Code of Federal Regulations to indicate an omis- 
sion or deletion, to avoid having to renumber the 
following units. It does not indicate reservation 
for any specific purpose. 

Several minor changes are made to the stand- 
ard -to correct typographical errors found in 
Notice 10. It is also noted that the Notice 10 



PART 571; S 106-74— PRE 15 



Effective: September 1, 1974 
March 1, 1975 
September 1, 1975 

amendment of S5.2.3 appearing in the Federal for brake hose assemblies; September 1, 1975, for 

Register appeared to delete paragraph (e), which vehicles to which the standard applies, 

in fact remains in the standard. (gees. 103, 112, 114, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 

In consideration of the foregoing, both Stand- Stut. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407); 

ard No. 106 (49 CFR 571.106) in its presently delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.51.) 

effective form, and Standard No. 106-74 (49 Issued on June 24, 1974. 

CFR 571.106-74) as it is effective September 1, James B Greo-orv 

1974, are amended. Administratoi^ 

Effective dates. September 1, 1974, for brake 39 F.R. 24012 

hose and brake hose end fittings; March 1, 1975, June 28, 1974 



PART 571; S 106-74— PRE 16 



Effective: March 1, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 106-74 

Brake Hoses 

(Docket No. 1-5; Notice 12) 



This notice amends Standard No. 106-74, 
Brake hoses, 49 CFE 571.106-74, to provide that 
hose assemblies of the same internal diameter 
are subjected to the same tensile strength re- 
quirements. This amendment responds to a 
petition for reconsideration of the most recent 
amendments of Standard No. 106-74 (Notice 11) 
filed by Samuel Moore and Company on July 1, 
1974. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Admin- 
istration (NHTSA) is resjionding to this peti- 
tion before considering all other comments on 
Notice 11 because of the effect of this ruling on 
Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, which be- 
comes effective January 1. 1975, for trailers and 
March 1, 1975, for trucks and buses. The design 
and testing of air brake systems for the standard 
has been based in part on the continued avail- 
ability and use of %-inch OD plastic tubing, a 
popular substitute for i^-inch ID hose in some 
tractor-to-trailer applications. Samuel Moore 
has pointed out that, although %-inch tubing 
and V4-inch hose deliver the same air supply 
under the same circumstances, Standard No. 
106-74 subjects the tubing to greater tensile 
strength requirements than hose. As a result the 
tubing may have to be withdrawn from the 
market because it is unable to meet the higher 
requirements. Designers of the new air brake 
systems must know immediately if %-inch tub- 
ing can continue to be used. 

The NHTSA intends that all brake hose sub- 
ject to the standard, including traditional rubber 
hose and the newer plastic tubing, be subject to 
appropriate tests for the environment and use 
in which they serve. In this situation %-inch 



OD tubing has the equivalent bore of y^-mch ID 
hose. The NHTSA hei-eby amends the standard, 
by adding "in nominal internal diameter" to 
S7.3.10 and S7.3.11 following each size designa- 
tion, to test these products to the same tensile 
strength requirements. 

A typographical error in Notice 11 which 
changed the meaning of the tensile strength re- 
quirements is corrected here by the addition of 
parentheses around the phrase "other than a 
coiled nylon tube assembly which meets the re- 
quirements of § 393.45 of this title" appearing 
in S7.3.10 and S7.3.11. 

Additionally, Notice 11 attempted to resolve 
an ambiguity in Notice 10 concerning the dele- 
tion of subparagraph (e) of S5.2.2 of the stand- 
ard. Notice 11 mistakenly referred to S5.2.3, 
and it should be noted that, in actuality, it was 
the Notice 10 amendment of S5.2.2 appearing in 
the Federal Register that appeared to delete 
paragraph (e), which in fact remains in the 
standard. 

In consideration of the foregoing. Standard 
No. 106-74 (49 CFR 571.106-74) is amended. . . . 

Effective date : March 1, 1975. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407); delegation of authority 
at 49 CFE 1.51.) 



Issued on August 2, 1974. 



James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

39 F.R. 28436 
August 7, 1974 



PART 571; S 106-74— PRE 17-18 



v<« 



^ 



Effective: November 11, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 106-74 

Brake Hoses 
(Docket No. 1-5; Notice 14) 



This notice amends Standard No. 106-74, 
Brake hoses, 49 CFR 571.106-74, to permit, for 
a limited time, the manufacturing of brake hose 
assemblies wliich comply w itli the standard in 
all respects except that they are constructed with 
liose or end fittings which do not meet certain 
labeling requirements. 

A notice of proposed rulemaking was pub- 
lished on October 3, 1974 (39 F.R. 35676) (No- 
tice 13), which proposed amendment of the 
standard to facilitate the depletion of inven- 
tories of brake hose that is not properly labeled. 
All of the comments supported the proposal. 
Several of those commenting suggested that the 
proposed temporary exception fo the labeling 
requirements be extended to cover end fittings 
as well as hose. These manufacturers pointed 
to large inventories of end fittings, manufactured 
before September 1, 1974, which meet all of the 
performance requirements of the standard, but 
which could not be used because they are not 
properly labeled. As with the brake hose dis- 
cussed in Notice 13, safety of performance is not 
a major issue. The NHTSA has determined 
that the use of both non-conforming hose and 
end fittings in assemblies manufactured before 
September 1, 1975, while it may make enforce- 
ment by this agency temporarily more difficult, 
is appropriate and in the public interest. 

In its petition for reconsidei'ation of Notice 11 
(39 F.R. 24012, June 28. 1974), Wagner Electric 
Corporation requested an amendment to permit 
the labeling of brake hose assemblies with DOT- 
marked bands in accordance with S5.2.4 before 



March 1, 11)75, the date assembly labeling be- 
(Himes effective. The NHTSA takes this oppor- 
tunity to resjwnd to Wagner's petition ahead of 
other petitions for reconsideration of Notice 11 
iu order to clarify the standard's scheme of ef- 
fective dates. 

Even though Standard 106-74 has already 
been published, there are no requirements in it 
applicable to air brake hose assemblies or to 
vacuum brake hose assemblies until ^larch 1, 
1975. Consequently, use of the DOT symbol on 
such assemblies manufactured before that date 
would be inconsistent with the established mean- 
ing of that symbol as a certification of compli- 
ance with applicable standards. Use of the 
symbol to indicate "anticipatory compliance", as 
Wagner has suggested, would foster confusion 
in both the meaning of the symbol and the con- 
cept of the certification required by Section 
108(a)(3) of the National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Accordingly, Wag- 
ner's petition is denied. 

The problem of excessive inventories of pre- 
standard hose and end fittings arose from incor- 
rect assumptions about the effective date of the 
standard as applied to ho.se assemblies which are 
not completed until the hose is installed in the 
vehicle. No parallel misunderstanding can arise 
with respect to the September 1, 1975 efl'ecti\-e 
date for vehicles, so brake hose assemblers can 
plan their production schedules accordingly. 

In consideration of the foregoing. Standard 
No. 106-74 (49 CFR 571.106-74) is amended by 
the addition of a new section .... 



PART 571; S 106-74— PRE 19 



Effective: November 11, 1974 

Effective date: November 11, 1974. Beeause Issued on November 6, 1974. 

this amendment relieves a restriction, the Na- 

tional Highway Traffic Safety Administration ^^^^^ ^ 

finds, for good cause sliown. tliat an iminechate ^ • • 

effective date is in tlie public interest. Administrator 

(Sees. 103, 119. Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority -^^ ^-^^ ^^'^^ 

at 49 CFR 1.51.) November 11, 1974 



PART 571; S 106-74— PRE 20 



Eff*ctiv«: March 17, iy7A 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 106-74 

Brake Hoses 

(Docket No. 1-5; Notice 16) 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.106-74, Stand- 
ard No. 106-74, Brake hoses, by modifying sev- 
eral labeling requirements and the deformation 
test requirement for \acuum brake hose, in re- 
sponse to petitions for reconsideration of amend- 
ments which were published June 28, 1974 (39 
F.R. 24012) (Notice 11). Several of the petitions 
are denied; others requested changes which are 
outside the scope of a petition for reconsidera- 
tion, and will be considered as petitions for fu- 
ture rulemaking. 

Ford Slotor Company petitioned for relaxation 
of the labeling requirements of the standard as 
they apply to brake hose end fittings. Recog- 
nizing that labeling of all components of an end 
fitting is not feasible, the NHTSA in Notice 11 
interpreted S5.2.3 to require that all unlabeled 
components of an end fitting be made by the 
manufacturer whose designation appears on one 
part. Ford pointed out that, because end fitting 
components made by different manufacturers and 
purchased according to the assembler's specifica- 
tions are virtually interchangeable, this inter- 
pretation would preclude the cost saving practice 
of purchasing individual components from the 
source offering the most favorable price. Because 
most of the performance requirements of the 
standard apply to assemblies, responsibility for 
noncompliance and for safety defects will usually 
belong to the assembler. Accordingly, the stand- 
ard is amended to require labeling on at least one 
component of an end fitting, thus permitting the 
practice of mixing parts from different sources 
to continue as requested by Ford. 

Several vehicle manufacturei-s petitioned for 
changes in the interpretation of the labeling re- 
quirements, to allow labels on hose and end fit- 
tings to be obscured by paint or by masking 



materials. New information indicates that spray 
painting of end fittings leaves their labeling vis- 
ible in most cases and that, in the occasional in- 
stances where labeling is obscured, excess paint 
may be easily scraped off. In addition, painting 
protects the labels and fittings against corrosion. 
Therefore, the NHTSA will not consider the 
painting of end fittings to be a violation of the 
standard. Painting of hose labels, however, pre- 
sents different considerations, because removal 
of paint from a hose may damage both the label 
and the hose. Therefore, the label on a hose must 
remain visible after painting unless it is pro- 
tected by masking which can be removed man- 
ually to permit inspection. Because masking 
material can protect the label from obscuration 
by road grime, and because the expense required 
to remove it after painting does not appear 
justified, hose labels may remain masked after 
painting provided that the masking material is 
affixed in such a way that no adhesive contacts 
any part of the label. 

B^fW petitioned for a relaxation of the de- 
formation test requireemnts for wire-reinforced 
vacuum hose. S9.2.10 in its present form requires 
a \acuum brake hose to return to 90 percent of its 
original diameter within 60 seconds after five 
apiilications of force as specified in SlO.9. The 
NHTSA has determined that a reduction of the 
90 percent figure to 85 percent will facilitate the 
use of wire-reinforced hose having greater re- 
sistance to collapse under vacuum, and is in the 
public interest. Therefore, BMAV's petition is 
granted. 

The Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) 
and Gates Rubber Company requested an excep- 
tion to the hose labeling requirement for hose 
lengths shorter than the length of a complete 



PART 571; S 106-74— PRE 21 



Effective: March 17, 1975 

legend plus the space between legends. These 
petitions are denied. The NHTSA has no reason 
to believe the hose labeling cannot be reduced in 
length to fit virtually any hose length. The 6- 
inch distance between legends specified in S5.2.2 
is a niaximiun, and for hose which is to be cut 
into short lengths, this distance can be reduced 
or eliminated. Also, lettering width may be re- 
duced because there is no width requirement in 
S5.2.2 for specified lettering. In addition, Notice 
11 modified the standard to permit the required 
information to appear in any order to facilitate 
hose cutting. 

Kugelfischer Georg Schafer & Co. of Germany 
expressed dissatisfaction with the banding re- 
quirement for brake hose assemblies. Requests 
to eliminate this requirement were responded to 
in Xotice 10 (39 F.R. 7425, February 26, 1974). 
Kugelfischer also suggested exemption from the 
banding requirement of assemblers who manu- 
facture both tlie hose and end fittings in their 
assemblies. Sucli an exemption would make it 
impossible to identify the assembler of a de- 
fective or noncomplying assembly in which liose 
and end fittings were made Ijy the same manu- 
facturer, and to which no band was attached. 
Therefore the Kugelfischer petition is denied. 

Se^^eral manufacturers petitioned for substitu- 
tion of a ball-vacuum test for the adhesion test 
described in S8.6 in the case of a hose which is 
reinforced with wire braid. The RMA petitioned 
for a change in the method of expressing the re- 
sults of the adliesion test, to permit averaging of 
the values recorded on the chart. The NHTSA 
has tentatively found these petitions to have 
merit, and is considering the issuance of a notice 
of proposed rulemaking on these subjects. 

Several of the petitions requested changes 
which are outside the scope of a petition for 
reconsideration of a rule. A petition for recon- 
sideration is appropriate to assert that the peti- 
tioner believes that compliance with the rule as 
issued is not practicable, is unreasonable, or is 
not in the public interest, and to suggest changes 
on that basis (49 CFR 553.35(a)). Requests for 
new requirements that do not contest the appro- 
priateness of the issued ones are properly sub- 
mitted as petitions for rulemaking. Gates and 
the RMA petitioned for an amendment of S7.3.3 
to require an internal as well as external inspec- 



tion of the hose surface after an air brake hose ^ 
is subjected to the low temperature resistance ^ 
test of S8.2. Stratoflex petitioned for changes 
in S7.3.10 and S7.3.11 to require higher tensile 
strength values for hoses used in certain applica- 
tions. Stratofiex also petitioned for the addition 
to S7.3 of a flexion resistance test for air brake 
hose. The NHTSA considers these requests to 
merit further consideration and accordingly, the 
NHTSA will treat these petitions as petitions for 
rulemaking. 

Several inconsistencies resulted from amend- 
ments made to the standard in Notice 11. In 
one case, the modification of the definition of 
"Permanently attached end fitting'' inadvertently 
changed the requirements for hydraulic brake 
hose assemblies in S5.1. The modification was 
not intended to permit use of renewable fittings 
in hydraulic brake hose assemblies. Accordingly, 
S5.1 is amended to require that hydraulic brake 
hose assemblies incorporate only those perma- 
nently attached end fittings which are attached 
by deformation of the fittings about the hose 
by crimping or swaging. To correct another 
inadvertent error, S6.7.2(c) is amended to bring 
the brake fluid compatibility test for hydraulic 
liose into conformity with the constriction test ^ 
as changed by Notice 11. In response to an in- 
quiry from BMW, new entries are made in Tables 
V and VI to cover ^^y-ii^ch diameter vacuum hose. 
To clarify the meaning of S5.2.2, the words "may 
appear" in the first paragraph are changed to 
read "need appear". In addition, several typo- 
graphical errors have been corrected. 

In consideration of the foregoing. Standard 
No. 106-74 (49 CFR 571.106-74) is amended 

Ejfective date: March 17, 1975. Because these 
amendments, relieve restrictions and create no 
additional burdens, the NHTSA finds, for good 
cause shown, that an immediate effective date is 
in the public interest. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 (15 
U.S.C. 1392, 1407) : delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51) 

Issued on: March 10, 1975. 

Noel C. Bufe 
Acting Administrator 

40 F.R. 12088 
March 17, 1975 



PART 571; S 106-74— PRE 22 



Effective: March 1, 1976 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 106-74 

Brake Hoses 
(Docket No. 1-5; Notice 17) 



This notice delays for 6 months the effective 
date of the hose label masking requirements of 
49 CFR 571.106-74 (Standard No. 106-74 Brake 
Hoses), in order to allow time for public com- 
ment on a proposal to eliminate those require- 
ments. 

S5.2.2, S7.2, and S9.1 of the standard require 
certain information to be labeled at intervals of 
not more than 6 inches on new hydraulic, air, 
and vacuum brake hose, respectively. Those re- 
quirements were effective September 1, 1974, 
and are unchanged by this notice. S5.2.2, by 
itself and as incorporated by reference in S7.2 
and 89.1, also requires at least one legend of this 
information to remain either visible after paint- 
ing and undercoating, or properly masked, on 
each brake hose in a completed vehicle. This 
requirement, which as a practical matter requires 
masking, would become effective September 1, 
1975, because it applies to vehicles. The NHTSA 
intends to propose, in the near future, an amend- 
ment of Standard No. 106-74 that would elimi- 
nate the requirement entirely. In order to allow 
time for public comment on the proposal, and to 
permit vehicle manufacturers to defer prepara- 
tion for compliance with a requirement which 
might never become effective, this notice delays 



the effective date of the masking requirement. 
There is no change in the requirement that ve- 
hicles manufactured on or after September 1, 
1975, be equipped with brake hoses, brake hose 
end fittings, and brake hose assemblies that 
comply with the standard. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the effective 
date of the requirement in S5.2.2, S7.2, and S9.1 
of 49 CFR 571.106-74 (Standard No. 160-74, 
Brake Hoses), that hose label information remain 
visible on completed vehicles unless properly 
masked, is changed to March 1, 1976. Because 
of the need to allow time for public comment on 
the prospective proposal to eliminate the require- 
ment, the NHTSA for good cause finds that 
notice and public procedure on the delay are 
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. 

(Sec. 103, 112, 114, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 
718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407) ; delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.15.) 

Issued on July 29, 1975. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

40 F.R. 32336 
August 1, 1975 



PART 571; S 106-74— PRE 23-24 



f 



Effective: August 27, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 106-74 

Brake Hoses 
(Docket No. 1-5; Notice 18) 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.106-74 (Stand- 
ard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses) to permit, until 
August 31, 1976, the manufacturing of motor 
vehicles with brake liose, brake hose end fittings, 
and brake hose assemblies which comply with 
all requirements of the standard except certain 
labeling requirements. 

In a notice published on June 28, 1974 (39 
FR 24012, Docket No. 1-5, Notice 11), the fol- 
lowing scheme of effective dates was established : 
September 1, 1974, for brake hose and brake 
hose end fittings; March 1, 1975, for brake hose 
assemblies; and September 1, 1975, for vehicles 
to which the standard applies. This scheme was 
designed to permit an orderly phase-in of parts 
meeting the new standard, by allowing six 
months at each production stage for the deple- 
tion of inventories of non-conforming parts. 

After the September 1, 1974, effective date for 
hose and fittings, it became apparent tliat, due 
to a misunderstanding within the industry of the 
standard's requirements, stocks of hose and end 
fittings manufactured before that date would not 
be completely converted into assemblies by the 
March 1, 1975, effective date for assemblies. 
Because the only difference between those non- 
conforming components and hose and fittings 
manufactured after September 1, 1974, appeared 
to be one of labeling, the XHTSA added S12. 
to the standard. That section extended until 
August 31, 1975, the period during which such 
components could be used in assemblies, provided 
that they met all of the standard's performance 
requirements (30 FR 39725, Docket No. 1-5. 
Notice 14). 

Since the publication of Notice 14, there has 
been an unforeseen sharp decline in the produc- 



tion of new trucks, causing several component 
manufacturers, distributors, and vehicle manu- 
facturers to have on liand large inventories of 
hose and end fittings manufactured before 
September 1, 1974, and of assemblies manufac- 
tured from them before March 1, 1975. 

A further extension of the time during whicli 
these inventories could be exhausted was re- 
quested in petitions for rulemaking filed by 
Parker-Hannifin Corp., Wagner Electric Corp., 
Aeroquip Corp., Samuel Moore and Co., Freight- 
liner Corp., and PACCAR, Inc. These peti- 
tioners indicated that, without such an extension, 
components valued at several hundred thousand 
dollars would have to be scrapped, even though 
they comply fully with all performance i-equire- 
ments of the standard. The petitioners requested 
extensions ranging from 6 to 18 months. 

As with the inventories which were the sub- 
ject of the Notice 14 amendment, safety of per- 
formance is not a major issue. The NHTSA 
has determined that, while granting these peti- 
tions may continue to make enforcement by this 
agency more difficult imtil these inventories are 
depleted, the avoidance of waste in this situa- 
tion is appropriate and in the public interest. 
Accordingly, a 1-year extension is granted. It 
should be noted that this amendment makes no 
change in the banding I'equirement for assemblies 
manufactured on and after March 1, 1975. S13(c) 
is merely intended to facilitate the exliaustion of 
stocks of unhanded assemblies wliich comply with 
the standard in all other respects. 

Because of the imminent effective date of a 
requirement which would otherwise lead to sub- 
stantial economic waste, the NIITSA for good 
cause finds that notice and public procedure on 



PART 571; S 106-74— PRE 25 



Effective: August 27, 1975 

this amendment arc impracticiible and coiitiaiy (Sees. 103, 112, 114, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 

to the public interest. Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407) ; 

In consideration of the forejroing, 49 CFR delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.51.) 

571.106-74 (Standard No. 106-74, Brake hoses), Issued on Au"-ust 22 1975. 

is amended .... 

Eifective date: August 27, 1975. Because ',% • ■ / / "^ ' 

... A(iniinistr*xtor 

this amendment relieves a restriction, it is foimd, 

for good cause shown, that an immediate eifec- 40 F.R. 38159 

tive date is in the public interest. August 27, 1975 



PART 571; S 106-74— PRE 26 



EfFecllve: September 1, 1974 
March 1, 1975 
September 1, 1975 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 106-74 



Brake Hoses 



51. Scope. This standard specifies labeling 
and performance requirements for motor v^eliicle 
brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake 
hose end fittings. 

52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is 
to reduce deaths and injuries occurring as a 
result of brake system failure from pressure or 
vacuum loss due to hose or hose assembly rup- 
ture. 

53. Application. This standard applies to 
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles, and to 
hydraulic, air, and vacuum brake hose, brake 
hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings for 
use in those vehicles. 

54. Definitions. 

"Armor" means protective material installed 
on a brake hose to increase the resistance of the 
hose or hose assembly to abrasion or impact 
damage. 

