Skip to main content

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

See other formats 


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  0  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  0  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  0  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 
0  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  0  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  0  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.  108  that  were  beyond  the  scope  of  the  pro- 
posal and  thus  were  not  considered. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  49  CFR 
571.108,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  108, 
is  amended.  .  .  . 

Effective  date:  November  24,  1975.  Because 
the  amendment  relieves  a  restriction  and  creates 
no  additional  burden  upon  any  person,  it  is  found 
for  good  cause  shown  tliat  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  November  17,  1975. 

James  B.  Gregoi-y 
Administrator 

40  F.R.  54427 
November  24,  1975 


PART  571;  S  108— PRE  59-60 


Effective:   December  23,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   108 

Lamps,   Reflective  Devices,  and  Associated   Equipment 
(Docket  No.  69-19;   Notice   10) 


This  notice  amends  49  CFR  571.108,  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  108,  Lamps,  Reflec- 
tive  Deiiices,  and  Associated  Equipment,  to 
clarify  the  electrical  terminal  specifications  for 
Type  lA  rectangular  headlamps. 

Standard  No.  108  was  amended  on  November 
30,  1973,  (38  FR  33084)  to  specify  requirements 
for  rectan^lar  headlamps  that  may  be  used  as 
an  option  in  a  four-headlamp  system.  Figure  2 
of  the  amended  standard  specifies  certain  inter- 
changeability  features  of  Type  lA  and  2A  rectan- 
gular headlamps,  including  location  and  arrange- 
ment of  the  electrical  terminals.  The  three 
terminals  shown  in  Figure  2  are  designed  as 
"ground,"  "lower  beam,"  and  "Type  2A  upper 
beam."  The  terminal  designated  as  "lower  beam" 
is  used  as  the  terminal  for  the  upper  beam  on 
Type  lA  headlamps.  This  is  implied  by  the 
notation,  "no  connection  or  terminal  for  Type 
lA  headlamp,"  under  the  phrase  "Type  2A 
upper  beam,"  since  the  ground  is  not  a  connec- 
tion, but  the  figure  may  not  be  sufficiently  clear 
on  that  point.  In  order  to  make  it  clear,  this 
notice  amends  Figure  2  so  that  the  "lower  beam" 
terminal  is  redesignated  as  the  "Type  2A  lower 
beam  or  Type  lA  upper  beam"  terminal. 

It  has  also  come  to  the  attention  of  this  agency 
that  certain  dimensional  tolerances  of  Figure  2 
are  unnecessarily  restrictive  and  that  other 
methods  of  dimensioning  are  more  applicable  in 
certain  cases.     In  addition,  an  optional  terminal 


configuration  pei-mitted  for  other  headlamps  is 
not  currently  included  for  the  Type  lA  and  2A 
headlamps. 

Accordingly,  Figure  2  is  being  revised  to  pro- 
vide a  tolerance  change  to  the  overall  lamp  width 
(6.58  inches)  and  height  (4.20  inches).  The  lamp 
comer  radius  of  0.56  inch  is  changed  to  0.54  inch, 
a  terminal  spacing  of  0.333  inch  is  changed  to 
0.335  inch,  and  an  optional  terminal  configura- 
tion is  specified.  A  dimension  is  included  for  the 
seating  lugs,  and  a  different  method  of  dimen- 
sioning the  locating  lug  is  specified. 

These  changes  do  not  affect  interchangeability 
or  performance  of  the  lamps  and  are  specified 
only  to  relieve  unnecessary  restrictions. 

Effective  date :  December  23, 1975.  Because  the 
amendment  creates  no  additional  burden  upon 
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  December  3,  1975. 


James  B.  Gregory 
Administrator 

40  F.R.  59349 
December  23,   1975 


PART  571;  S  108— PRE  61-62 


Effective:   January   5,    1976 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO   MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.    108 


Lamps,   Reflective  Devices,   and  Associated   Equipment 
(Docket  No.  69-19;   Notice   11) 


This  notice  amends  49  CFR  571.108,  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  108,  Lamps,  Reflec- 
tive Devices,  and  Associated  Equipment,  pri- 
marily to  modify  requirements  applicable  to  turn 
siofnal  lamps.  The  amendments  are  effective 
January  5,  1976. 

Triangle  Home  Products  has  petitioned  for 
immediate  adoption  of  SAE  Standard  J588e, 
T\irn  Signal  Lamps,  September  1970,  as  the  refer- 
enced standard  for  that  item  of  lighting  equip- 
ment. This  change  was  originally  proposed  by 
NHTSA  in  Notice  3,  Docket  No.  69-19  \37  F.R. 
22801).  SAE  J588e  differs  from  J588d  in  several 
respects,  the  principal  one  being  that  the  mini- 
mum effective  projected  luminous  area  of  all  turn 
signal  lamps  is  8  square  inches.  SAE  J588d  had 
divided  turn  signal  lamps  into  two  classes,  A  and 
B,  but  this  no  longer  occurs  in  J.588e.  Class  A 
turn  signal  lamps  were  those  with  a  lens  area 
not  less  than  12  square  inches,  while  Class  B 
were  those  whose  minimum  lens  area  was  not 
less  than  3..5  square  inches.  The  amendment 
means  that  the  minimum  required  luminous  area 
of  turn  signals  on  passenger  cars,  and  on  other 
vehicles  (except  motorcycles)  less  than  80  inches 
in  overall  width,  is  increased  to  8  square  inches 
from  3..5  square  inches,  while  that  of  larger  ve- 
hicles is  reduced  to  8  from  12  square  inches.  The 
agency  expects  there  to  be  no  effect  upon  safety 
from  this  reduction  as  the  photometric  require- 
ments are  unchanged. 

This  proposal  was  not  uniformly  supported, 
several  manufacturers  objecting  that  the  increase 
in  minimum  area  from  3..5  square  inches  to  8 
square  inches  was  unnecessary,  and  suggesting 
5  square  inches  instead.  The  NHTSA  notes, 
however,  that  the  SAE  adopted  J588e  after  many 
tests   that   demonstrated  that  the  increase  to  8 


square  inches,  by  providing  more  signal  area, 
resulted  in  better  estimation  of  the  position  of 
the  signaling  vehicle  as  seen  by  drivers  of  on- 
coming and  following  vehicles.  Because  of  the 
increased  photometries  for  turn  signal  lamps  that 
became  effective  January  1,  1970,  it  is  difficult 
to  manufacture  lamps  smaller  than  8  square 
inclies  and  produce  the  required  light  output. 
Finally,  an  area  smaller  than  8  square  inches 
would  increase  the  unit  area  intensity  to  a  level 
that  is  likely  to  be  distressing  to  many  drivers. 
It  is  likely,  however,  in  spite  of  the  objections 
to  the  proposal  that  the  industry  conforms  at 
present.  The  NHTSA  surveyed  the  turn  signal 
lens  of  18  contemporary  domestic  and  foreign 
passenger  cars,  finding  no  lens  area  less  than  8 
square  inches,  with  the  average  at  14.  However, 
the  amendments  permit  continued  compliance 
with  J.588d,  on  an  optional  basis,  imtil  September 
1,  1978. 

Notice  3  also  proposed  the  adoption  of  updated 
SAE  Standards,  J.585d  and  J586c,  for  tail  lamps 
and  stop  lamps  respectively.  There  were  no 
objections  to  these  proposals.  The  principal  dif- 
ference in  the  updated  standards  is  the  inclusion 
of  definitions  of  and  photometering  instructions 
for  multiple  compartment  lamps  and  multiple 
lamp  arrangements.  SAE  J586c  also  establishes 
a  minimum  of  8  square  inches  for  the  effective 
pi-ojected  luminous  lens  area  of  stop  lamps,  and, 
in  a  combination  stop  lamp-turn  signal  lamp, 
prohibits,  operation  of  the  stop  lamp  while  the 
turn  signal  is  flashing.  SAE  J.58.5d,  in  a  change 
from  J58.')c,  requires  measurement  of  photo- 
metrics  not  less  than  10  feet  from  the  photometer 
screen,  the  previous  distance  being  a  minimum 
of  4  feet.  Because  of  these  changes,  the  NHTSA 
is  permitting  continued  compliance  with  J585c 
and  J586b  until  September  1,  1978. 


PART  571;  S  108— PRE  63 


Effective:   January   S,    1976 

Accordingly,     Standard     No.     108     is     being  date  imposes  no  additional  burden  on  any  person 

amended    to    incorporate    the    three    new    SAE  and  is  found  for  good  cause  shown  to  be  in  the 

Standards.    Editorial  amendments  are  also  made  public  interet. 

to  S4.1.1.6,  S4.1.1.7,  S4.1.1.12,  S-1.5.5  and  S.5.1  to  (Sec.   103,   119,  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80  Stat.  718, 

conform  them  to  the  new  requirements.  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407 ;  delegation  of  authority  at 

In   consideration    of   the   foregoing,   49    CFR  49  CFR  1.50) 

571.108,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  108,  Issued  on  December  23,  1975. 
is  amended.  .  .  . 

Effective  date:  January  5,  1976.     Because  the  "J''""''.^  .^-   Gregory 

effect  of  the  amendments  is  to  allow  compliance  Admmistrator 

with  either  the  new  or  the  existing  requirements  41  F.R.  765 

until  September  1,  1978,  an  immediate  eifective  January  5,  1976 


PART  571;  S  108— PRE  64 


Effective:   January   8,    1976 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   108 

Lamps,  Reflective  Devices,  ancJ  Associated   Equipment 
(Docket  No.  69-19;   Notice   12) 


This  notice  amends  49  CFR  571.108,  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  108,  to  allow  con- 
formance with  SAE  Standard  J579c,  "Sealed 
Beam  Headlamp  Units  for  Motor  Vehicles", 
December  1974  as  an  option  to  compliance  with 
the  presently  referenced  SAE  Standard  J579a. 

On  October  25,  1972,  the  National  Highway 
Traffic  Safety  Administration  proposed  (37  FR 
22801)  as  part  of  a  comprehensive  rulemakint; 
action  that  SAE  Standard  J579a,  as  currently 
referenced  in  Standard  No.  108,  be  replaced  by 
SAE  Standard  J579b.  Except  for  the  increased 
maximum  candlepower  (75,000  candlepower) 
specified  in  SAE  Standard  J579b,  the  com- 
menters  jrenerally  suppoited  this  proposal.  SAE 
Standard  J579c  has  added  a  definition  of  H-V 
axis  and  a  description  of  rectangular  sealed  beam 
headlighting  systems;  otherwise  it  is  identical  to 
J579b. 

SAE  Standard  J579c  provides  compatibility 
between  headlight  beam  positions  regardless  of 
whether  the  headlamp  is  aimed  by  mechanical, 
optical,  or  visual  methods,  unlike  SAE  Standard 
J579a,  which  results  in  different  beam  positions 
if  the  lamp  is  aimed  by  mechanical  methods  in- 
stead of  optical  or  visual  methods.  Since  the 
headlamp  beam  position  provided  by  the  optical 
and  visual  aim  methods  is  higher  and  results  in 
greater  seeing  distance  for  the  driver,  the  same 
improvement  should  be  aflForded  by  mechanical 
aim  methods. 


SAE  Standard  J579c  contains  minor  changes 
in  photometries  at  certain  test  points  which  also 
provide  improved  lighting,  but  are  of  such  a 
minor  technical  nature  that  allowance  of  these 
values  would  be  a  relief  of  a  restriction.  How- 
ever, this  amendment  of  Standard  No.  108  re- 
stricts the  maxinuun  candlepower  output,  for  the 
present  time,  to  37,500.  The  question  of  allowing 
the  SAE  maximum  of  75,000  candlepower  was 
raised  in  the  notice  of  October  25,  1972,  and  will 
be  considered  in  future  rulemaking  actions. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  amendments 
are  made  to  49  CFR  §571.108,  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  108.  .  .  . 

Effective  date:  January  8,  1976.  Because  the 
amendment  allows  an  option,  relieves  restrictions, 
and  creates  no  additional  burden  on  any  person, 
it  is  found  for  good  cause  shown  that  an  im- 
mediate 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  1.50) 

Issued  on  January  5,  1976. 

James  B.  Gregorj' 
Administrator 

41    F.R.  1483 
January  8,  1976 


PART  571;  S  108— PRE  65-66 


Effective:   January    1,    1972 

(Except    as    noted    in    the    Rule) 


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) 


51.  Purpose  ond  scope.  This  standard  speci- 
fies requirements  for  original  and  replacement 
lamps,  reflective  devices,  and  associated  equip- 
ment necessary  for  signaling  and  for  the  safe 
operation  of  motor  vehicles  during  darkness  and 
other  conditions  of  reduced  visibility. 

52.  Application.  This  standard  applies  to  pas- 
senger cars,  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles, 
trucks,  buses,  trailers  (except  pole  trailers  and 
trailer  converter  dollies),  and  motorcycles,  and 
to  lamps,  reflective  devices,  and  associated  equip- 
ment for  replacement  of  like  equipment  on  ve- 
hicles to  which  this  standard  applies. 

53.  Definitions.  "Flash"  means  a  cycle  of  acti- 
vation and  deactivation  of  a  lamp  by  automatic 
means  continuing  until  stopped  either  auto- 
matically or  manually. 

["Speed  attainable  in  1  mile"  means  the  speed 
attainable  by  accelerating  at  maximum  rate  from 
a  standing  start  for  1  mile  on  a  level  surface. 
(39  F.R.  .32914— September  12,  1974.  Effective: 
10/14/74)3 

54.  Requirements. 

S4.1  Required  motor  vehicle  lighting  equip- 
ment. 

S4.1.1  Except  as  provided  in  succeeding  para- 
graphs of  84.1.1,  each  vehicle  shall  be  equipped 
with  at  least  the  number  of  lamps,  reflective  de- 
vices and  associated  equipment  specified  in  Tables 
I  and  III,  as  applicable.  Required  equipment 
shall  be  designed  to  conform  to  the  SAE  Stand- 
ards or  Recommended  Practices  referenced  in 
those  tables.  Table  I  applies  to  multipurpose 
passenger  vehicles,  trucks,  trailers,  and  buses,  80 
or  more  inches  in  overall  width.  Table  III  ap- 
plies to  passenger  cars  and  motorcycles  and  to 


multipurpose  passenger  vehicles,  trucks,  trailers, 
and  buses  less  than  80  inches  in  overall  width. 

54. 1.1.1  [A  truck  tractor  need  not  be  equipped 
with  turn  signal  lamps  mounted  on  the  rear  if 
the  turn  signal  lamps  at  or  near  the  front  are  so 
constructed  (double-faced)  and  so  located  that 
they  meet  the  requirements  for  double-faced  turn 
signals  specified  in  SAE  Standard  J588e,  "Turn 
Signal  Lamps,"  September  1970.  (41  F.R.  765— 
January  5,  1976.     Effective:  1/5/76)] 

54.1.1.2  A  truck  tractor  need  not  be  equipped 
with  any  rear  side  marker  devices,  rear  clearance 
lamps,  and  rear  identification  lamps. 

54.1.1.3  Intermediate  side  market-  devices  are 
not  required  on  vehicles  less  than  30  feet  in  over- 
all length. 

54.1.1.4  Reflective  material  conforming  to  Fed- 
eral Specification  L-S-300,  "Sheeting  and  Tape, 
Reflective:  Nonexposed  Lens,  Adhesive  Back- 
ing," September  7,  1965,  may  be  used  for  side 
reflex  reflectors  if  this  material,  as  used  on  the 
vehicle,  meets  the  performance  standards  in  Table 
I  of  SAE  Standard  J594d,  "Reflex  Reflectors," 
March  1967. 

54.1.1.5  [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 -cancelling  by  steering  wheel 
rotation  and  capable  of  cancellation  by  a  man- 
ually operated  control.  (36  F.R.  9070— May  19, 
197L    Effective:  1/1/73)] 

54.1.1.6  [Each  stop  lamp  on  any  motor  ve- 
hicle manufactured  between  January  1,  1973,  and 
September  1,  1978,  may  be  designed  to  conform 
to  SAE  Standard  J586b,  Stop  Lamps,  June  1966. 
It  shall  meet  the  photometric  minimum  candle- 


(Rev.    12/23/75) 


PART  571 ;  S  108-1 


Effective:   January    1,    1972 
(Except   as   noted   in   the   Rule) 

power  requirements  for  Class  A  red  turn  signal 
lamps  specified  in  SAE  Standard  J575d,  Tests 
for  Motor  Vehicle  Lighting  Devices  and  Com- 
ponents^ August  1967.  Each  such  lamp  on  a 
passenger  car  and  on  a  multipurpose  passenger 
vehicle,  tnick,  trailer  or  bus  less  than  80  inches 
in  overall  width  shall  have  an  effective  projected 
luminous  area  not  less  than  3i^  square  inches. 
If  multiple  compartment  lamps  or  multiple  lamps 
are  used,  the  effective  projected  luminous  area 
of  each  compartment  or  lamp  shall  be  not  less 
than  31A  square  inches;  however,  the  photometric 
requirements  may  be  met  by  a  combination  of 
compartments  or  lamps.  (41  F.R.  765 — January 
5,  1976.    Effective:  1/5/76)] 

54.1 .1 .7  [Each  turn  signal  lamp  on  any  motor 
vehicle  except  motorcycles,  manufactured  be- 
tween January  1,  1972,  and  September  1,  1978, 
may  be  designed  to  conform  to  SAE  Standard 
J588d,  Turn  Signal  Lamps^  June  1966,  and  shall 
meet  the  photometric  minimum  candlepower  re- 
quirements for  Class  A  turn  signal  lamps 
specified  in  SAE  Standard  J575d,  Tests  for 
Motor  Vehicle  Lighting  Devices  and  Components^ 
August  1967.  Each  such  lamp  on  a  passenger 
car  and  on  a  multipurpose  passenger  vehicle, 
truck,  trailer  or  bus  less  than  80  inches  in  overall 
width  shall  have  an  effective  project-ed  luminous 
area  not  less  than  3i/^  square  inches.  If  multiple 
compartment  lamps  or  multiple  lamps  are  used, 
the  effective  projected  luminous  area  of  each 
compartment  or  lamp  shall  be  not  less  than  3i/^ 
square  inches;  however,  the  photometric  require- 
ments may  be  met  by  a  combination  of  com- 
partments or  lamps.  Each  sucli  lamp  on  a  multi- 
purpose passenger  vehicle,  truck,  trailer  or  bus 
80  inches  or  more  in  overall  width  shall  have  an 
effective  projected  luminous  area  not  leas  than 
12  square  inches.  (41  F.R.  765— January  5,  1976. 
Effective:  1/5/76)] 

54.1.1.8  [For  each  passenger  car,  and  each 
multipurpose  passenger  vehicle,  truck,  trailer, 
and  bus  of  less  than  SO  inches  in  overall  width, 
the  photometric  minimum  candlepower  require- 
ments for  side  marker  lamps  specified  in  SAE 
Standard  J592e  "Clearance,  Side  Marker,  and 
Identification  Lamps,"  July  1972,  may  be  met 
for   all    inboard    test    points    at    a    distan('e   of 


15  feet  from  the  vehicle  and  on  a  vertical  plane      ^ 
that  is  perpendicular  to  the  longitudinal  axis  of 
the  vehicle  and  located  midway  between  the  front 
and  rear  side  marker  lamps.     (39  F.R.  15130 — 
May  1,  1974.    Effective:  5/29/74)] 

54.1.1.9  Boat   trailers   need   not  be  equipped 

with  both  front  and  rear  clearance  lamps,  pro- 
vided an  amber  (to  front)  and  red  (to  rear) 
clearance  lamp  is  located  at  or  near  the  midpoint 
on  each  side  of  the  trailer  so  as  to  indicate  its 
extreme  width. 