["Brake hose" means a flexible conduit manu- 
factured for use in a brake system to transmit 
or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to 
^PPly force to a vehicle's brakes. (39 F.R. 
240ia— June 28, 1974. Effective: 9/1/74)] 

["Brake hose assembly" means a brake hose, 
with or without armor, equipped with end fit- 
tings for use in a brake system, but does not in- 
clude an assembly containing used components. 
(39 F.R. 7425— February 26, 1974. Etfective: 
9/1/74 & 1/1/75)3 

"Brake hose end fitting" means a coupler, 
other than a clamp, designed for attachment to 
the end of a brake hose. 

"Free length" means the linear measurement 
of hose exposed between the end fittings of a 
hose assembly in a straight position. 



["Permanently attached end fitting" means an 
end fitting that is attached by deformation of the 
fitting about the hose by crimping or swaging, 
or an end fitting that is attached by use of a 
sacrificial slee\e or ferrule that requires replace- 
ment each time a hose assembly is rebuilt. (39 
F.R. 24012— June 28, 1974. Effective: 9/1/74)] 

["Rupture" means any failure that results in 
separation of a brake hose from its end fitting 
or in leakage. (39 F.R, 7425— February 26, 
1974. Effective: 9/1/74 & 1/1/75)] 

[For hose, a dimensional description such as 
"1/4-inch hose" refers to the nominal inside diam- 
eter. For tubing, a dimensional description such 
as "i/4-in tubing" refers to the nominal outside 
diameter. (39 F.R. 7425— February 26, 1974. 
Effective: 9/1/74 & 1/1/75)] 

S5. Requirements — Hydraulic brake hose, brake 
hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. 

55.1 Construction. Each hydraulic brake hose 
assembly shall have permanently attached brake 
hose end fittings which are attached by deforma- 
tion of the fitting about the hose by crimping or 
swaging. (40 F.R. 12088— ISIarch 17, 1975. Ef- 
fective: 3/17/75)] 

55.2 Labeling. 

55.2.1 Each hydraulic brake hose shall have 
at least two clearly identifiable stripes of at 
least one-sixteenth of an inch in width, placed 
on opposite sides of the brake hose parallel to 
its longitudinal axis. One stripe may be inter- 
rupted by the information required by S5.2.2, 
and the other stripe may be interrupted by ad- 
ditional information at the manufacturer's op- 
tion. 

55.2.2 [Each hydraulic brake hose shall be 
permanently labeled at intervals of not more 
than 6 inches, measured from tlie end of one 



(Rev. 3/10/75) 



PART 571; S 106-74—1 



EfFeefive: September 1, 1974 
March I, 1975 
September 1, 1975 

legend to the beginniii<r of the next, in block 
capital letters and numerals at least one-eifrhth 
of an inch high, with the information listed in 
paragraphs (a) through (e). In the case of a 
hose which has been installed by a ^•ehicle manu- 
facturer in vehicles manufactured by him, the in- 
fonnation need appear only once and the 
information may remain masked if (i) the mask- 
ing material is affixed in such a way that no 
adhesive contacts any part of the label and (ii) 
the masking is manually removable. (40 F.K. 
32336— August 1, 1975. Effective: 3/1/76)] 

(a) The symbol DOT, constituting a certifica- 
tion by the hose manufacturer that the hose con- 
forms to all applicable motor vehicle safety 
standards. 

[(b) A designation that identifies the manu- 
facturer of the hose, which shall be filed in writ- 
ing with: Office of Crash Avoidance, Handling 
and Stability Division, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20590. The marking may con- 
sist of a designation other than block capital 
letters required by S5.2.2. (40 F.R. 12088— 
March 17, 1975. Effective: 3/17/75)] 

[(c) The month, day, and year, or the month 
and year, of manufacture, expressed in numerals. 
For example, 10/1/74 means October 1, 1974. 
(39 F.R. 7425— February 26. 1974. Effective: 
9/1/74 & 1/1/75)] 

[(d) The nominal inside diameter of the hose 
expressed in inches or fractions of inches, or the 
nominal outside diameter of the tube expressed 
in inches or fractions of inches followed by the 
letters OD. (Example of inside diameter; i/g, 
V2 (-V^SP ill tlie case of 1/2 ii'"^li special air brake 
hose. Example of outside diameter; y^ OD.) 
(39 F.R. 24012— June 28, 1974. Effective: 
9/1/74)] 

(e) Either "HR" to indicate that the hose is 
regular expansion hydraulic hose or "HL" to 
indicate that the hose is low expansion hydraulic 
hose. 

S5.2.3 [Except for an end fitting that is at- 
tached by deformation of the fitting about a 
hose by crimping or swaging, at least one com- 
ponent of each hydraulic brake hose fitting shall 
be permanently etched, embossed, or stamped, 



in block capital letters and numerals at least one- ~ 
sixteenth of an inch high with the following 
information : 

(a) The symbol DOT, constituting a certifica- 
tion by the manufacturer of that component that 
the component conforms to all applicable motor 
vehicle safety standards. 

(b) A designation that identifies the manu- 
facturer of that component of the fitting, which 
shall be filed in writing with : Office of Crash 
Avoidance, Handling and Stability Division, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20590. The designation may consist of symbols 
other than the block capital letters specified by 
S5.2.2. (40 F.R. 12088— ISIarch 17, 1975. Effec- 
tive: 3/17/75)] 

(c) The letter "H" to indicate the fitting is 
for use in hydraulic hose assemblies. 

(d) [The nominal inside diameter of the hose 
to which the fitting is properly attached ex- 
pressed in inches or fractions of inches, or the 
outside diameter of the tube to which the fitting 

is properly attached expressed in inches or frac- C 
tions of inches followed by the letters OD (See " 
examples in S5.2.2(d)). (39 F.R. 7425— Feb- 
ruary 26, 1974. Effective: 9/1/74 & 1/1/75)] 

S5.2.4 [Each hydraulic brake system assembly, 
except those assembled and installed by a vehicle 
manufacturer in vehicles manufactured by him. 
shall be labeled by means of a band around the 
brake hose assembly. The band may at the man- 
ufacturer's option be attached so as to move 
freely along the length of the assembly, as long 
as it is retained by the end fittings. The band 
shall be permanently etched, embossed, or 
stamped, in block capital letters and numerals 
at least one-eighth of an inch high, with the 
following information: (39 F.R. 7425— February 
26, 1974. Effective: 9/1/74 & 1/1/75)] 

(a) The symbol DOT, constituting certifica- 
tion by the hose assembler that the hose as- 
sembly conforms to all applicable motor vehicle 
safety standards. 

[(b) A designation that identifies the manu- 
facturer of the hose assembly, which shall be 
tiled in writing with: Office of Crash Avoidance, 
Handling and Stability Division, National High- 
way Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh tk 



IRev. 7/29/75) 



PART 571; S 106-74—2 



Street, S.W.. Washington. D.C. 20590. The 
marking consist of a designation other than block 
capital lettei-s required by S5.2.4. (40 F.R. 12088 
—March 17, 1975. Effective: 3/17/75)] 

[(c) The month, dux, and year, or the month 
and year, of assembly, expressed in numerals. 
For example, 10/1/74 means October 1, 1974. 
(39 F.R. 7425— February 26, 1974. Effective: 
9/1/74 & 1/1/75)] 

S5.3 Test requirements. A hydraulic brake 
hose assembly or appropriate part thereof shall 
be capable of meeting any of the requirements 
set forth under this heading, when tested under 
the conditions of Sll and the applicable proce- 
dures of S6. However, a particular hose as- 
sembly or appropriate part thereof need not 
meet further requirements after having been 
subjected to and having met the constriction re- 
quirement (S5.3.1) and any one of the require- 
ments specified in S5.3.2 through S5.3.11. 

55.3.1 Constriction. [Except for that part of 
an end fitting which does not contain hose, every 
inside diameter of any section of a hydraulic 
brake hose assembly shall be not less than 64 
percent of the nominal inside diameter of the 
brake hose. (39 F.R. 24012— June 28, 1974. Ef- 
fective: 3/1/75)] 

55.3.2 Expansion and burst strength. [The 
maximum expansion of a hydraulic brake hose 
assembly at 1,000 psi and 1,500 psi shall not 
exceed the values specified in Table I (S6.1). 
The hydraulic brake hose assembly shall then 
withstand water pressure of 4,000 psi for 2 min- 
utes without rupture, and shall not rupture at 
less than 5,000 psi (S6.2). 39 F.R. 7425— Feb- 
ruary 26, 1974. Effective: 9/1/74 & 1/1/75)] 

55.3.3 Whip resistance. A hydraulic brake 
hose assembly shall not rvipture when run con- 



Effeclive: September 1, 1974 
March I, 1975 
September 1, 1975 

tinuously on a flexing machine for 35 hours 
(S6.3). 

55.3.4 Tensile strength. [A hydraulic brake 
hose assembly siiali withstand a pull of 325 
pomids without separation of the liose from its 

end fittings (S6.4). (39 F.R. 24015— June 28, 
1974. Effective: 3/1/75)] 

55.3.5 Water absorption and burst strength. 

A hydraulic brake hose assembly, after immer- 
sion in water for 70 hours (S6.5), shall with- 
stand water pressure of 4,000 psi for 2 minutes, 
and then shall not rupture at less than 5,000 psi 

(S6.2). 

55.3.6 Water absorption and tensile strength. 

[A hydraulic brake hose assembly, after immer- 
sion in water for 70 hours (S6.5), shall with- 
stand a pull of 325 pounds without separation 
of the hose from its end fittings (S6.4). (39 
F.R. 24012— June 28, 1974. Effective: 3/1/75)] 

55.3.7 Water absorption and whip resistance. 

A hydraulic brake hose assembly, after immer- 
sion in water for 70 hours (S6.5), shall not rup- 
ture when run continuously on a flexing machine 
for 35 hours (S6.3). 

55.3.8 Lo^-temperature resistance. [A hy- 
draulic brake hose conditioned at minus 40°F. 
for 70 hours shall not show cracks \asible without 
magnification when bent around a cylinder as 
specified in S6.6. (S6.6) (39 F.R. 7425— Feb- 
ruary 26, 1974. Effective: 9/1/74 & 1/1/75)] 

55.3.9 Brake fluid compatibility, constriction, 
and burst strength. [Except for brake hose as- 
semblies designed for use with mineral or petro- 
leum-based brake fluids, a hydraulic brake hose 
assembly shall meet the constriction requirement 
of S5.3.1 after having been subjected to a tem- 
perature of 200 °F. for 70 hours while filled with 
SAE RM-1 compatibility brake fluid (S6.7). It 



Table 1 — Maximum Expansion of Free Length Brake Hose, cc/ft. 



Hydraulic Brake Hose, 
inside diameter 



Test Pressure 




1,000 psi 1,500 psi 




Regular Low Regular 


Low 


Expansion Expansion Expansion 


Expansion 


Hose Hose Hose 


Hose 



% inch or less 0.66 

%6 inch 0.86 

V4 inch or more 1.04 



0.33 
0.55 
0.82 



0.79 
1.02 
1.30 



0.42 
0.72 
1.17 



(Rev. 3/10/75) 



PART 571 ; S 106-74—3 



Effective: September 1, 1974 
March 1, 1975 
September 1, 1975 

shall then withstand water pressure of 4,000 psi 
for 2 minutes and thereafter shall not rupture at 
less than 5,000 psi (S6.2). (39 F.K. 7425— Feb- 
ruary 26, 1974. Effective: 9/1/74 & 1/1/75) 

55.3.10 Ozone resistance. A hydraulic brake 
hose shall not show cracks visible under 7-power 
magnification after exposure to ozone for 70 
hours at 104° F. (S6.8). 

55.3.11 End fitting corrosion resistance. [After 
24 hours of exposure to salt spray, a hydraulic 
brake hose end fitting shall show no base metal 
corrosion on the end fitting surface except where 
crimping or the application of labeling informa- 
tion has caused displacement of the protective 
coating. (S6.9) (39 F.R. 7425— February 26, 
1974. Effective: 9/1/74 & 1/1/75)] 

S6. Test procedures — Hydraulic brake hose, 
brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fit- 
tings. 

S6.1 Expansion test. 

56.1.1 Apparatus. Utilize a test apparatus 
(as shown in Figure 1) which consists of: 

(a) Source for required fluid pressure; 

(b) [Test fluid of water without any additives 
and free of gases. (39 F.R. 7425— February 26, 
1974. Effective: 9/1/74 & 1/1/75)] 

(c) Reservoir for test fluid ; 

(d) Pressure gauges; 

(e) Brake hose end fittings in which to mount 
the hose vertically; and 

(f) Graduated burette with 0.05 cc increments. 

56.1.2 Preparation. 

(a) Measure the free length of the hose as- 
sembly. 

(b) Mount the hose so that it is in a vertical 
straight position without tension when pressure 
is applied. 

(c) Fill the hose with test fluid and bleed all 
gases from the system. 

(d) Close the valve to the burette and apply 
1,500 psi for 10 seconds; then release pressure. 

56.1.3 Calculation of expansion at 1,000 and 
1,500 psi. 

(a) Adjust the fluid level in the burette to 
zero. 



(b) Close the valve to the burette, apply pres- 
sure at the rate of 15,000 psi per minute, and 
seal 1,000 psi in the hose (1,500 psi in second 
series). 

(c) After 3 seconds open the valve to the 
burette for 10 seconds and allow the fluid in the 
expanded hose to rise into the burette. 

(d) Repeat the procedure in steps (b) and 
(c) twice. Measure the amount of test fluid 
which has accumulated in the burette as a result 
of the three applications of pressure. 

(e) Calculate the volumetric expansion per 
foot by dividing the total accumulated test fluid 
by 3 and further dividing by the free length of 
the hose in feet. 



^ riv?TTrn 



TUBE NUT OR OTHER 
APPROPRIATE FiniNG 




SEAL OPENING WITH CAP 
AFTER BLEEDING HOSE 



-^IPINT RESERVOIR 



STEEL TUBING 

IBRAZED INTO RESERVOIR) 



CAP OR PLUG 

Fig 2-Brake Fluid Compatability Apparatus 

56.2 Burst strength test. 

(a) Connect the brake hose to a pressure sys- 
tem and fill it completely with water, allowing 
all gases to escape. 

(b) [Apply water pressure of 4,000 psi at a 
rate of 15,000 psi per minute. (39 F.R. 7425— 
February 26, 1974. Effective: 9/1/74 & 1/1/75)] 

(c) After 2 minutes at 4,000 psi, increase the 
pressure at the rate of 15,000 psi per minute 
until the pressure exceeds 5,000 psi. 

56.3 Whip resistance test. 



(Rev. 2/20/74) 



PART 571; S 106-74-^ 



56.3.1 Apparatus. Utilize test apparatus that 
is dynamically balanced and includes: 

(a) A movable header consisting of a hori- 
zontal bar equipped with capped end fittings 
and mounted through bearings at each end to 
points 4 inches from the center of two vertically 
rotating disks whose edges are in the same 
vertical plane; 

(b) An adjustable stationary header parallel 
to the movable header in the same horizontal 
plane as the centers of the disks, and fitted with 
open end fittings ; 

(c) An elapsed time indicator; and 

(d) A source of water pressure connected to 
the open end fittings. 

56.3.2 Preparation. 

(a) Remove hose armor, and date band, if any. 

(b) Measure the hose free length. 

(c) [Mount the hose in the whip test machine 
introducing slack as specified in Table II for the 
size hose tested, measuring the projected length 
parallel to the axis of the rotating disks. The 
manufacturer may, at his ojation, adapt the fitting 
attachment points to permit mounting hose as- 
semblies equipped with angled or other special 
fittings in the same orientation as hose assemblies 
equipped with straight fittings. (39 F.R. 7425 — 
February 26, 1974. Effective: 9/1/74 & 1/1/75)] 

56.3.3 Operation. 

(a) Apply 235 psi water pressure and bleed 
all gases from the system. 

(b) Drive the movable head at 800 rpm. 

S6.4 Tensile strength test. Utilize a tension 
testing machine conforming to the requirements 
of the methods of Verification of Testing Ma- 
chines (1964 American Society for Testing and 



Effective: September 1, 1974 
March 1, 1975 
September 1, 1975 

Materials, Designation E4), and provided with 
a recording device to give the total pull in 
pounds. 

56.4.1 Preparation. Mount the hose assembly 
to ensure straight, evenly distributed machine 
pull. 

56.4.2 Operation. Apply tension at a rate of 
1 inch per minute travel of the moving head 
until separation occurs. 

56.5 Water absorption sequence tests. 

56.5.1 Preparation. Prepare three hose as- 
semblies as follows : 

(a) Remove 1% inches of hose cover, if any, 
from the center of the hose assemblies without 
injury to any reinforcing material or elongation 
of the hose assemblies. 

(b) Measure the free length of the hose as- 
semblies. 

56.5.2 Immersion and sequence testing. 

(a) Immerse the hose assemblies in distilled 
water for 70 hours. 

(b) Thirty minutes after removal from water, 
conduct tests S6.2, S6.3, and S6.4, using a dif- 
ferent hose for each sequence. 

56.6 Low temperature resistance test. 
S6.6.1 Preparation. 

(a) [Remove hose armor, if any, and condition 
a hose in a straight position in air at minus 40°F. 
for 70 hours. (39 F.R. 7425— February 26, 1974. 
Effective: 9/1/74 & 1/1/75)] 

(b) [Condition a cylinder in air at minus 
40°F. for 70 hours, using a cylinder of 21/2 
inches in diameter for tests of hose less than 
i/g-inch, 3 inches for tests of i/g-iiich hose, 3i/^ 
inches for tests of %6-inch and i4-inch hose, 



Table II — Hose Lengths 



Free length between end 
fittings, in. 



% in. hose 
or less 



Slaclc, in. 



more than % in. 
hose 



8 to 151/2, inclusive 
10 to 15V2> inclusive 
Over 151/2 to 19 inclusive 
Over 19 to 24, inclusive 



1.750 

1.250 
0.750 



1.000 



[(39 F.n. 7425— February 20, 1974. 



(Rev. 2/20/74) 



Effective: 9/1/74 & 1/1/75)1 
PART 571; S 106-7 



Effective: September 1, 1974 
March 1, 1975 
September 1, 1975 

and 4 inches for tests of hose greater than l^- 
inch in diameter. (39 F.R. 7425 — February 26, 

1974. Effective: 9/1/74 & 1/1/75)] 

S6.6.2 Flexibility testing. [Bend the condi- 
tioned hose 180 degrees around the conditioned 
cylinder at a steady rate in a period of 3 to 5 
seconds. Examine without magnification for 
cracks. (39 F.R. 7425— February 26, 1974. Ef- 
fective 9/1/74 & 1/1/75)] 

56.7 Brake fluid compatibility test. 

56.7.1 Preparation. 

(a) [Attach a hose assembly below a 1-pint 
reservoir filled with 100 ml of SAE RM 1 Com- 
patibility Fluid as shown in Figure 2. (39 F.R. 
7425— February 26, 1974. Effective: 9/1/74 & 
1/1/75)] 

(b) Fill the hose assembly with brake fluid, 
seal the lower end, and place the test assembly 
in an oven in a vertical position. 

56.7.2 Oven treatment. 

(a) Condition the hose assembly at 200° F. 
for 70 hours. 

(b) Cool the hose assembly at room tempera- 
ture for 30 minutes. 

(c) [Drain the brake hose assembly, immedi- 
ately determine that every inside diameter of 
any section of the hose assembly, except for that 
part of an end fitting which does not contain 
hose, is not less than 64 percent of the nominal 
inside diameter of the hose, and conduct the 
test specified in S6.2. (40 F.R. 12088— March 17, 

1975. Effective: 3/17/75)] 

56.8 Ozone resistance test. Utilize a cylinder 
with a diameter eight times the nominal outside 
diameter of the brake hose excluding armor. 

56.8.1 Preparation. [After removing any ar- 
mor, bind a hydraulic brake hose 360° around 
the cylinder. In the case of hose shorter than 
the circimiference of the cylinder, bend the hose 
so that as much of its length as possible is in con- 
tact. (39 F.R. 7425— February 26, 1974. Effec- 
tive: 9/1/74 & 1/1/75)] 

56.8.2 Exposure to ozone. 

(a) Condition the hose on the cylinder in air 
at room temperature for 24 hours. 



(b) Immediately thereafter, condition the 
hose on the cylinder for 70 hours in an exposure 
chamber having an ambient air temperature of 
104° F. during the test and containing air mixed 
with ozone in the proportion of 50 parts of 
ozone per 100 million parts of air by volume. 

(c) Examine the hose for cracks under 7- 
power magnification, ignoring areas immediately 
adjacent to or within the area covered by binding. 

S6.9 End fitting corrosion resistance test. Uti- 
lize the apparatus described in ASTM B117-64, 
"Salt Spray (Fog) Testing". 

S6.9.1 Construction. Construct the salt spray 
chamber so that: 

(a) The construction material does not affect 
the corrosiveness of the fog. 

(b) The hose assembly is supported or sus- 
pended 30° from the vertical and parallel to the 
principal direction of the horizontal flow of fog 
through the chamber. 

(c) The hose assembly does not contact any 
metallic material or any material capable of 
acting as a wick. 



H I 



i 



ADJUSTABLE 
FOR HOSE 
LENGTH 



-HOSE ASSEMBLY 



Fig. 1 Expansion Test Apparatus 



(Rev. 3/10/75) 



PART 571; S 106-74^6 



(d) Condensation which falls from the as- 
sembly does not return to the solution reservoir 
for respraying. 

(e) Condensation from any source does not 
fall on the brake hose assemblies or the solution 
collectors. 

(f) Spray from the nozzles is not directed 
onto the hose assembly. 

56.9.2 Preparation. 

(a) Plug each end of the hose assembly. 

(b) Mix a salt solution five parts by weight 
of sodium chloride to 95 parts of distilled water, 
using sodium chloride substantially free of nickel 
and copper, and containing on a dry basis not 
more than 0.1 percent of sodium iodide and not 
more than 0.3 percent total impurities. Ensure 
that the solution is free of suspended solids be- 
fore the solution is atomized. 