54.1.1.10  Multiple  license  plate  lamps  and 
backup  lamps  may  be  used  to  fulfill  the  require- 
ments of  the  SAE  Standards  applicable  to  such 
lamps  referenced  in  Tables  I  and  III. 

S4.1.1.n  [A  parking  lamp  is  not  required  to 
meet  the  minimum  photometric  values  at  each 
test  point  specified  in  Table  1  of  SAE  Standard 
J222,  "Parking  Lamps  (Position  Lamps),"  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  J222.  (37  F.R. 
21328— October  7,  1972.     Effective:  1/1/73)]  m 

54. 1.1.12  [A  taillamp,  stop  lamp,  or  turn 
signal  lamp  is  not  required  to  meet  the  minimum 
photometric  values  at  each  test  point  specified 
in  the  referenced  SAE  Standards,  if  the  sum  of 
the  candlepower  measured  at  the  test  points  is 
not  less  than  that  specified  for  each  group  listed 
in  Figure  1,  or  for  motorcycle  turn  signal  lamps, 
not  less  than  one-half  of  such  sum.  (41  F.R. 
765 — January  5,  1976.     Effective:  1/5/76)] 

54.1.1.13  (Deleted,  38  F.  R.  16875— June  27, 
1973.     Effective:  7/23/73) 

54.1.1.14  (Deleted,  38  F.R.  16875— June  27, 
1973.     Effective:  7/23/73) 

54.1.1.15  (Deleted,  38  F.R.  16875— June  27, 
1973.     Effective:  7/23/73) 

54.1.1.16  [All  passenger  cars  and  multipurpose 
passenger  vehicles,  trucks,  and  buses  of  less  than 
80  inches  overall  width  shall  be  equipped  with 
turn  signal  operating  units  designed  to  complete 
a  durability  test  of  100,000  cycles.  (38  F.R. 
16875— June  27,  1973.    Effective:  7/23/73)] 


(Rev.    12/23/75) 


PART  571;  S  108-2 


Effective:   January    1,    1972 
(Except   OS    noted   in   the   Rule) 

[S4.1.1.17  A  trailer  that  is  less  than  30  inches 
in  overall  width  may  be  equipped  with  only  one 
of  each  of  the  following  lamps  and  reflective 
devices,  located  at  or  near  its  vertical  centerline: 
Tail  lamp,  stop  lamp,  and  rear  reflex  reflector. 
(38  F.R.  16875— June  27,  1973.  (Effective: 
7/23/73)] 

[S4.1.1.18  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.  (38  F.R.  1C875- — 
June  27, 1973.    Effective :  7/23/73)] 

[S4.1.1.19  A  lamp  manufactured  on  or  after 
January  1,  1974,  and  designed  to  use  a  type  of 


bulb  that  has  not  been  assigned  a  mean  spherical 
candlepower  rating  by  its  manufacturer  and  is 
not  listed  in  SAE  Standard  J573d,  "Lamp  Bulbs 
and  Sealed  Units,"  December  1968,  shall  meet  the 
applicable  requirements  of  this  standard  when 
used  with  any  bulb  of  the  type  specified  by  the 
lamp  manufacturer,  operated  at  the  bulb's  design 
voltage.  A  lamp  that  contains  a  sealed-in  bulb 
shall  meet  these  requirements  with  the  bulb  op- 
erated at  the  bulb's  design  voltage.  (38  F.R. 
16230— June  21,  1973.    Effective:  1/1/74)] 

[S4.1.1.20  Except  for  a  lamp  having  a  sealed- 
in  bulb,  a  lamp  manufactured  on  or  after  Jan- 
uary 1,  1974  shall  meet  the  applicable  require- 


Test 

Points 

Deg 

Parking 
Lamps 

Group  Totals,  CP 

Groups 

Tail  Lamps 

Red  Stop  and  Turn 
Signal  Lamps 

Yellow  Turn  Signal 
Lamps 

One 

Two 

Three 

One 

Two 

Three 

One 

Two 

Three 

1 

20L-5U 

20L-H 

20L-5D 

lOL-lOU 

lOL-lOD 

2.8 

1.6 

2.7 

3.8 

55 

66 

80 

135 

165 

190 

2 

lOU-V 
5U-10L 
5U-10R 

2.4 

2.1 

3.6 

5.5 

85 

100 

115 

210 

251 

290 

3 

lOL-H 
5L-5U 
5I^5D 

4.2 

3.4 

5.3 

8.0 

140 

167 

195 

350 

420 

490 

4 

5U-V 
H-5L 
H-V 
H-5R 

5D-V 

16.8 

9.6 

16.5 

24.0 

380 

449 

520 

950 

1,130 

1,295 

5 

5R-5U 
5R-5D 
lOR-H 

4.2 

3.4 

5.3 

8.0 

140 

167 

195 

350 

420 

490 

6 

5D-10L 
5D-10R 
lOD-V 

2.4 

2.1 

3.6 

5.5 

85 

100 

115 

210 

251 

290 

7 

lOR-lOU 

lOR-lOD 

20R-5U 

20R-H 

20R-5D 

2.8 

1.6 

2.7 

3.8 

55 

66 

80 

135 

165 

190 

15 


20 


25 


300 


360  420  900  900  900 


Maximum- Rear 

Lamps  Only 
Figure  1. —  Grouped  photometric  minimum  candlepower  requirements  for  devices  using  one,  two,  or  three  separately 

lighted  compartments,  or  for  one,  two,  or  three  lamps  used  in  a  single  design  location  to  perform  a  single  function. 
[37  F.R.  21328— October  7,  1972.    Effective :  1/1/731 


(Rev.    11/17/75) 


PART  571;  S  108-3 


Effective:   January    1,    1972 
(Except  as   noted   in   tlie   Rule) 


ments  of  this  standard  when  tested  with  a  bulb 
whose  filament  is  positioned  within  ±.010  inch 
of  the  nominal  design  position  specified  in  SAE 
Standard  J573d,  "Lamp  Bulbs  and  Sealed  Units," 
December  1968,  or  specified  by  the  bulb  manu- 
facturer. (38  F.R.  16230— June  21,  1973.  Ef- 
fective: 1/1/74)] 

S4.1.1.21  [Instead  of  a  headlighting  system 
of  two  Type  1  headlamps  and  two  Type  2,  5%- 
inch  headlamps,  a  vehicle  manufactured  on  or 
after  January  1,  1974,  may  be  equipped  with  a 
headligthing  system  of  two  Type  lA  headlamps 
and  two  Type  2A  headlamps,  that  meet  the  fol- 
lowing requirements. 

(a)  Each  Type  lA  headlamp  and  Type  2A 
headlamp  shall  be  designed  to  conform  to  the 
requirements  for  a  Type  1  headlamp  and  Type  2, 
5%-inch   headlamp   respectively,   as  specified   in 


any  SAE  Standard  or  Recommended  Practice, 
referenced  or  subreferenced  by  Tables  I  and  III, 
except  as  provided  below. 

(b)  Each  Type  lA  and  Type  2A  headlamp 
shall  be  designed  for  12.8  volts,  and  to  conform 
to  the  applicable  dimensional  requirements  and 
specifications  of  Figure  2.  Each  Type  lA  head- 
lamp shall  be  designed  for  a  maximum  of  50 
watts.  Each  Type  2A  headlamp  shall  be  de- 
signed for  a  maximum  of  60  watts  for  each 
filament. 

(c)  The  following  SAE  Standards  and  Rec- 
ommended Practices  or  portions  thereof,  do  not 
apply : 

(i)  SAE  Standard  J57lb,  "Dimensional 
Specifications  for  Sealed  Beam  Headlamp 
Units",  April  1965. 


LOCATING  LUG  COMNCR 
FOR  TYPt  2A  HE&OLAHP 


.«T0  *  gS  lOuTSJOe  CttTCID 


A20  *y? 


THB  DthCMStOM  APPLIES  rm>l  TOP  Of 
UMS  TO  TK  CM)  or  CKIUUtT   TUM 


TOLERANCC  ON  2  PLACE  DECMALS 
i.02  UNLESS  OTHCmmC  WCOFIEB 


FIGURE   2 
RECTANGULAR    HEADLAMP    SPECIFICATIONS 


(Rev.    11/17/75) 


PART  571;  S  108-4 


(ii)  SAE  Standard  J573d,  "Lamp  Bulbs 
and  Sealed  Units",  December  1968. 

(iii)  Figure  1,  SAE  Recommended  Practice 
J602,  "Headlamp  Aiming  Device  for  Mechan- 
ically Aimable  Sealed  Beam  Headlamp  Units", 
August  1963. 

(iv)  Paragraph  2  of  "Retaining  Ring  Re- 
quirements", and  the  paragraph  "Proper  Seat- 
ing of  Sealed  Beam  Unit",  SAE  Standard 
J580a,  "Sealed  Beam  Headlamp",  June  1966. 
(40  F.R.  54426— November  24, 1975.  Effective : 
11/24/75)] 


Group 

Test  point,  deg 

Total  for  Group, 

cd  (see  notes 

a,  b) 

1* 

45I^5U    

45L-H    

45I^5D    

45 

2* 

30I^H    

L30I^5D    J 

lOI^lOU    

10L-5U    

50 

3 

V-lOU    

V-5U    

lOR-lOU    

10R-5U    

lOL-H    

10D-5D    

100 

4 

V-H   

V-5D    

lOR-H   

10R-5D    

360 

5* 

30R-H   

30R-5D    J 

50 

6" 

45R-5U   

4.5R-H   

45R-5D   

45 

•  When  two  lamps  of  the  same  or  symmetrically  oppo- 
site design  are  used,  the  reading  along  the  vertical  axis 
and  the  averages  of  the  readings  for  the  same  angles 
left  and  right  of  vertical  for  one  lamp  shall  be  used  to 
determine  compliance  with  the  requirements.  If  two 
lamps  of  differing  designs  are  used,  they  shall  be  tested 
individually  and  the  values  added  to  determine  that  the 
combined  units  meet  twice  the  candela  requirements. 

•"When  only  one  backup  lamp  is  used  on  the  vehicle, 
it  shall  be  tested  to  twice  the  candela  requirements. 

FiouBE  3 — Minimum    Luminous    Intensity    Requirements 
for  Backup  Lamps 


Effective:   January    1,    1972 
(Except  as   noted   in   the   Rule) 

[S4.1.1.22  A  backup  lamp  is  not  required  to 
meet  the  minimum  photometric  values  at  each 
test  point  specified  in  Table  I  of  SAE  Standard 
J593c  "Backup  Lamps"  if  the  sum  of  the  candle- 
power  measured  at  the  test  points  within  each 
group  listed  in  Figure  3  is  not  less  than  the 
group  totals  specified  in  that  figure.  (39  F.R. 
15130— May  1,  1974.    Effective:  5/29/74)] 

[S4. 1.1.23  Variable  load  turn  signal  flashers 
shall  comply  with  voltage  drop  and  durability 
requirements  with  the  maximum  design  load 
connected  and  shall  comply  with  starting  time, 
flash  rate,  and  percent  current  "on"  time  require- 
ments both  with  the  minimum  and  with  the 
maximum  design  load  connected.  (39  F.R. 
15130- May  1,  1974.     Effective:  5/29/74)] 

[S4.1.1.24  The  lowest  voltage  drop  for  turn 
signal  flashers  and  hazard  warning  signal  flash- 
ers measured  between  the  input  and  load  termi- 
nals shall  not  exceed  0.8  volt.  (39  F.R.  15130— 
May  1,  1974.    Effective:  5/29/74)] 

[S4.1.1.25  The  only  required  equipment  for 
mobile  structure  trailers  is  stoplamps,  taillamps, 
rear  reflex  reflectors,  and  turn  signal  lamps. 
(39    F.R.    14946— April    29,    1974.      Effective: 

5/29/74)] 

[S4.1.1.26  A  motor-driven  cycle  whose  speed 
attainable  in  1  mile  is  30  mph  or  less  need  not  be 
equipped  with  turn  signal  lamps.  (39  F.R. 
32914^September  12,  1974.  Effective:  10/14/ 
74)] 

[S4.1.1.27  A  motor-driven  cycle  whose  speed 
attainable  in  1  mile  is  30  mph  or  less  may  be 
equipped  with  a  stop  lamp  whose  photometric 
output  for  the  groups  of  test  points  specified  in 
Figure  1  is  at  least  one-half  of  the  minimum 
values  set  forth  in  that  figure.  (39  F.R.  32914 — 
September  12,  1974.     Effective:  10/14/74)] 

[S4.1.1.28  Each  taillamp  on  any  motor  ve- 
hicle manufactured  before  September  1,  1978, 
may  be  designed  to  conform  to  SAE  Standard 
J585c,  Tail  Lamps,  June  1966. 

S4.1.1.29  Each  turn  signal  lamp  on  a  motor- 
cycle manufactured  between  January  1,  1973,  and 
September  1,  1978,  may  be  designed  to  conform 
to  SAE  Standard  J588d,  Turn  Signal  Lamps, 
June  1966. 


(Rev.    1/5/76) 


PART  571;  S  108-^ 


EfFeclive:   January    1,    1972 
(Except   qs   noted   in   the   Rule) 

S.4.1.1.30  Except  as  provided  in  paragraph 
S4.1.1.12  of  this  standard,  each  turn  signal  lamp 
on  a  motorcycle  shall  meet  one-half  of  the  mini- 
mum photometric  values  at  each  test  point  spec- 
ified for  Class  A  turn  signal  lamps  in  SAE 
Standard  J575d,  Tests  for  Motor  Vehicle  Light- 
ing Devices  and  Components^  August  1967,  or  in 
SAE  Standard  J588e,  Turn  Signal  Lamps, 
September  1970,  as  applicable. 

54.1.1.31  Each  turn  signal  lamp  on  a  motor- 
cycle manufactured  on  and  after  January  1,  1973, 
shall  have  an  effective  projected  luminous  area 
not  less  than  314  square  inches. 

54.1 .1 .32  Note  6  of  Table  1  in  SAE  Standard 
J588e,  T^lrn  Signal  Lamps,  September  1970,  does 
not  apply.  A  stop  lamp  that  is  not  optically 
combined  with  a  turn  signal  lamp  shall  remain 
activated  when  the  turn  signal  is  flashing.  (41 
F.E.  765— January  5,  1976.    Effective:  1/5/76)] 

54.1.1.33  [Headlamps  may  conform  to  SAE 
Standard  J579c,  Sealed  Beam  Headlamp  Units 
for  Motor  Vehicles,  December  1974,  except  that: 

(a)  In  Table  I  of  SAE  Standard  J579c,  the 
maximum  candela  at  any  test  point  shall  not 
exceed  37,500; 

(b)  In  Table  II  of  SAE  Standard  J579c,  the 
combined  maximum  candela  at  any  test  point 
shall  not  exceed  37,500;  and 

(c)  At  a  voltage  of  12.8  volts,  the  maximum 
design  wattage,  with  an  allowable  tolerance  of 
plus  7.5  percent,  shall  be  as  follows:  50  watts 
for  Type  1  (534-inch) ;  37.5  watts  for  Type  2 
(534-inch)  high  beam;  and  60  watts  Type  2 
(5%-inch)  low  beam.  Type  2  (7-inch)  low  beam, 
and  Type  2  (7-inch)  high  beam.  (41  F.R.  1483— 
January  8,  1976.    Effective:  1/8/76)] 

S4.1.2  [Plastic  materials  used  for  optical 
parts  such  as  lenses  and  reflectors  shall  conform 
to  SAE  Recommended  Practice  J576c,  May  1970, 
except  that: 

(a)  Plastic  materials  manufactured  before 
January  1,  1976,  may  conform  to  SAE  J576b, 
August  1966; 

(b)  Plastic  lenses  used  for  inner  lenses  or 
those  covered  by  another  material  and  not  ex- 
posed directly  to  sunlight  shall  meet  the  require- 
ments of  paragraphs  3.4  and  4.2  of  SAE  J576b, 


or   J576c,   as   applicable,   when   covered   by   the      /m 
outer  lens  or  other  material ;  \ 

(c)  After  the  outdoor  exposure  test,  the  haze 
and  loss  of  surface  luster  of  plastic  materials 
used  for  lamp  lenses  shall  not  be  greater  than 
30  percent  haze  as  measured  by  ASTM-1003-61, 
"Haze  and  Luminous  Transmittance  of  Trans- 
parent Plastics;"  and 

(d)  After  the  outdoor  exposure  test,  plastic 
materials  used  for  reflex  reflectors  shall  meet  the 
appearance  requirements  of  paragraph  4.2.2  of 
SAE  J576b  or  J576c  as  applicable.  (40  F.R. 
25677— June  18,  1975.    Effective:  6/18/75)] 

54.1.3  No  additional  lamp,  reflective  device,  or 
other  motor  vehicle  equipment  shall  be  installed 
that  impairs  the  effectiveness  of  lighting  equip- 
ment required  by  this  standard. 

54.1 .4  Each  school  bus  shall  be  equipped  with 
a  system  of  either: 

(a)  Four  red  signal  lamps  designed  to  con- 
form to  SAE  Standard  J887,  "School  Bus  Red 
Signal  Lamps,"  July  1964,  and  installed  in  ac- 
cordance with  that  standard;  or 

(b)  Four  red  signal  lamps  designed  to  con-  ^ 
form  to  SAE  Standard  J887,  "School  Bus  Red  v" 
Signal  Lamps,"  July  1964,  and  four  amber  signal 
lamps  designed  to  conform  to  that  standard, 
except  for  their  color,  and  except  that  their 
candlepower  shall  be  at  least  21/^  times  that 
specified  for  red  signal  lamps.  Both  red  and 
amber  lamps  shall  be  installed  in  accordance  with 
SAE  Standard  J887,  except  that : 

(i)  Each  amber  signal  lamp  shall  be  located 
near  each  red  signal  lamp,  at  the  same  level, 
but  closer  to  the  vertical  centerline  of  the  bus ; 
and 

(ii)  The  system  shall  be  wired  so  that  the 
amber  signal  lamps  are  activated  only  by 
manual  or  foot  operation,  and  if  activated,  are 
automatically  deactivated  and  the  red  signal 
lamps  automatically  activated  when  the  bus 
entrance  door  is  opened. 

54.1.5  The  color  in  all  lighting  equipment 
covered  by  this  standard  shall  be  in  accordance 
with  SAE  Standard  J578a,  April  1965,  "Color 
Specification  for  Electric  Signal  Lighting  De- 
vices." 


(Rev.    11/17/751 


PART  571;  S  108-6 


54.2.  Other   requirements. 

S4.2.1  The  words  "it  is  recommended  that," 
"recommendations,"  or  "should  be"  appearing  in 
any  SAE  Standard  or  Recommended  Practice 
referenced  or  subreferenced  in  this  standard  shall 
be  read  as  setting  forth  mandatory  requirements, 
except  that  the  aiming  pads  on  the  lens  face  and 
the  black  area  surrounding  the  signal  lamp, 
recommended  in  SAE  Standard  J887,  "School 
Bus  Red  Signal  Lamps,"  July  1964,  are  not 
required. 

54.3.  Location    of   required    equipment. 

S4.3.1  Except  as  provided  in  S4.3.1.1  through 
S4.3.1.6,  each  lamp,  reflective  device,  and  item 
of  associated  equipment  shall  be  securely 
mounted  on  a  rigid  part  of  the  vehicle  other 
than  glazing  that  is  not  designed  to  be  removed 
except  for  repair,  in  accordance  with  the  re- 
quirements of  Table  I  or  III  and  in  locations 
specified  in  Table  II  (multipurpose  passenger 
vehicles,  trucks,  trailers,  and  buses  80  or  more 
inches  in  overall  width)  or  Table  IV  (all  pas- 
senger cars,  and  motorcycles,  and  multipurpose 
passenger  vehicles,  trucks,  trailers,  and  buses  less 
than  80  inches  in  overall  width),  as  applicable. 

S4.3.1.1.  [Except  as  provided  in  S4.3.1.1.1, 
each  lamp  and  reflective  device  shall  be  located 
so  that  it  meets  the  visibility  requirements  spec- 
ified in  any  applicable  SAE  Standard  or  Recom- 
mended Practice.  In  addition,  no  part  of  the 
vehicle  shall  prevent  a  parking  lamp,  taillamp, 
stop  lamp,  turn  signal  lamp,  or  backup  lamp  from 
meeting  its  photometric  output  at  any  applicable 
group  of  test  points  specified  in  Figures  1  and 
3,  or  prevent  any  other  lamp  from  meeting  the 
photometric  output  at  any  test  point  specified  in 
any  applicable  SAE  Standard  or  Recommended 
Practice.  However,  if  motor  vehicle  equipment 
(e.g.,  mirrors,  snow  plows,  wrecker  booms, 
backhoes,  and  winches)  prevents  compliance  with 
this  paragraph  by  any  required  lamp  or  reflec- 
tive device,  an  auxiliary  lamp  or  device  meeting 
the  requirements  of  this  paragraph  shall  be  pro- 
vided. (40  F.R.  54427— November  24,  1975. 
Effective:  11/24/75)] 

[S4.3. 1.1.1  Clearance  lamps  may  be  mounted 
at  a  location  other  than  on  the  front  and  rear 
if  necessary  to  indicate  the  overall  width  of  a 


Effective:   January    1,    1972 
(Except   as   noted   in   the   Rule) 

vehicle,  or  for  protection  from  damage  during 
normal  operation  of  the  vehicle,  and  at  such  a 
location  they  need  not  be  visible  at  45  degrees 
inboard.  (40  F.R.  54427— November  24,  1975. 
Effective:  11/24/75)] 

54.3.1.2  On  a  truck  tractor,  the  red  rear  reflex 
reflectors  may  be  mounted  on  the  back  of  the 
cab,  at  a  minimum  height  not  less  than  4  inches 
above  the  height  of  the  rear  tires. 

54.3.1.3  On  a  trailer,  the  amber  front  side  re- 
flex reflectors  and  amber  front  side  marker  lamps 
may  be  located  as  far  forward  as  practicable 
exclusive  of  the  trailer  tongue. 

54.3.1.4  'WTien  the  rear  identification  lamps 
are  mounted  at  the  extreme  height  of  a  vehicle, 
rear  clearance  lamps  need  not  meet  the  require- 
ment of  Table  II  that  they  be  located  as  close 
as  practicable  to  the  top  of  the  vehicle. 

54.3.1.5  The  center  of  the  lens  referred  to  in 
SAE  Standard  J593c,  "Backup  Lamps,"  Febru- 
ary 1968,  is  the  optical  center. 

54.3.1.6  On  a  truck  tractor,  clearance  lamps 
mounted  on  the  cab  may  be  located  to  indicate 
the  width  of  the  cab,  rather  than  the  overall 
width  of  the  vehicle. 

54.3.1.7  [The  requirement  that  there  be  not 
less  than  4  inches  between  a  front  turn  signal 
lamp  and  a  low-beam  headlamp,  specified  in 
SAE  Standard  J588e,  "Turn  Signal  Lamps," 
September  1970,  shall  not  apply  if  the  sum  of  the 
candlepower  values  of  the  turn  signal  lamp 
measured  at  the  test  points  within  each  group 
listed  in  Figure  1  is  not  less  than  two  and  one- 
half  times  tlie  sum  specified  for  each  group  for 
yellow  tui-n  signal  lamps.  (41  F.R.  765 — Janu- 
ary 5,  1976.    Effective:    1/5/76)] 

S4.4.   Equipment  combinations. 

S4.4.1  Two  or  more  lamps,  reflective  devices, 
or  items  of  associated  eqinpment  may  be  com- 
bined if  the  requirements  for  each  lamp,  reflec- 
tive device,  and  item  of  associated  equipment 
are  met,  except  that  no  clearance  lamp  may  be 
combined  optically  with  any  taillamp  or  identi- 
fication lamp. 


(Rev.    1/5/76) 


PART  571;  S  108-7 


231-088   0-77-27 


Effective:   January    1,    1972 
(Except   as   noted   in   the   Rule) 

S4.5.  Special  wiring  requirements. 

54.5.1  Each  vehicle  shall  have  a  means  of 
switching  between  lower  and  upper  headlamp 
beams  that  conforms  to  SAE  Recommended 
Practice  J564a,  "Headlamp  Beam  Switching," 
April  1964,  or  to  SAE  Recommended  Practice 
J565b,  "Semi-Automatic  Headlamp  Beam 
Switching  Devices,"  February  1969. 

54.5.2  Each  vehicle  shall  have  a  means  for 
indicating  to  the  driver  when  the  upper  beams 
of  the  headlamps  are  on  that  conforms  to  SAE 
Recommended  Practice  J564a,  April  1964,  except 
that  the  signal  color  need  not  be  red. 

54.5.3  The  taillamps  on  each  vehicle  shall  be 
activated  when  the  headlamps  are  activated  in 
a  steady-burning  state. 

54.5.4  The  stop  lamps  on  each  vehicle  shall  be 
activated  upon  application  of  the  service  brakes. 

54.5.5  [The  vehicular  hazard  warning  signal 
operating  unit  on  each  vehicle  shall  operate  in- 
dependently of  the  ignition  or  equivalent  switch, 
and  when  activated,  shall  cause  to  flash  simul- 
taneously sufficient  turn  signal  lamps  to  meet, 
as  a  minimum,  the  turn  signal  lamp  photometric 
requirements  of  this  standard.  (41  F.R.  765 — 
January  5,  1976.    Effective:  1/5/76)] 

54.5.6  [Each  vehicle  equipped  with  a  turn 
signal  operating  unit  shall  also  have  an  illumi- 
nated pilot  indicator.  Failure  of  one  or  more 
turn  signal  lamps  to  operate  shall  be  indicated 
in  accordance  with  SAE  Standard  J588e,  "Turn 
Signal  Lamps,"  September  1970,  except  where  a 
variable-load  turn  signal  flasher  is  used  on  a 
truck,  bus,  or  multipurpose  passenger  vehicle  80 
or  more  inches  in  overall  width,  on  a  truck  that 
is  capable  of  accommodating  a  slide-in  camper, 
or  on  any  vehicle  equipped  to  tow  trailers.  (41 
F.R.  765— January  5,  1976.  Effective:  1/5/1976)] 

54.5.7  On  all  passenger  cars,  and  motorcycles, 
and  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles,  trucks,  and 
buses  of  less  than  80  inches  overall  width : 

(a)  "iVhen  the  parking  lamps  are  activated, 
the  taillamps,  license  plate  lamps,  and  side 
marker  lamps  shall  also  be  activated;  and 

(b)  "When  the  headlamps  are  activated  in  a 
steady-burning    state,    the    taillamps,     parking 


lamps,  license  plate  lamps  and  side  marker  lamps      f^ 
shall  also  be  activated. 

S4.6  When  activated: 

(a)  Turn  signal  lamps,  hazard  warning  signal 
lamps,  and  school  bus  warning  lamps  shall  flash ; 
and 

(b)  All  other  lamps  shall  be  steady-burning, 
except  that  means  may  be  provided  to  flash 
headlamps  and  side  marker  lamps  for  signaling 
purposes. 

[S4.7   Replacement  Equipment 

54.7.1  Each  lamp,  reflective  device,  or  item  of 
associated  equipment  manufactured  to  replace 
any  lamp,  reflective  device,  or  item  of  associated 
equipment  on  any  vehicle  to  which  this  standard 
applies,  shall  be  designed  to  conform  with  this 
standard. 

54.7.2  Each  lamp,  reflective  device,  or  item  of 
associated  equipment  to  which  section  S4.7.1  ap- 
plies may  be  labeled  with  the  sjonbol  DOT, 
which  shall  constitute  a  certification  that  it  con- 
forms to  applicable  Federal  motor  vehicle  safety 
standards.  (37  F.R.  445— January  12,  1972.  ^ 
Effective:  1/12/72)]  P 

S5.  Subreferenced  SAE  Standards  and  Recom- 
mended Practices. 

55.1  [SAE  Standards  and  Recommended 
Practices  subreferenced  by  the  SAE  Standards 
and  Recommended  Practices  included  in  Tables 
I  and  III  and  paragraphs  S4.1.4  and  S4.5.1  are 
those  published  in  the  1970  edition  of  the  SAE 
Handbook,  except  that  the  SAE  Standard  re- 
ferred to  as  "J599"  is  J599c,  Lighting  Inspection 
Code,  March  1973,  and  the  subreferenced  SAE 
Standard  referred  to  as  "J575"  is  J575e,  Tests 
for  Motor  Vehicle  Lighting  Devices  and  Com- 
ponents, August  1970,  for  tail  lamps,  stop  lamps, 
and  turn  signal  lamps  designed  to  conform  to 
SAE  Standard  J585d,  J586c,  and  J588e  respec- 
tively. (41  F.R.  1483— January  8,  1976.  Effec- 
tive: 1/8/76)] 

55.2  [Requirements  of  SAE  Standards  incor- 
porated by  reference  in  this  standard,  other  than 
J576b  and  J576c,  do  not  include  tests  for  warp- 
age  of  devices  with  plastic  lenses.  (40  F.R. 
25677— June  18,  1975.    Effective:  6/18/75)] 


(Rev.    1/5/76) 


PART  571;  S  108-8 


Interpretation 

(1)  The  term  "overall  width"  refers  to  the 
nominal  design  dimension  of  the  widest  part  of 
the  vehicle,  exclusive  of  signal  lamps,  marker 
lamps,  outside  rearview  mirrors,  flexible  fender 
extensions,  and  mud  flaps,  determined  with  doors 
and  windows  closed,  and  the  wheels  in  the 
straight-ahead  position. 

(2)  Paragraph  S3.1  and  Tables  I  and  III  of 
§571.108  as  amended  (32  F.R.  18033,  Dec.  16, 
1967),  specify  that  certain  lamp  assemblies  shall 
conform  to  applicable  SAE  Standards.  Each  of 
these  basically  referenced  standards  subrefer- 
ences  both  SAE  Standard  J575  (tests  for  motor 
vehicle  lighting  devices  and  components)  which 
in  turn  references  SAE  Standard  J573  on  bulbs, 
and  SAE  Standard  J567  on  bulb  sockets. 

(3)  Paragraph  C  of  SAE  Standard  J575 
states  in  part :  "Where  special  bulbs  are  specified. 


Effective:    January    1,    1972 
(Except   as   noted   in   the   Rule) 

they  should  be  submitted  with  the  devices  and 
the  same  or  similar  bulbs  used  in  the  tests  and 
operated  at  their  rated  mean  spherical  candle- 
power."  The  Administrator  has  determined 
that  this  provision  of  SAE  Standard  J575  per- 
mits the  use  of  special  bulbs,  including  tubular- 
type  bulbs,  which  do  not  conform  to  the  detailed 
requirements  of  Table  I  of  SAE  Standard  J573. 
It  follows  that  the  sockets  for  special  bulbs  need 
not  conform  to  the  detailed  requirements  of  SAE 
Standard  J567.  These  provisions  for  special 
bulbs  in  no  way  except  the  lamp  assemblies  from 
meeting  all  performance  requirements  specified 
in  Federal  Standard  No.  108,  including  those 
specified  in  the  basically  referenced  SAE  Stand- 
ards, and  in  the  subreferenced  SAE  Standard 
J575. 

35    F.R.    16842 
October  31,  1970 


PART  571;  S  108-9 


Effective:   January    1,    1972 
(Except   OS   noted   in   the    Rule) 


Table  I.— REQUIRED  MOTOR  VEHICLE  LIGHTING  EQUIPMENT 

MULTIPURPOSE  PASSENGER  VEHICLES,  TRUCKS,  TRAILERS,  AND  BUSES,  OF  80  OR  MORE  INCHES 

OVERALL  WIDTH 


Item 
Column  1 


Multipurpose  passenger  vehicles, 

trucks  and  buses 

Column  2 


Trailers  Applicable  SAE  standard 

or  recommended  practice 
Column  3  Column  4 


Headlamps 2    white,    7-inch,    Type    2    headlamp  None J580a,  June  1966;  J579a 

units;  or  2  white,  5?^-inch,  Type  1  Auc;ust  1965;  and 

headlamp   units  and   2   white   5^-  J566,  January  I960. 

inch.  Type  2  headlamp  units. 


TaiUamps 

.   2  red 

2  red 

...   J585d,  August  1970. 

Stoplamps 

.  2red' 

2red  • 

....  J586C,  August  1970. 

License  plate  lamp 

.   1  white  ' 

1  white   ' 

J587d,  March  1969. 

Reflex  reflectors 

.   4  red;  2  amber  » 

4  red;  2  amber 

J594e,  March  1967. 

Side  marker  lamps 

_  2  red;  2  amber  * 

2  red;  2  amber 

...  J592e,  July  1972. 

Backup  lamp . 

-   1  white'    

None 

J593c,  February  1968. 

Tiirn  signal  lamps 

.   2  red  or  amber;  2  Class  A 
amber.' 

2   red  or  amber. 

J588e,  September  1970. 

Turn  signal  operating  unit. 

1 

None 

....  J589,  April  1964. 

Turn  signal  flasher 

.   1  ' 

None 

...   J590b,  October  1965. 

Vehicular  hazard  warning 
signal  operating  unit. 

1 

None 

J910,  January  1966. 

Vehicular  hazard  warning 
signal  flasher. 

1  ' 

None 

...  J945,  February  1966. 

Identification  lamps 

.  3  amber;  3  red  ' 

3red 

...  J592e,  July  1972. 

Clearance  lamps 

.  2  amber;  2  red  « 

2  amber;  2  red 

-_-  J592e,  July  1972. 

Intermediate  side  marker         2  amber  *. 
lamps. 


2  amber  * J592e,  July  1972. 


Intermediate  reflex 
reflectors. 


2  amber  * 2  amber  *. 


J594d,  March  1967. 


'  See  S4.1.1.6.         '  See  S4.1.1.10.         »  See  S4.5.6.         *  See  S4.1.1.3.         '  See  S4.4.2.         «  See  S4.1.1.2. 
C(41  F.R.  765    January  .5,  1976.    Effective:  1/5/76)1 


(Rev.    J  2/23/75) 


PART  571;  S  108-10 


I 


Effective:   January    1,    1972 
(Except  as  noted  in   the  Rule) 


Table  II.— LOCATION  OF  REQUIRED  EQUIPMENT 


MULTIPURPOSE  PASSENGER  VEHICLES,  TRUCKS,  TRAILERS,  AND  BUSES,  OF  80  OR  MORE  INCHES 

OVERALL  WIDTH 


Location  on- 


Item 
Column  1 


Multipurpose  passenger  vehicles, 

trucks,  and  buses 

Column  2 


Trailers 
Column  3 


Height  above  road 
surface  measured  from 

center  of  item  on 

vehicle  at  curb  weight 

Column  4 


Headlamps Type    1    headlamps    at    the    same 

height,  1  on  each  side  of  the  vertical 
centerline;  Type  2  headlamps  at 
the  same  height,  1  on  each  side  of 
the  vertical  centerline;  as  far  apart 
as  practicable. 


Not  required. 


Not  less  than  24 
inches,  nor  more  than 
54  inches. 


Taillamps- 


On  the  rear,  1  on  each  side  of  the  On  the  rear,  1  on  each  side  of  the 
vertical  centerline,  at  the  same  vertical  centerline,  at  the  same 
height,  and  as  far  apart  as  practi-  height,  and  as  far  apart  as  practi- 
cable, cable. 


Stoplamps On  the  rear,   1  on  each  side  of  the 

vertical  centerline,  at  the  same 
height,  and  as  far  apart  as  practi- 
cable. 


On  the  rear,  1  on  each  side  of  the 
vertical  centerline,  at  the  same 
height,  and  as  far  apart  as  practi- 
cable. 


Not  less  than  15 
inches,  nor  more 
than  72  inches. 

Not  less  than  15* 
inches,  nor  more 
than  72  inches. 


License  plate 
lamp. 


At  rear  license  plate,  to  illuminate     At  rear  license  plate  to  illuminate 
the  plate  from  the  top  or  sides.  the  plate  from  the  top  or  sides. 


No  requirement. 


Backup  lamp. 


On  the  rear Not  required- 


No  requirement. 


I 


Turn  signal  At  or  near  the  front — 1   amber  on 

lamps.  each  side  of  the  vertical  centerline, 

at  the  same  height,  and  as  far 
apart  as  practicable. 
On  the  rear — 1  red  or  amber  on  each 
side  of  the  vertical  centerline,  at 
the  same  height,  and  as  far  apart 
as  practicable. 


On  the  rear — 1  red  or  amber  on  each 
side  of  the  vertical  centerline,  at 
the  same  height,  and  as  far  apart 
as  practicable. 


(Not  less  than  15 
inches,  nor  more 
than  83  inches.)* 


Identification  (On   the   front   and   rear — 3   lamps, 

lamps.  amber   in   front,    red   in   rear,    as 

close  as  practicable  to  the  top  of 
the  vehicle,  at  the  same  height, 
as  close  as  practicable  to  the 
vertical  centerline,  with  lamp 
centers  spaced  not  less  than  6 
inches  or  more  than  12  inches 
apart.)* 


(On  the  rear — 3  lamps  as  close  as 
practicable  to  the  top  of  the 
vehicle  at  the  same  height,  as  close 
as  practicable  to  the  vertical 
centerline,  with  lamp  centers 
spaced  not  less  than  6  inches  or 
more  than   12  inches  apart.)* 


On  the  front  only — 
No  part  of  the  lamp 
or  mountings  shall 
extend  below  the 
top  of  the  vehicle's 
windshield. 


Clearance  On    the    front    and    rear — 2    amber 

lamps.  lamps  on  front,   2  red  lamps  on 

rear,  to  indicate  the  overall  width 
of  the  vehicle,  one  on  each  side  of 
the  vertical  centerline,  at  the  same 
height,  and  as  near  the  top  as 
practicable.* ' 


On  the  front  and  rear — 2  amber 
lamps  on  front,  2  red  lamps  on 
rear,  to  indicate  the  overall  width 
of  the  vehicle,  one  on  each  side  of 
the  vertical  centerline,  at  the  same 
height,  and  as  near  the  top  thereof 
as  practicable.  *  ' 


No  requirement. 


Intermediate           On  each  side — 1  amber  lamp  located     On  each  side — 1  amber  lamp  located 
side  marker             at  or  near  the  midpoint  between         at  or  near  the  midpoint  between 
lamps.                      the   front   and   rear   side    marker         the    front    and   rear   side    marker 
lamps.  lamps. 


Intermediate  On  each  side — 1  amber  located  at  or 

side  reflex  near    the    midpoint    between    the 

reflectors.  front  and  rear  side  reflex  reflectors. 


On  each  side — 1  amber  located  at  or 
near  the  midpoint  between  the 
front  and  rear  side  reflex  reflectors. 


Not  less  than  15  inches. 


Not  less  than  15  inches 
nor  more  than  60 
inches. 


Reflex 
reflectors. 


On  the  rear — 1  red  on  each  side  of     On  the  rear — 1  red  on  each  side  of 


the  vertical  centerline,  as  far 
apart  as  practicable,  and  at  the 
same  height.' 
On  each  side — 1  red  as  far  to  the 
rear  as  practicable,  and  1  amber 
as  far  to  the  front  as  practicable. 


the  vertical  centerline,  as  far 
apart  as  practicable,  and  at  the 
same  height. 
On  each  side — 1  red  as  far  to  the 
rear  as  practicable,  and  1  amber 
as  far  to  the  front  as  practicable. 