(c) After atomization at 95° F. ensure that 
the collected solution is in the PH range of 6.5 
to 7.2, Make the PH measurements at 77° F. 

(d) Maintain a compressed air supply to the 
nozzle or nozzles free of oil and dirt and be- 
tween 10 and 25 psi. 

56.9.3 Operation. Subject the brake hose as- 
sembly to the salt spray continuously for 24 
hours. 



Effective: September 1, 1974 
March I, 1975 
September 1, 1975 

(a) Regulate the mixture so that each col- 
lector will collect from 1 to 2 ml. of solution 
per hour for each 80 square centimeters of hori- 
zontal collecting area. 

(b) Maintain exposure zone temperature at 
95° F. 

(c) Upon completion, remove the salt deposit 
from the surface of the hoses by washing gently 
or dipping in clean running water not warmer 
than 100° F. and then drying immediately. 

S7. Requirements — Air brake hose, brake hose 
assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. 

57.1 Construction. [Each air brake hose as- 
sembly shall be equipped with permanently at- 
tached brake hose end fittings or reusable brake 
hose end fittings. Each air brake hose intended 
for use with reusable end fittings shall conform 
to the dimensional requirements specified in 
Table III. (39 F.R. 7425— February 26, 1974. 
Effective: 9/1/74 & 1/1/75) 

57.2 Labeling. [Each air brake hose, brake 
hose assembly, and brake hose end fitting shall 
be labeled as specified in S5.2 except for the 
requirements of S5.2.1, S5.2.2(e) and S5.2.3(c). 
Instead of "H", "HR". or "HL", the letter "A"- 
shall indicate intended use in air brake systems. 
In the case of a hose intended for use in a reus- 
able assembly, "AI" or "All" shall indicate Type 
I or Type II dimensional characteristics of the 



Table III — Air Brake Hose Dimensions for Reusal)le Assemblies 



Size, 
inches 


Inside Diameter 
Tolerance, inches 


TYPE I 
O.D., inches 
Min Max 


TYPE II 

O.D., inches 

Min Max 


%6 


+ 0.026 
-0.000 


0.472 


0.510 


0.500 


0.539 


% 


+ 0.031 
-0.000 


0.535 


0.573 


0.562 


0.602 


%6 


+0.031 
-0.000 


0.598 


0.636 


0.656 


0.695 


% 


±0.023 


0.719 


0.781 


0.719 


0.781 


1%2 


+0.031 
-0.000 


0.714 


0.760 


0.742 


0.789 


Vi 


+ 0.0.39 
-0.000 


0.808 


0.854 


0.898 


0.945 


% 


+ 0.042 
-0.000 


0.933 


0.979 


1.054 


1.101 


% special 


±0.031 


0.844 


0.906 


0.844 


0.906 



[(39 F.R. 7425— February 26, 1974. Effective: 9/1/74 & 1/1/75)] 
(Rev. 2/20/74) PART 571; S 106-74—7 



Effective; September 1, 1974 
March 1, 1975 
September 1, 1975 



hose as described in Table III. In the case of an 
end fitting intended for use in a reusable assem- 
bly, "AI" or "All" shall indicate use with Type 
I or Type II hose respectively. (40 F.R. 32336— 
August 1, 1975. Effective: 3/1/76)] 

S7.3 Test requirements. Each air brake hose 
assembly or appropriate part thereof shall be 
capable of meeting any of the requirements set 
forth under this heading, when tested under the 
conditions of Sll and the applicable procedures 
of S8. However, a particular hose assembly or 
appropriate part thereof need not meet further 
requirements after having met the constriction 
requirement (S7.3.1) and then having been sub- 
jected to any one of the requirements specified 
in S7.3.2 through S7.3.13. 

57.3.1 Constriction. [Except for that part of 
an end fitting which does not contain hose, every 
inside diameter of any section of an air brake 
hose assembly sliall be not less than 66 percent 
of the nominal inside diameter of the brake liose. 
(39 F.R. 24012— June 28, 1974. Effective: 
3/1/75)3 

57.3.2 High temperature resistance. An air 
brake hose shall not show external or internal 
cracks, charring, or disintegration visible with- 
out magnification when straightened after being 
bent for 70 hours at 212° F. over a cylinder 
having the radius specified in Table IV for the 
size of hose tested (S8.1). 

57.3.3 Low temperature resistance. The outer 
cover of an air brake hose shall not show cracks 
visible without magnification as a result of con- 
ditioning at minus 40° F. for 70 hours when 
bent around a cylinder having the radius speci- 
fied in Table IV for the size of hose tested 
(S8.2). 

57.3.4 Oil resistance. After immersion in 
ASTM No. 3 oil for 70 hours at 212° F. the 
volume of a specimen prepared from the inner 
tube and cover of an air brake hose shall not 
increase more than 100 percent (S8.3). 

57.3.5 Ozone resistance. The outer cover of 
an air brake hose shall not show cracks visible 
under 7-power magnification after exposure to 
ozone for 70 hours at 104° F. (S8.4). 

57.3.6 Length change. An airbrake hose shall 
not contract in length more than 7 percent nor 
elongate more than 5 percent when subjected to 
air pressure of 200 psi (S8.5). 



(Rev. 7/29/75) 



PART 571; 



57.3.7 Adhesion. An airbrake hose shall ^ 
withstand a tensile force of 8 pounds per inch 

of length before separation of adjacent layers 
(S8.6). 

57.3.8 Air pressure. An air brake hose as- 
sembly shall contain air pressure of 200 psi for 
5 minutes without loss of more than 5 psi (S8.7). 

57.3.9 Burst strength. [An air brake hose as- 
sembly shall not rupture when exposed to hydro- 
static pressure of 800 psi (S8.8) . (39 F.R. 7425— 
February 26, 1974. Effective: 9/1/74 & 1/1/75)] 

57.3.10 Tensile strength. [An air brake hose 
assembly (other than a coiled nylon tube assem- 
bly which meets the requirements of § 393.45 of 
this title) designed for use between frame and 
axle or between a towed and a towing vehicle 
.shall withstand, without separation of the hose 
from its end fittings, a pull of 250 pounds if it 
is 14 in. or less in nominal internal diameter, or 
a pull of 325 pounds if it is larger than 14 in. 
in nominal internal diameter. An air brake hose 
assembly designed for use in any other applica- 
tion .shall withstand, without separation of the 
liose from its end fitting, a pull of 50 jiounds if ^ 
it is 14 ill- o^ l^ss in nominal internal diameter, (H 
150 pounds if it is % or i^ in. in nominal inter- 
nal diameter, or 325 [lounds if it is larger than 

1/2 in- in nominal internal diameter (S8.9). (39 
f'.R. 28436— August 7, 1974. Effective: 3/1/75)] 
S7.3.n Water absorption and tensile strength. 
[After immersion in distilled water for 70 hours 
(S8.10), an air brake hose assembly (other than 
a coiled tube assembly which meets the require- 
ments of § 393.45 of this title) designed for use 
between frame and axle or between a towed and 
a towing vehicle shall withstand witliout separa- 
tion of the hose from its end fittings a pull of 
250 pounds if it is i/i in. or less in nominal in- 
ternal diameter, or a pull of 325 pounds if it is 
larger than 14 'n. in nominal internal diameter. 
After immersion in distilled water for 70 hours 
(S8.10), an air brake hose assembly designed for 
use in any other application shall withstand 
without separation of the hose from its end fit- 
tings a pull of 50 pounds if it is 14 in- or less in 
nominal internal diameter, 150 pounds if it is 
% or 1/^ in. in nominal internal diameter, or 325 
pounds if it is larger than y^ in- in nominal 
internal diameter (S8.9). (39 F.R. 28436— 
August 7, 1974. (Effective: 3/1/75)] ( \ 

S 106-74—8 



Effective: September 1, 1974 
March 1, 1975 
September 1, 1975 



Table IV — Air Brake Hose Diameters and Test Cylinder Radii 



Hose, nominal diameter 
in inches 

Radius of test cylinder 
in inches 



% %6 



%6 % i%2 %6 



1% 



2% 



3% 3% 



4% 



57.3.12 Zinc chloride resistance. The outer 
cover of an air brake hose shall not show cracks 
visible under 7-power magnification after immer- 
sion in a 50 percent zinc chloride aqueous solu- 
tion for 200 hours (S8.ll). 

57.3.13 End fitting corrosion resistance. [After 
24 hours of exposure to salt spray, air brake hose 
end fittings shall show no base metal corrosion 
on the end fitting surface except where crimping 
or the application of labeling information causes 
a displacement of the protective coating. (39 
F.R, 24012— June 28, 1974. Effective: 9/1/74)] 

S8. Test procedures — Air brake hose, brake 
hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. 

58.1 High temperature resistance test. 

(a) Utilize a cylinder having the radius indi- 
cated in Table IV for the size of hose tested. 

(b) Bind the hose around the cylinder and 
condition it in an air oven for 70 hours at 212° F. 

(c) Cool the hose to room temperature, re- 
move it from the cylinder and straighten it. 

(d) Without magnification, examine the hose 
externally and cut the hose lengthwise and 
examine the inner tube. 

58.2 Low temperature resistance test. 

(a) Utilize a cylinder having the radius indi- 
cated in Table IV for the size of hose tested. 

(b) Condition the cylinder and the brake hose, 
in a straight position, in a cold box at minus 
40° F. for 70 hours. 

(c) With the hose and cylinder at minus 40° 
F., bend the hose 180 degrees around the cylinder 
at a steady rate in a period of 3 to 5 seconds. 

58.3 Oil resistance test. Utilize three test 
specimens and average the results. 

S8.3.1 Preparation. [Fashion a test specimen 
by cutting a rectangular block 2 inches long and 
not less than one-third of an inch in width, hav- 
ing a thickness of not more than one-sixteenth 



inch, from the brake hose and buff the specimen 
on both faces to ensure smooth surfaces. (39 
F.R. 7425— February 26, 1974. Effective: 9/1/74 
& 1/1/75)] 

S8.3.2 Measurement. 

(a) Weigh each specimen to the nearest milli- 
gram in air (Wl) and in distilled water (W2) 
at room temperature. If wetting is necessary 
to remove air bubbles, dip the specimen in ace- 
tone and thoroughly rinse it with distilled water. 

(b) Immerse each specimen in ASTM No. 3 
oil for 70 hours at 212° F. and then cool in 
ASTM No. 3 oil at room temperature for 30 to 
60 minutes. 

(c) Dip the specimen quickly in acetone and 
blot it lightly with filter paper. 

(d) Weigh each specimen in a tared weighing 
bottle (W3) and in distilled water (W4) within 
five minutes of removal from the cooling liquid. 

(e) Calculate the percentage increase in vol- 
ume as follows: 



Percent of increase = 



(W3-W.)-( W,-AV,) 
(Wi-W.) 



xlOO 



58.4 Ozone resistance test. Conduct the test 
specified in S6.8 using air brake hose. 

58.5 Length change test. 

(a) Position a test hose in a straight, hori- 
zontal position, and apply air pressure of 10 psi 
thereto. 

(b) Measure the hose to determine original 
free length. 

(c) Without releasing the 10 psi, raise the air 
pressure to the test hose to 200 psi. 

(d) Measure the hose under 200 psi to deter- 
mine final free length. An elongation or con- 
traction is an increase or decrease, respectively, 
in the final free length from the original free 
length of the hose. 

58.6 Adhesion test. 



(Rev. 6/24/74) 



PART 571; S 106-74—9 



Effective: September 1, 1974 
March 1, 1975 
September 1, 1975 

58.6.1 Apparatus. Utilize a power-driven ap- 
paratus of the inclination balance or pendulum 
type which is constructed so that : 

(a) The recording head includes a freely ro- 
tating form with an outside diameter substan- 
tially the same as the inside diameter of the hose 
specimen to be placed on it. 

(b) The freely rotating form is mounted so 
that its axis of rotation is in the plane of the 
ply being separated from the specimen and so 
that the applied force is perpendicular to the 
tangent of the specimen circumference at the 
line of separation. 

(c) The rate of travel of the power-actuated 
grip is a uniform 1 inch per minute and the 
capacity of the machine is such tliat maximum 
applied tension during the test is not more than 
85 percent nor less than 15 percent of the ma- 
chine's rated capacity. 

(d) The machine operates with no device for 
maintaining maximum load indication, and in a 
pendulum type machine, the weight level swings 
as a free pendulum without engagement of pawls. 

(e) The machine produces a chart with inches 
of separation as one coordinate and applied ten- 
sion as the other. 

58.6.2 Preparation. 

(a) Cut a test specimen of 1 inch or more in 
length from the hose to be tested and cut the 
layer to be tested of that test specimen longi- 
tudinally along its entire length to the level of 
contact with the adjacent layer. 

(b) Peel the layer to be tested from the ad- 
jacent layer to create a flap large enough to 
permit attachment of the power-actuated clamp 
of the apparatus. 

(c) Mount the test specimen on the freely ro- 
tating form with the separated layer attached 
to the power-actuated clamp. 

58.6.3 Operation. [Reserved] 

58.6.4 Calculations. 

(a) The adhesion value shall be the minimum 
force recorded on the portion of the chart cor- 
responding to the actual separation of the part 
being tested. 

(b) Express the force in pounds per inch of 
length. 



S8.7 Air pressure test. 

(a) Connect the air brake liose assembly to a 
source of air pressure. 

(b) Apply 200 psi air pressure to the hose 
and seal the hose from the source of air pressure. 

(c) After 5 minutes, determine the air pres- 
sure remaining in the test specimen. 

8.8 Burst strength test. 

(a) Utilize an air brake hose assembly. 

(b) Fill the hose assembly with water, allow- 
ing all gases to escape. Apply water pressure 
at a uniform rate of increase of approximately 
1,000 psi per minute until the hose ruptures. 

58.9 Tensile strength test. Utilize a tension 
testing machine conforming to the requirements 
of the Methods of Verification of Testing Ma- 
chines (1964 American Society for Testing and 
Materials, Designation E4), and provided with 
a recording device to i-egister total pull in pounds. 

(a) Attach an air brake liose assembly to the 
testing machine to permit straight, even, ma- 
chine-pull on the hose. 

(b) Apply tension at a rate of 1 inch per 
minute travel of the moving head until separa- 
tion occurs. 

58.10 Water absorption and tensile strength 
test. Immerse an air brake hose assembly in 
distilled water at room temperature for 70 hours. 
Thirty minutes after removal from the water, 
conduct the test sisecified in S8.9. 

58.11 Zinc chloride resistance test. Immerse 
an air brake hose in a 50 percent zinc chloride 
aqueous solution at room temperature for 200 
hours. Remove it from the solution and examine 
it under 7-power magnification for cracks. 

58.12 End fitting corrosion resistance test. 

Conduct the test specified in S6.9 using an air 
brake hose assembly. 

S9. Requirements — vacuum brake hose, brake 
hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. 

9.1 Labeling. [Each - vacuum brake hose, 
brake hose assembly, and brake hose end fitting 
shall be labeled as specified in S5.2 except for 
the requirements of S5.2.1, S5.2.2(e) and S5.2.3 
(c). In lieu of "H", "HR", or "HL", the letters 
"VL" or "VH" shall indicate respectively that 
the component is a light-duty vacuum brake 



(Rev. 7/29/75) 



PART 571; S 106-74—10 





















Effective: September 1, 1974 




















March 1, 1975 




















September 1, 1975 










Table V- 


-Vacuum Brake Hose Test Requirements 










High 


















Temperature 


Low Temperature 










— Inside 


Resistance 


Re.si 


istance 


Bend 


Deformation 


Hose 


Hose 


Kadius 


Hose 


Radius 


Hose 


Max. 


Collapsed ID 


diameter, 


ins. 


Length, 


of 


Length, 


of Cylinder, 


Length, 


Collapse 


(dimension D), 








inches 


Cylinder, 
inches 


Inches 


Inches 


inches 


of OD, 
inches 


inches 


%2 






8 


IV2 


171^ 


3 


7 


H'64 


%* 


% 






9 


11/2 


17% 


3 


8 


%2 


%6 


%2 






9 


1% 


19 


3% 


9 


1%4 


%4 


1%2 






9 


1% 


19 


3% 


11 


l%i 


%4 


% 






10 


1% 


19 


3% 


12 


%2 


%2 


yi6 






11 


2 


201^ 


4 


14 


"/64 


%4 


1%2 






11 


2 


20% 


4 


14 


"/64 


%4 


% 






11 


2 


20% 


4 


16 


%2 


% 


% 






12 


21/4 


22 


4% 


22 


%2 


%2 


% 






14 


2% 


24 


5 


28 


%2 


?i6 


1.0 






16 


31/4 


28% 


6% 


36 


%2 


V4 


r(40 


F.R. 


12088— March 17, 


1975. Effective: 3/17/75)] 









hose or heavy-duty vacuum brake hose or an 
end fitting intended for use in a light-duty or 
heavy-duty vacuum bralte system. (40 F.R. 
32336— August 1, 1975. Effective: 3/1/76)3 

S9.2 Test requirements. Each vacuum brake 
hose assembly or appropriate part thereof shall 
be capable of meeting any of the requirements 
set forth under this heading, when tested imder 
the conditions of Sll and the applicable proce- 
dures of SlO. However, a particular hose as- 
sembly or appropriate part thereof need not 
meet further requirements after having met the 
constriction requirement (S9.2.1) and then hav- 
ing been subjected to any one of the require- 
ments specified in S9.2.2 through S9.2.11. 

59.2.1 Constriction. [Except for that part of 
an end fitting which does not contain hose, every 
inside diameter of any section of a vacuum brake 
hose assembly shall be not less than 75 percent 
of the nominal inside diameter of the hose if for 
heavy duty, or 70 percent of the nominal inside 
diameter of the hose if for light duty. (39 F.R. 
24012— June 28, 1974. Effective: 3/1/75)] 

59.2.2 High temperature resistance. A vacuum 
brake hose shall not show external or internal 
cracks, charring, or disintegration visible with- 
out magnification when straightened after being 
bent for 70 hours at 212° F. over a cylinder 



ha\ang the radius specified in Table V for the 
size of hose tested (SlO.l). 

59.2.3 Low temperature resistance. A vacuum 
brake hose shall not show cracks visible without 
magnification after conditioning at minus 40° F. 
for 70 hours when bent around a cylinder having 
the radius specified in Table V for the size hose 
tested (SlO.2). 

59.2.4 Ozone resistance. A vacuum brake 
hose shall not show cracks visible under 7-power 
magnification after exposure to ozone for 70 
hours (S10.3). 

59.2.5 Burst strength. A vacuum brake hose 
shall not rupture under hydrostatic pressure of 
350 psi (SlO.4). 

59.2.6 Vacuum. The collapse of the outside 
diameter of a vacuum brake hose imder internal 
vacuum of 26 inches of Hg. for five minutes 
shall not exceed one-sixteenth of an inch (SlO.5). 

59.2.7 Bend. The collapse of the outside 
diameter of a vacuum brake hose at the middle 
point of the test length when bent until the ends 
touch shall not exceed the values given in Table 
V for the size of hose tested (SlO.6). 

59.2.8 Swell. [Following exposure to Refer- 
ence Fuel A. every inside diameter of any sec- 
tion of a vacuum brake liose sliall be not less than 
75 percent of the nominal inside of the hose if 
for heavy duty, or 70 percent of the nominal 



(Rev. 3/10/75) 



PART 571; S 106-74—11 



231-088 O - 77 - 22 



Effective: September 1, 1974 
March 1, 1975 
September 1, 1975 

inside diameter of the hose if for light duty. 
The vacuum braice hose shall show no leakage 
and there shall be no sei^aration of the inner tube 
from the fabric reinforcement of the hose in a 
vacuum test of 26 inches of Hg for 10 minutes 
(SlO.7). (39 F.R. 24012— June 28, 1974. Effec- 
tive: 9/1/74)] 

59.2.9 Adhesion. [A vacuum brake hose shall 
withstand a force of 8 pounds per inch of length 
before separation of adjacent layers (SlO.8). (39 
F.R. 24012— June 28, 1974. (Effective: 9/1/74)] 

59.2.10 Deformation. [A vacuum brake hose 
shall return to 90 percent of its original outside 
diameter within 60 seconds after five applica- 
tions of force as specified in SlO.9, except that 
a wire-reinforced hose need only return to 85 
percent of its original outside diameter. In the 
case of heavy-duty hose the first application of 
force shall not exceed a peak value of 70 [bounds, 
and the fifth application of force shall reach a 
peak value of at least 40 pounds. In the case of 
light-duty hose the first application of force shall 
not exceed a pealv value of 50 pounds, and the 
fifth application of force shall reach a peak value 
of at least 20 pounds (S10.9). (40 F.R. 12088— 
March 17, 1975. Effective: 3/17/75)] 

59.2.1 1 End fitting corrosion resistance. [After 
24 hours of exposure to salt spray, vacuum brake 
hose end fittings shall show no base metal corro- 
sion of the end fitting surface except where 
crimping or the application of labeling informa- 




tion has caused displacement of the protective 
coating. (39 F.R. 24012— June 28, 1974. (Effec- 
tive: 9/1/74)] 

SIO. Test procedures — Vacuum brake hose, 
brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end 
fittings. 

SI 0.1 High temperature resistance test. Con- 
duct the test specified in S8.1 using vacuum 
brake hose with the cylinder radius specified in 
Table V for the size of hose tested. 

SI 0.2 Low temperature resistance test. Con- 
duct the test specified in SB. 2 using vacuum brake 
hose with the cylinder radius sjiecified in Table 
V for the size of hose tested. 

SI 0.3 Ozone resistance test. Conduct the test 
specified in S6.8 using vacuum brake hose. 