Not  less  than  15  inches 
nor  more  than  60 
inches. 


Side  marker            On  each  side — 1   red  as  far  to  the     On  each  side — 1   red  as  far  to  the 
lamps.                      rear  as  practicable,  and  1  amber         rear  as  practicable,  and  1  amber  as 
as  far  to  the  front  as  practicable.         far  to  the  front  as  practicable. 


Not  less  than  15  inches. 


^ 


'  [Deleted]         '  See  S4.3.1.6.         «  gee  S4.3.1.2.         *  See  S4.3.1.4. 
*(37  F.R.  1107— January  25,  1972.  Effective:  1/25/72) 

iRev.  1/19/72)  PART  571;  S  108-11 


'  See  S4.1.1.9. 


Effccfive:   January    1,    1972 
{Except  as  noted  in  the  Rule) 

Table  III.— REQUIRED  MOTOR  VEHICLE  LIGHTING  EQUIPMENT 

ALL  PASSENGER  CARS  AND  MOTORCYCLES,  AND  MULTIPURPOSE  PASSENGER  VEHICLES,  TRUCKS, 
TRAILERS,  AND  BUSES,  OF  LESS  THAN  80  INCHES  OVERALL  WIDTH 


Passenger  cars,    multi- 
Item  purpose  passenger  vehi-  Trailers 
cles,  trucks,  and  buses 
Column  1                         Column  2                            Column  3 


Motorcycles 
Column  4 


Applicable  SAE 
standard  or  recom- 
mended practice 
Column  5 


Headlamps. 


2  white,  7-inch,  Type  2 
headlamp  units;  or  2 
white,  5?^-inch,  Type  1 
headlamp  units  and  2 
white,  5J^-inch,  Type  2 
headlamp  units. 


J580a,  June  1966, 
J579a,  August  1965, 
and  J566,  January 
1960. 


.   1  white 

..  J584,  April  1964  and 

J566,  January  1960. 

Taillamps. 

2  red 

2  red  " 

.   1  red 

.  J585d,  August  1970. 

Stoplamps 

2red'» 

...  2red'  " 

1  red  ' 

.  J586c,  August  1970. 

License  plate  lamp 

1  white' 

1  white  ' 

.   1  white  ' 

..  J587d,  March  1969. 

Parking  lamps 

2  amber  or  white  * 

None 

.   None 

..  J222,  December  1970. 

Reflex  reflectors 

4  red,  2  amber  ' 

...  4  red;  2  amber  "  ".. 

.   3  red;  2  amber 

..  J594e,  March  1967. 

Intermediate  side 
reflex  reflectors. 

2  amber  ' 

2  amber  ' 

.   None 

..  J594d,  March  1967. 

Intermediate  side 
marker  lamps. 

2  amber  ' 

...   2  amber  « 

.   None 

_.  J592e,  July  1972. 

Side  marker  lamps. 

2  red,  2  amber  '    

2  red;  2  amber  " 

.  None 

..  J592e,  July  1972. 

Backup  lamp 

1  white  ' 

None 

None 

J593c,  February  1968. 

Turn  signal  lamps  _ 

2  red  or  amber; 
2  amber.^  ' 

2  red  or  amber. 

2  amber;  2  red  or 
amber.'  '^ 

J588e,  September  1970. 

Turn  signal 
operating  unit. 

1  '  *  '"- 

None 

-   1  " 

..  J589,  April  1964. 

Turn  signal  flasher. 

1  « 

None 

-   1  « 

..  J590b,  October  1965. 

Vehicular  hazard 
warning  signal 
operating  unit. 

1 

None 

.   None 

..  J910,  January  1966. 

Vehicular  hazard 
warning  signal 
flasher. 

1« 

None 

.   None 

.  J945,  February  1966. 

»  See  S4.1.1.6.         '  See  S4. 1.1.7.         '  See  S4.1.1.10.         «  See  S4.1. 1.11.         '  See  S4.1.1.2.         «  See  S4.4.2. 
'  See  S4.5.6.         '  See  S4.1.1.5.  '  See  S4.1.1.3.         '»  See  S4.1.1.15.         "  See  S4.1.1.17.         "  See  S4.1.1.18. 

t(41  F.R.  765— January  5,  1976.    Effective :  1/5/76)1 


(Rev.    12/23/75) 


PART  571;  S  108-12 


EfFective:   January    1,    1972 
(Except  as   noted   in   the   Rule) 


Table  IV.— LOCATION  OF  REQUIRED  EQUIPMENT 


ALL  PASSENGER  CARS  AND  MOTORCYCLES,  AND  MULTIPURPOSE  PASSENGER  VEHICLES,  TRUCKS, 
TRAILERS,  AND  BUSES,  OF  LESS  THAN  80  INCHES  OVERALL  WIDTH 


Location  on 


Item 


Column  1 


Passenger  cars,  multipurpose  pas- 
senger vehicles,  trucks,  trailers, 
and  buses 
Column  2 


Motorcycles 
Column  3 


Height  above  road 

surface  measured 

from  center  of  item 

on  vehicle  at  curb 

weight 

Column  4 


Headlamps Type    1    headlamps    at    the    same 

height,  1  on  each  side  of  the  verti- 
cal centerline;  Type  2  headlamps 
at  the  same  height,  1  on  each  side 
of  the  vertical  centerline;  as  far 
apart  as  practicable. 


On  the  vertical  centerline,  except 
that  if  two  are  used,  they  shall  be 
symmetrically  disposed  about  the 
vertical  centerline. 


Not  less  than  24 
inches,  nor  more 
than  54  inches. 


Taillamps On  the  rear — 1  on  each  side  of  the 

vertical  centerline,  at  the  same 
height,  and  as  far  apart  as  prac- 
ticable. ^ 


On  the  rear — on  the  vertical  center- 
line  except  that  if  two  are  used, 
they  shall  be  symmetricallyi  dis- 
posed about  the  vertical  center- 
line. 


Not  less  than  15 
inches,  nor  more 
than  72  inches. 


Stoplamps On  the  rear — 1  on  each  side  of  the 

vertical  centerline,  at  the  same 
height,  and  as  far  apart  as  prac- 
ticable. ^ 


On  the  rear — on  the  vertical  center- 
line  except  that  if  two  are  used, 
they  shall  be  symmetrically  dis- 
posed about  the  vertical  center- 
line. 


Not  less  than  15 
inches,  nor  more 
than  72  inches. 


License  plate 
lamp. 


At  rear  license  plate,  to  illuminate 
the  plate  from  the  top  or  sides. 


At  rear  license  plate No  requirement. 


Parking  lamps On  the  front — 1  on  each  side  of  the 

vertical  centerline,  at  the  same 
height,  and  as  far  apart  as  prac- 
ticable. 


Not  required- 


Not  less  than  15 
inches,  nor  more 
than  72  inches. 


Reflex  On  the  rear — 1  red  on  each  side  of 

reflectors.  the  vertical  centerline,  at  the  same 

height,  and  as  far  apart  as  prac- 
ticable. 
On   each   side — 1    red  as  far  to  the 
rear  as  practicable  and  1  amber  as 
far  to  the  front  as  practicable.^ 


On  the  rear — 1  red  on  the  vertical     Not  less  than  15  inches 
centerline  except  that,  if  two  are         nor  more  than  60 
used   on   the  rear,   they   shall   be         inches, 
symmetrically  disposed  about  the 
vertical  centerline. 

On  each  side — 1  red  as  far  to  the 
rear  as  practicable,  and  1  amber 
as  far  to  the  front  as  practicable. 

Not  required No  requirement. 

At  or  near  the  front — 1   amber  on     Not  less  than  15  inches, 

each  side  of  the  vertical  centerline         nor   more   than   83 

at  the  same  height,  and  having  a         inches. 

minimum     horizontal     separation 

distance   (centerline  of  lamps)   of 

16  inches.  Minimum  edge  to  edge 

separation  distance  between  lamp 

and  headlamp  is  4  inches. 
At  or  near  the  rear — 1  red  or  amber 

on  each  side  of  the  vertical  center- 
line,    at    the    same    height    and 

having     a     minimum     horizontal 

separation  distance  (centerline  to 

centerline  of  lamps)   of  9  inches. 

Minimum  edge  to  edge  separation 

distance   between   lamp   and   tail 

or  stop  lamp  is  4  inches. 

Not  required . Not  less  than  15  inches. 

Not  required Not  less  than  15  inches. 

Not  required Not  less  than  15  inches, 

nor     more     than     60 
inches. 


Backup  lamp On  the  rear. 


Turn  signal  At  or  near  the  front — 1   amber  on 

lamps.  '  each  side  of  the  vertical  centerline, 

at  the  same  height,  and  as  far 
apart  as  practicable. 
On  the  rear — 1  red  or  amber  on  each 
side  of  the  vertical  centerline,  at 
the  same  height,  and  as  far  apart 
as  practic  able. 


Side  marker  On  each  side — 1  red  as  far  to  the 

lamps.  rear  as  practicable,  and  1  amber 

as  far  to  the  front  as  practicable. 


Intermediate  On  each  side — 1  amber  located  at  or 

side  marker  near   the    midpoint    between    the 

lamps.  front  and  rear  side  marker  lamps. 


Intermediate  On  each  side — 1   amber  located  at 

side  marker  or    near    the    midpoint    between 

reflectors.  the   front   and   rear   side    marker 

reflectors. 


'  Front  turn  signal  lamps  not  required  for  trailers. 
'See  S4.1.1.18. 


(Rev.  6/15/73) 


PART  571;  S  108-13 


(• 


EINctiv*:   January  1,    196S 


PREAMBLE  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   109 

New  Pneumatic  Tires — Passenger  Cars 

(Docket  No.   18) 


A  proposal  to  amend  §371.21  of  Part  371, 
Initial  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standards, 
by  adding  Standard  No.  109,  New  Pneumatic 
Tires — Passenger  Cars;  and  Standard  No.  110, 
Tire  Selection  and  Rims — Passenger  Cars;  was 
published  in  the  Federal  Register  on  July  22, 
1967  (32  F.R.  10812). 

Interested  persons  have  been  aflForded  an  op- 
portunity to  participate  in  the  making  of  the 
amendment. 

Compliance  with  the  labeling  requirements  of 
Standard  No.  109,  established  in  accordance  with 
section  201  of  the  National  Traffic  and  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966  (15  U.S.C.  1421),  and 
the  tread  wear  indicator  requirements  found  in 
the  standard  may  necessitate  the  modification  of 
tire  molds.  Several  tire  manufacturers  requested 
that  additional  time  be  allowed  to  modify  these 
tire  molds.  After  evaluation  of  all  data  received, 
it  was  determined  that  an  effective  date  of 
August  1,  1968,  for  paragraphs  S4.2.1  and  S4.3 
would  provide  a  reasonable  amount  of  time  to 
accomplish  the  necessary  mold  modifications. 

Many  comments  stated  that  no  practical  way 
is  known  to  permanently  affix  a  label  onto  the 
tire  sidewall,  as  would  have  been  required  by 
proposed  paragraph  S4.3.1  until  such  time  as  a 
label  is  molded  into  or  onto  the  tire.  Accord- 
ingly, S4.3.1  of  Standard  No.  109  has  been  modi- 
fied to  permit,  until  August  1,  1968,  the  use  of  a 
label  or  tag  containing  the  required  labeling  in- 
formation not  permanently  molded  into  or  onto 
the  tire. 

Many  comments  objected  to  the  limitations 
imposed  by  the  maximum  tire  section  width  di- 
mensions specified  in  the  tables  of  the  notice. 
The  Administrator  has  determined  that  addi- 
tional dimensional  latitude  is  necessary,  and 
therefore  Standard  No.  109  specifies  that  to  pro- 


vide for  tire  growth,  protective  side  ribs,  orna- 
mentation, manufacturing  tolerances,  and  design 
differences  for  each  tire  size  designation,  actual 
tire  section  width  and  overall  tire  width  may 
exceed  the  section  width  specified  in  Table  I  of 
the  Standard  by  7  percent. 

In  response  to  requests,  additional  tire  size 
designations  and  load/inflation  schedules  were 
added  when  necessary  information  was  available. 
In  addition.  Table  I  of  Standard  No.  109  and 
Table  II  of  Standard  No.  110  have  been  com- 
bined to  collate  related  information. 

Persons  desiring  an  amendment  to  Standard 
No.  109  adding  tires  not  presently  listed,  should 
submit  sufficient  pertinent  information  relative 
to  these  tires  in  10  copies  to  the  Secretary  of 
Transportation ;  Attention :  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Performance  Service,  National  Highway  Safety 
Bureau,  Federal  Highway  Administration,  U.S. 
Department  of  Transportation,  Washington,  D.C. 
20591. 

Data  received  have  shown  that  the  rim  refer- 
ences indicated  in  the  proposed  Standards  were 
inadequate  in  coverage.  Therefore,  a  more  com- 
prehensive list  of  foreign  and  domestic  trade 
association  publications  containing  appropriate 
rim  standards  or  practices  has  been  referenced 
in  the  Standards. 

Data  received  demonstrated  that  the  bead  un- 
seating and  tire  strength  requirements  were  in- 
appropriate for  certain  groups  of  small  tires. 
Accordingly,  tires  were  regrouped  and  the  test 
values  revised  to  provide  requirements  for  these 
small  tires  that  are  proportional  to  the  require- 
ments for  other  sizes  of  tires. 

Although  Standard  No.  109  applies  to  tires 
for  use  on  passenger  cars  manufactured  after 
1948,  some  of  the  tires  covered  by  the  Standard 
may  also  be  used  on  earlier  model  vehicles. 


PART  571:  S  109— PRE  1 


Effcctiv*:   January   1,    1968 


The  testing  procedures  set  forth  in  the  Stand- 
ard, size  designations,  and  related  data  are  based 
upon  existing  standards  or  practices  using  in- 
formation furnished  by  such  organizations  as 
the  Society  of  Automotive  Engineers,  Federal 
Trade  Commission,  Tire  and  Rim  Association, 
European  Tire  and  Rim  Technical  Organization, 
Japanese  Standards  Association,  Japan  Automo- 
bile Tire  Manufacturers  Association,  Rubber 
Manufacturers  Association,  Tyre  Manufacturers 
Conference,  Ltd.,  and  the  Society  of  Motor 
Manufacturers  and  Traders,  Ltd. 

To  permit  production  of  sufficient  quantities 
of  tires  complying  with  the  requirements  of 
Standard  No.  109  after  its  effective  date  of  Jan- 
uary 1,  1968,  Standard  No.  110  applies  to  pas- 
senger cars  manufactured  on  or  after  April  1, 
1968. 

A  single  table  of  load/pressure  values  for 
radial  ply  tires  was  included  in  the  notice  and 
this  was  supported  by  many  comments.  Other 
comments  stressed  the  importance  of  including 
different  load/pressure  values  for  optimum  tire 
deflections.  Although  a  single  table  of  load/ 
pressure  schedules  combining  these  values  for 
these  radial  ply  tires  would  be  desirable,  it  was 
not  considered  advisable  to  include  such  a  table 
in  the  standard  promulgated  under  the  present 
notice. 

In  accordance  with  section  201  of  the  Act, 
S4.3  of  Standard  No.  109  requires  that  each  tire 
be  labeled  with  the  name  of  the  manufacturer  or 
his  brand  name  and  an  approved  code  mark  to 
permit  the  tire  seller  to  identify  the  tire  manu- 
facturer upon  the  purchaser's  request.  Any  tire 
manufacturer  desiring  an  approved  code  mark 
should  apply  for  his  code  number  assignment  to 
the    Secretary    of    Transportation;    Attention: 


Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Performance  Service,  Na- 
tional Highway  Safety  Bureau,  Federal  High- 
way Administration,  U.S.  Department  of  Trans- 
portation, Washington,  D.C.  20591. 

Several  comments,  including  the  suggested  use 
of  a  "load  range"  system,  will  be  considered  for 
future  rulemaking.    (See  32  F.R.  14279). 

Since  it  was  clearly  the  intent  of  the  Congress 
that,  to  enhance  the  safety  of  the  general  public. 
Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standards  for 
tires  become  effective  as  soon  as  practicable,  and 
since  no  adverse  comments  were  received  perti- 
nent to  the  proposed  effective  date  presented  in 
the  advance  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  (32 
F.R.  2417),  at  a  Government-industry  technical 
meeting,  and  in  the  notice  of  proposed  rulemak- 
ing (32  F.R.  10812),  and  no  undue  burden  was 
demonstrated,  good  cause  is  shown  that  an  ef- 
fective date  earlier  than  180  days  after  issuance 
is  in  the  public  interest. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  §  371.21  of 
Part  371,  Initial  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standards,  is  amended  ....  Standard  No.  109 
becomes  effective  January  1,  1968,  and  Standard 
No.  110  becomes  effective  April  1,  1968. 

(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),  as  amended  Apr.  6,  1967  (32 
F.R.  6495),  July  27,  1967  (32  F.R.  11276),  Oct. 
11,  1967  (32  F.R.  14277),  Nov.  8,  1967). 

Issued  in  Washington,  D.C,  on  November  8, 
1967. 

Lowell  K.  Bridwell, 

Federal  Highway  Administrator. 

32  F.R.   15792 
November  16,  1967 


PART  571;  S  109— PRE  2 


Ell«ctiv«:  January    1,    1968 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   109 

New  Pneumatic  Tires — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.   18) 


Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109  (32 
F.R.  15792)  specifies  tire  dimensions  and  lab- 
oratory test  requirements  for  bead  unseating 
resistance,  strength,  endurance,  and  high  speed 
performance ;  defines  tire  load  ratings ;  and  speci- 
fies labeling  requirements  for  new  pneumatic 
tires  for  use  on  passenger  cars  manufactured 
after  1948. 

Certain  labeling  requirements  are  set  forth 
in  S4.3,  including,  in  paragraph  (i),  a  require- 
ment for  an  approved  recital  (or  the  symbol 
specified  in  Figure  1)  that  the  tire  conforms  to 
applicable  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Stand- 
ards. Figure  1  contains  lettering  detail  dimen- 
sions for  that  symbol. 

The  Federal  Highway  Administration  has  de- 
termined that  it  is  not  necessary  to  specify  the 
width  and  stroke  of  individual  letters  nor  the 
space  between  letters  if  the  overall  length  and 
height  is  specified,  and  that  more  latitude  is 
needed  in  the  depth  and  overall  length  require- 
ments for  this  symbol.  Therefore,  Standard  No. 
109  is  being  amended  by  striking  out  the  un- 
needed  dimensions  and  by  providing  increased 
latitude  for  the  letter  depth  and  the  overall 
length  requirements. 

Since  this  amendment  provides  an  alternative 
means  of  compliance,  relieves  a  restriction,  and 


imposes  no  additional  burden  on  any  person, 
notice  and  public  procedure  hereon  are  unneces- 
sary and  good  cause  is  shown  that  an  eflfective 
date  earlier  than  180  days  after  issuance  is  in 
the  public  interest  and  the  amendment  may  be 
made  effective  less  than  30  days  after  publication 
in  the  Federal  Register. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  §  371.21  of 
Part  371,  Initial  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standards,  Standard  No.  109  is  amended  by  de- 
leting Figure  1  (32  F.R.  15794)  and  in  its  place 
inserting  the  following  Figure  1. 

(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.  6506),  as  amended  Apr.  6,  1967  (32 
F.R.  6495),  July  27,  1967  (32  F.R.  11276),  Oct. 
11,  1967  (32  F.R.  14277),  and  Nov.  8,  1967  (32 
F.R.  15710) ) 

This  amendment  becomes  effective  January  1, 
1968. 

Issued  in  Washington,  D.C.,  on  December  11, 
1967. 

Lowell  K.  Bridwell, 

Federal  Highway  Administrator. 

33  F.R.   17938 
December  15,  1967 


PART  571 ;  S  109— PRE  3-4 


Efhcllv*  April   11,   196t 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   109 

New  Pneumatic  Tires — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket   No.   18R) 


Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109  (32 
F.R.  15792),  as  amended  (32  F.R.  17938),  speci- 
fies tire  dimensions  and  laboratory  test  require- 
ments for  bead  unseating  resistance,  strength, 
endurance,  and  high  speed  performanace ;  defines 
tire  load  ratings;  and  specifies  labeling  require- 
ments for  new  pneumatic  tires  for  use  on  pas- 
senger cars  manufactured  after  1948.  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  110  (32  F.R. 
15798)  .specifies  tire  selection  and  rims  require- 
ments to  prevent  tire  overloading. 

Figures  2  and  3  of  Standard  No.  109  are 
drawings  of  the  bead  unseating  test  fixture  used 
in  performing  the  test  specified  in  S5.2. 

Section  S5.4.2.3  specifies  the  50  miles-per-hour 
test  schedule  for  the  tire  endurance  test. 

Tables  I-A  through  I-H  list  the  various  tire 
types  and  sizes  with  proper  load  and  inflation 
values. 

After  review  of  Petitions  for  Reconsideration 
received  under  Docket  No.  18R,  the  Administra- 
tor has  determined  that  certain  parts  of  Standard 
No.  109  require  clarification,  the  tire  tables  need 
revision  to  include  a  number  of  new  sizes  and 
there  is  need  for  a  table  listing  a  new  series  of 
tires. 

In  addition,  Standard  No.  110  requires  an  ad- 
ditional table  to  list  alternative  rims  for  tire  and 
rim  combinations  not  presently  covered  by  the 
standard. 

Therefore,  Standard  No.  109  is  being  amended 
by- 

(a)  Revising  Figures  2  and  3,  which  depict 
the  bead  unseating  test  fixture,  by  adding  one 
additional  dimension  to  Figure  2  and  a  center- 
line  and  tangent  line  to  Figure  3 ; 

(b)  Specifying  that  the  test  required  by 
S5.4.2.3  be  conducted  without  pressure  adjust- 
ment or  other  interruption; 


(c)  In  table  I-A  through  I-H 

( 1 )  Adding  additional  tire  size  designations ; 

(2)  Adding  footnotes  permitting  the  use  of 
the  letter  "H","S",  or  "V"; 

(3)  Correcting  typographical  errors; 

(d)  Adding  Table  I- J  which  lists  a  new  series 
of  low  section  height  tires. 

In  addition.  Standard  No.  110  is  being 
amended  by — 

(a)  Revising  paragraph  S4.4.1  to  include  al- 
ternative rims,  not  presently  listed  in  the  refer- 
ences cited  in  the  definition  of  Test  Rim  in  S3 
of  Standard  No.  109 ;  and 

(b)  Adding  a  new  table  of  approved  alterna- 
tive rims. 

Since  these  amendments  provide  clarification 
and  alternative  means  of  compliance,  relieve  re- 
strictions, and  impose  no  additional  burden  on 
any  person,  notice  and  public  procedure  hereon 
are  unnecessary.  The  Administrator  finds,  for 
good  cause  shown,  that  no  preparatory  period  is 
needed  to  effect  compliance  and  it  is  therefore  in 
the  public  interest  to  make  the  amendments  ef- 
fective immediately. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  §  371.21  of 
Part  371,  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Stand- 
ards, Standard  No.  109  (32  F.R.  15792),  as 
amended  (32  F.R.  17938),  and  Standard  No.  110 
(32  F.R.  15'i98),  are  amended,  effective  April  11, 
1968  .... 

(Sees.  103,  119,  National  Traffic  and  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966  (15  U.S.C.  1392, 
1407) ;  delegation  of  authority  of  March  31,  1967 
(32  F.R.  5606),  as  amended  Nov.  8,  1967  (32 
F.R.  15710)). 

Issued  in  Washington,  D.C.,  on  April  11,  1968. 
Lowell  K.  Bridwell, 
Federal  Highway  Administrator. 
33  F.R.  5944 
April  18,  1968 


PART  571;  S  109— PRE  5-6 


EfFactIv*:   $«p»«mb*r  27,    1968 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.    109 

New  Pneumatic  Tires — Passenger  Cars 


On  September  11,  1968,  the  Federal  Highway 
Administration  published  in  the  Federal  Register 
amendments  to  Standard  Nos.  109  and  110  (33 
F.R.  12842).  Omitted  from  publication  as  part 
of  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  109  were  Tables 
1-A  through  1-J.  For  the  convenience  of  per- 
sons using  the  tables  the  preamble  to  the  amend- 
ments published  September  11,  1968,  and  the 
text  of  the  amendments,  as  corrected  by  the  ad- 
dition of  the  omitted  tables  are  published  below. 
Additionally,  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  110 
has  been  changed  to  specify  the  information  that 
should  be  submitted  with  requests  for  the  addi- 
tion of  alternative  rim  sizes. 

Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No. 
109  (32  F.R.  15792),  as  amended  (32  F.R.  17938 
and  33  F.R.  5944),  specifies  tire  dimensions  and 
laboratory  test  requirements  for  bead  unseating 
resistance,  strength,  endurance  and  high  speed 
performance;  defines  tire  load  ratings;  and 
specifies  labeling  requirements  for  new  pneumatic 
tires  for  use  on  passenger  cars  manufactured 
after  1948.  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No. 
no' (32  F.R.  15798)  as  amended  (33  F.R.  5949) 
specifies  tire  selection  and  rim  requirements  to 
prevent  tire  overloading. 

Tables  1-A  through  1-J  of  Standard  No.  109 
list  various  tire  types  and  sizes  with  proper  load 
and  inflation  values. 

Standard  No.  109  is  being  amended  to  desig- 
nate Tables  1-A  through  1-J  as  Appendix  A  of 
Standard  No.  109. 

In  addition.  Table  1-H  is  being  amended  by 
adding  additional  tire  size  designations. 

Table  I  of  Standard  No.  110  is  a  list  of  alter- 
native rims  for  tire  and  rim  combinations  that 
are  not  contained  in  any  reference  in  §  3  of 
Standard  No.  109. 


Standard  No.  110  is  being  amended  to  desig- 
nate Table  I  as  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  110. 

In  addition,  the  table  is  being  amended  by 
adding,  as  alternative  rims  for  tire  size  8.55x15, 
rim  sizes  5y2-JK,  Si/g-JJ,  51/2-J;  F70-14,  rim 
size  7JJ :  and  G70-14,  rim  size  7JJ. 

Additionally,  guidelines  by  which  persons  re- 
questing routine  additions  to  Appendix  A  of 
Standard  No.  109  and  Appendix  A  of  Standard 
No.  110,  are  set  forth  as  introductorj-  language 
to  both  appendices.  The  guidelines  provide  an 
abbreviated  rule  making  procedure  for  adding 
tire  sizes  to  Standard  No.  109,  wherebj-  the  ad- 
dition becomes  effective  30  days  from  date,  of 
publication  in  the  Federal  Register  if  no  com- 
ments are-  received.  If  comments  objecting  to 
the  amendment  warrant,  the  Administration  will 
provide  for  additional  rule  making  pursuant  to 
the  Rule  Making  Procedures  for  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standards  (23  C.F.R.  216). 

Since  these  amendments  provide  an  alternative 
means  of  compliance,  relieve  restrictions,  and 
impose  no  additional  burdens  on  any  person, 
notice  and  public  procedure  hereon  are  unneces- 
sary and  the  Administrator  finds,  for  good  cause 
shown,  that  no  preparatory  period  is  needed  to 
effect  compliance  and  it  is  in  the  public  interest 
to  make  the  amendments  effective  immediately. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Section 
371.21  of  Part  371,  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standards,  Standard  No.  109  (32  F.R.  15792), 
as  amended  (32  F.R.  17938  and  33  F.R.  5944), 
and  Standard  No.  110  (32  F.R.  15798),  as 
amended  (33  F.R.  5949),  are  amended  effective 
this  date  as  set  forth  below. 

These  amendments  are  made  under  the  author- 
ity  of   Sections   103   and   119   of  the   National 


PART  571;  S  109— PRE  7 


Elhcllva:  S*pt«mb*r  27,    1968 


Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966  Issued  in  Washington,  D.C.,  on  September  27,        ^ 

(15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407)  and  the  delegation  from        ^^^S.  M 

the  Secretary  of  Transportation,  Part  I  of  the  1°^/  ^-  J^mieson,  Deputy 

federal  Highway  Administrator 
Regulations  of  the  Office  of  the  Secretary    (49  33  F  R    14964 

C.F.R.  §  1.4(c)).  October  5,   1968 


PART  571;  S  109— PRE  8 


Effacllvt:   Morch    10,    1969 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   109 

New  Pneumatic  Tires — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.  69-4;  Notice  No.   1) 


On  October  5,  1968,  the  Federal  Highway 
Administration  published  guidelines  in  the  Fed- 
ercd  Register  (33  F.R.  14964)  by  which  routine 
additions  could  be  added  to  Appendix  A  of 
Standard  No.  109  and  the  Appendix  A  of  Stand- 
ard No.  110.  These  guidelines  provided  an  ab- 
breviated rule-making  procedure  for  adding  tire 
sizes  to  Standard  No.  109  and  alternative  rim 
sizes  to  Standard  No.  110,  whereby  the  addition 
becomes  effective  30  days  from  date  of  publica- 
tion in  the  Federal  Register  if  no  objections  to 
the  proposed  additions  are  received.  If  com- 
ments objecting  to  the  amendment  warrant, 
rule  making  pursuant  to  the  rule-making  proce- 
dures for  motor  vehicle  safety  standards  (49 
CFR  Part  353)  will  be  followed. 

The  Rubber  Manufacturers  Association  has 
petitioned  for  the  addition  of  the  C70-15  tire 
size  designation  to  Table  I-B  and  the  F60-15 
tire  size  designation  as  a  new  category  of  tire  to 
be  listed  within  the  tables.  The  Firestone  Tire 
&  Rubber  Company  has  petitioned  for  the  addi- 
tion of  the  E50C-16,  F50C-16,  and  H50C-17 
tire  size  designations  as  a  new  category  of  tires. 

On  the  basis  of  the  data  submitted  by  the 
Rubber  Manufacturers  Association  and  the  Fire- 
stone Tire  &  Rubber  Company  indicating  com- 
pliance with  the  requirements  of  Federal  Motor 
"Vehicle  Safety  Standards  Nos.  109  and  110  and 
other  information  submitted  in  accordance  with 
the  procedural  guidelines  set  forth.  Appendix  A 
of  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109  is 
being  amended  and  Table  I  of  Appendix  A  of 
Standard  No.  110  is  being  amended. 


In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  §  371.21  of 
Part  371  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Stand- 
ards, Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  109  (33  F.R. 
14964)  and  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  110 
(33  F.R.  14969)  are  amended  as  set  forth  below 
effective  30  days  from  date  of  publication  in  the 
Federal  Register. 

These  amendments  are  issued  under  the  dele- 
gation of  authority  published  October  5,  1968 
(33  F.R.  14964)  and  sections  103  and  119  of  the 
National  Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act 
of  1966  (15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407)  and  the  delegation 
from  the  Secretary  of  Transportation,  Part  I  of 
the  Regulations  of  the  Office  of  the  Secretary 
(49  CFR  1.4(c)). 

Issued  on  February  3, 1969. 

H.  M.  Jacklin,  Jr. 

Acting  Director 

Motor  Vehicle  Safety 

Performance  Service 

National  Highway  Safety  Bureau 

Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109 

(1)  Table  I-B  of  Appendix  A  is  amended  by 
inserting  between  the  tire  size  designation  L70-14 
and  D70-15  .  .  .  new  tire  size  C70-15  data. 

(2)  .  .  .  Tables  I-K  and  I-L  are  added  to 
Appendix  A  listing  new  categories  of  tire  size 
designations. 

34  F.R.   1908 
February  8,  1969 


PART  571 ;  S  109— PRE  "9-10 


231-088   O  -  77  -  28 


[fFtcHv*:  March   15,    1969 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   109 

New  Pneumatic  Tires — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.  69-3;  Notice  No.   1) 


The  Rubber  Manufacturers  Association  has 
submitted  a  petition  for  rulemaking  requesting 
amendments  to  Table  I-A  and  Table  I-B  of 
Appendix  A  of  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  109 — New  Pneumatic  Tires — Pas- 
senger Cars. 

The  petition  requests  the  following  changes : 

(1)  In  Table  I-A  for  tire  size  designation 
8.25-15  the  minimum  size  factor  be  changed  from 
37.57  inches  to  35.57  inches. 

(2)  In  Table  I-B  for  tire  size  designation 
D70-13  the  minimum  size  factor  be  changed  from 
32.32  i^hes  to  32.34  inches;  for  tire  size  desig- 
nation D70-14  the  minimum  size  factor  be 
changed  from  32.87  inches  to  32.81  inches ;  for  tire 
size  designation  F70-14  the  minimum  size  factor 
be  changed  from  34.18  inches  to  34.16  inches; 
for  tire  size  designation  G70-14  the  minimum 
size  factor  be  changed  from  35.14  inches  to  35.18 
inches;  for  tire  size  designation  J70-14  the 
minimum  siz&^la^tor  be  changed  from  36.91 
inches  to  36.87  inches^  for  tire  size  designation 
L70-14  the  minimum  size  factor  be  changed  from 
37.59  to  37.62  and  the  section  width  be  changed 
from  9.80  inches  to  9.75  inches;  for  tire  size 
designation  D70-15  the  minimum  size  factor  be 
changed  from  33.34  inches  to  33.37  inches  and 
the  section  width  be  changed  from  7.75  inches  to 
7.70  inches;  for  tire  size  designation  E70-15  the 
minimum  size  factor  be  changed  from  34.17 
inches  to  34.13  inches;  for  tire  size  designation 
F70-15  the  minimum  size  factor  be  changed 
from  34.91  inches  to  34.89  inches;  for  tire  size 
designation  G70-15  the  minimum  size  factor  be 
changed  from  35.68  inches  to  35.66  inches;  for 
tire  size  designation  H70-15  the  minimum  size 
factor  be  changed  from  36.68  inches  to  36.64 
inches;  for  tire  size  designation  J70-15  the  mini- 
mum size  factor  be  changed  from  37.34  inches 


to  37.36  inches;  and  for  tire  size  designation 
K70-15  the  minimum  size  factor  be  changed 
from  37.62  inches  to  37.66  inches. 

RMA  states  in  its  petition  that  the  requested 
changes  are  either  (1)  corrections  of  typographi- 
cal errors  in  material  submitted  earlier  by  the 
RMA,  upon  which  the  present  tables  found  in 
Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  109  are  based;  or 
(2)  slight  modifications  that  reflect  the  most 
recently  calculated  data. 

The  request  changes  are  being  made.  However, 
should  any  comments  be  received  from  interested 
persons  objecting  to,  and  giving  reasons  why  the 
changes  should  not  be  made,  the  amendment  will 
be  modified  as  considered  appropriate. 

Since,  to  the  extent  they  are  other  than  cor- 
rective, these  amendments  make  only  minor 
technical  changes  at  the  request  of  the  affected 
industry,  the  Administrator  finds  that,  for  good 
cause,  notice  of  public  procedure  thereon  is  im- 
practicable and  unnecessary.  Interested  persons 
may  submit  written  data,  views,  or  arguments 
relating  to  the  amendments.  Comments  should 
identify  the  Docket  (No.  69-3)  and  be  submit- 
ted in  an  original  and  three  copies  to  the  Na- 
tional Highway  Safety  Bureau,  Rules  Docket, 
Room  512,  Federal  Highway  Administration, 
Washington,  D.C.  20591.  All  comments  submit- 
ted will  be  available  for  examination  by  inter- 
ested persons  at  the  docket  room. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  section  371.21 
of  Part  371  (formally  section  255.21  of  Part  255), 
Tables  I-A  and  I-B  of  Appendix  A  of  Federal 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109  as 
amended  (33  F.R.  19714)  is  amended  effective 
March  15,  1969  ....  (Sees.  103  and  119  of  the 
National  Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act 
of  1966;  (15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407);  and  the  dele- 
gation   of    authority    contained    in    §  1.4(c)    of 


PART  571 ;  S  109— PRE  11 


EffMlivc:  March  IS,  1969 


Part  I  of  the  Regulations  of  the  Office  of  the 

Secretary  (49  CFR  1.4  (c)). 

Issued  in  Washington,  D.C.  on  February  10, 
1969. 


John  R.  Jamieson,  Deputy  / 

Federal  Highway  Administrator       W 

34   F.R.  2252 
February   15,   1969 


PART  571;  S  109— PRE  12 


EffKtIv*:  Maidi  4,   1971 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   109 

New  Pneumatic  Tires — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.  71-6;  Notice  1) 


On  January  26,  1971,  the  National  Highway 
Traffic  Safety  Administration  (NHTSA)  pub- 
lished in  the  Federal  Register  (36  F.R.  1196)  a 
revision  of  Part  574,  Tire  Identification  and 
Record  Keeping  (Docket  No.  70-12;  Notice  No. 
5)  to  become  effective  May  22,  1971.  Part  574, 
as  revised,  provides  that  the  DOT  symbol,  con- 
stituting the  manufacturer's  certification  that 
the  tire  conforms  with  applicable  motor  vehicle 
safety  standards,  must  be  above,  below,  or  to  the 
left  or  right  of  the  tire  identification  number. 
In  addition,  under  this  part  the  tire  identification 
number  must  include,  as  the  first  grouping  within 
the  number,  a  two-symbol  code  assigned  by  the 
NHTSA  that  identifies  the  manufacturer  of  the 
tire.  This  notice  amends  Standard  No.  109  of 
Part  571,  in  order  to  allow  manufacturers,  at 
their  option,  to  convert  to  the  new  tire  identifi- 
cation system  before  the  May  22,  1971,  effective 
date. 

The  requirements  of  Part  574  relating  to  the 
certification  symbol  and  the  manufacturer's  code 
number  will  take  the  place  of  the  requirements 
in  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109,  Part 
571  of  this  chapter,  that  the  tire  manufacturers 
place  the  DOT  symbol  and  an  assigned  three- 
digit  code  number  (in  the  case  of  brand -name 
tires)  on  both  sidewalls.  Accordingly,  a  notice 
published  January  26,  1971  (36  F.R.  1195), 
amends  Standard  No.  109,  effective  May  22,  1971, 
to  reconcile  the  requirements  of  that  standard 
with  the  requirements  of  the  Tire  Identification 
and  Record  Keeping  Regulation. 


The  Administration  has  received  requests  that 
tires  manufactured  before  May  22,  1971,  the 
effective  date  of  Part  574,  that  are  marked  as 
prescribed  by  that  part,  not  be  required  to  be 
labeled  on  both  sidewaUs  with  the  DOT  symbol 
and  the  manufacturer's  three-digit  code  required 
by  Standard  No.  109. 

The  requests  have  been  foimd  reasonable.  In 
order  to  avoid  unnecessary  costs  and  allow  for  a 
smoother  transition  to  the  new  requirements, 
Standard  No.  109  is  by  this  notice  amended  to 
provide  that  tires  manufactured  from  March  1, 
1971  to  May  22,  1971,  shall  either  meet  the  re- 
quirements of  §  574.5,  or,  on  both  sidewalls,  con- 
tain the  DOT  symbol  and  the  manufacturer's 
three-digit  code  number  required  by  S4.3(d)  and 
S4.3(i)  of  Standard  No.  109.  Thus,  tires  manu- 
factured during  this  period  may  be  marked  ac- 
cording to  the  current  system,  the  new  one 
effective  May  22, 1971,  or  both. 