SI 0.4 Burst strength test. Conduct the test 
specified in S8.8 using \acuum brake hose. 

SI 0.5 Vacuum test. Utilize a 12-inch vacuum 
brake hose assembly sealed at one end. 

(a) JNIeasure the hose outside diameter. 

(b) Attach the hose to a source of vacuum 
and subject it to a vacuum of 26 inches of Hg. 
for 5 minutes. 

(c) Measure the hose to determine the mini- 
mum outside diameter while the hose is still sub- 
ject to vacuum. 

SI 0.6 Bend Test. 

(a) Bend a vacuum brake hose, of the length 
prescribed in Table V, in the direction of its 
normal curvature until the ends just touch as 
shown in Figure 3. 

(b) Measure the outside diameter of the speci- 
men at point A before and after bending. 

(c) The difference between the two measure- 
ments is the collapse of the hose outside diameter 
on bending. 



(^ 






Fig. 3 -Bend Test of Vacuum Brake Hose. 



Fig. 4 Deformed Specimen of Vacuum 
Brake Hose 



(Rev. 3/10/75) 



PART 571; S lOG-7 



12 



Effective: September 1, 1974 
March 1, 1975 
September 1, 1975 

Table VI 
Dimensions of Test Specimen and Feeler Gage for Deformation Test 

Inside Diameter of Ease Specimen Dimensions Feeler Gage Dimensions 

(inch) (see Fig. 4) 



%2 
% 
%2 

% 

% 
% 
% 
1.0 



D (inch) 


X. (inch) 


%4 




Ho 




Mr, 




%4 




%2 




%4 




%4 




% 




%2 




%6 




1/4 





Width 


Thickness 


(inch) 


(inch) 


% 


%4 


% 


%6 


% 


Me 


%6 


%4 


?i6 


%2 


% 


%4 


% 


%4 


14 


% 


% 


%2 


% 


?i6 


% 


% 



[(40 F.R. 12088— March 17, 1975. Effective: 3/17/75)] 

SI 0.7 Sv/ell test. 

(a) Fill a specimen of vacuum brake hose 12 
inches long with Reference Fuel A as described 
in the Method of Test for Cliange in Properties 
of Elastomeric Vulcanizers Resulting From Im- 
mersion in Liquids (1964 American Society for 
Testing and Materials, Designation D471). 

(b) Maintain reference fuel in the hose under 
atmospheric pressure at room temperature for 
48 hours. 

(c) Remove fuel and determine tliat every 
inside diameter of any section of the brake hose 
is not less than 75 percent of the nominal inside 
diameter of the hose for heavy-duty hose and 70 
percent of the nominal inside diameter of the 
hose for light-duty hose. 

(d) Subject the hose specimen to a vacuimi 
of 26 inches of Hg. for 10 minutes. 

SI 0.8 Adhesion test. Conduct the test speci- 
fied in S8.6 using vacuum brake hose. 

SI 0.9 Deformation test. Table VI specifies the 
test specimen dimensions. 

SI 0.9.1 Apparatus. Utilize a compression de- 
vice, equipped to measure force of at least 100 
pounds, and feeler gages of sufficient length to 
be passed completely through the test specimen. 

SIO.9.2 Operation. 

(a) Position the test specimen longitudinally 
in the compression device ■with the fabric laps 
not in the line of the applied pressure. 



(b) Apply gradually increasing force to the 
test specimen to compress its inside diameter to 
that specified in Table VI (dimension D of 
figure 4) for the size of hose tested. 

(c) After 5 seconds release the force and re- 
cord the peak load applied. 

(d) Repeat the procedure four times permit- 
ting a 10-second recovery period between load 
applications. 

SI 0.10 End fitting corrosion resistance test. 

Conduct the test specified in S6.9 using a vacuum 
brake hose assembly. 

Sn. Test conditions. Each hose assembly or 
appropriate part thereof shall be able to meet the 
requirements of S5, S7, and S9 under the follow- 
ing conditions. 

Sn.l The temperature of the testing room is 
75° F. 

Sn.2 Except for S6.6, S8.2, and SlO.2, tlie 
test samples are stabilized at test room tempera- 
ture prior to testing. 

Sn.3 The brake hoses and brake hose assem- 
blies are at least 24 hours old, and unused. 

[SI 2. Brake hose assemblies manufactured 
from March 1, 1975, to August 31, 1976. Not- 
withstanding any other provision of this stand- 
ard, a brake hose assembly manufactured during 



(Rev. 8/22/75) 



PART 571; S 106-74—13 



Effective: September 1, 1974 
March 1, 1975 
September 1, 1975 

the period from ]\Iarcli 1, 1975 to August 31, 
1976, shall meet each requirement of this stand- 
ard, except that the assembly may be constructed 
of brake hose which meets every requirement of 
the standard for hose other than tire hose label- 
ing requirements of S5.2, S7.2, and S9.1, and the 
assembly may be constructed of end fittings 
which meet every requirement of the standard 
for end fittings otlier than the end fitting label- 
ing requirements of S5.2, S7.2, and S9.1. (40 
F.E. 38159— August 27, 1975. Effective: 
8/27/75)3 

[SI 3. Vehicles manufactured from September 
1, 1975 to August 31, 1976. Notwithstanding 
any other provision of this standard, a vehicle 
to which this standard applies which is manu- 
factured during the period from September 1, 
1975, to August 31, 1976, shall be equipped with 
brake hose, brake hose end fiittings, and brake 



hose assemblies that meet each requirement of 
this standard, with the following exceptions : 

(a) The vehicle may be equipped with brake 
hose that meets every requirement of the stand- 
ard for hose other than the hose labeling re- 
quirements of S5.2, S7.2, and S9.1; 

(b) The vehicle may be equipped with end 
fittings that meet every requirement of the stand- 
ard for end fittings other than the end fitting 
labeling requirements of S5.2, S7.2, and S9.1; 
and 

(c) The vehicle may be equipped with brake 
liose assemblies that meet eveiy requirement of 
the standard for assemblies other than tlie as- 
sembly labeling requirements of S5.2, S7.2, and 
S9.1. (40 F.R. 38159— August 27, 1975. Effec- 
tive: 8/27/75)] 

38 F.R. 31302 
November 13, 1973 



(| 



(Rev. 8/22/75) 



PART 571; S 106-74—14 



Effecrive: January 1, 1968 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 106 

Hydraulic Brake Hoses — Passenger Cars and Multipurpose 
Passenger Vehicles 



51 . Purpose and scope. This standard spec- 
ifies i-equirements for hydraulic brake hoses that 
will reduce brake failures due to fluid leakage. 

52. Application. This standard applies to hy- 
draulic brake hoses for use in passenger cars and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles. 

53. Requirements. Hydraulic brake hoses shall 
meet the requirements of Society of Automotive 
Engineers Standard J40b, "Automotive Brake 
Hoses," July 1966, except as follows : 

(a) Delete "Water Absorption Test." 

(b) Add "viscose" and "polyester" to accept- 
able braid materials. 

(c) Specify the following dates for referenced 
ASTM tests: 

(1) ASTM D 571—1955; and 



(2) ASTM B 117—1964. 

(d) Revise "End Connections" paragraph to 
read: 

"Exposed steel or brass end connections of 
the hose assembly shall be protected against 
rust or corrosion." 

S4. Optional compliance. [Hydraulic brake 
hose may meet the requirements of this standard 
or, at the option of tlie manufacturer, until Sep- 
tember 1, 1974, the requirements of Standard Xo. 
106-74, Brake hoses (49 CFR 571.106-74). (39 
F.R. 24012— June 28, 1974. Effective: 9/1/74, 
3/1/75 & 9/1/75)] 

32 F.R. 2411 
February 3, 1967 



(Rev. 6/24/74) 



PART 571; S 106-1 



( 



\ 



Effcctlva: January 1, 1966 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 107 

Reflecting Surfaces — Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger 
Vehicles, Trucks, and Buses 



> 



51. Purpose and scope. This standard spec- 
ifies reflecting surface requirements for certain 
vehicle components in the driver's field of view. 

52. Application. This standard applies to pas- 
senger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles 
trucks, and buses. 

53. Definitions. "Field of view" means the area 
forward of a lateral vertical plane which is lo- 
cated tangent to the rearmost boundary of the 
SAE 99th percentile eye range contour of SAE 
Recommended Practice J941, November 1965. 
"Specular gloss" means the luminous fractional 
reflectance of a specimen at the specular direc- 
tion. 



S4. Requirements. The specular gloss of the sur- 
face of the materials used for the following 
bright metal components in the driver's field of 
view shall not exceed 40 units when measured 
by the 20° method of ASTM Standard D523-62T, 
June 1962— 

(a) Windshield wiper arms and blades; 

(b) Inside windshield mouldings; 

(c) Horn ring and hub of steering wheel as- 
sembly; and 

(d) Inside rear view mirror frame and mount- 
ing bracket. 

32 F.R. 2411 
February 3, 1967 



► 



PART 571; S 107-1 



(V 



Effaclive: July 1, 1971 
(Except as noted in the Rule) 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment — Passenger Cars, Multipurpose 
Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, Trailers and Motorcycles 
(Docket No. 69-18) 



On January 3, 1970, a proposal to amend Fed- 
eral Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 
(Docket No. 69-18) was published in the Fed- 
eral Register (35 F.R. 106). Comments were re- 
quested on 25 proposed amendments. 

Interested persons have been afforded an op- 
portunity to participate in the rulemaking 
process and their comments have been considered 
in the amendments published today. Except as 
otherwise noted, the amendments are effective 
July 1, 1971. The amendments are discussed be- 
low in the order in which the proposals were 
published. Unless otherwise indicated, there 
were no significant objections to the proposals 
that are being adopted. 

(a) It was proposed that Standard No. 108 be 
extended to include requirements for replacement 
lighting equipment on vehicles manufactured to 
comply with Standard No. 108, and all replace- 
ment sealed beam headlamp units, lamp bulbs, 
and plastic lenses. 

The proposal to include replacement equip- 
ment on vehicles manufactured on or after the 
effective date of the standard (July 1, 1971) has 
been adopted. However, the proposal to include 
all replacement sealed beam headlamp units, 
lamp bulbs, and plastic lenses on vehicles manu- 
factured prior to that date has been deferred 
because of the difficulties involved in retrofitting 
vehicles that were not originally manufactured 
to conform to Standard No. 108. Further study 
is necessary of the problems, leadtime, and costs 



Individual copies of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 
may be obtained from the National Highway Safety 
Bureau's General Services Division, Room 5111C, Nassif 
Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C. 
20590. 



involved in designing and testing replacement 
equipment for older vehicles that meets the 
standards required of motor vehicles manufac- 
tured today. 

(b) The present intermediate side marker de- 
vice requirement covering vehicles 30 feet or 
more in overall length, and 80 inches and more in 
overall width, has been extended to cover ve- 
hicles of lesser width. 

Commenters requested that the overall length 
of a trailer be interpreted to exclude the length 
of the trailer tongue. However, it has been de- 
termined that when the rear of a trailer is 30 
feet or more from the towing vehicle, interme- 
diate side marker devices are warranted, regard- 
less of the length of the trailer tongue. 

(c) SAE Standard J594d, "Reflex Reflectors", 
has replaced J594c as the basic reference for this 
item of lighting equipment. Some com- 
menters felt that Class B reflectors (eliminated 
in J594d) should still be permitted for motor- 
cycles, but the Bureau believes that a motor ve- 
hicle whose conspicuity is already marginal 
should be required to have Class A reflectors. 

(d) Self -canceling turn signal operating units 
wil be required on all vehices less than 80 inches 
in overall width. One commenter requested ex- 
cluding all trucks, truck tractors, and commercial 
vehicles regardless of vehicle width, and several 
commenters requested the elimination of the re- 
quirement for cancellation by steering wheel 
rotation. 

Since the operation of vehicles less than 80 
inches in overall width is similar to that of 
passenger vehicles and other vehicles of lesser 
width are operated by drivers other than pro- 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 1 



Effeeflve: July J, 1971 
(Except as noted in the Rule) 

fessionals, their exclusion from this requirement 
is not warranted. 

The Bureau is studying automatic cancellation 
by time or distance, or both, but current evidence 
indicates that these methods, given the state of 
the art, are inferior to cancellation by steering 
wheel rotation. 

(e) As proposed, amber has been eliminated 
as an optional color of the stop lamp. 

(f) The minimum candlepower of any sepa- 
rately mounted stoplamp will equal that of a 
Class A turn signal lamp. 

Many commenters requested a longer leadtime 
to comply. The requests have been found rea- 
sonable, and good cause has been shown for an 
eflfective date of January 1, 1973. Other com- 
ments suggested consideration of stop lamp 
candlepower in connection with dual intensity 
signals, allowance for multiple compartment 
lamps, and retention of the present Class B in- 
tensity for motorcycle stop lamps. 

Dual intensity signals have not been proposed, 
and since time is required for development and 
implementation of such a proposal, a requirement 
for increased minimum candlepower in stop 
lamps cannot be deferred. No justification has 
been found for not requiring Class A intensity 
for motorcycle stop lamps. The standard is 
therefore being amended as proposed, with clari- 
fying provisions for multiple compartm.ent stop 
lamps. 

(g) It was proposed that motorcycles should 
be equipped with turn-signal lamps, that there be 
a maximum candlepower limitation on amber 
rear-mounted lamps, and that minimum photo- 
metric output of head and tail lamps at engine 
idle speeds should be specified. 

Several comments objected to the maximum 
candlepower proposal and the mounting require- 
ments specified in the proposed Talble IV. Also, 
comments indicated potential problems if mini- 
mum photometric output were specified, sug- 
gesting instead reference to SAE Recommended 
Practice J392, "Motorcycle and Motor Driven 
Cycle Electrical System Maintenance of Design 
Voltage", December 1969. 

Glare candlepower tests on signal lamps in- 
stalled on the rear of motor vehicles have con- 
sistently indicated that a specification in excess 
of 300 candlepower for both red and amber 



lamps is not desirable. A manufacturer encoun- ^P 
tering problems of exceeding this maximum with 
amber lamps has the option of using red lamps, 
which have a lower minimum required candle- 
power. 

The detection and interpretation of turn signal 
lamps improves as they are mounted farther 
away from the centerline of the vehicle and from 
other lamps. Some motorcycle manufacturers, 
recognizing this fact, have installed the turn 
signal lamps in the ends of the handlebars, ex- 
ceeding the requirements adopted in the amend- 
ment. The mounting requirements for these 
lamps specified in Table IV are considered rea- 
sonable and practicable for motorcycles. 

The standard is being amended as proposed, 
except that minimum photometric output of 
headlamps and taillamps at engine idle speeds is 
not specified. Minimum photometries are cur- 
rently being studied for further rulemaking. 
Since an incorporation by reference to SAE Rec- 
ommended Practice J392 was not proposed, it 
is beyond the scope of this rulemaking to incor- 
porate it in the amendment. J^ 

(h) Aging and weathering requirements for 
plastic materials used for optical parts are speci- 
fied. Although the comments generally sup- 
ported this revision, many requested a more 
realistic test than continuous operation of stop 
and backup lamps in an oven for 1 hour to de- 
termine lens warpage. Accordingly, the amend- 
ment requires a cycle of operation of 10 minutes' 
duration followed by 10 minutes' rest during the 
1 hour test. Comments suggesting extending the 
2-year outdoor exposure test to 3 years and ad- 
ditional oven test details were beyond the scope 
of the proposal, and will be considered in future 
rulemaking actions. 

(i) As proposed, the words "it is recom- 
mended that," "recommendations," or "should 
be" appearing in any referenced and subrefer- 
enced SAE standard shall be read as setting 
forth mandatory requirements, with minor ex- 
ceptions covering certain aspects of school bus 
warning lamps. 

(j) Specific tolerances for mounting lamps 
and reflectors "as far apart as practicable" were 
proposed, but have not been adopted. If 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 2 



EfFecHve: July 1, 1971 
(Except as noted in the Rule) 



Several comments recommended adopting the 
ISO (International Standards Organization) re- 
quirements that lamps and reflectors be mounted 
within 16 inches of the edge of the Vehicle. 
Others stated that the Bureau did not have the 
authority to establish tolerances. 

Vehicles having lamps located in conformance 
with ISO regulations may create problems of 
distance judgment resulting in driver error. 
Lamps could be mounted in a range from a mini- 
mum of 25 inches apart on small imported pas- 
senger cars to a maximum of 74 inches apart on 
standard domestic cars. 

The location of lamps and reflectors is clearly 
safety related, as it facilitates clearance and dis- 
tance estimation, detection of signals, and 
similar functions. The Bureau therefore has the 
authority to establish horizontal mounting toler- 
ances, analogous to the vertical tolerances that 
have already been established. 

Major changes in lighting requirements may 
result in the rulemaking action proceeding under 
Docket No. 69-19. New requirements such as 
horizontal mounting tolerances need relatively 
long lead times. Accordingly, this proposal has 
not been adopted, and the requirement for lamps 
and reflectors is still that they be located "as 
far apart as practicable." 

(k) Lamps and reflectors must meet specified 
visibility angles when mounted on the vehicle. 

Some comments pointed out that when special 
equipment such as mirrors and snow plows is 
mounted on the vehicle \'isibility and photometric 
test angles may not be met. The amendment 
allows compliance with this requirement by 
means of auxiliary lighting devices. 

Items (1) through (o) represents proposals 
which were adopted : 

(1) The axis of side reflex reflectors for the 
photometric test has been defined. 

(m) The minimum mounting height for re- 
flectors mounted on the rear of truck tractor cabs 
will be 4 inches above the height of the rear tires. 

(n) Combination turn signal and hazard 
warning signal flashers will meet the require- 
ments applicable to each, when tested in sequence. 
Manufacturers of turn signal and hazard warn- 
ing signal flashers have commented that economic 
factors and the current state of the art in manu- 



facturing lamps preclude a quality level that 
would totally eliminate occasional random fail- 
ures. This condition is reflected in the language 
in Standard No. 108 that lighting equipment 
"shall be designed to conform" to the stated re- 
quirements. The SAE recognizes the problem by 
specifying an allowable percentage of failures in 
SAE Standards J590b, "Automotive Turn signal 
Flasher," and J945, "Vehicular Hazard Warning 
Signal Flasher." Such a provision is inappro- 
priate, however, for regulatory purposes. It is 
doubtful that specific failure allowance in a 
standard would correspond with the statutory 
mandate that "No person shall manufacture for 
sale * * * any motor vehicle or item of motor 
vehicle equipment * * * unless it is in con- 
formity with [any applicable] standard". (15 
U.S.C. 1.397(a) (1)). From a practical stand- 
point, such a provision would tend to make the 
requirement unenforceable except in extreme 
cases, since failures within a single lot are 
statistically inconclusive in determining the ex- 
tent of failures in overall production. Therefore 
the sampling provisions of the two SAE Stand- 
ards, originally incorporated by reference in 
Standard No. 108, are expressly omitted from 
the standard in this issuance. The omission 
should not cause a hardship, since the "designed 
to conform" language has been retained. 

(o) SAE" Recommended Practice J565b, 
"Semi-Automatic Headlamp Beam Switching 
Devices", has replaced J565a as the basic refer- 
ence for this item of lighting equipment. 

(p) It was proposed that all vehicles be 
equipped with a turn signal pilot indicator, and 
that those vehicles not equipped to tow trailers 
(i.e. vehicles with a fixed load flasher) be pro- 
vided with a lamp failure indicator. 

If visible to the rider, motorcycle front turn 
signal lamps can serve as the pilot indicator, as 
permitted in SAE Standard J588d, "Turn Signal 
Lamps". 

Many comments objected to the proposal for 
a lamp failure indicator on vehicles 80 inches or 
more in overall width. Heavy-duty flashers used 
on these vehicles are not presently available with 
a failure indicator. However, this type flasher 
is considerably more durable than the fixed-load 
type, used on vehicles of lesser width, which in- 



P\RT 571; S 108— PRE 3 



Effective: July 1, 1971 
(Except as noted in the Rule! 

dicates a lamp failure, and the continued use of 
present heavy-duty flashers for wider vehicles is 
warranted. Also, vehicles of 80 inches or more 
overall width are generally used commercially, 
and many of them are subject to the regulations 
of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety of the 
Federal Highway Administration ; such vehicles 
are more frequently inspected and failed lamps 
more promptly repaired. For the foregoing rea- 
sons, vehicles of 80 or more inches overall width 
are excluded from the requirement in the 
amended standard for a turn signal lamp failure 
indicator. 

(q) As proposed, on vehicles less than 80 
inches in overall width, license plate lamps and 
side marker lamps must be on when the head- 
lamps are on, and the taillamps, license plate 
lamps, and side marker lamps when the parking 
lamps are on. 

(r) No lamps that are normally steady-burn- 
ing will be allowed to flash automatically for 
signaling purposes, except headlamps and side 
marker lamps. 

Some commenters requested that additional 
lamps be permitted to flash, and some requested 
that flashing headlamps be prohibited. 

With the exception of certain signals such as 
turn signals, hazard warning, and schoolbus 
warning signals, flashing lamps should be re- 
served for emergency and road-maintenance-type 
vehicles. Flashing lamps are otherwise pro- 
hibited in the Uniform Vehicle Code. Any lamp 
may be flashed by the vehicle driver by merely 
turning the standard lamp switch on and oif, 
and this standard cannot prohibit such opera- 
tion. However, the definition of "flash" adopted 
in the amendment makes clear that automatic 
flashers for use with steady burning lamps other 
than headlamps and side marker lamps are pro- 
hibited. 

(s) SAE Standard J593c, "Backup Lamps", 
has replaced J592b as the basic reference for 
these lamps. The clarification is made that the 
center of the backup lamp lens is the optical 
center. However, because of the leadtime that 
will be required for manufacturers to alter their 
designs, good cause is considered shown for an 
effective date of January 1, 1973. 