Because  this  amendment  to  Standard  No.  109 
relieves  restrictions  and  imposes  no  additional 
burden  on  any  person,  it  is  foimd  that  notice 
and  public  procedure  thereon  are  unnecessary 
and  impracticable,  and  that,  for  good  cause 
shown,  an  effective  date  earlier  than  180  days 
after  issuance  is  in  the  public  interest. 

Issued  on  February  26,  1971. 

Douglas  W.  Toms, 
Acting  Administrator 

36  F.R.  4290 
March    4,    1971 


PART  571;  S  109— PRE  13-14 


Effective  January   1,    1971 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO   MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   109 

New  Pneumatic  Tires — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.  69-12;  Notice  No.  2) 


A  proposal  to  amend  Part  571  (formerly  Part 
371),  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard 
No.  109,  "New  Pneumatic  Tires — Passenger 
Oars"  was  published  on  July  11,  1969  (34  F.R. 
11501),  as  a  notice  of  proposed  rule  making  to 
delete  the  exemption  for  deep-tread,  winter-t}^ 
tires  contained  in  the  high-speed  requirements. 
Interested  persons  were  invited  to  submit  com- 
ments to  this  notice. 

Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No. 
109  (49  CFR  571.21),  as  amended  (33  F.R. 
19711),  specifies  tire  dimensions  and  laboratory 
test  requirements  for  bead  unseating  resistance, 
strength,  endurance  and  high-speed  performance ; 
defines  tire  load  ratings;  and  specifies  labeling 
requirements  for  new  pneumatic  tires  for  use  on 
passenger  cars  manufactured  after  1948. 

Paragraph  S5.5.4  of  Standard  No.  109  specifies 
that  for  the  high-speed  performance  aspects  of 
the  standard,  tires  are  to  be  tested  at  75  m.p.h. 
for  30  minutes,  80  m.p.h.  for  30  minutes,  and 
(except  for  deep-tread,  winter-types  tires)  85 
m.p.h.  for  30  minutes. 

Because,  in  actual  practice,  deep-tread,  winter- 
type  tires  are  often  required  to  perform  at  the 
same  rate  of  speed  as  other  type  passenger  car 
tires  it  was  considered  in  the  public  interest  to 
amend  S5.5.4  to  require  the  same  level  of  high- 
speed performance  of  deep-tread,  winter- type 
tires  as  other  type  tires  are  required  to  meet. 

Several  comments,  including  comments  from 
one  association  representing  new  tire  manufac- 
turing companies,  stated  that  the  deep-tread, 
winter-type  tires  had  groove  depths  deeper  than 
conventionally  treaded  tires  and  that  shoulder 


temperatures  of  the  tires  on  the  laboratory  te^ 
wheel  operating  at  80  m.p.h.  are  comparable  to 
actual  highway  speeds  in  excess  of  100  m.p.h. 
These  commentators  also  indicated  that  to  com- 
ply with  the  proposed  amendment,  the  tread 
depths  and  lug  configurations  for  the  deep-tread, 
winter-type  tires  would  have  to  be  redesigned. 
However,  research  conducted  for  the  Bureau  has 
indicated  that  all  deep-tread,  winter-type  tires 
when  properly  designed  and  constructed  will 
conform  to  the  present  high-speed  requirements 
for  conventionally  treaded  passenger  car  tires. 
In  addition,  test  wheel  data  submitted  show  that 
although  the  temperature  of  the  crown  of  the 
tire  of  deep-tread,  winter-type  tires  may  run 
higher  during  the  high-speed  wheel  test  the  dif- 
ference in  shoulder  temperature  appears  insig- 
nificant. 

Since  deep-tread,  winter-type  tires  mu6(t  often 
perform  at  the  same  motor  vehicle  speeds  and 
driving  conditions  as  conventionally  treaded 
tires,  it  is  in  the  public  interest  that  they  meet 
the  same  minimimi  performance  levels. 

In  oonsiueration  of  the  above,  Federal  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109  paragraph 
S5.5.4  is  amended .... 

This  amendment  becomes  effective  January  1, 
1971. 

Issued  on  July  8, 1970. 

Douglas  W.  Toms, 

Director, 

National  Highway  Safety  Bur^u 

35  F.R.  11241 
July  14,   1970 


PART  571;  S  109— PRE  15-16 


I 


I 


Effective:  December   1,    1970 


PREAMBLE  TO   AMENDMENT  TO   MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   109 

New  Pneumatic  Tires — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.  70-2;   Notice  No.  2) 


A  proposal  to  amend  Federal  Mot»r  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  109,  New  Pneumatic  Tires — 
Passenger  Cars,  49  CFR  Part  571,  was  published 
on  April  22,  1970  (35  F.R.  6440).  The  purpose 
of  the  proposed  rule  was  to  prevent  the  sale  of 
tires  that  failed  to  pass  the  passenger  car  tire 
standard  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  (Standard  No. 
109)  but  were  nevertheless  being  sold  for  pas- 
senger car  use.  As  indicated  in  the  notice  of  the 
proposed  rule,  Bureau  investigations  disclose 
that  this  has  been  a  widespread  practice.  The 
use  of  such  tires  on  passenger  cars  is  considered 
a  safety  hazard. 

In  spite  of  the  notice  and  press  releases  on  the 
subject,  the  Bureau  has  found  that  unscrupulous 
distributors  and  dealers  are  continuing  to  buff 
off  restrictive  labeling  on  the  tires  and  are  selling 
them  to  unsuspecting  me?nbers  of  the  public. 
This  amendment  is  therefore  necessary  to  control 
the  relatively  large  number  of  tires  being  re- 
classified and  to  provide  a  better  means  of  en- 
forcing the  regulation  against  persons  who  are 
selling  these  tires  for  passenger  car  use. 

The  amendment  changes  the  passenger  car  tire 
standard  to  require  tires  that  are  not  certified  by 
the  manufacturer  as  complying  with  the  pas- 
senger car  tire  standard  to  be  branded  with  the 
phrase  "Unsafe  for  Highway  Uge"  and  to  have 
a  label  attached  indicating  that  sale  of  the  tire 
for  passenger  car  use  subjects  the  person  selling 
the  tire  to  a  $1,000  civil  penalty.  The  amend- 
ment also  requires  tire  manufacturers  to  report 
to  the  Bureau  periodically  on  the  number  of 
these  tires  sold  and  the  names  of  distributors  or 
dealers  to  whom  they  are  sold. 

Interested  persons  have  been  offered  an  oppor- 
tunity to  participate  in  the  making  of  this  amend- 
ment.    It  was  almost  unanimously  agreed  that 


there  should  be  some  restrictions  placed  on  tir^ 
that  had  not  been  certified  as  complying  with 
Standard  No.  109.  Several  comments  to  the 
notice  objected,  however,  to  the  requirement  that 
the  phrase  "Unsafe  for  Normal  Highway  Use" 
be  on  the  tire,  on  the  ground  that  the  word 
''Normal"  was  ambiguous.  This  designation  has 
been  found  to  have  merit,  and  the  word  "Normal" 
has  been  omitted  from  the  required  phrase. 

The  requirement  that  the  phrase  be  superim- 
posed upon  the  manufacturer's  name,  or  brand 
name,  with  lettering  three-quarters  of  an  inch 
high  was  objected  to  because  the  phrase  would 
not  be  legible  and  could  be  easily  removed.  To 
avoid  these  problems,  the  requirement  has  been 
changed  to  provide  that  the  phrase  "Unsafe  for 
Highway  Use"  be  placed  between  the  maximum 
section  width  and  the  tread  and  the  height  of  the 
lettering  reduced  to  one-half  inch. 

The  proposal  that  the  lettering  of  the  term 
signifying  the  tire  was  unsafe  for  highway  use 
be  one-sixteenth  of  an  inch  deep  was  objected  to 
because  some  tire  casings  have  less  than  one- 
sixteenth  of  an  inch  of  rubber  on  the  outside  of 
the  sidewall  and  the  alternative  of  one-half  the 
thickness  of  the  rubber  covering  the  outside  ply 
was  not  meaningful  because  the  thickness  could 
not  always  be  determined.  However,  it  is  essen- 
tial that  the  lettering  be  deep  enough  so  that  any 
attempt  to  buff  it  off  will  be  easily  recognizable 
and,  therefore,  the  requirement  that  the  lettering 
be  one-sixteenth  of  an  inch  deep  is  being  main- 
tained. The  change  from  the  proposal  to  allow 
the  lettering  to  be  located  anywhere  between  the 
maximimi  section  width  and  the  tread  will  allow 
the  manufacturer  to  select  a  location  where  the 
rubber  thickness  is  sufficient  to  impress  lettering 
one-sixteenth  of  an  inch. 


PART  571;  S  109— PRE  17 


EffMtiv*:  Datcmbar  1,   1970 

Some  comments  suggested  that  the  words 
"tube"  or  "tubeless"  be  required  on  the  tire,  even 
though  the  tire  would  not  be  used  for  passenger 
cars.  This  suggestion  has  been  adopted  in  the 
final  rule. 

The  requirement  that  the  maximum  inflation 
pressure  and  the  maximum  load  iwting  be  on  the 
tire  was  omitted  because  they  pertain  to  tires 
manufactured  for  passenger  car  use,  not  tires  for 
oflf-road  usage. 

Some  comments  objected  to  the  requirement 
tihat  manufacturers  report  the  quantity  and  serial 
numbers  of  reclassified  tires  sold  and  the  names 
of  distributors  and  dealers  who  purchase  them. 
It  was  argued  that  keeping  track  of  serial  num- 
bers, and  distributors  or  dealers  the  tires  were 
sold  to  would  be  burdensome  and  serve  no  safety 
related  purpose.  The  Bureau  feels  that  report- 
ing of  reclassified  tires  that  are  unsafe  for  high- 
way use  will  provide  the  necessary  control  over 
these  reclassified  tires  to  assure  that  the  tires  will 
not  be  sold  for  passenger  car  use.  Therefore,  the 
reporting  requirements  have  been  maintained. 


In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  Title  49 — 
Transportation,  Chapter  V — National  Highway 
Safety  Bureau,  Department  of  Transportation, 
Subchapter  A — Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Regula- 
tions, Part  571 — Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  109,  New  Pneumatic  Tires— Pas- 
senger Cars  is  amended. 

Effective  date :  December  1, 1970. 

Since  this  amendment  is  designed  to  prevent 
a  practice  which  can  endanger  the  lives  and  prop- 
erty of  the  general  public  and  because  no  com- 
ments were  received  objecting  to  the  proposed 
effective  date  of  December  1,  1970,  in  the  notice 
of  proposed  rulemaking,  good  cause  is  shown  that 
an  effective  date  earlier  than  180  days  after  issu- 
ance is  in  the  public  interest. 


Issued  on  October  22, 1970. 


Douglas  W.  Toms, 
Director 

35  F.R.  16734 
October  29,  1970 


PART  571;  S  109— PRE  18 


Effective:   Moy   22,    1971 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO   MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   109 

New  Pneumatic  Tires — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.  71-4;  Notice  No.   1) 


Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No. 
109,  49  CFR  Part  571,  as  amended  (35  F.R. 
16735),  specifies  requirements  for  passenger  car 
tire  dimensions  and  laboratory  test  requirements, 
defines  tire  load  ratings,  specifies  labeling  re- 
quirements and  sets  forth  the  limited  conditions 
under  which  passenger  car  tires  that  are  not 
certified  as  complying  with  the  standard  may  be 
sold.  One  of  the  labeling  requirements  of  the 
standard  (S4.3(d))  is  that  each  tire  be  labeled 
on  both  sidewalls  with  the  manufacturer's  name 
or,  if  the  tire  is  a  brand  name  tire,  with  the 
brand  name  and  an  approved  code  mark  assigned 
the  manufacturer  by  the  National  Highway 
Traffic  Safety  Administration  (formerly  the  Na- 
tional Highway  Safety  Bureau).  Another  label- 
ing requirement  (S4.3(i))  in  the  standard  is  that 
each  tire  contain  on  both  sidewalls  a  certification 
statement  or  the  symbol  DOT,  constituting  the 
manufacturer's  certification  that  the  tire  conforms 
to  the  standard.  Both  of  these  requirements  are 
affected  by  the  Tire  Identification  and  Record- 
keeping Regulation  (49  CFR  Part  574),  as  re- 
vised and  published  in  this  issue  of  the  Federal 
Register  (36  F.R.  1196),  in  that  the  Tire  Iden- 
tification and  Recordkeeping  Regulation  specifies 
the  location  of  the  DOT  symbol  and  requires 
that  it  be  on  either  sidewall  of  the  tire.  Part  574 
also  establishes  a  system  whereby  all  tire  manu- 
facturers apply  for  an  assigned  two-symbol  code 
designation  which  is  to  be  part  of  the  tire  iden- 
tification number  and  placed  on  either  sidewall. 
It  is  intended  that  these  requirements  take  the 
place  of  the  requirements  in  Standard  No.  109 
that  tire  manufacturers  be  assigned  a  three- 
number  code  and  that  it  be  placed  on  both  side- 
walls  of  brand  name  tires. 


In  view  of  the  above,  S4.3  of  the  passenger  car 
tire  standard  is  amended  as  set  forth  below  to 
reconcile  the  requirements  of  Standard  No.  109 
with  the  requirements  of  the  Tire  Identification 
and  Recordkeeping  Regulation. 

In  addition,  the  labeling  requirements  (S4.3) 
are  changed  as  set  forth  below  to  make  it  clear 
that  each  tire  shall  be  labeled  with  only  one  size 
designation  found  in  the  tables  in  Appendix  A 
of  Standard  No.  109,  except  that  tires  may  have 
equivalent  inch  and  metric  size  designations. 
The  labeling  requirements  are  further  changed 
by  deleting  the  paragraph  which  deals  with  tires 
manufactured  before  August  1,  1968,  since  the 
exception  is  no  longer  relevant. 

Requirements  for  reclassified  tires  (S6.)  are 
being  amended  to  provide  that  the  serial  number 
required  by  S6.1(c),  and  the  manufacturer's  code 
symbol,  if  used,  can  be  on  either  sidewall. 

It  is  further  noted  that  the  correction  published 
in  the  Federal  Register  of  November  26,  1970 
(35  F.R.  18118),  was  inaccurately  stated  as  "for 
the  period  covering  November  1,  1970  through 
July  31,  1971".  Actually,  the  phrase  to  be  cor- 
rected was  "for  the  period  covering  December  1, 
1970  through  July  31,  1971."  S6.2  should  read 
"for  the  period  covering  December  1,  1970 
through  June  30,  1971",  and  for  clarity  S6.2  is 
republished  with  the  correct  language. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Standard 
No.  109  of  §  571.21  of  Title  49,  Code  of  Federal 
Regulations,  is  amended. 

Effective  date :  May  22, 1971. 


PART  571;  S  109— PRE  19 


Effactlve-  May  22,   1971 

Because  this  amendment  to  Standard  No.  109  Issued  on  January  19, 1971.  / 

relieves  restrictions,  clarifies  the  intent  expressed  ^ 

in  the  standard,  makes  a  correction  to  the  stand-  Douglas  W.  Tons, 

ard  and  imposes  no  additional  burden  on  any  Acting  Administrator,  National 

person,  notice  and  request  for  comments  on  such  Highway    TraflSc    Safety    Ad- 

notice  are  found  to  be  unnecessary  and  imprac-  ministration 

ticable,  and  good  cause  is  shown  that  an  eflFective 

date  earlier  than  180  days  after  issuance  is  in  36  F.R.  1195 

the  public  interest.  January  26,   1971 


k 


PART  571;  S  109— PRE  20 


Effectlv*:  Octebai  I,  1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   109 

Reclassified  Tires 

(Docket  No.  70-2;  Notice  4) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  amend  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109,  to  prohibit  the 
manufacture  and  sale  of  passenger  car  tires  that 
do  not  meet  the  performance  requirements  of  the 
standard.  Such  tires  are  presently  allowed  to  be 
sold  as  "reclassified  tires."  A  notice  proposing 
this  action  was  published  on  November  27,  1971 
(36  F.R.  22688). 

Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109,  "New 
Pneimiatic  Tires,"  was  amended  October  29, 
1970  (35  F.R.  16743),  to  allow  passenger  car 
tires  which  manufacturers  did  not  certify  as 
conforming  to  the  performance  tests  of  the  stand- 
ard, to  be  sold  for  off-highway  purposes.  The 
amendment  required  such  tires  to  be  labeled  so 
that  purchasers  would  be  aware  that  they  were 
considered  unsafe  for  highway  use.  Moreover, 
manufacturers  of  such  tires  were  required  to  re- 
port semi-annually  to  the  NHTSA  the  number 
of  tires  sold.  The  purpose  of  the  requirement 
was  to  allow  the  sale  of  such  tires  for  off-high- 
way purposes  where  a  legitimate  market  existed 
for  low-priced  inexpensive  tires,  and  where  the 
fact  that  they  failed  to  meet  Federal  perform- 
ance tests  would  not  pose  a  threat  to  users.  De- 
spite the  conditions  imposed  by  this  amendment, 
the  NHTSA  continued  to  receive  reports  that 
significant  numbers  of  these  tires  were  being  sold 
by  unscrupulous  dealers  for  passenger  car,  on- 
highway  use. 

Based  upon  its  investigative  efforts,  and  the 
material  submitted  to  the  docket  in  response  to 
the  notice  of  November  27,  1971,  the  NHTSA 
has  determined  that  the  continued  sale  of  these 
tires  should  be  prohibited,  and  that  the  substance 
of  the  rule  proposed  on  November  27,  1971, 
should  be  implemented.  Data  which  the  NHTSA 
receives    from   manufacturers   show    an    annual 


production  of  these  tires  in  the  neighborhood  of 
200,000  units.  The  NHTSA  has  concluded  that 
it  cannot  by  enforcement  measures  alone  prevent 
a  significant  number  of  these  tires  from  being 
sold  as  "reclassified  tires"  for  use  on  motor 
vehicles. 

As  indicated  in  the  preamble  to  the  notice  of 
November  27,  the  tire  industry  manufactures 
tires  designed  specifically  for  off-road  applica- 
tions which  are  not  greatly  more  expensive  than 
most  reclassified  tires.  The  dangers  that  may 
result  from  vehicles  equipped  with  substandard 
tires  far  outweigh,  in  the  opinion  of  NHTSA, 
the  economic  benefits  obtainable  from  allowing 
these  tires  to  be  sold  for  off-road  purposes. 

Certain  issues  raised  by  the  comments  to  the 
notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  have  been  de- 
termined to  be  of  merit,  and  they  are  incorpo- 
rated into  this  amendment.  The  comments 
pointed  out  that  the  reference  to  all  tires  of  the 
type  and  size  designation  found  in  the  appendix 
of  Standard  No.  109  included  tires  other  than 
passenger  car  tires,  namely,  certain  tires  manu- 
factured for  agricultural  purposes  that  are  not 
required  to  conform  to  Standard  No.  109.  As 
issued,  this  amendment  applies  only  to  those  tires 
of  a  type  and  size  designation  appearing  in  the 
appendix  of  Standard  No.  109  that  are  designed 
for  use  on  passenger  cars. 

The  comments  also  pointed  out  that  prohibit- 
ing the  sale  of  these  tires  as  of  the  amendment's 
effective  date  would  penalize  many  dealers  who 
may  have  large  stocks  of  such  tires  on  hand.  It 
was  not  the  NHTSA's  intention  to  penalize 
dealers,  who  in  good  faith  have  purchased  such 
tires  for  sale  as  "reclassified  tires"  under  existing 
regulations,  but  rather  to  prevent  the  further  re- 
classification of  tires  by  manufacturers,  and  to 


PART  571;  S  109— PRE  21 


Effective:  October  1,  1972 


require  them  to  dispose  of  such  tires  in  a  way 
that  their  use  as  motor  vehicle  equipment  will  be 
impossible.  This  amendment,  therefore,  applies 
to  tires  manufactured  (not  sold)  after  its  effec- 
tive date  and  jDrohibits,  after  that  date,  the 
further  reclassification  of  tires  and  their  sale  by 
manufacturei-s.  "Reclassified  tires"  presently 
on  dealer's  shelves  may  continue  to  be  distributed 
and  sold  in  accordance  with  the  existing  provi- 
sions (S6.)  of  Standard  No.  109  dealing  with 
reclassified  tires  until  supplies  are  exhausted. 

The  comments  further  pointed  out  that  the 
language  of  the  notice  that  prohibited  the  sale 
of  these  tires  "for  any  purpose"  would  not  allow 
them  to  be  sold  even  for  scrap  materials.  The 
conmients  indicated  that  advantageous  uses  for 
scrap  tires  are  presently  being  developed.  The 
NHTSA  has  no  reason  to  prevent  the  sale  of 
these  tires  if  their  use  as  motor  vehicle  equipment 
is  impossible,  and  the  amendment  allows  their 
sale  as  scrap  materials. 


In  light  of  the  above.  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  109,  "New  Pneumatic  Tires,"  ap- 
pearing at  49  CFR  571.109,  is  amended  .... 

Ejfective  date:  October  1,  1972.  The  purpose 
of  this  amendment  is  to  prevent  a  practice  which 
is  in  violation  of  existing  regulations,  and  whose 
continuance  poses  a  threat  to  all  users  of  the 
highways.  Accordingly,  it  is  hereby  found  that 
good  cause  exists  for  an  effective  date  less  than 
180  days  from  the  day  of  issuance. 

This  notice  is  issued  under  the  authority  of 
sections  103,  112,  119,  and  201  of  the  National 
Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  (15  U.S.C. 
1392,  1401,  1407,  1421)  and  the  delegation  of 
authority  at  49  CFR  1.51. 

Issued  on  August  11,  1972. 

Douglas   W.    Toms 
Administrator 

37  F.R.   16604 
August    17,    1972 


PART  571;  S  109— PRE  22 


Effactiv*:  July    1,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   109 

New  Pneumatic  Tires — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.  71-23;  Notice  No.  2) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  amend  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109,  "New  Pneu- 
matic Tires",  to  require  safety  labeling  informa- 
tion to  be  placed  on  the  tire  between  the 
maximum  section  width  and  the  bead,  in  order 
that  this  information  can  be  retained  on  the 
casing  if  the  tire  is  retreaded.  A  notice  of  pro- 
posed rulemaking  regarding  this  subject  was 
issued  on  December  21,  1971  (36  F.R.  24824). 

A  majority  of  the  comments  received  in  re- 
sponse to  the  notice  agreed  with  the  intent  of  the 
proposed  amendment.  However,  objections  were 
raised  to  the  proposed  requirement  that  the  label- 
ing information  be  located  between  the  maximum 
section  width  and  the  bead  on  bath  sidewalls. 
The  comments  indicated  that  the  use  of  white- 
wall  designs  limited  the  area  between  the  section 
width  and  the  bead,  and  that  as  a  consequence, 
certain  labeling  information  is  placed  between 
the  maximum  section  width  and  the  shoulder 
area  to  comply  with  the  labeling  requirements 
of  Standard  No.  109.  Placing  the  information 
between  maximum  section  width  and  bead  on 
both  sidewalls  would  evidently  require  the  re- 
designing both  of  molds  and  lines  of  tires. 

The  agency  has  concluded  after  review  of  the 
information   submitted   to   the   docket   that   all 


labeling  information  should  be  located  on  both 
sidewalls  of  the  tires  as  presently  required  by 
Standard  No.  109.  However,  in  response  to  the 
objections  to  the  proposed  requirements,  only  one 
sidewall  is  required  to  have  the  labeling  infor- 
mation between  the  maximum  section  width  and 
the  bead.  This  will  still  allow  information  to  be 
retained  on  casings  so  that  retreaders  need  not 
relabel  tires  in  meeting  the  requirements  of 
Standard  No.  117  (49  CFR  571.117). 

In  light  of  the  above,  Paragraph  S4.3  of  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109,  "New  Pneu- 
matic Tires",  §  571.109  of  Title  49,  Code  of  Fed- 
eral Regulations,  is  amended  .... 

Elective  Date :  July  1, 1973. 

This  notice  is  issued  under  the  authority  of 
sections  103,  112,  113,  114,  119  and  201  of  the 
National  Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act, 
15  use  1392,  1401,  1402,  1403,  1407,  1421,  and 
the  delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51. 

Issued  on  October  31,  1972. 

Charles  H.  Hartman 
Acting  Administrator 

37  F.R.  23536 
November  4,  1972 


PART  571 ;  S  109— PRE  23-24 


i 


I 


E«F*ctiv«:  July   1,   1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   109 

New  Pneumatic  Tires — Passenger  Cars 

(Docket  No.  71-23;  Notice  3) 
(Docket  No.  1-8;  Notice  10) 


This  notice  amends  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standards  Nos.  109  and  117  (49  CFR  571.109) 
to  reduce  the  minimum  size  of  permanent  safety 
labeling  to  0.078  inches.  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  109,  "New  Pneumatic  Tires,"  was 
amended  November  4,  1972  (37  F.R.  23536),  to 
specify  both  a  location  on  the  tire  sidewall  for 
safety  labeling  and  a  labeling  size  of  not  less 
than  %2  of  an  inch.  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  117,  "Retreaded  Pneumatic  Tires", 
was  amended  March  23,  1972  (37  F.R.  9590) ,  to 
specify  permanent  labeling  of  the  same  minimum 
size. 

The  Michelin  Tire  Company  has  protested 
that  the  %2  "ich  minimum  size  is  inconsistent 
with  the  existing  practice  of  European  tire 
manufacturers  of  labeling  tires  in  letters  having 
a  size  of  0.078  inches  (2mm).  It  has  pointed 
out  that  as  a  consequence  of  the  amendment, 
European  tire  manufacturers  will  have  to  in- 
crease the  size  of  all  existing  labeling.  The 
NHTSA  has  concluded  that  the  diflFerence  be- 
tween letters  0.078  inches  in  size  and  those  of 
0.093  inches  is  not  significant,  and  does  not  jus- 
tify the  resultant  expense  to  manufacturers  of 
modifying  tire  molds.  By  this  notice  the 
NHTSA  therefore  reduces  the  minimimi  size  to 
0.078  inches  for  labeling  required  by  S4.3  of 
Standard  No.  109. 


Because  the  permanent  labeling  provisions  of 
Standard  No.  117  are  intended  to  be  ultimately 
met  with  new  tire  labeling,  the  size  requirements 
for  permanent  labeling  in  that  standard  are  also 
modified. 

In  light  of  the  above,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  109,  49  CFR  571.109,  and  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  117,  49  CFR 
571.117,  are  amended  as  follows : 

Effective  dates:  July  1,  1973,  for  the  amend- 
ment to  S4.3  of  49  CFR  571.109;  February  1, 
1974,  for  the  amendment  to  S6.3.2  of  49  CFR 
571.117.  These  amendments  relieve  an  unneces- 
sary restriction  without  a  significant  effect  on 
motor  vehicle  safety.  Consequently,  it  is  found 
for  good  cause  that  notice  and  public  procedure 
thereon  are  imnecessary,  and  that  an  effective 
date  less  than  180  days  from  the  day  of  issuance 
is  in  the  public  interest. 

(Sees.  103,  112,  113,  114,  119,  201,  Pub.  L. 
89-563,  80  Stat.  718,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1402, 
1403,  1407,  1421;  delegations  of  authority  at  49 
CFR  1.51.) 

Issued  on  March  8, 1973. 

James  E.  Wilson 
Acting  Administrator 

38  F.R.  6999 
March  15,  1973 


PART  571;  S  109— PRE  25-26 


231-088  O  -  n  -  29 


k 


k 


Effsctive:   March   29,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   109 

New  Pneumatic  Tires — Passenger  Cars 

(Docket  No.  71-10;  Notice  3) 


This  notice  amends  the  requirements  for  high 
speed  performance  and  endurance  applicable  to 
passenger  car  tires  in  INIotor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  109,  "New  Pneumatic  Tires",  by 
adding  additional  criteria  to  the  description  of 
tire  failure.  A  notice  of  jDroposed  rulemaking 
on  which  this  amendment  is  based  was  published 
September  20,  1972  (37  F.R.  19381).  That  notice 
proposed  to  modify  the  criteria  for  tire  failure 
in  both  Standard  No.  109  and  Standard  No.  117, 
"Retreaded  Pneumatic  Tires".  As  the  tests  for 
high  speed  performance  and  endurance  have 
been  revoked  in  Standard  No.  117,  this  amend- 
ment affects  only  the  requirements  of  Standard 
No.  109. 

The  proposal  of  September  20,  1972,  was  de- 
signed to  expand  the  description  of  tire  failure 
to  include  certain  characteristics  which  had  ap- 
peared in  tires  tested  by  NHTSA,  and  which 
were  considered  to  be  evidence  of  potential  in- 
service  tire  failure,  but  which  were  not  spe- 
cifically prohibited  by  the  existing  language  of 
the  standard.  These  conditions  included  tread- 
groove  cracking,  deep  sidewall  separations,  and 
damage  to  areas  such  as  the  tire  innerliner. 
Standard  No.  109  presently  prohibits  tires  tested 
to  the  high  speed  performance  and  endurance 
tests  of  the  standard  from  exhibiting  "tread,  ply, 
cord,  or  bead  separation,  chunking,  or  broken 
cords".  The  proposal  would  have  prohibited,  as 
a  result  of  either  of  the  two  tests,  the  displace- 
ment of  any  tire  component  from  its  design  po- 
sition, including  partial  or  complete  separation 
of  any  component  from  any  other  component, 
but  would  not  have  prohibited  exposure  of  chafer 
fabric  and  surface  cracking  that  did  not  expose 
ply  cord  or  belt  cord.  Any  crack  in  a  tread 
croove  that  exceeded  three-sixteenths  of  an  inch 


in  length  would,  however,  have  also  been  pro- 
hibited. The  proposal  also  contained  an  "air- 
loss"  test,  which  would  have  required  the  tire  to 
retain  at  least  95  percent  of  its  initial  inflation 
pressure  when  measured  immediately  after  each 
performance  test. 

Numerous  comments  were  received  in  response 
to  the  proposal.  AVhile  most  were  in  agreement 
with  its  general  purpose,  to  provide  a  more  in- 
clusive definition  of  tire  failure,  almost  all  dis- 
agreed with  the  method  jjroposed.  The  principal 
objection,  raised  by  the  Rubber  Manufacturers' 
Association  and  major  tire  companies,  was  that 
the  proposed  language  was  too  broad:  that  it 
included  within  the  concept  of  tire  failure  many 
conditions  that  were  in  no  way  detrimental  to 
tire  performance.  It  was  pointed  out  that  many 
such  conditions  might  exist  in  tires  before  lab- 
oratory wheel  tests  had  been  conducted  and  were 
considered  by  industry  to  be  no  more  than  in- 
consequential manufacturing  imperfections.  The 
comments  argued  that  such  conditions  included 
cracking  at  an  innerliner  splice,  innerliner  blis- 
ters, innerliner  folds,  mold  off-register,  sidewall 
blisters,  light  tread,  tearing  or  chipping  of  tread 
element,  cord  impression  in  the  bead  area,  light 
bead,  and  bead  cracks  at  the  toe.  The  comments 
suggested  as  an  alternative  to  the  proposed  lan- 
guage that  the  requirements  be  revised  to  spe- 
cifically include  the  problem  conditions  that 
NHTSA  testing  had  produced,  and  provided 
possible  definitions  to  describe  these  conditions. 

The  NHTSA  has  determined  that  this  sug- 
gested approach  will  satisfy  the  purpose  of  the 
proposal,  and  adopts  it  essentially  as  suggested 
by  the  domestic  tire  industry.  Prohibitions 
against  sidewall  and  innerliner  separation, 
cracking,    and    open    splices    will    be    added    to 


PART  571;  S  109— PRE  27 


Effective:  March  29,    1974 


the  standard.  New  definitions,  for  "inner- 
liner"  and  "innerliner  separation",  "cracking", 
"open  splice",  and  "sidewall  separation"  are 
added  to  the  standard.  These  definitions  are 
essentially  as  suggested  by  the  Rubber  Manu- 
facturers' Association,  with  the  exception  of 
"innerliner  separation".  The  suggested  defini- 
tion would  have  limited  tire  failures  involving 
innerliner  separation  to  those  demonstrating  air 
loss.  The  NHTSA  has  not  adopted  this  air-loss 
restriction  for  the  following  reasons.  First,  the 
NHTSA  is  of  the  opinion  that  innerliner  sepa- 
ration exhibited  on  a  "hot  tire",  one  having  just 
completed  either  of  the  laboratory  wheel  tests, 
is  evidence  of  potential  in-service  tire  failure, 
irrespective  of  whether  actual  air  loss  has  oc- 
curred at  that  point.  Second,  the  air-loss  test 
adopted  for  the  standard,  and  discussed  in 
greater  detail  below,  measures  only  a  gross,  or 
substantial  air  loss  occurring  during  the  test, 
and  not  the  type  of  lesser  air-loss  that  might 
result  from  an  innerliner  separation. 

The  standard  is  presently  silent  with  respect 
to  the  method  for  determining  whether  the  pro- 
hibited tire  conditions  exist.  Several  comments 
proposed  that  the  failure  modes  be  determined 
"visually".  One  comment  suggested  that  touch, 
or  X-rays,  be  specified.  As  amended,  the  stand- 
ard specifies  that  prohibited  conditions  will,  con- 
sistently with  the  larger  body  of  opinion,  be 
determined  visually.  Tiiis  method  is  tiiat  used 
by  NHTSA  in  past  testing,  and  it  has  proven 
satisfactory.  It  is  specifically  included  in  the 
standard  for  purposes  of  clarification,  but  is  not 
intended  to  preclude  the  use  of  simple  hand 
magnification. 

The  standard  is  likewise  silent  on  the  issue  of 
a  given  tire's  condition  before  the  running  of 
the  two  laboratory  wheel  tests.  The  position 
taken  by  NHTSA  in  its  enforcement  of  this 
standard  up  to  now  is  that  the  specified  labora- 
tory tests  are  not  required  to  be  performed  in 
order  for  a  tire  to  be  considered  a  failure,  when 
the  tire  evidences  any  of  the  prohibited  condi- 
tions before  it  is  subjected  to  either  test.  The 
Rubber  Manufacturers'  Association  submission 
to  this  docket  implicitly  reflects  this  point  of 
view.  The  substance  of  that  submission  was  that 
the  proposed  language  would  liave  categorized 
as   failures  certain  conditions   whicii   appear  in 


untested,  newly  manufactured  tires.  The  NHTSA  ^ 
is  specifically  amending  Standard  No.  109  in  ^ 
this  issuance  to  reflect  past  agency  interpretation 
and  enforcement  practice,  by  adding  to  the  gen- 
eral requirements  language  prohibiting  any  tire 
before  test  from  exhibiting  those  characteristics 
prohibited  after  either  of  the  laboratory  wheel 
tests. 

One  comment  requested  that  a  minor  loss  of 
tread  resulting  from  the  micro-siping  process 
should  not  be  considered  a  failure,  despite  the 
fact  that  this  condition  arguably  comes  within 
the  prohibitory  language.  The  position  of  the 
NHTSA  is  that  micro-siping  should  be  treated 
similarly  to  any  other  manufacturing  process. 
Consequently,  the  removal  of  very  small  tread 
section  during  micro-siping,  which  is  part  of  the 
manufacturing  process,  will  not  be  considered 
a  nonconformity.  However,  where  the  chunk- 
ing of  tread  occurs  as  a  result  of  the  specified 
laboratory  wheel  tests,  it  will  be  considered  a 
failure  regardless  of  its  amount. 

One  comment  argued  that  the  proposed  test 
procedure,  calling  for  a  test  rim  that  undergoes 
no  permanent  deformation,  was  not  reflective  of 
actual  conditions.  It  argued  that  such  a  rim  m 
would  have  to  be  of  massive  construction,  and  ™ 
suggested  alternatively  the  continued  use  of 
existing  test  rims.  The  comment  misunderstands 
the  purpose  of  the  procedure.  The  condition 
precluding  any  permanent  deformation  of  the 
rim  is  intended  only  to  ensure,  together  with  the 
other  language  regarding  air  loss,  that  any  air 
leaks  will  result  necessarily  from  the  tire,  and 
not  the  test  device.  In  other  words,  the  provi- 
sion is  inserted  to  ensure  that  the  tire  will  not 
be  "blamed"  for  any  air  loss  due  to  rim  deforma- 
tion. The  condition  that  the  rim  undergo  no 
permanent  deformation  is  not  intended  to  re- 
quire the  manufacture  of  a  new  genre  of  test 
rims;  in  practice,  test  rims  currently  in  use  do 
not  deform  significantly  during  the  laboratory 
wheel  test  procedures,  and  the  amended  regula- 
tion will  not  prevent  their  continued  use. 

Many  comments  objected  to  the  proposed  air 
loss  test,  requiring  the  tire  to  have  at  least  95 
percent  of  its  original  cold  inflation  pressure 
when  tested  immediately  after  both  the  high 
speed  and  endurance  tests.  The  comments  argued 
that  conducting  an   air-pressure  reading  imme- 


PART  571;  S  109— PRE  28 


Effective:  March  29,   1974 


diately  after  tlie  running  of  the  tests  was  poten- 
tially hazardous  to  persons  conducting  the  test. 
In  addition,  certain  comments  argued  that  the 
95  percent  air-retention  requirement  was  inade- 
quate, in  that  the  test  called  for  the  measurement 
to  be  made  on  a  '"hot"  tire,  and  the  pressure 
would  be  significantly  less  if  the  tire  were  first 
allowed  to  cool. 

The  NHTSA  has  retained  in  the  amendment 
both  an  air-loss  test,  and  the  requirements  that 
the  measurement  be  made,  as  proposed,  imme- 
diately after  both  the  high  speed  and  endurance 
tests  are  completed.  The  NHTSA  believes  that 
inspection  of  the  tire  to  determine  if  any  pro- 
hibited conditions  exist  should  be  made  when  the 
tire  is  still  at  the  higher  temperatures  created 
during  the  laboratory  tests.  As  tires  do  increase 
in  temperature  during  actual  use,  the  inspection 
of  tested  tires  at  higher  temperatures  provides  a 
more  realistic  environment  for  the  discovery  of 
conditions  that  can  result  in  failure.  Thus,  it 
becomes  mandatory  to  conduct  the  air-loss  test 
immediately  after  the  tire  has  been  subjected  to 
the  laboratory  wheel  tests  in  order  that  the  inside 
of  the  tire  can  be  examined  for  failure  modes 
while  the  tire  is  still  at  higher  temperatures. 

The  NHTSA  does  not  consider  an  objection  to 
a  test  requirement  on  the  basis  that  it  may  pre- 
sent a  hazard  to  testing  personnel  to  have  merit. 
Test  laboratories  are  places  where  products  are 
subjected  to  extreme,  often  destructive,  processes 
under  controlled  conditions  by  trained  techni- 
cians using  whatever  equipment  and  safeguards 
are  necessary,  in  order  to  assure  the  safety  of  the 
public  that  must  use  those  products  under  uncon- 
trolled conditions  without  comparable  training 
or  safeguards.  The  NHTSA  is  not  indifferent 
to  the  safety  of  test  technicians.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  urges  those  in  charge  of  test  laboratories 
to  take  all  necessary  steps  to  assure  the  safety 
and  health  of  their  employees.  But  if  a  par- 
ticular method  of  running  a  regulatory  test  such 
as  the  one  in  question  here  is  found  hazardous 
to  test  personnel,  the  proper  remedy  is  not  to 
change  the  regulation,  but  to  devise  methods  and 


equipment  to  perform  the  test  process  safely. 
The  NHTSA  is  confident  that  modern  technology 
and  the  testing  profession  are  equal  to  the  task. 