(t) Headlamp mountings will be required to 
meet SAE Eecommended Practice J566, "Head- 



amp Mountings". Although some comments sug- ^F 
gested that this was a redundant requirement, it 
has been determined tliat this set of require- 
ments contains important safety elements such as 
requiring lateral adjustability of motorcycle 
headlamps, adjustability of all headlamps by one 
man with ordinary tools, and that the aim will 
not be disturbed under ordinary conditions of 
service, matters that are not dealt with elsewhere 
in Standard No. 108. 

(u) Turn signal operating units must be 
capable of meeting a durability test of 100,000 
cycles. Most of the comments stated that the 
175,000-cycle durability test proposed for pas- 
senger cars would be difficult to meet and recom- 
mended that SAE Standard J589a be referenced 
instead of J589. Since J589a includes other 
changes that were not proposed (temperature 
test, durability test cycle rate, and ambient tem- 
perature), it is beyond the scope of this rule- 
making to incorporate it by reference in the 
amended standard. However, a 100,000-cycle 
durability test has been adopted, as specified in 
J589a. _ 

(v) The mounting requirements for clearance ^ 
lamps have been amended to indicate that de- 
lineating overall vehicle width, rather than ve- 
hicle height, is the primary purpose of these 
lamps, and a clarification has been added that 
clearance lamps on truck tractors may be 
mounted so as to indicate the width of the cab. 

(w) Identification lamps must be mounted as 
high as practicable, and the maximum permis- 
sible spacing between the lamps has been reduced 
from 12 inches to 8 inches. 

Objections to these requirements were received 
primarily because the reduced spacing would 
create mounting problems due to interference 
with functional hardware, such as air condi- 
tioners and door locking mechanisms. The 8- 
inch maximum spacing has been adopted, but 
spacing 6 to 12 inches apart is allowed when 
8-inch maximum spacing is not practicable. 

(x) License plate lamps must illuminate the 
plate from the top or sides only. 

This is a standard practice with domestic ve- 
hicle manufacturers, but not with foreign ones. 
Foreign manufacturers objected because of in- 
adequate leadtime, and the proposal has been (f 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 4 



) 



adopted with an effective date of January 1, 
1973. 

(y) A maximum mounting height of 72 inches 
is specified for turn signal lamps. 

Objections were received from manufacturers 
of cab-over-engine trucks and of snow removal 
equipment who commented that such a require- 
ment would restrict turn signal placement. 
However, since no exceptions are specified for 
headlamp mounting (24-54 inches), none are 
considered necessary for turn signal lamps (15- 
72 inches) for these vehicles. 

Other comments suggested revisions to the 
standard that went beyond the scope of the pro- 
posal. Those that appear to have merit will be 
considered in future rulemaking actions. 



Efhctiv*: July I, 1971 
(Excapt at noted in th* Rula) 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.21, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Asso- 
ciated Equipment, is amended to read as set forth 
below. 

Effective date: July 1, 1971, except as other- 
wise noted in the text of the nile. 

Issued on October 22, 1970. 

Douglas W. Toms, 

Director, 

National Highway Safety Bureau. 

35 F.R. 16840 
October 31, 1970 



> 



) 



PART 671; S 108— PRE 5-6 



EffecHve: January 1, 1972 
(Except as noted In the Rule) 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 



Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment — Passenger Cars, Multipurpose 
Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, Trailers and Motorcycles 

(Docket No. 69-18) 



Motor "Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, es- 
tablishing requirements for lamps, reflective de- 
vices, and associated equipment on motor vehicles 
was amended on October 31, 1970 (35 F.R. 
16840). Thereafter, pursuant to 49 CFE 553.35 
(35 F.R. 5119) petitions for reconsideration of 
the amendment were filed by Freightliner Corp., 
Ford Motor Co., Japan Automobile Manufac- 
turers Association, Inc., Wagner Electric Corp., 
Greneral Motors Corp., Chrysler Corp., Rohm 
and Haas Co., Motor Coach Industries, Interna- 
tional Harvester Co., and Motorcycle Industry 
Council, Inc. The petitions of Harley-Davidson 
Motor Co., Inc., Kawasaki Motors Corp., White 
Motor Corp., Hackney Bros. Body Co., and a 
supplement to the Japan AMA petition were not 
timely filed, and have been treated as petitions 
for rulemaking pursuant to 49 CFR 553.31. 
However, some of the issues raised in these peti- 
tions are similar to those contained in timely filed 
petitions. 

In response to information contained in 
several of the petitions the standard is being 
amended. The Administrator has declined to 
grant requested relief from other requirements 
of the standard. 

1. Effective date. General Motors, Ford, and 
Chrysler have petitioned for an extension of the 
effective date, stating that compliance is im- 
practicable for 1971 models which, as of July 1, 
1971, have only a short production life before the 
end of the model run. The Bureau has de- 
termined therefore that an effective date later 
than 1 year from issuance of the original amend- 
ment is in the public interest. The effective date 
of the standard is extended to January 1, 1972. 



2. Paragraph SJf.1.1.7. This paragraph is be- 
ing amended to clarify that its stop lamp require- 
ment does not apply to passenger cars manufac- 
tured before January 1, 1973, and to correctly 
cite SAE Standard J588d, "Turn Signal 
Lamps," June 1966, as the standard incorporated 
by reference. 

3. Paragraph SiJ.l.li. The amendment inad- 
vertently omitted installation requirements for 
backup lamps. This paragraph is hereby 
amended to correct the omission, and to insure 
that current installation requirements remain in 
effect until January 1, 1973. 

4. Paragraph S4.1.1.16. Japan AMA and 
Motorcycle Industry Council objected to the 
portion of this paragraph that would require 
motorcycles, as of January 1, 1973, to be 
equipped with turn-signal units designed to com- 
plete a durability test of 100,000 cycles. In 
order to allow time for further industry study 
and comment on this aspect of performance, the 
requirement is withdrawn from the standard. It 
is anticipated, however, that an increased 
durability test cycle for motorcycle turn-signals 
will be proposed in a future rulemaking action. 

5. Paragraph 8^.1.2. Ford, Chrysler, and 
Rohm and Haas petitioned for reduction of the 
heat test cycle of the warpage test from 10 to 5 
minutes or, in the alternative for an extension 
of the effective date of this requirement. The 
Traffic Safety Administration has determined 
that the 10-minute cycle is appropriate because 
of the frequency of usage of stop and backup 
lamps. The petitions for reduction of the test 
cycle are therefore denied. However, because of 
the leadtime for development and tooling of new 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 7 



Effective: January 1, 1972 
(Except at noted in the Rule) 

lamps which may be required, good cause is con- 
sidered shown for postponement of the effective 
date for this requirement until January 1, 1973. 

6. Paragraph S^.3.1.8 and Table II. General 
Motors, Motor Coach Industries, and Interna- 
tional Harvester objected to the reduction in the 
maximum allowable spacing of identification 
lamps (from 6 to 12 inches, to 6 to 8 inches), 
alleging that there is no safety justification for 
the requirement, and that compliance by July 1, 
1971, is impracticable. It is recognized that 
other approaches to wide-vehicle identification, 
such as minimum spacing between identification 
and clearance lamps, have merit. These ap- 
proaches are being considered and, as deemed 
appropriate, will be incorporated into future 
rulemaking proposals. Accordingly, the peti- 
tions are granted; Table II is amended to rein- 
state the 6 to 12 inch spacing, and S4.3.1.8 is 
deleted. 

7. Paragraph SJf4-^ and Tables I and III. 
Wagner Electric petitioned for reconsideration 
of the omission of sampling provisions from 
SAE Standard J590b, "Turn-Signal Units," 
October 1965, and SAE Standard J945, "Ve- 
hicular Hazard Warning Unit," February 1966. 
Letters have also been received inquiring as to 
the number of flashers constituting a sample for 
test and the number of failures allowable for 
compliance. Standard No. 108 was amended 
without notice to omit sampling provisions in 
order to bring the standard into conformity with 
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 
Act of 1966, which requires that all items con- 
form to applicable standards. Therefore the 
safety standards should not specify sampling 
provisions or failure rates. It is the manufac- 
turer's responsibility to institute a test program 
that is sufficient to legally constitute due care, on 
a continuing basis, to insure that all products 
manufactured after the effective date of a stand- 
ard meet the applicable requirements. However, 
in response to the procedural objection that the 
change is important enough to merit notice and 
opportimity for comment, Wagner's petition is 
granted and paragraph S4.4.2 and Tables I and 
III are being amended to strike the language 
precluding sampling provisions. At the same 
time, this agency is publishing today a notice 
(Docket No. 69-18; Notice 3, 36 F.R. 1913) pro- 

PART 571; S 



posing omission of sampling provisions as of ^P 
January 1, 1972, the date when this omission 
would otherwise have been effective. 

8. Paragraph 84-5.6. International Harvester 
asked that the exemption for lamp outage indi- 
cation be extended to vehicles equipped with 
auxiliary lamps or wiring, since these vehicles, 
like vehicles equipped to tow trailers, use variable 
load flashers. However, fixed load flashers pro- 
viding lamp outage indication are available on 
the market for the increased load of an auxiliary 
lamp. The manufacturer can provide the ap- 
propriate flasher with foreknowledge of the in- 
tended end configuration of the vehicle, and In- 
ternational Harvester's petition is therefore 
denied. 

9. Tables II and IV. Freightliner, Interna- 
tional Harvester, and White Motor requested 
that the maximum mounting height allowable for 
turn-signal units, 72 inches, be reconsidered. 
This agency believes that most turn-signal lamps 
are presently mounted at or below the height of 
72 inches, and that no detriment to motor vehicle 
safety would occur if the maximum mounting ^^ 
height were increased to 83 inches to allow higher ^^ 
mounting of turn-signals on cab-over-engine 
trucks, snow removal equipment, and other ve- 
hicles where a lower height may be imprac- 
ticable. Tables II and IV are being revised ac- 
cordingly. In Table IV the word "rear" was 
inadvertently omitted in that position of Column 

2 establishing location requirements for side re- 
flex reflectors, and has been reinserted. 

10. Table III. Motorcycle Industry Council 
recommended that SAE Standard J584a, "Motor- 
cycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps," 
October 1969, be incorporated by referencie rather 
than SAE Standard J584, April 1964. Such an 
amendment is beyond the scope of the original 
rulemaking proposal. Reference of the upgraded 
SAE Standard is being considered for a future 
rulemaking action. The petition is denied. 

In addition, General Motors, Japan AMA, 
Motorcycle Industry Council, Harley-Davidson, 
and Kawasaki objected that the 300 candlepower 
limitation on motorcycle amber rear turn signals 
is unduly restrictive. Motorcycle Industry 
Council, Harley-Davidson, and Kawasaki ob- 
jected to the spacing requirements for motorcycle A 

108— PRE 8 



> 



EffacHve: January I, 1972 
(Excapt as noted in Iha RuU) 

turn-signal lamps. Both of these matters are Effective date: January 1, 1972, except as 

still under reconsideration and will be disposed otherwise noted in the text of the rule, 
of at a later date. Issued on January 28, 1971. 

In consideration of the foregoing, S4.1.1.7, Charles H. Hartman, 

S4.1.1.14, S4.1.1.16, S4.1.2, S4.3.1.8, S4.4.2, Table Acting Administrator, National High- 

I, Table II, Table III and Table IV of Motor way Traffic Safety Administration. 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 in 49 CFR 36 F.R. 1896 

571.21 are revised. . . . February 3, 1971 



an O - 77 - 23 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 9-10 



I 



Effctiv*: January 1, 1972 
(Except as nolad In th« Rul*) 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment — Passenger Cars, Multipurpose 

Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, Trailers and Motorcycles 

(Docket No. 69-18) 



This notice amends Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 108 to delete the 300-candlepower 
limitation on motorcycle amber rear turn signals, 
to adopt an interlamp spacing of 9 inches for 
motorcycle rear turn signal lamps, and to ex- 
tend to January 1, 1973, the effective date by 
which passenger ears and vehicles less than 80 
inches in overall width must be manufactured 
with self-canceling turn-signal units. 

In response to petitions for reconsideration of 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (35 F.R. 
16840), certain amendments to the standard were 
published on February 3, 1971 (36 F.R. 1896). 
Action was deferred on other petitions pending 
further reconsideration. The National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration has concluded its 
review of these petitions and is further amend- 
ing Standard No. 108. General Motors, Japan 
Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc., and 
Kawasaki Motors Corp. objected that the 300- 
candlepower limitation on motorcycle amber rear 
turn signals is unduly restrictive. Since the 
candlepower limitation would not have become 
effective until January 1, 1973, and since the 
Administration has not proposed similar restric- 
tions on amber rear turn signals for other motor 
vehicles, these petitions are granted, and S4.1.1.11 
is deleted. The NHTSA will address the overall 
problem of candlepower limitations, along with 
that of rear turn signal color, in a proposal cur- 
rently under formulation. 

Motorcycle Industry Council, Harley-David- 
son, and Kawasaki objected to the spacing re- 
quirements for motorcycle turn signal lamps and 
requested that the spacing recommended by the 
SAE, 9 inches front and rear, be adopted in- 
stead. The Administration has decided to grant 



the petitions insofar as they concern spacing of 
rear turn signals. Petitioners are concerned 
about the durability and injury potential of turn 
signal lamps spaced 12 inches apart aL the rear 
of a motorcycle. While it appears true that 
wider spacing of turn signals at the rear create 
a greater likelihood of damage to the units 
should the motorcycle fall, this is not considered 
significant justification for spacing less than 12 
inches. Rather, the crash injury problem ap- 
pears of greater importance. While spacing of 
rear turn signal lamps at 12 inches does not ap- 
pear to present a significant injury threat to 
pedestrians, it may present a hazard to operators 
and passengers when the vehicle is involved in a 
collision or falls over. This agency intends to 
evaluate motorcycle rear turn signal lamp spac- 
ing for injury potential in its motorcycle crash 
injury research program for the current fiscal 
year, and to reinstate the 12-inch requirement if 
such spacing does not appear to present a signifi- 
cant potential hazard. Table IV is hereby 
amended to specify 9 inches as the minimum 
horizontal separation distance for motorcycle 
turn signal lamps at the rear. 

The motorcycle industry has also expressed its 
concern about the durability and injury potential 
of front turn signal lamps spaced 16 inches apart, 
as well as whether the spacing is justified by 
available data. Tests conducted by the Road 
Rese-arch Laboratory and SAE pro\dde adequate 
support, not only for the 16-inch spacing at the 
front but also for the 12-inch spacing at the rear. 
Since front turn signal lamps are generally pro- 
tected by handlebars and durability and injury 
potential do not appear to be significant, the 
Administration has decided to retain the 16- 



PART 571; S 108^PRE 11 



Cffectiv*: January 1, 1972 
(Except OS noted in the Rule) 

inch spacing for motorcycle front turn signal 
lamps. 

In addition, Citroen has brought to the atten- 
tion of the Administration the fact that its ve- 
hicles exported to the United States are not 
equipped with, and are not currently designed 
to be equipped with, self -canceling turn signals. 
Because of the modifications required in the 
panel control, dashboard, and steering column, 
it avers that it cannot comply until January 1, 
1973, and has petitioned that the effective date 
of S4.1.1.5 be extended . Since virtually all other 
motor veliicle manufacturers presently comply 
with this requirement, the granting of this peti- 
tion would not cause a significant degradation of 
motor vehicle safety, and S4.1.1.5 is amended 
accordingly. 

Finally, the word "red" inadvertently was in- 
cluded in the first sentence of S4.1.1.7 and is 
hereby deleted. 

In consideration of the foregoing, § 571.21 is 
amended as follows : 

1. 84. 1.1. 5 is amended to read : 

S4.1.1.5 The turn signal operating unit on 
each passenger car, and multipurpose passenger 



vehicle, truck, and bus less than 80 inches in 
overall width manufactured on or after January 
1, 1973, shall be self -canceling by steering wheel 
rotation and capable of cancellation by a 
manually operated control. 

2. In S4.1.1.7 the word "red" appearing be- 
tween "Class A" and "turn signal lamps" is 
deleted. 

3. S4.1.1.11 is deleted, in S4.1.1 the reference 
to "S4.1.1.16" is changed to "S4.1.1.15," and 

54.1.1.12, S4.1.1.13, S4.1.1.14, S4.1.1.15, and 
S4.1.1.16 are renumbered S4.1.1.11, S4.1.1.12, 

54.1.1.13, S4.1.1.14, and S4.1.1.15 respectively. 

4. In Table IV, under Motorcycles Column 3 
for turn signal lamps, the dimension "2 inches" 
for turn signals at or near the rear is changed to 
"9 inches." 

Effective date : January 1, 1972. 

Issued on May 13, 1971. 

Douglas W. Toms, 
Acting Administrator. 

36 F.R. 9069 
May 19, 1971 



PART 671; S 108— PRE 12 



Effective: January 1, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment — Passenger Cars, Multipurpose 
Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, Trailers and Motorcycles 
(Docket No. 69-18) 



The purpose of this notice is to amend Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to delete sam- 
pling and failure-rate provisions from the tests 
of turn signal and hazard warning signal flash- 
ers, and to modify performance requirements for 
these items of motor vehicle equipment. 

The notice of proposed rulemaking upon which 
this amendment is based was published in the 
Federal Register on February 3, 1971 (36 F.R. 
1913). Standard No. 108 incorporates by refer- 
ence SAE Standard J590b, "Automotive Turn 
Signal Flasher," October 1965, and SAE Recom- 
mended Practice J945, "Vehicular Hazard Warn- 
ing Signal Flasher," February 1966. Both 
standards specify a test sample size and a per- 
missible failure rate for the items tested, viz., 
that 50 items shall be "submitted for test," that 
20 items shall be chosen from the 50, and that "at 
least 17 out of 20 samples" shall meet the require- 
ments. These are the provisions whose deletion 
was proposed. 

Careful consideration has been given to the 
comments received in response to the notice. 
Many industry comments opposed the proposal, 
alleging that substantially total compliance 
would necessitate an increase in unit cost, and 
arguing that the cost increase is not justified by 
the safety benefits to be gained. Concern was 
also expressed as to possible penalties that might 
arise from the occasional failures that are claimed 
by the industry to be unavoidable in items of 
this type. 

As stated in the February 3 notice of proposed 
rulemaking, the NHTSA considers permissible 
failure rates to be contrary to both the letter and 
the intent of the National Traffic and Motor Ve- 
hicle Safety Act. Manufacturers are required 



to use due care to ensure that all their products 
meet the requirements of the standards. The 
assessment of penalties for test failures is not 
automatic, however, but is made after a review 
of all the facts, with a view to determining 
whether due care was used in accordance with 
sound engineering and manufacturing principles. 
Tlie sampling and failure-rate provisions are ac- 
cordingly hereby deleted from the requirements 
in Standard No. 108 for turn signal and hazard 
warning signal flashers. 

The NHTSA has determined that the design 
and production problems associated with the 
manufacture of thermal flashers are such that 
total compliance with current performance and 
durability test requirements is not practicable. 
Therefore, modifications have been made in 
starting time, voltage drop, flash rate and per- 
cent current "on" time for performance tests, 
and in the duration and cycle of operation for 
durability tests. For example, the previously 
required performance range of 60 to 120 flashes 
])er minute is broadened to 40 to 140 flashes per 
minute, and the percentage of time during a 
flash cycle that flasher contacts are required to be 
engaged, previously a range of 30 percent to 75 
percent, is now 25 percent to 80 percent. The 
durabilitj' test for turn signal flashers will be 
continuous for 25 hours, rather than consisting 
of an on-off' cycle for 200 hours. The durability 
test for luizard warning signal flashers is reduced 
to 12 hours from 36 hours. This agency has con- 
cluded that tlie net effect of these modifications 
is not a lessening of motor vehicle safety, since 
the minimum performance of flashers is substan- 
tially upgraded by requiring compliance of every 
flasher manufactured, rather than of only 17 of 
every 20 tested. 



PART 571 ; S 108— PRE 13 



Effective: January 1, 1973 



To implement the deletion of sampling and 
failure-rate provisions and the modification of 
the previous requirements, the NHTSA is 
amending Standard No. 108 to delete existing 
references to SAE Standard J590b and SAE 
Recommended Practice J945, and to adopt a new 
paragraph S4.6, Turn signal flashers; hazard 
warning signal flashers, that incorporates the 
new requirements. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.21, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 
Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equip- 
ment, is amended. . . . 

Effective date: January 1, 1973. Manufac- 
turers commented that the proposed effective date 



of January 1, 1972, was impracticable in view 
the necessity to evaluate and adopt new flasher 
and switch designs meeting the requirements. In 
light of the time needed for changes in design 
and preparation for production, the Admini- 
strator has found, for good cause shown, that an 
effective date later than one year from the date 
of issuance is in the public interest. 
Issued on August 20, 1971. 

Charles H. Hartman 
Acting Administrator 

36 F.R. 17343 
August 28, 1971 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 14 



I 



Effective: January 1, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 



Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 69-18; Notice 6) 



Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated 
Equipment, was amended on August 28, 1971 
(36 F.R. 17343) to revise performance require- 
ments for turn signal and hazard warning signal 
flashers. Thereafter petitions for reconsideration 
of the amendment were filed by Chrysler Cor- 
poration, Ideal Corporation, Signal-Stat Corpor- 
ation, and Stewart- Warner Corporation. This 
notice responds to these petitions. This notice 
also amends Standard No. 108 to allow compli- 
ance with paragraph S4.6 of Standard No. 108a 
(§571. 108a), at the option of the manufacturer, 
before January 1, 1973. 

In its petition for reconsideration, Chrysler 
noted that "the amendment deletes the sampling 
provision and imposes new, presumably less 
stringent, but unique performance requirements" 
and commented that "while this change was an- 
nounced in principle in prior rulemaking actions, 
the details of the new performance requirements 
were specified for the first time in this amend- 
ment." Claiming that its suppliers have not had 
time to evaluate their ability to comply with the 
new requirements, Chrysler petitioned that the 
amendment be withdrawn and reissued as a 
notice of proposed rulemaking. Sampling and 
failure-rate provisions were initially deleted in a 
rule published October 31, 1970 (35 F.R. 16840), 
which amended Standard No. 108 in various 
ways. Then, in response to objections that the 
action had not been previously the lubject of a 
notice of proposed rulemaking, the action was 
revoked, a new notice of proposed rulemaking 
to that effect was issued on February 3, 1971 
(36 F.R. 1913), and all interested persons were 
given full opportunity to comment. After care- 
ful consideration of the comments received, the 
agency again published a rule on August 28, 



1971 (36 F.R. 17343), which deleted the sampling 
and failure-rate provisions. The rule also re- 
laxed somewhat some of the quantitative levels 
of required performance. Thereafter, in accord- 
ance with the agency procedural rules, petitions 
for reconsideration of the rule were received and 
considered. The NHTSA considers that these 
actions have considerably exceeded the require- 
ments of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 
U.S.C. 553, that notice and opportunity for com- 
ment be provided giving "either the terms or 
substance of the proposed rule or a description 
of the subjects and issues involved," and finds 
that no significant further benefit will be gained 
by reopening the matter for still another round 
of comments. Chrysler's petition is therefore 
denied. 

Stewart-Warner submitted a general petition 
for reconsideration of the amendment, believing 
that "the amendment can allow unsafe conditions 
to come into existence." While it is true that the 
new performance requirements, on a strictly 
quantitative basis, may be viewed as less strin- 
gent than the old, the agency has concluded that 
the net effect of the amendment, considering the 
removal of the permissible failure rate, is not a 
lessening of the safety performance of these 
items. 

Signal-Stat and Ideal petitioned that para- 
graph S4.1.1 be amended to require that all 
lighting equipment designed to conform to 
Standard No. 108 be "manufactured in accord- 
ance with sound engineering, manufacturing, 
and quality control principles." The basis for 
this request, in Signal-Stat's words, is that 
"while it is not possible to assure the durability 
of any single individual flasher, it is possible to 
reasonably produce requirements on a statistical 
basis in mass production," and that "the only 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 15 



Effective: January 1, 1972 



feasible and practical 'due care' and production 
means available, dictated by sound quality con- 
trol principles, is to evaluate devices of volume 
on a statistical basis." The NHTSA has gen- 
erally no objection to the above statements, al- 
though they are not necessary or appropriate 
for inclusion in the standard itself. The agency 
does not have any intent of outlawing designs 
such as thermal flashers, that have been previ- 
ously used to satisfy the requirements in ques- 
tion. It also recognizes fully that with high- 
volume, low-cost items of equipment such as 
flashers, sample testing by the manufacturer may 
be the only practicable means of quality control. 
It can further be stated that in the case of such 
items, an occasional failure of NHTSA compli- 
ance tests, representing a very small percentage 
of production, will not necessarily result in a 
determination that there has been a violation of 
the Act. The question in each case is whether 
the manufacturer exercised due care; wherever 
a manufacturer can establish that he has exer- 
cised due care, he will not be in violation of the 
Act. The petitions of Ideal and Signal-Stat are 
therefore denied. 

Ideal has also requested an interpretation that 
it be allowed to manufacture flashers before 
January 1, 1973, that conform to the revised 
requirements. To encourage manufacturers to 
conform at an early date, the NHTSA is amend- 
ing Standard No. 108 to allow compliance with 



paragraph S4.6 of Standard No. 108a 
(§ 571.108a), at the option of the manufacturer, 
between January 1, 1972, and January 1, 1973. 

This notice also corrects a paragraph number- 
ing error in both standards. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
§571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
108, Lamps^ Refiective Devices, and Associated 
Equipment, is amended. . . . 

E-ffective date: January 1, 1972. Because the 
amendments create no additional burden or obli- 
gation, and permit an early implementation of 
revised perfonnance requirements, the Admin- 
istrator has found for good cause shown that an 
effective date earlier than one hundred eighty 
days after issuance of this notice is in the public 
interest. 

This notice is issued under the authority of 
sections 103 and 119 of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 
1392, 1407) and the delegation of authority from 
the Secretary of Transportation to the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, 49 CFR 
1.51. 

Issued on December 22, 1971. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

36 F.R. 25013 
December 28, 1971 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 16 



EfFtctiv*: January 12, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 69-18; Notice 7) 



The purpose of this notice is to specify a per- 
missible method of certifying replacement light- 
ing equipment for vehicles manufactured on or 
after January 1, 1972, to conform to Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, 
Re-flective Devices, and Associated Equipment. 

Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires 
every manufacturer or distributor of motor ve- 
hicle equipment to "furnish to the distributor 
or dealer at the time of delivery of such . . . 
equipment by such manufacturer or distributor 
the certification that each such . . . item of motor 
vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards . . . 
[S]uch certification may be in the form of a 
label or tag on such item or on the outside of a 
container in which such item is delivered." Thus, 
manufacturers of equipment to which a safety 
standard applies generally certify the equipment 
by labeling either the equipment or its container. 
In the case of Standard No. 109, Neiu Pneumatic 
Tires, certification labeling on the items them- 
selves is required by the standard. 

Normally, the certification responsibility of a 
distributor is met by the distributor's delivery 
of the manufacturer's certification statement to 
the dealers to whom he sells. Although no sep- 
arate statement is necessary, the delivery of the 
manufacturer's certification is considered a legal 
act by which the distributor makes the certifica- 
tion required by the statute. 

With the extension of Standard No. 108 to 
items of replacement equipment, some difficulties 
in this scheme may arise where small items are 
not individually packaged. Automotive parts 
distributors commonly sell single items of equip- 
ment "over the counter" to local garagemen, who 
are dealers within the meaning of the Act. If 
these items are not separately packaged and not 



marked with a certification, the distributor must, 
under the Act, certify the items to the dealer. 
Although there is a variety of ways in which the 
distributor can do this, it is probably unrealistic 
to expect a separate certification to be properly 
and consistently made at this level. Manufac- 
turers of lighting equipment have recognized 
the problem, and have suggested that they be 
permitted to certify their equipment by affixing 
the symbol DOT to each item of equipment. 

This request has been found to have merit, and 
S4.7 of Standard No. 108, 49 CFR 571.108, is 
hereby amended to permit manufacturers to 
certify lighting equipment items by placing the 
symbol "DOT" directly on the item, if they 
choose to do so. 

In consideration of the foregoing, S4.7 of 49 
OFR § 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Asso- 
ciated Equipment, is amended. . . . 

Effective daie: January 12, 1972. Because the 
amendment creates no additional burden or obli- 
gation and permits an optional method of com- 
pliance with an existing requirement, the 
Administrator has found for good cause shown 
that an immediate effective date is in the public 
interest. 

This notice is issued under the authority of 
sections 103, 112, 114 and 119 of the National 
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407) and the delegation 
of authority from the Secretary of Transporta- 
tion to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administrator, 49 CFR 1.51. 

Issued on January 6, 1972. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

37 F.R. 445 
January 12, 1972 



PART 571: S 108— PRE 17-18 



i 



Effacliv*: January 25, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 69-18; Notice 8) 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.108 and 
571.108a, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
108 and No. 108a, Laraps^ Reflective Devices^ and 
Associated Equipment, to permit off-center spac- 
ing of identification lamps on vehicles 80 inches 
or more in overall width. 

Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co., has peti- 
tioned for the reinstatement of former require- 
ments for the location of identification lamps. 
Before January 1, 1972, the three-lamp cluster 
was required to be mounted "as close as prac- 
ticable to the vertical centerline." On vehicles 
manufactured on or after that date, the three 
identification lamps must be mounted "one on 
the vertical centerline, and one on each side of 
the vertical centerline." A type of trailer manu- 
factured by Utility mounts a lock on the center- 
line of the trailer with the lock socket at the rear 
header. Typically the header is shallow and does 
not allow room to mount the gasket seal, the 
center lock socket, and an identification lamp all 
"on the vertical centerline." Extensive retooling 
is necessary for compliance, and apparently 
would cause hardship to Utility and other manu- 
facturers of this type of trailer. The Adminis- 
tration believes that permitting the lamp cluster 
to be mounted slightly off center would not com- 



promise motor vehicle safety, and accordingly 
is returning to the original mounting require- 
ment for all vehicles required to have Identifica- 
tion lamps. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the specifi- 
cations for "Identification Lamps" in Table II, 
Location of Required Equipment, 49 CFR 
§ 571.108, and 49 CFR § 571.108a, are revised. . . . 

Effective date: January 25, 1972. Because the 
amendments create no additional burden or obli- 
gation, the Administrator finds for good cause 
shown that an immediate effective date is in the 
public interest. 

This notice is issued under the authority of 
sections 103 and 119 of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 
1392, 1407) and the delegation of authority from 
the Secretary of Transportation to the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, 49 CFR 
1.51. 

Issued on January 19, 1972. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

37F.R. 1107 
January 25, 1972 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 19-20 



I 



t 



Effective: September 1, 1972 
January 1, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 72-4; Notice 2) 



This notice amends 49 CFR §571.108 and 
§ 571.108a, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Nos. 
108 and 108a, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and 
Associated Equipment, to revise the test method 
for reflex reflectors. 

On April 8, 1972, the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration proposed (37 F.R. 7107) 
that the applicable SAE standard for reflex re- 
flectors incorporated by reference in Table I and 
Table III of Standards No. 108 and 108a be 
SAE Standard J594e, "Reflex Reflectors," March 
1970, to replace J594d, March 1967. All com- 
ments received were in favor of the proposal and 
the standards are being amended accordingly. 
The effect of the amendment is to permit photo- 
metric testing at a range around a test point if 
speculiar reflection is encountered at the test 
point itself. The amendment does not impose a 
new performance requirement but allows a more 
realistic method of testing than J594d, which 
prohibited testing at other than the specified test 
points, and which had the effect of causing a 
technical noncompliance if there were specular 
reflection at any test point. 

Paragraph S4.3.1.2 has been incorporated into 
J594e and is being deleted from the text of 
Standard No. 108a. This paragraph specifies 
that, for purposes of photometric testing, the 



axis of the side reflex reflectors shall be per- 
pendicular (o a vertical plane through the longi- 
tudinal axis of the vehicle. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
§571.108 and § 57l.l08a, Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards 108 and 108a, are revised .... 

Effective date: Standard No. 108: Sep. 1, 1972; 
Standard No. 108a : January 1, 1973. Because the 
amendments create no additional burden and 
modify a test procedure currently in effect, it is 
found for good cause shown that an effective 
date earlier than one hundred eighty days after 
issuance is in the public interest. 

This notice is issued under the authority of 
sections 103 and 119 of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 
1392, 1407) and the delegation of authority from 
the Secretary of Transportation to the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, 49 CFR 
1.51. 

Issued on July 28, 1972, 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

37 F.R. 15514 
August 3, 1972 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 21-22 



i 



Effacliv*: Saptambar 19, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 69-18; Notice 11) 



This notice amends 49 CFR Part 571, by re- 
voking Section 571.108a, Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 108a, Lamps, Reflective Devices, 
and Associated Equipment and deletijfg a con- 
forming amendment to Standard No. 108, in 
accordance with a decision of the U.S. Court of 
Appeals. 

Standard No. 108a was established on Decem- 
ber 2, 1971 (36 F.R. 22909), to clarify require- 
ments for turn signal and hazard warning signal 
flashers effective January 1, 1973. These require- 
ments were established by an amendment pub- 
lished on August 28, 1971 (36 F.R. 13743). The 
amendment deleted sampling and failure rate 
provisions from the tests for these items of motor 
vehicle equipment, and modified the performance 
requirements. 

Pursuant to section 105(a) (1), of the National 
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 
(15 use 1394(a) (1)), Wagner Electric Corpor- 
ation petitioned for review of the August 28, 
1971 order in the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Third Circuit. On August 29, 1972, the 
court granted the petition, set aside the order 
and remanded the matter to the National High- 
way Safety Administration for new riilemaking 
proceedings consistent with the court's views. 



(Wagner Electric Corporation v. Volpe, No. 
71-1976 (3d Cir. 1972) ) 

By this notice, the NHTSA deletes from the 
Code of Federal Regulations the amendment set 
aside by the Court's order. The deleted provi- 
sion essentially constituted the version of the 
standard that was to become effective January 1, 
1973, (Standard No. 108a) along with paragraph 
S4.1.1.16 of Standard No. 108, which allowed 
manufacturers to conform to the new require- 
ments before that date. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
Part 571 is amended .... 

Effective date: This notice reflects the order of 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 
whose mandate was issued September 19, 1972, 
and is effective as of that date. 

This notice is issued under the authority of 
sections 103 and 119 of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 
1392, 1407) and the delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51. 

Issued on September 28, 1972. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

37 F.R. 20695 
October 3, 1972 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 23-24 



♦ 



t 



t 



Effective: Januory 1, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 71-21; Notice 3) 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Re- 
flective Devices, and Associated Equipment, to 
modify the method by which conformity of cer- 
tain lamps to photometric requirements is deter- 
mined. A notice of proposed rulemaking on this 
subject was published on November 30, 1971 (36 
F.R. 22763). 

Standard No. 108 requires that tail lamps, 
stop lamps, parking lamps, and turn signal 
lamps meet minimum photometric candlepower 
requirements at up to 27 individual test points. 
If a lamp fails to meet the minimum requirement 
at any test point, the lamp does not conform to 
Standard No. 108 even though it may exceed the 
specified minimum at all other test points. 

As noted in the November 30, 1971 proposal, 
this requirement appeared unnecessarily severe, 
since deviances at individual test points are gen- 
erally not great enough to be discernible to the 
human eye. The method proposed and adopted 
sets up seven groups of test points, as shown in 
Figure 1, each group containing from three to 
five test points. The groups include requirements 
for devices with one, two, or three separately 
lighted compartments, and multiple lamps used 
in an array to perform a function at a single 
design location. The minimum candlepower re- 
quirement for any single group is the sum of the 
minimum candlepower specified in the applicable 
SAE standards for individual test points within 
the group. Therefore, there will be no failure 
to conform to Standard No. 108 as long as the 
sum of the candlepower measured at all test 
points within a group equals or exceeds the re- 
quired minimum figure for that group. The 
amendment will not have a significant effect on 
motor vehicle safety and is designed to set up a 



more realistic and cost effective method of deter- 
mining compliance with photometric require- 
ments. 

Two aspects of the proposal are not adopted 
in the amendment. The proposal would have set 
a floor of 60 per cent on the amount by which the 
measured candlepower at a single test point could 
fail to reach the required minimum for that test 
point. The same rationale governing the overall 
proposal dictated that the floor not be adopted: 
as long as the sum of the test points within a 
group meets the overall minimum for the group, 
the difference in illumination at any discrete test 
point is unlikely to be great enough to be dis- 
cernible. 

Secondly, the proposal would have required 
that clearance, side marker, identification, and 
parking lamps have minimum candlepower equiv- 
alent to tail lamps. This proposal has not been 
adopted. Comments indicated that the increase 
in candlepower would be so significantly greater 
as to cause a glare problem. The group test con- 
cept has been adopted for parking lamps, but not 
for clearance, side marker, identification lamps, 
which retain minimum candlepower for all test 
points. 

In addition, a deferred effective date has been 
adopted for increased grouped candlepower re- 
quirements applicable to tail, stop and turn signal 
lamps with two or three lighted compartments, 
and to lamp arrangements where two or three 
lamps are used to perform a single function in a 
single design location. These requirements have 
been made effective September 1, 1974, in order 
to provide sufficient leadtime for redesign and 
retooling. In the interim, beginning January 1, 
1973, such lamps or lamp arrangements may meet 
the grouped requirements applicable to single 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 25 



231-088 0-77-24 



Effective: January 1, 1973 



compartment and single stop and turn signal 
lamps. 

It was also proposed that minimum candle- 
power requirements be specified for tail lamps, 
stop lamps and turn signal lamps, measured at a 
45-degree angle where any SAE Standard in- 
corporated by reference required visibility of the 
lamps at a 45-degree angle. Objections were 
raised that the proposed values were too high 
and that there was no safety benefit in requiring 
them. The NHTSA, on the basis of its analysis 
of cost benefit factors, has not adopted the pro- 
posal. 

The amendment does not adopt the proposal 
that both red and yellow rear turn signal lamps 
have the same maximum candlepower limitation. 
The subject of the color of rear turn signal lamps 
will be addressed in a forthcoming notice, in 
Docket No. 69-19. 

The SAE standard applicable to parking lamps 
in Table III has been changed to SAE Standard 
J222, "Parking Lamps (Position Lamps)," De- 
cember 1970. Paragraph S4:.l.l.ll, which speci- 
fies photometric values for parking lamps, is 



deleted as these values are incorporated in the 
revised SAE standard. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 
is revised .... 

Effective date: January 1, 1973. Because the 
amendment creates no additional burden, it is 
found for good cause shown that an effective 
date earlier than one hundred eighty days after 
issuance is in the public interest. 

This notice is issued imder the authority of 
sections 103 and 119 of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 
1392 and 1407) and the delegation of authority 
from the Secretary of Transportation to the Na- 
tional Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, 49 
CFR 1.51. 



Issued on October 2, 1972. 



Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

37 F.R. 21328 
October 7, 1972 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 26 



Effective: January 1, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 72-5; Notice 2) 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Re- 
'jiective Devices, and Associated Equipment, to 
specify stop and turn signal lens area require- 
ments that are identical for all motor vehicles 
less than 80 inches in overall width. 

As the NHTSA explained in its proposal pub- 
lished April 8, 1972 (37 F.R. 7107), Standard 
No. 108 requires (Table III) passenger cars, 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses 
to be equipped with "Class A" turn signal lamps. 
Class A lamps prior to Standard No. 108 were 
generally found only on vehicles whose overall 
width is 80 inches or more. Class A lamps differ 
from Class B lamps in having a minimum effec- 
tive projected illuminated area of 12 square 
inches rather than 3i/^ square inches. Paragraph 
S4.1.1.7 of Standard No. 108, however, permits 
passenger cars to meet Class A photometries 
through an effective projected illvuninated area 
not less than that of a Class B lamp (31/^ square 
inches). The NHTSA, in response to a petition 
from Jeep Corporation, proposed that this ex- 
ception be provided for all vehicles less than 
80 inches in overall width, instead of being lim- 
ited to passenger cars, and that stop lamps be 
included as well. 



The comments received supported the proposal. 
Recommendations were al&o made as to stand- 
ardization of lens area and identification of 
lamps providing Class A photometric values. 
These will be treated as suggestions for future 
rulemaking since they were beyond the scope of 
the proposal. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the first sen- 
tence of paragraph S4.1.1.7 of 49 CFR 571.108, 
Standard No. 108, is revised .... 

Effective date: January 1, 1973. Because the 
amendment relaxes a requirement and creates no 
additional burden, it is found for good cause 
shown that an effective date earlier than one 
hundred eighty days after issuance is in the 
public interest. 

This notice is issued under the authority of 
sections 103 and 119 of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 
1392, 1407), and the delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51. 

Issued on : October 26, 1972. 

Charles H. Hartman 
Acting Administrator 

37 F.R. 23272 
November 1, 1972 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 27-28 



♦ 



I 



f 



Effective: January I, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 71-21; Notice 4) 



This notice amends 49 CFR § 571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Re- 
■fleetive Devices, and Associated Equipment, to 
specify minimum photometric-candlepower re- 
quirements for motorcycle turn signal lamps. 

Standard No. 108 was amended on October 7, 
1972 (37 F.R. 21328), effective January 1, 1973, 
to specify, in part, that turn signal lamps are 
not required to meet the minimum photometric 
values at each test point specified in Table 2 of 
SAE Standard J575d, "Tests for Motor Vehicle 
Lighting Devices and Components," if the sum 
of the candlepower measured at the test points 
within the groups listed in Figure 1 is not less 
than the sum of the candlepower values for such 
test points specified in J575d. Effective Jan- 
uary 1, 1973, Class B turn signal lamps are re- 
quired on motorcycles, and the minimum photo- 
metric candlepower values for such lamps are 
one-half those required for Class A turn signals. 
The amendment failed to make this distinction, 
and this notice corrects the omission. 



In consideration of the foregoing, paragraph 
S4.1.1.12 of 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 108, is amended .... 

Effective date: January 1, 1973. Because the 
amendment creates no additional burden, it is 
found for good cause shown that an effective 
date earlier than 180 days after issuance is in 
the public interest. 

This notice is issued under the authority of 
sections 103 and 119 of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 
1392, 1407) and the delegation of authority from 
the Secretary of Transportation to the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, 49 CFR 
1.51. 



Issued on November 21, 1972. 



Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

37 F.R. 25235 
November 29, 1972 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 29-30 



t 



Effective: January 1, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 69-18; Notice 14) 



This notice amends 49 CFR § 571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, to delete the 
requirements of the warpage tests for plastic 
lenses used on lamps. 

The NHTSA proposed on July 7, 1972 (37 
F.R. 13350), that the lens warpage test be de- 
leted from the motor vehicle lighting standard. 
The test requirement itself, as contained in an 
SAE Standard incorporated by reference, lacked 
objectivity, in that it prohibited warpage that 
would "affect the proper functioning of the de- 
vice" without further clarification. The lens 
warpage test did not appear to add significantly 
to motor vehicle safety. 

Comments to the docket were divided, some 
confirming the NHTSA position on both issues. 
Others objected, suggesting that the agency seek 
to establish objective compliance criteria. On 
review of all data and arguments, the NHTSA 
finds that a safety problem that would justify 
the development of such a requirement has not 
been demonstrated. 

In the future, if serious problems of lens war- 
page arise, they may be dealt with immediately 



as safety-related defects under section 113 of the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 
and steps can be taken to develop and promulgate 
an objective test. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
§ 571.108 is amended .... 

Effective date: Jan. 1, 1973. Because this 
amendment relieves a restriction and creates no 
additional burden, it is found for good cause 
shown that an effective date earlier than 180 days 
after issuance is in the public interest. 

This notice is issued under the authority of 
sections 103 and 119 of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 
1392, 1407) and the delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51. 

Issued on December 29, 1972. 

Jack L. Goldberg 
Acting Administrator 

38 F.R. 743 
January 4, 1973 



PART 571 ; S 108— PRE 31-32 



f 



EffMtive: Fabntary 5, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 71-21; Notice 6) 



This notice denies petitions for reconsideration 
of an amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 108 published on October 7, 
1972, that modified the method by which con- 
formity of certain lamps to photometric require- 
ments is determined. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Admin- 
istration amended 49 CFR § 571.108, Motor Ve- 
hicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Rejlective 
Devices., and Associated Equipment, on October 7, 
1972, (37 F.R. 21328) to allow photometric con- 
formance of parking lamps, taillamps, stop lamps, 
and turn signal lamps to be based upon the sum 
of values derived from grouping individual test 
points rather than upon a requirement of con- 
formance at each test point. Thereafter, pursuant 
to 49 CFR § 553.35, petitions for reconsideration 
of the amendment were filed by American Motors 
Corporation, Ford Motor Company, General 
Motors Corporation, SWF-Spezial fabrik fur 
Autozubehor Gustav Rau GmbH, and Volks- 
wagen of America, Inc. Petitions raising the 
same issues but not timely filed were submitted 
by Automobiles Peugeot on behalf of the Asso- 
ciation Peugeot-Renault and Westfalische Metall 
Industry KG. Chrysler Corporation submitted 
a request for an interpretation. The Administra- 
tion has declined to grant requested relief. 

1. InclvMon of SAE Recommended Practice 
J256. All petitioners except General Motors 
asked for adoption in its entirety of SAE Recom- 
mended Practice J256, "Service Performance 
Requirements for Motor Vehicle Lighting De- 
vices," July 1971. Petitioners complain that the 
NHTSA adopted the grouping concept and 
photometric values of Table I and Table 3 of 
the Practice without including a correction ad- 
justment factor or a tolerance for maximum 



photometric values. SAE J256 permits an ad- 
justment in lamp orientation from design position 
not to exceed 3 degrees in determining compliance 
with photometric requirements. SAE J256 also 
permits a tolerance of 10 per cent in determining 
whether group photometric requirements are met. 
It further provides that the candlepower of park- 
ing lamps, taillamps, stop lamps, and turn lamps 
shall not exceed 120 per cent of the maximimi 
values specified in appropriate SAE Standards. 
In support of their request petitioners argue that 
a readjustment factor is necessitated by the diffi- 
culties that test laboratories experience in insur- 
ing that lamps of complex and varied shapes are 
mounted with accuracy .in the design position. 
Tolerances in candlepower output are requested 
because of variations in test lamp bulbs, and in 
manufacture and assembly of the lamps them- 
selves. 

When Standard No. 108 required compliance 
at every test point, the SAE Standards incor- 
porated by reference did not permit the tolerances 
that petitioners request. Compliance by meeting 
minimum group totals rather than compliance at 
each test point is intended to insert a factor to 
compensate for those variations in test methods 
and manufacture that apparently concern indus- 
try. The tolerances in the SAE Recommended 
Practice represent a further lowering of the 
quantitative performance requirements. The 
NHTSA has determined that no sufficient reasons 
have been given to lower these requirements fur- 
ther, and that it is not in the interest of motor 
vehicle safety to do so. The petitions are denied. 

2. Excluded lamps. Greneral Motors requests 
the inclusion in the group testing concept of 
clearance lamps, side marker lamps, and identifi- 
cation lamps, as originally proposed by NHTSA. 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 33 



Effective: February 5, 1973 



GM's petition is denied. Under the proposal, 
photometric requiremejits for clearance, side 
marker, and identification lamps would have been 
increased, and identical to those for parking 
lamps and taillamps. But the proposed values 
were not adopted, and these lamps were not in- 
cluded in the group concept. The NHTSA be- 
lieves that the group concept is inappropriate for 
lamps of low candlepower, and that requirements 
should be met at each test point. The photometric 
requirements for clearance, side marker, and 
identification lamps, are minimal in nature and 
identical at all test points. 

3. I nterf relations. Chrysler Corporation has 
asked whether "the maximum values provided in 
Figure 1 may be used in place of the maximum 
photometric values set out in paragraph S5.2," 
which states in pertinent part that "the maximum 
photometric candlepower values for one-compart- 
ment and two-compartment stop lamps shall be 
300 candlepower." The answer is yes, and para- 
graph S5.2 is being deleted. 

Chrysler has also asked whether "subscripts (f ) 
and (g) of Table 2 of . . . SAE Standard J575d 
applies to the measurement of the maximum 
values in . . . Figure 1 . . . ". There is no footnote 
(g) in J575d, and footnote (f) does apply. 



Clarification has also been requested as to 
whether the maximum tail lamp values in Figure 
1 are intended to apply at test points below the 
horizontal. The answer is no; the limitation, as 
was true before the amendment, is restricted to 
the horizontal and above. 

In consideration of the foregoing, section S5 
of 49 CFR § 571.108, Motor Vehicle Standard No. 
108 is amended by removing the designation 
"S5.1" and deleting paragraph S5.2. 

Effective date: February 5, 1973. Because the 
amendment clarifies an ambiguity and creates no 
additional burden, good cause has been shown 
that an effective date earlier than 180 days after 
issuance is in the public interest. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 15 
U.S.C. 1392, 1407 ; delegation of authority at 49 
CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on January 30, 1973. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

38 F.R. 3331 
February 5, 1973 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 34 



EffKtivt: Fabniary 28, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 71-21; Notice 7) 



This notice corrects the amendment to 49 CFR 
§571.108 published on February 5, 1973 (38 F.R. 
3331) that removed the designation "S5.1" and 
deleted paragraph S5.2 from Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 108. 

The amendment inadvertently overlooked the 
fact that a new paragraph S5.3, concerning lens 
warpage, had been added to Standard No. 108 
on January 4, 1973 (38 F.R. 743). The notice 
published on February 5, 1973 should have re- 
tained the designation of S5.1, deleted S5.2 and 
renumbered S5.3. 

In consideration of the foregoing, section S5 
of 49 CFR §571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 108, is amended by adding the 
designation "S5.1" to the first paragraph, and 



changing the designation of paragraph S5.3 to 
read "S5.2". 

Effective date : February 28, 1973. Because the 
amendment corrects an error and creates no addi- 
tional burden good cause has been shown that an 
effective date earlier than 180 days after issuance 
is in the public interest. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 15 
U.S.C. 1392, 1407 ; delegation of authority at 49 
CFR 1.51). 

Issued on February 21, 1973. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

38 F.R. 5338 
February 28, 1973 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 35-36 



Effective: January I, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 

(Docket No. 71-21; Notice 6) 



This notice amends the test procedures relating 
to bulbs in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
108, effective January 1, 1974. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Admin- 
istration proposed on December 1, 1972 (37 F.R. 
25535) to amend two test proceSures relating to 
bulbs. As the NHTSA explained : 

"At the present time, test bulbs must be 'oper- 
-aied at their rated mean spherical candlepower 
unless otherwise specified.' Not all bulbs have, 
been assigned a mean spherical candlepower 
rating. The proposal specifies that when no 
rating has been assigned by the bulb manu- 
facturer or the SAE or, if the lamp is sealed 
and the bulb cannot be replaced, the bulb shall 
be operated at design voltage. Secondly, in- 
stances have arisen where noncompliance of 
lamps could not be proven in marginal cases 
because of the tolerances permitted in test 
bulbs. The notice seeks to render test results 
more reproducible by proposing that the fila- 
ments of test bulbs (other than sealed-in 
bulbs) be positioned within zt.OlO inch of the 
nominal design position specified in SAE 
Standard J573d, "Lamp Bulbs and Sealed 
Units," or by the bulb manufacturer. Other 
requirements of SAE Standard J575d, incor- 
porated by reference into Standard No. 108, 
remain applicable." 

Comments generally supported the notice, and 
the standard is being amended as proposed. The 
chief objection voiced was that it is difficult to 
obtain test bulbs at the proposed filament loca- 
tion tolerances. The NHTSA finds, however, 
that these difficulties are outweighed by the need 
for objective and repeatable tests. Moreover, 
while the NHTSA intends to use a bulb with the 
filament positioned within ±.010 inch of the de- 



sign i)osition for its compliance tests, a manu- 
facturer is not required to do so. If the 
manufacturer lias test data to show a correlation 
between a Standard No. 108 test bulb and one 
used by him outside the ±.010-inch tolerances, 
his certification could be based on the test data 
and the correlation factor, assuming that that 
factor indicated compliance. Similarly if it can 
be demonstrated that the lamp complied using 
test bulbs having filament locations on both the 
plus and minus sides of the design position, out- 
side the dz.OlO tolerance but within the other 
tolerances of J573, compliance could be certified. 

The NHTSA would also like to make clear that 
only the filament in the test bulb for the function 
tested need meet the .010-inch tolerance. For 
example, if a combination tail lamp/stop lamp 
is being tested for the tail lamp function, the 
stop lamp filament need not be within the toler- 
ance, and a bulb with a correctly positioned fila- 
ment may subsequently be substituted for the 
stop lamp test. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 
is revised by adopting new paragraphs S4.1.1.19 
and 84.1.1.20. . . . 

Effective date: January 1, 1974. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407; delegation of authority at 
38 F.R. 12147) 

Issued on June 15, 1973. 

James E. Wilson 
Associate Administrator 
Traffic Safety Programs 

38 F.R. 16230 
June 21, 1973 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 37-38 



EffMHva: July 23, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 

(Docket No. 69-19; Notice 6) 



This notice amends the requirements of Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Re- 
flective Devices and Associated Equipment ap- 
plicable to trailers that are either less than 6 feet 
in overall length or 30 inches in overall width. 

On October 25, 1972 the National Highway 
Safety Administration proposed (Docket No. 
69-19; Notice 3, 37 F.R. 22801) as part of a 
comprehensive rule making action that small 
trailers need not be equipped with the comple- 
ment of lighting devices required of larger trail- 
ers. The agency proposed that a trailer less than 
30 inches wide may be equipped with only one 
of each of the following devices located at or 
near its vertical centerline : tail lamp, stop lamp, 
and rear reflex reflector. The NHTSA also pro- 
posed that a trailer that is less than 6 feet in 
overall length, including the trailer tongue, need 
not be equipped with front side marker lamps 
and front side reflex reflectors. In the opinion 
of the NHTSA this equipment is sufficient to 
meet the needs of motor vehicle safety. Com- 
menters generally agreed, and Standard No. 108 
is being amended as proposed. Two suggested 
that two rear reflectors be required. The amend- 
ment, which is phrased as an option, does not 
preclude a two-reflector configuration if the 
manufacturer wishes. In accordance with sev- 
eral comments, the amendments, which relieve a 
restriction, are being made effective 30 days after 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. 

Several amendments of Standard 108 are also 
being made by this notice to reflect the expira- 
tion of the stated period for certain compliance 
options. Paragraphs S4.1.1.13, S4.1.1.14, and 
S4.1.1.15 of Standard 108 deferred compliance 
with amended backup lamp and license plate 
lamp requirements, and with turn signal require- 



ments for motorcycles, until January 1, 1973, at 
the manufacturer's option. Since these options 
are no longer permissible, the paragraphs are 
being deleted. Rather than redesignating the 
succeeding subparagraphs of S4.1.1 as has been 
the practice in the past, the NHTSA, in order to 
eliminate confusion, intends to maintain the 
current order and adopt new numbers in succes- 
sive order for new requirements. A similar 
policy has been adopted with respect to footnotes 
in the Tables. Thus, the trailer lighting amend- 
ments adopted by this notice are designated 
S4.1.1.17 and S4.1.1.18. S4.1.1.16 is amended to 
delete the expired option allowing use of Class B 
turn signals on vehicles less than 80 inches wide 
designed to complete a durability test of 100,000 
cycles. Appropriate amendments reflecting these 
deletions are made to the footnotes and references 
in Tables I, III, and IV of the standard. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
§571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
108, is amended. . . . 

Effective date: July 23, 1973. Because the 
amendment in part relieves a restriction and 
creates no additional burden, and in part is ad- 
ministrative in nature, it is found for good cause 
shown that an effective date earlier than 180 days 
after issuance is in the public interest. 

(Section 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
15 use 1392, 1407; delegation of authority at 
38 F.R. 12147.) 

Issued on June 15, 1973. 

James E. Wilson 
Associate Administrator 
Traffic Safety Programs 

38 F.R. 16875 
June 27, 1973 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 39-40 



Effective: January 1, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 69-19; Notice 7) 



This notice amends 49 CFR § 571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps^ Re- 
flective Devices, and Associated Equipment, to 
specify requirements for rectangular headlamps 
that may be used as an option in a four-headlamp 
system until September 1, 1976. The notice also 
sets forth NHTSA policy concerning rectangular 
headlamps after such time. 

Interested persons have been afforded an op- 
portunity to participate in the making of the 
amendment by a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(Docket No. 69-19; Notice 5) published on 
June 8, 1973 (38 F.R. 15082), and due consid- 
eration has been given to all comments received 
in response to the notice, insofar as they relate 
to matters within its scope. 

The prior notice responded to a petition by 
General Motors. Under it, a rectangular head- 
lamp approximately 6% in. by 41^ in. would be 
permissible in five headlamp types (Types lA 
through 5A) proposed for the two four-lamp 
front lighting Systems B and C proposed in 
Notice 3 to Docket No. 69-19 (37 F.R. 22801). 
Photometric values based upon Notice 3 were 
also proposed. As Notice 5 was technically an 
amendment of Notice 3, other headlighting re- 
quirements of the earlier proposal, such as those 
affecting mounting and aiming, were incor- 
porated by reference. 

Based upon comments to the docket and con- 
sideration of the issues involved, this amend- 
ment allowing an optional rectangular headlamp 
system differs from the proposal in several re- 
spects. The most important of these is its in- 
corporation into Standard No. 108 as it is 
currently in effect, rather than into the amend- 
ment proposed by Notice 3. Thus, only two of 
the five proposed rectangular headlamp types 



have been adopted, and the photometric, mount- 
ing, and other requirements are with slight ex- 
ceptions those that are presently required for a 
four-headlamp system. Dimensions are slightly 
different from those proposed, at the request of 
General Motors which has modified its original 
experimental design. 

The comments received expressed a variety of 
opinions on the rectangular headlamp proposal. 
The most common point of agreement was that 
there is no clear safety benefit or detriment in 
the use of rectangular headlamps. The NHTSA 
expressed concern in the notice "that there 
should not be such a proliferation of headlamp 
shapes and sizes that the motorist who has an 
immediate need to replace a headlamp has diflS- 
culty in finding one," and this concern was 
shared by several commenters. The points were 
also made that rectangular headlamps may be 
more expensive than conventional ones, and that 
they cannot be mechanically aimed with equip- 
ment currently in use. Finally, the question was 
raised whether rectangular headlamps might 
encounter more service performance difficulties 
than round ones. 

Commenters generally supported the relief of 
a design restriction imposed by Standard No. 108, 
and this has been a prime determinant in the 
NHTSA's decision to permit certain rectangular 
headlamps. The NHTSA has determined that, 
by reducing the proposed number of types of 
rectangular headlamps from five to two, there 
will not be an undue proliferation of headlamps 
on the replacement market. Since these head- 
lamps are optional and not mandatory, their 
cost is not a major relevant factor to be consid- 
ered in determining whether they should be per- 
mitted. Rectangular headlamps can be optically 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 41 



231-088 O - 77 - 25 



Effective: January 1, 1974 



aimed, the method in predominant use in State 
motor vehicle inspections, and thns the NHTSA 
did not find the difficulty of mechanical aiming 
a persuasive argiunent. In addition, mechanical 
aimers capable of aiming rectangular headlamps 
are under development and should shortly be 
commercially available. The NHTSA is. of 
course, concerned as to whether the rectangular 
headlamps will encounter more service difficul- 
ties than conventional ones, but does not believe 
that the issue can be proven until such units are 
mass-produced and actually in service. 

These amendments to Standard No. 108 rei^- 
resent an interim rather than a final decision on 
the issues of rectangular headlamps and appro- 
priate dimensions. During 1974 and 1975 
NHTSA expects the world motor vehicle in- 
dustry, through international standards organi- 
zations and regular trade and professional 
associations, to arrive, if possible, at a consensus 
for one set of requirements, including dimensions 
for rectangular headlamps. Late in 1975, the 
NHTSA intends to announce its final decision 
on the matter: whether to remain with the re- 
quirements and dimensions adopted in this no- 
tice, to propose and adopt others, or to revoke 
the option. The agency at this point is not com- 
mitting itself either to adopt any consensus di- 
mensions or to perpetuate the ones desired by 
General Motors, though the field experience with 
such lamps over the next two years may be ex- 
pected to have some influence in the final deci- 
sion. Adoption of these optional dimensions by 



a manufacturer during this interim period is at 
his own risk, and the cost of changing over from 
interim to permanent dimensions, if different, in 
1977 model year tooling will not be considered 
a material factor in the decision on permanent 
dimensions. It is planned that the interim 
amendment will be in effect through August 31, 
1976, and that no petitions will be entertained 
for variant headlamp dimensions or system con- 
figurations before the end of that period, to avoid 
multiplying stock items and disrupting supply 
channels. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
§571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
108, is amended by adding a new paragraph 
S4.1.1.21 

Fjfeeth'e date: January 1, 1974. Because the 
amendment creates an optional system without 
imposing new mandatory requirements on any 
person it is found for good cause shown that an 
effective date earlier than 180 days after the 
issuance of the amendment is in the public 
interest. 

(Sees. 103, 119 Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407 ; delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on November 23, 1973. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

38 F.R. 33084 
November 30, 1973 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 42 



Effective: May 29, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 72-22; Notice 2) 



This notice amends Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 108 to modify requirements 
for lighting equipment on mobile structure 
trailers. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Admin- 
istration proposed on September 30, 1972 (37 
F.R. 20573) that mobile structure trailers (com- 
monly known as mobile homes) need be equipped 
only with tail lamps, stop lamps, and turn signal 
lamps if the manufacturer so chooses. As the 
agency observed in support of its proposal: 

"Since January 1, 1968, mobile homes towed 
on their own wheels have been categorized as 
'trailers' by the Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards, and required to conform to ap- 
plicable Federal motor vehicle lighting speci- 
fications. Pursuant thereto, mobile homes in 
transit have been equipped with the full com- 
plement of trailer lighting equipment required 
by Standard No. 108 : Tail lamps, stop lamps, 
license plate lamps, reflex reflectors, side 
marker lamps and reflectors, identification 
lamps, clearance lamps, and turn signal lamps. 
"Because of the limited time a mobile home 
is on the public ways, manufacturers have been 
advised that compliance may be achieved by 
use of a lighting harness removable upon com- 
pletion of transit. The Trailer Coach Associa- 
tion alleges that installation and removal 
expense of the wiring harness adds needless 
cost to 'the only low cost housing available to 
the majority of people today.' It has peti- 
tioned for an amendment of the lighting re- 
quirements such that reflex reflectors, license 
plate lamps, identification lamps, clearance 
lamps, and side marker lamps would not be 
required on mobile structure trailers 'when 
moved under the authority of State issued 



permits whose regulations specifically prohibit 
movement during hours of darkness.' . . . 

"Available information indicates that a mo- 
bile structure trailer, defined in 49 CFR 571.3 
as 'a trailer that has a roof and walls, is at 
least 10 feet wide, and can be used off road for 
dwelling or commercial purposes,' cannot move 
over the public roads of any State without a 
permit containing the condition that the trailer 
shall not be moved during hours of darkness. 
In many jurisdictions, movement is also pro- 
hibited during inclement weather or under 
other conditions of reduced visibility. The 
safety benefit of requiring the full complement 
of trailer lighting equipment appears negli- 
gible under these circumstances, and unneces- 
sary for the safety of the motoring public." 

The proposal was supported by numerous mo- 
bile home manufacturers and manufacturers 
associations, and opposed by a number of manu- 
facturers and suppliers of lighting equipment, 
by a consumer group, one State, and other inter- 
ested persons. Those who opposed the proposal 
argued that the presence of large mobile homes 
on the public highway is a traffic hazard per se, 
and that a full complement of lights should be 
required regardless of restrictions on movement. 
Comments were made that the existence of State 
laws did not necessarily preclude movement of 
mobile homes either at night or during periods 
of inclement weather. Most States, however, re- 
quire special warning to motorists when mobile 
structure trailers exceeding a specified width and 
length are being transported. This warning may 
be in the form of flagmen, escort vehicles, flags 
on the towing vehicle, and "wide load" signs. 

The NHTSA has concluded that motor vehicle 
safety does not require a full complement of 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 43 



Effective: May 29, 1974 



lighting devices on mobile structure irailers, 
whose use of the roads, as a class, is infrequent, 
and confined to daylight hours, when identifica- 
tion lamps, clearance lamps, and side marker 
lamps are not normally in use. Accordingly, the 
standard is being amended to specify that the 
only required lighting equipment for these ve- 
hicles is stop lami>s, turn signal lamps, tail lamps, 
and rear reflex reflectors. The NHTSA has de- 
cided to include rear reflex reflectors as required 
equipment to provide some measure of protection 
when a mobile structure trailer is parked on the 
road shoulder at night or during periods of re- 
duced visibility. Mobile structure trailers in 
interstate transit, however, must continue to meet 
the requirements of the Bureau of Motor Carrier 
Safety (49 CFR 393.17, 393.25). 



In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 
is revised by adding a new section S4.1.1.25. . . . 

Effective Date: May 29, 1974. Because the 
amendment relieves a restriction, and creates no 
additional burden, it is found for good cause 
shown that an effective date earlier than 180 
days after issuance is in the public interest. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407; delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on April 24, 1974. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

39 F.R. 14946 
April 29, 1974 



PART 571 ; S 108— PRE 44 



Effective: May 29, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 73-25; Notice 2) 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, to: (1) update 
the incorporated SAE standard on clearance 
lamps, (2) group test points for determining 
photometric conformance of backup lamps, (3) 
identify load requirements for testing variable 
load turn signal flashers, and (4) increase the 
allowable voltage drop in testing turn signal and 
hazard warning signal flashers. 

These amendments are responsive to petitions 
by Truck Safety Equipment Institute, Signal 
Stat Corporation, Sylvania GTE and Hope- 
Tronics, Ltd., as discussed in the notice propos- 
ing the amendments, published on November 2, 
1973 (38 F.R. 30280). The comments received 
in response to the notice were unanimous in 
supporting the change from SAE J592c to J592e 
as the referenced standard for clearance lamps, 
and in adopting the grouping of test points to 
determine compliance of backup lamps with 
photometric requirements. Comments also unani- 
mously supported the identification of load re- 
quirements for testing variable load turn signal 
flashers, with one commenter suggesting that this 
might better be accomplished by referencing 
SAE J590e. The suggestion was not adopted, 
as J590e incorporates matter not proposed in 
Notice 1. The proposal that the maximum volt- 
age drop across flashers be increased from 0.45 
volt to 0.8 volt was supported by four vehicle 



manufacturers with a fifth suggesting an increase 
to 0.6 volt. It was objected to by six commenters, 
all of them flasher manufacturers, on the grounds 
that it would result in a lessening of light output. 
The NHTSA recognized this possibility in Notice 
1, but noted that the diminution would be so 
slight as to be undetectable by the human eye, 
while the public would be afforded the choice of 
a flasher with greater life expectancy. The 
amendment increasing the minimum voltage drop 
is adopted as proposed. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 
is amended. . . . 

Eflectire date: May 29, 1974. Because these 
amendments either relax a requirement or reflect 
existing widespread industry practice, and create 
no additional burden, it is found for good cause 
shown that an effective date earlier than one 
hundred eighty days after issuance is in the 
public interest. 

(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407); delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on April 24, 1974. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

39 F.R. 15130 
May 1, 1974 



PART 571 ; S 108— PRE 45-46 



Effective: June 6, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 73-33; Notice 2) 



This notice amends 49 CFR §571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps. Rejlec- 
f'lve Devices, and Associated Equipment, to allow 
variable-load turn signal flashers on trucks that 
are capable of accommodating slide-in campers. 

The proposal on which the amendment is based 
was published on January 3, 1974 (39 F.R. 822), 
pursuant to a petition by Ford Motor Company. 
Standard Xo. 108 presently requires turn signal 
failure indication in accordance with SAE 
Standard J588d, except on vehicles whose overall 
width is 80 inches or more, and on vehicles 
equipped to tow trailers. This has the effect of 
mandating use of fixed-load flashers, since special 
circuitry would be necessary to sense and indicate 
a failure in a variable-load system. 

The NHTSA proposed to include trucks ca- 
pable of accommodating slide-in campers in the 
group of vehicles not required to have a failure 
indicator (and hence allowed to have variable- 
load flashers). The problem presented bj' Ford 
may be summarized as follows : when camper 
turn signal lamps are added to the turn signal 
circuit of the vehicle carrying the camper, the 
flash rate will increase, to a level generally ex- 
ceeding the maximum specified by Standard No. 
108. Allowing a variable-load flasher will insure 
a uniform flash rate when the camper is installed. 

In response to the opportunity afl'orded for 
comments, seven submittals were received. Six 
supported the proposal. The seventh commenter, 



a foreign equipment manufacturer, opposed the 
proposal on the grounds that suitable flashers for 
similar applications are available in Europe. 

The NHTSA has determined that the avail- 
ability of variable-load flashers ensuring flash 
rate control within the limits of the standard is 
desirable, and should be permitted on trucks 
capable of accommodating slide-in campers, de- 
spite the lack of lamp failure indication. In 
order to make clear the intent of the regulation, 
language is being added to specify that the ex- 
ception applies only to vehicles with variable- 
load flashers. 

In consideration of the foregoing, paragraph 
S4.5.6 of 49 CFR 571. 108, Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 108 is revised. . . . 

Elective date: June 6, 1974. Because the 
amendment allows an additional option and 
creates no additional burden, it is found for good 
cause shown that an immediate effective date is 
in the public interest. 

(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407; delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on May 31, 1974. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

39 F.R. 20063 
June 6, 1974 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 47-48 



Effective: October 14, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

(Docket No. 74-16; Notice 2) 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.108, 571.122, 
and 571.123, Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 
Nos. 108, 122, and 123, to modify current re- 
quirements that apply to motor-driven cycles. 

Interested persons have been afl'orded an op- 
portunity to participate in the making of the 
amendment by a notice of proposed rulemaking 
published on April 12, 1974 (39 F.R. 13287) and 
due consideration has been given to all comments 
received in response to the notice, insofar as they 
relate to matters within its scope. 

The prior notice responded to petitions by 
Cycles Peugeot, Ateliers de la Motobecane, and 
S.I.N.F.A.C. manufacturers, and Bermuda Bikes, 
Inc., and Robert F. Smith, retail dealers. The 
notice proposed that a motor-driven cycle whose 
speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less need 
not be equipped with turn signal lamps, and 
may be equipped with a stop lamp with one-half 
the photometric output otherwise required. Brak- 
ing fade and recovery requirements also would 
not apply to these low-speed vehicles. Maximum 
stopping distance values for the various tests 
would be added for test speeds of 25, 20, and 15 
mph. Finally, a braking control on the left 
handlebar would be a permissible alternative to 
the required right foot braking control. 

The comments received addressed both areas 
of performance covered in tlie proposal, and 
areas where no standards currently exist, such as 
motors, transmissions, pedals, and a request for 
exemption from Standard No. 119, Tires for 
Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. As these 
latter comments cover matters beyond the scope 
of the proposal, this notice does not discuss them. 
The agency, however, has been formally peti- 
tioned for rulemaking covering transmissions 
and Standard Xo. 119, and will respond to the 
petitioners in the near future. 

The decision by NHTSA not to establish a 
separate category of vehicle was objected to by 



some commenters. In support of their request, 
they argued that the majority of motor-driven 
cycles have engines producing only 1.5 to 2 horse- 
power, and consequent low maximum speeds, 
reducing the need for forward lighting that is 
currently required of these vehicles. Petitioners 
submitted no data justifying their request. The 
NHTSA, however, intends to study the matter 
of forward lighting for low-powered two-wheeled 
vehicles through a research contract with the 
University of Michigan. When the contract is 
completed the agency will then decide whether 
further rulemaking is warranted. 

Tlie proposal distinguished motor-driven cycles 
on the basis of maximum speed attainable in 
1 mile, rather than on horsepower, and the value 
selected, 30 mph, fell within the maximum (40 
mph) and minimum (20 mph) suggested by 
commenters. The NHTSA has concluded there- 
fore that the distinction should be adopted as 
proposed. 

Some manufacturers requested restrictive con- 
trols on power plant output, apparently in fear 
that the engine of a vehicle with a top speed of 
30 mph or less could be modified to exceed that 
speed, and therefore cause the vehicle to no 
longer comply with the Federal standards. This 
agency has not found that course of action to be 
practicable. The various ways to modify a ve- 
hicle after purchase cannot be anticipated or 
prevented at the manufacturer level. On the 
other hand, the great majority of consumers use 
their vehicles in the form in which they were 
purchased. The motor-driven cycle category it- 
self contains a limitation of 5 horsepower, which 
will be applicable to the special lighting modi- 
fications. In the NHTSA's judgment, modifica- 
tions by consiuners and the consequent equipment 
requirements should continue to be regulated at 
the State level. 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 49 



Effective: October 14, 1974 



The fact that tlie agency took no action to 
propose a reduction in existing iieadlamp re- 
quirements for motor-driven cycles was criti- 
cized by several manufacturers as unduly restric- 
tive because of the low speed and power output 
of their vehicles. No justification has been shown 
for such a change. Motor driven cycles therefore 
must have sufficient generating and/or battery 
capacity to meet the headlamp requirements. 

There was no substantive objection to tlie ac- 
tual proposals for omission of turn signals, re- 
duced stop lamp pliotometrics, relief from brake 
fade requirements, inclusion of maximum allow- 
able stopjDing distances for low speeds, and rear 
brake control placement. Accordingly, tlie stand- 
ards are being amended in the manner proposed. 

Standard No. 122 is also being amended to 
delete the final effectiveness test (S5.5) for those 
motor-driven cycles excused from the fade and 
recovery requirements. The purpose of the final 
effectiveness test is to check the stopping ability 
of the vehicle after the fade and recovery tests. 
Since this requirement has been eliminated for 
motor-driven cycles of low top-speed, the final 
effectiveness test is redundant, and an unneces- 



sary duplication of the second effectiveness test. 
No safety purpose is served by its retention. 
Language is also added to the fade and recovery 
and final effectiveness test procedures (S7.6, 
S7.7, and S7.8), making it clear that they do not 
ajjply to motor-driven cycles whose speed at- 
tainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
Part 571 is amended .... 

Effective date: October 14, 1974. As the 
amendments allow new options for compliance, 
relieve restrictions, and impose no additional 
burdens on regulated persons, it is found for 
good cause shown that an effective date earlier 
than 180 days after issuance of the amendments 
is in the public interest. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407; delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on September 6, 1974. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

39 F.R. 32914 
September 12, 1974 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 50 



Effective: October 17, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

(Docket No. 69-19; Notice 9) 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Re- 
flective Devices, and Associated Equipment, to 
waive the requirement that there be a 4-inch 
minimum spacing between a front turn signal 
and a low-beam headlamp whenever the turn 
signal lamp's photometric outi:)ut is at least two 
and one-half times the minimum required. The 
amendment is effective October 17, 1974. 

Interested pei-sons have been afforded an op- 
portunity to particii^ate in the making of the 
amendment by a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(Docket No. 69-19, Notice 3) published on 
October 25, 1972 (37 F.R. 22801), and due con- 
sideration has been given to the comments re- 
ceived in response to the notice. 

In order to enhance detectability of front 
lamp function by oncoming drivers at a distance. 
Standard No. 108 through its incorporation of 
SAE Standard J588d, "Turn Signal Lamps," 
requires at least 4 inches of spacing between a 
front turn signal lamp and a low beam head- 
lamp. However, as part of Notice 3, the NHTSA 
proposed in paragraph S8.12 that turn signal 
lamps and low beam headlamps could be closer 
if the candlepower output of the turn signal 
lamp is at least two and one-half times that 
specified for yellow turn signal lamps in the 
SAE standard. Mercedes-Benz of North Amer- 



ica has asked the NHTSA to make an early 
decision on the proposal to facilitate its product 
development plans. 

Comments in general supported the proposal. 
Some requested removal of the 4-inch limitation 
regardless of turn signal jihotometric output. 
Others felt that the photometric values of all 
front turn signal lamps should be two and one- 
half times the present minimum. The NHTSA 
has decided to amend the standard primarily as 
proposed, but with reference to the grouped test 
points of Figure 1 of the standard rather than 
to the individual test points of J588. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 
is amended by adding new paragraph S4.3.1.7 

Elective date: October 17, 1974. Because the 
amendment relieves a restriction without impos- 
ing new requirements on any person, it is found 
for good cause shown that an effective date 
earlier than 180 days after the issuance of the 
amendment is in the public interest. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
(15 U.S.C. 1.392, 1407); delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on September 12, 1974. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 51-52 



Effective: April 21, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 
Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.108. Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, to resolve an 
unintended ambiguity between parngrai)hs S-l.l.- 
1.11 and S4.1.1.12, and paragraph S4.3.1.1. 

Paragraphs S4.1.1.11, S4.1.1.12 and S4.1.1.22 
allow photometric conformance of parking lamps, 
stop lamps, taillamps, turn signal lamps, and 
backup lamps to be detennined by measurement 
of sums of values within specified groups of test 
points. Paragraph S4.3.1.1 prohibits vehicle 
equipment obscuring the iihotometric output "at 
any test point" specified in SAE materials unless 
auxiliary lighting equipment is provided that 
meets all photometric requirements. Standard 
No. 108 can thus be interpreted as requiring the 
addition of auxiliary lighting equij^ment if, for 
example, a single test j^oint of a taillamp is ob- 
scured by part of the vehicle, even though the 
taillamp might meet the group requirements of 
Figure 1. NHTSA is therefore amending para- 
graph S4.3.1.1 to remove the ambiguity. 



In consideration of the foregoing the second 
sentence of paragrapji S4.3.1.1 of 49 CFR 571.108 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 is re- 
vised. 

Effective date: April 21, 1975. Because the 
amendment clarifies an ambiguity and creates no 
additional burden on any person, it is found for 
good cause shown that an effective date earlier 
than 180 days after issuance is in the public 
interest. 

(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on April 15. 1975. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

40 F.R. 17574 
April 21, 1975 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 53-54 



f 



i 



i 



EffecHve: June 18, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 



Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 



(Docket No. 

This notice amends 49 CFR 571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Re- 
flective Devices, and Associated Equipment, to 
define in objective terms an acceptable level of 
surface gloss and/or haze for plastic materials 
used for lamp lenses following an outdoor ex- 
posure test. The amendment is effective upon 
publication in the Federal Register. It is based 
upon a notice of proposed rulemaking published 
on September 30, 1974 (39 F.R. 35179). 

Paragraph S4.1.2 of Standard No. 108 incor- 
porates by reference SAE Recommended Prac- 
tice J576b, Plastic materials for use in optical 
parts, such as lenses and reflectors, of motor 
vehicle lighting devices. This practice requires 
in pertinent part (Paragraph 4.2.2) that, fol- 
lowing an outdoor exposure test of 2 years' dura- 
tion, exposed samples, when compared with 
unexposed control samples, shall not show haze 
or loss of surface luster. This requirement has 
been interpreted as forbidding any haze or loss 
of surface luster, and has prohibited the use of 
plastics of uncoated polycarbonate resin, as these 
plastics show a surface change after outdoor 
weathering. General Electric Company peti- 
tioned for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 
108 to define in objective terms an acceptable 
level of surface gloss, so that uncoated poly- 
carbonate plastic may be used for exterior auto- 
motive applications. Although a protective 
coating is available for the plastic, GE stated 
that vehicle manufacturers are reluctant to use 
it because of the cost involved, "from 3^0 cents 
per lens depending upon the size." . 

In support of its petition GE submitted a 
large body of technical information showing the 
effect of surface gloss reduction on the photo- 
metric performance and signaling effectiveness 
of various types of lighting devices used on 



74-34; Notice 2) 

motor vehicles. These tests showed that at the 
end of a 3-year period the photometric output 
through uncoated polycarbonate lenses decreases, 
on the average, less than 10 percent. In GE's 
view, deglossing to haze levels of 50 percent 
does not appear significantly to affect the overall 
photometric performance and signaling effective- 
ness of a lamp. The effect of haze is to scatter 
light from the point of maximum intensity to 
the wider angle test points, resulting in a dimi- 
nution of light output at the former, and an 
increase at the latter. In accordance with GE's 
test data and suggestion, however, the Na- 
tional Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) proposed that haze level should not 
exceed 30 percent. NHTSA tentatively found 
that the proposed amendments would enhance 
traffic safety. Polycarbonate lenses appear to 
offer some benefits lacking in conventional plas- 
tics in terms of heat resistance and higher im- 
pact strength. 

It was also proposed to update the referenced 
SAE Recommended Practice J576b, to J576c, 
effective January 1, 1976. This substitution had 
been previously proposed (Docket No. 69-19; 
Notice 3, 37 F.R. 22806) and favorably com- 
mented upon. The only difference is that J576c 
requires a 3-year exposure test while J576b re- 
quires only a 2-year one. 

Comments submitted in response to the notice 
generally indicated support by vehicle manufac- 
turers, and opposition by manufacturers of lamps 
and plastic materials. It was argued that the 
data in the petition did not support a relaxation, 
and that further data and study were necessary 
before a decision could be made. These argu- 
ments do not appear to have merit. On the 
basis of the comments, however, the amendment 
excludes reflex reflectors. The current higher 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 55 



(Rev. 6/12/75) 

performance level is justified for reflector ma- 
terials, wliich do not have a light source shining 
through them. In addition, the amendment 
specifies that the tests are performed on lens 
materials rather than finished lenses. 

The economic eflfect of the amendment is that 
by allowing use of uncoated polycarbonate ma- 
terials, a lens possessing superior heat resistance 
and impact durability will be made available at 
a lesser cost. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.108 is amended. . . . 

Ejfective date: June 18, 1975. Since the 
amendment does not require compliance before 



January 1, 1976 and allows optional compliance 
until then, it is found for good cause shown that 
an effective date earlier than 180 days after is- 
suance is in the public interest. 

(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on June 12, 1975. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

40 F.R. 25677 
June 18, 1975 



I 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 56 



Effective: November 24, J 975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 75-8; Notice 2) 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflec- 
tive Devices, and Associated Equipment, to re- 
move the restriction that would disallow manu- 
facture of vehicles with four-lamp rectangular 
headlamp systems on and after September 1, 
1976. 

The NHTSA proposed on April 30, 1975 (40 
FR 18795) the termination of the amendment 
to Standard No. 108 adopted November 30, 1973 
(38 FR 33084), that disallowed use of rectan- 
gular headlamp systems on motor vehicles manu- 
factured on or after September 1, 1976. In allow- 
ing probationary use of the new headlamp system, 
this agency had concluded that the interests of 
safety required a period in which the systems 
could be evaluated as to on-road performance and 
availability of replacements. A final decision was 
scheduled for lat« in 1975 on whether to allow 
continued use of such systems, and if so, whether 
to retain the current dimensions or to propose 
modifications. 

The NHTSA has decided to remove the ter- 
mination date of September 1, 1976, thus allow- 
ing indefinite use of four-lamp rectangular 
headlamp systems, and to retain the current 
dimensions. In the period that rectangular sys- 
tems have been in use no service or supply 
problems have come to this agency's attention. 
The lamps have been tested and approved by the 
American Association of Motor Vehicle Admin- 
istrators. No comments to the notice of April 
30, 1975, objected to the removal of the termina- 
tion date, and all those who commented on the 



issue supported it. The dimensions specified in 
Standard No. 108 have been adopted by the 
Society of Automotive Engineers in SAE Stand- 
ard J579c, "Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for 
Motor Vehicles," December 1975, and are now 
accepted by the motor vehicle and lighting in- 
dustries. There has been occasional criticism 
that these systems increase vehicle weight and 
cost without a corresponding benefit in safety. 
Any weight increases are very minor, however. 
The purpose of the amendment was to remove a 
design restriction and to allow manufacturers and 
consumers the freedom to choose an alternative 
but equivalent headlighting system. The cost 
increase is not, therefore, mandated by the 
standard. 

The Administrator also requested comments in 
the April 30, 1975, notice as to the advisability 
of proposing an amendment to Standard No. 108 
that would allow a single two-lamp rectangular 
system. Commenters generally supported the 
concept of a two-lamp system, advising dimen- 
sions based upon SAE recommendations. The 
subject is now under consideration by the agency. 

In consideration of the foregoing, paragraph 
S4.1.1.21 of 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 108, is amended by deleting the 
phrase "manufactured between January 1, 1974 
and September 1, 1976" and substituting the 
phrase "manufactured on or after January 1, 
1974". 

Effective date: November 24, 1975. Because 
the amendment relieves a restriction and creates 
no additional burden on any person it is found 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 57 



231-088 O - 77 - 2G 



Effective: November 24, 1975 

for good cause shown that an effective dat« earlier Issued on November 17, 1975. 

than 180 days after issuance is in the public 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 Administrator 

(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407); delegation of authority 40 c R SAAOf, 

at49CFEl.51) k, . o^,„„ 

' November 24, 1975 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 58 



EffecNve: November 24, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 75-15; Notice 2) 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflec- 
tive Devices and Associated Equipment, to 
modify requirements for clearance lamps on ve- 
hicles of special configuration. 

Notice of the amendment was published on 
June 5, 1975 (40 FR 24204), and an opportunity 
afforded for comment. The NHTSA proposed 
that the inboard visibility angle of 45 degrees 
for clearance lamps need not be met on a vehicle 
wliere it is necessary to mount the lamps on sur- 
faces other than the extreme front or rear to 
indicate the overall width or for protection from 
damage during normal operation of the vehicle. 
Restricted inboard visibility angles of clearance 
lamps are encountered on many types of vehicles 
other than boat trailers and horse trailers. Ex- 
amples are (1) front clearance lamps that are 
mounted on a truck body behind the cab and 
below the top of the cab, and (2) front and rear 
clearance lamps mounted on the fenders of trucks 
and trailers such as liquid and bulk commodity 
vehicles and cement mixer carriers. 

Eleven comments were submitted by manufac- 
turers, trade associations, and the California 
Highway Patrol. Ten of these supported the 



amendment. The sole dissenter felt that there 
might be traffic situations where visibility at 
some inboard positions would be important. 
Trailmobile and Recreational Vehicle Industry 
Association requested modifications to Standard 
No.