The  argument  that  the  proposed  test  allowed 
a  significant  air  loss  to  occur  is  meritorious.  The 
NHTSA  has  modified  the  proposal  by  restricting 
the  allowable  air-loss  to  not  less  than  the  tire's 
inflation  pressure  at  the  beginning  of  the  tests. 
Admittedly,  this  modification  is  not  fully  re- 
sponsive to  the  comments,  for  this  requirement 
permits  as  well  a  rather  significant  air  loss. 
However,  the  air-loss  test  is  designed  to  prevent 
only  gross,  exaggerated  air-loss,  and  not  instances 
of  slow  air  leaks.  Moreover,  while  tire  inflation 
pressure  will  increase  under  test,  it  appears  that 
the  amount  of  increase  may  vary  greatly  from 
test  to  test.  Variables  such  as  tire  expansion 
may  also  affect  any  increase  in  inflation  pressure. 
Consequently,  it  is  difficult  to  establish  a  value, 
in  excess  of  the  original  pressure,  that  can  ac- 
curately indicate  a  condition  of  air  loss.  The 
NHTSA  has  determined,  therefore,  to  require 
only  that  the  tire,  when  hot,  have  at  least  its 
initial  cold  inflation  pressure.  This  lowers  the 
amount  of  permissible  air  loss  from  that  pro- 
posed, prohibits  the  exaggerated  air  loss  which 
is  NHTSA's  primary  concern,  and  still  takes 
into  account  the  variations  in  inflation  pressure 
increase  that  may  occur. 

In  light  of  the  above.  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  109,  "New  Pneumatic  Tires,"  ap- 
pearing at  49  CFR  §  571.109,  is  amended.  .  .  . 

Effective  date :  March  29,  1974. 

(Sections  103,  119,  201,  and  202  Public  Law 
89-563,  80  Stat.  718,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407,  1421, 
and  1422;  delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR 
1.51.) 

Issued  on  September  24,  1973. 

James    B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

38  F.R.  27050 
September  28,  1973 


PART  571;  S  109— PRE  29-30 


I 


Effective:   March   29,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   109 

New  Pneumatic  Tires — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.  71-10;  Notice  5) 


This  notice  responds  to  petitions  for  reconsid- 
eration received  in  response  to  the  notice,  pub- 
lished September  28,  1973  (38  F.R.  27050), 
revising  the  performance  requirements  of  ^lotor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109  (49  CFR 
571.109).  That  notice  modified  the  criteria  for 
tire  failure  when  tires  are  subjected  to  the  high 
speed  performance  and  endurance  tests  of  the 
standard. 

Timely  petitions  for  reconsideration  were  re- 
ceived from  five  parties :  The  Firestone  Tire  and 
Rubber  Company,  Rubber  Jlanufacturers'  Asso- 
ciation, Uniroyal  Tire  Company,  B.  F.  Goodrich 
Tire  Company,  and  the  General  Tire  and  Rubber 
Company.  The  petitions  requested  the  agency  to 
reconsider  the  definition  of  "innerliner  separa- 
tion" and  the  requirement  that  the  tire  be  re- 
moved from  the  test  wheel  for  inspection 
immediately  after  the  prescribed  tests  are  com- 
pleted. 

The  petitions  have  argued  that  the  definition 
of  "innerliner  separation"  (a  "parting  of  the 
innerliner  from  the  carcass")  is  inconsistent  with 
the  definition  of  "carcass"  ("the  tire  structure, 
except  tread  and  sidewall  rubber"),  for  the  for- 
mer unlike  the  latter  creates  the  inference  that 
the  innerliner  is  not  part  of  the  carcass.  One 
petitioner  (B.  F.  Goodrich)  argued  that  inner- 
liner should  not  be  considered  part  of  the  carcass 
and  would  redefine  carcass  to  so  specify.  The 
NHTSA  agrees  with  the  comments  which  argue 
that  the  definition  of  "innerliner  separation" 
should  reflect  that  the  innerliner  is  part  of  the 
carcass.  That  definition  is  accordingly  modified 
as  recommended  by  the  petitions  to  mean  a  sepa- 
ration of  the  innerliner  from  the  cord  material 
of  the  carcass.  The  NHTSA  believes  no  ascer- 
tainable  benefit   would   be   achieved   by   further 


distinctions  within  the  definition  of  "carcass." 
The  requirement  prohibiting  the  separation  of 
the  innerliner  from  the  carcass  cord  material  is 
the  same  whether  or  not  the  definition  of  "car- 
cass" is  further  refined. 

The  petitions  also  state  that  innerliner  is  fre- 
quently composed  of  more  than  one  layer  of 
material.  The  definition  of  innerliner  is  revised 
to  take  this  into  account.  However  a  separation 
of  one  innerliner  layer  from  another  does  not 
constitute  "innerliner  separation"  under  the 
standard.  That  term  means  only  a  separation 
of  the  innerliner  from  the  carcass  cord  material. 
The  requirements  specify  tliat  "visual  evidence" 
of  enumerated  conditions  will  constitute  a  failure 
to  the  standard.  The  NHTSA  believes  the 
visual  test,  which  has  been  consistently  used  in 
the  past,  to  be  satisfactory.  However,  in  the 
case  of  innerliner  separation,  the  visual  evidence 
may  not  reflect  an  actual  separation  of  the  cord 
material  from  the  innerliner.  In  such  cases  the 
standard  is  not  intended  to  preclude  a  more  de- 
tailed examination  of  the  condition,  including  a 
cutting  of  the  tire.  This  procedure  has  been 
afforded  to  manufacturers  in  past  NHTSA  en- 
forcement efforts,  and  is  considered  consistent 
with  the  revised  requirements. 

The  petitions  also  requested  modification  of 
the  requirement  that  each  tested  tire  be  removed 
from  the  test  wheel  for  inspection  immediately 
after  its  testing  is  completed.  The  petitions 
argue  that  rapid  deflation  of  a  hot  tire  can  cause 
innerliner  separation.  While  several  petitions 
recommended  that  the  tire  be  allowed  to  cool  to 
ambient  temperature,  Uniroyal  has  indicated  that 
a  one-hour  period  had  been  found  sufficient  to 
eliminate  the  chance  that  artificially  caused 
separations  will  occur.  The  NHTSA  agrees  with 
the    comment    from    Uniroyal    that    a    one-hour 


PART  571 ;  S  109— PRE  31 


Effective:  March  29,    1974 


period  is  adequate  for  the  tire  to  cool  and  has 
amended  the  standard  accordingly. 

The  Rubber  Manufacturers'  Association  has 
argued  that  minor  nicks  and  tears  in  the  tread 
which  would  not  grow  in  size  during  service 
might  be  improperly  considered  "chunking'" 
under  the  standard.  RMA  alludes  to  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  micro-siping  process  in  the  pre- 
amble to  the  notice  of  September  28,  1974, 
claiming  it  recognizes  that  small  jjieces  of  the 
tread  can  be  broken  away  which  do  not  affect 
performance.  The  standard  is  clear  that  chunk- 
ing in  a  new  tire  before  testing  will  be  considered 
a  failure.  A  minor  tear  in  the  tread  does  not 
appear  to  involve  a  removal  of  rubber  from  the 
tire,  and  is  not  within  the  definition  of  chunking. 
Whether  a  "nick"  in  the  tread  represents  chunk- 
ing would  necessarily  be  based  on  its  size.  As  in 
micro-siping,  minor  tread  loss  resulting  from  the 
manufacturing  process  that  is  evident  before  test 
does  not  constitute  a  failure.  Any  loss  resulting 
from  the  laboratory  wheel  test  is  a  failure. 


In  light  of  the  above.  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  109,  "New  I*neumatic  Tires,"  ap- 
pearing at  49  CFR  571.109,  is  amended.  .  .  . 

Effective  date:  March  29,  1974.  This  amend- 
ment modifies  slightly  amendments  whose  effec- 
tive date  was  originally  established  as  the  above 
date  on  September  28,  1973.  As  these  amend- 
ments relieve  restrictions,  provide  clarification, 
and  impose  no  additional  burden  on  any  person, 
good  cause  is  found  for  an  effective  date  less  than 
30  days  from  publication. 

(Sees.  103,  110,  201,  and  202,  Pub.  L.  89-563, 
80  Stat.  718,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407,  1421,  and 
1422;  delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51.) 

Issued  on  March  25,  1974. 

James   B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

39  F.R.  11423 
March  28,  1974 


i 


I 


PART  571;  S  109— PRE  32 


i 


Effective:   October   7,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.    109 

(Docket  No.   74-3;   Notice  2) 


This  notice  amends  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  109  (49  CFR  571.109)  to  specify 
the  use  of  test  wheels  having  up  to  6  test  posi- 
tions in  NHTSA  compliance  testing.  A  notice 
of  proposed  rulemaking  regarding  this  subject 
was  published  January  10,  1974  (39  F.R.  1516). 

Standard  No.  109  has  not  previously  specified 
the  number  of  test  positions  which  may  be  pres- 
ent on  any  given  test  wheel.  Agency  testing  has 
been  conducted  on  test  wheels  having  up  to  six 
positions,  which  appears  to  be  the  maximum  ca- 
pacity of  these  wheels.  The  NHTSA  is  of  the 
opinion  that  this  testing  is  fully  consistent  with 
the  standard's  test  procedure,  but  in  order  to 
avoid  legal  disputes  has  decided  to  clarify  the 
standard  by  specifically  incorporating  into  it 
NHTSA's  present  compliance  testing  practice. 

The  one  comment  which  was  received  regard- 
ing the  proposal  did  not  object  to  the  amend- 
ment's substance,  but  requested  that  temjseratures 
be  carefully  monitored  in  NHTSA  testing.  The 
test  temperature  is  specified  in  the  standard  and 
applies  to  each  test  regardless  of  the  number  of 
positions  on  a  given  test  wheel.     The  NHTSA 


will  continue  to  carefully  monitor  its  tire  testing 
program  to  ensure  the  accuracy  of  the  results 
obtained. 

In  light  of  the  above,  49  CFR  §  571.109  (Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109)  is  amended 
by  the  addition  of  a  new  paragraph  (f)  in 
S4.2.1  .... 

Effective  date:  October  7,  1974.  This  amend- 
ment is  clarifying  in  nature,  reflecting  present 
practice,  and  poses  no  additional  burden  on  any 
person.  Consequently,  good  cause  is  found  for 
an  effective  date  less  than  180  days  from  publi- 
cation. 

(Sees.  103,  108,  119.  201  and  202,  Pub.  L.  89- 
563;  80  Stat.  718;  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1397,  1407, 
1421,  1422;  delegations  of  authority  at  49  CFR 
1.51.) 


Issued  on  August  30,  1974. 


James   B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

39  F.R.  32321 
September  6,  1974 


PART  571:  S  109— PRE  33-34 


<! 


I 


Effective:   January    1,    1968 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   109 

New  Pneumatic  Tires 
(Docket  No.  74-29;   Notice   1) 


This  notice  republishes  and  corrects  the  text  of 
Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109 
(49  CFR  §  571.109a),  excluding  Table  I  of  the 
Appendix. 

The  corrections  eliminate  both  typographical 
errors  which  occurred  in  the  codification  of  the 
standard  (in  the  Code  of  Federal  ReguJations) 
and  material  now  extraneous  as  a  result  of 
amendments  to  the  standard  and  the  adojrtion  of 
the  Tire  Identification  and  Recordkeeping  Regu- 
lations, 49  CFR  Part  574.  The  corrections  are 
as  follows: 

(1)  Figure  1  is  deleted,  and  Figures  2  and  3 
are  redesignated  Figures  1  and  2  respectively. 

(2)  Paragraph  S5.2.1.3  and  S5.2.2.1  are  modi- 
fied to  reflect  the  changes  in  the  designations  of 
Figures  2  and  3. 

(3)  Paragraph  S6  is  corrected  to  reflect  the 
amendment  of  August  17,  1972  (37  F.R.  16604), 
by  deleting  paragraph  S6.1  and  the  paragraphs 
following. 


The  notice  also  redesignates  the  standard  as 
§  571.109.  The  previous  designation,  §  571.109a, 
i-esulted  from  an  amendment  (38  F.R.  27050, 
September  28,  1973)  with  a  future  effective  date 
(March  29,  1974)  outstanding  at  the  time  the 
uiost  i^ecent  version  of  tlie  Code  was  published. 
The  passing  of  that  effective  date  eliminates  the 
need  for  Section  571.109a. 

In  light  of  the  above,  §  571.109a  (excluding 
Table  I  of  the  Apjjendix)  of  Title  49,  Code  of 
Federal  Regulations,  is  redesignated  §  571.109 
and  corrected  and  republished  .... 

(Sees.  103,  119,  201,  202,  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80 
Stat.  718,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407,  1421,  1422;  dele- 
gations of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51.) 


Issued  on  August  7,  1974. 


James  B.   Gregory 

Administrator 

39  F.R.  31322 
August  28,  1974 


PART  571;  S  109— PRE  35-36 


I 


Effertive:   August   5,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO   MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.    109 

New  Pneumatic  Tires 
(Docket  No.   74-25;   Notice   2) 


This  notice  amends  the  definition  of  "tesit-  rim" 
in  49  CFR  571.109  (Motor  Vehicle  Sixfety  Stand- 
ard No.  109)  and  modifies  related  pix)\isions  of 
that  section  and  section  571.110  (Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  110).  A  confoi'ming 
amendment  is  made  to  similar  jirovisions  in  sec- 
tion 571.119  (Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard 
No.  119).  The  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking 
on  which  this  amendment  is  based  was  published 
on  July  10, 1974  (39  F.E.  25329). 

Tlie  definition  of  "test  rim'*  lias  previous  to 
this  amendment  referenced  the  1967  and  earlier 
editions  of  publications  of  various  foreign  and 
domestic  tire  and  rim  associations  as  the  source 
for  determining  rim  specifications  and  appro- 
priate tire/rim  matching  infonnation  for  testing 
tires  to  the  requirements  of  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  109,  and  for  equipping  passenger 
cars  pursuant  to  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard 
No.  110.  The  Rubber  Manufacturers'  Associa- 
tion petitioned  that  this  reference  be  changed 
because  the  publications  have  become  outdated 
in  terms  of  tlie  rim  infonnation  they  provide. 
This  amendment,  which  adopts  the  pi"oposed 
rule  of  July  10,  1974,  in  essentially  the  form 
proposed,  deletes  the  references  to  the  1967  and 
earlier  publications  and  substitutes  for  them  the 
publications  of  the  various  associations  current 
at  the  time  of  tire  manufacture. 

Under  the  amendment,  a  "test  rim"  will  be 
any  rim  listed  for  use  with  a  tire  size  designation 
in  any  of  the  current  publications  of  the  xarious 
foreign  and  domestic  tire  and  rim  associations. 
The  listing  will  apply  to  all  tires  that  fit  the 
description  (by  tire  size  designation,  use  category, 
etc.)  unless  the  publication  itself  or  a  sei^arately 
published  manufacturer's  document  8tat«s  other- 
wise.    A  manufacturer   wishing  to  except  any 


tire  manufactured  by  him  from  any  listing  would 
be  expected  to  I'equest  the  association  to  publish 
the  exception  in  its  publication.  If  it  does  not, 
the  manufacturer  must  himself  ]3ublish  the  ex- 
ception in  his  own  listing,  which  he  must  dis- 
tribute to  his  dealers,  this  agency,  and  to  any 
member  of  the  public  on  request.  The  language 
of  the  proposal  is  clarified,  and  a  conforming 
amendment  made  to  Standard  No.  119  to  show 
that  an  exception  must  be  published  in  each 
association  publication  listing  the  tire  and  rim 
combination.  The  amendment  further  specifies 
that  a  "listing"  of  a  rim  must  contain  dimen- 
sional specifications,  including  diagi-ams,  for  the 
rim.  This  is  necessary  to  provide  for  unifonnity 
of  rim  dimensions  and  reflects  the  present  prac- 
tice of  association  publications  of  publishing 
such  dimensional  specifications.  However,  di- 
mensional specifications  or  a  diagram  of  a  rim 
need  not  be  included  in  manufacturers'  separate 
listings  if  the  specifications  and  diagram  for  the 
rim  api^ear  in  each  association  publication  where 
it  is  listed. 

By  referencing  the  current  publications,  the 
amendment  ends  the  need  for  Appendix  "A"  of 
Standard  No.  110,  which  lists  tire/rim  combina- 
tions approved  for  use  subsequent  to  the  1967 
and  earlier  associations  publications.  The  asso- 
ciations and  various  manufacturer  should  ascer- 
tain that  all  tire/rim  combinations  presently 
listed  in  that  Appendix  are  incorjwrated  into  at 
least  one  of  their  respective  publications  before 
the  effective  date  of  this  amendment.  Moi-eover, 
the  addition  of  new  tire/rim  combinations  sub- 
sequent to  the  effective  date  becomes  the  sole 
resix)nsibility  of  the  industry.  Appendix  "A" 
of  Standard  No.  109,  listing  tire  size  designa- 
tions, is  not  affected  by  this  amendment. 


PART  571;  S  109— PRE  37 


Effective:   August   5,    1975 


An  eifect  of  the  amended  definition  of  test  rim 
is  to  clarify  this  agency's  position  that  each  tire 
must  be  able  to  pass  each  performance  require- 
ment (except  that  for  pliysical  dimensions)  of 
Standard  No.  109  with  any  rim  witli  which  it  is 
listed,  regardless  of  rim  width,  unless  that  tire 
is  specifically  excepted  from  each  listing  where 
it  appears.  The  requirements  for  pliysioal  di- 
mensions must  be  met  only  on  a  test  rim  of  tlie 
width  specified  for  the  tire  size  designation  in 
Standard  No.  109.  A  tire  failing  the  require- 
ments on  any  test  rim  would  be  considered  as 
having  failed  the  requirements  on  all  test  rims. 
This  continues  existing  NHTSA  enforcement 
policy. 

One  of  the  two  comments  received  regarding 
the  proposal  objected  to  this  aspect  of  the  amend- 
ment, ai'guing  that  some  manufacturer  have 
traditionally  certified  conformity  on  the  biisis  of 
test  results  using  only  the  test  rims  of  the  speci- 
fied test  rim  width  and  that  no  ?a.fety  problems 
had  l)een  encountered.  The  NHTSA  believes, 
however,  that  the  interest  of  safety  demands  that 
manufacturers  ensure  that  tires  certified  as  con- 
forming to  Standard  No.  109  will  confonn  to 
the  standard's  requirements  on  any  rim  which 
the  manufacturer  lists  for  use.  with  the  tire  and 
with  which  the  tii-e  may  consequently  be  used  in 
service.  This  iX)sition  has  been  reflected  in  the 
guidelines  for  the  additions  of  new  tire/rim 
combinations  to  the  Ai^pendix  of  Standard  No. 


110,  which  ha\'e  required  that  the  manufacturer 
demonstrate  conformity  to  Standard  No.  109  on 
each  newly  requested  rim.  If  a  manufacturer 
doubts  the  ability  of  his  tires  to  conform  to  the 
standard  on  certain  recommended  rims,  he  has 
the  option  of  excepting  his  tires  from  being  used 
with  those  rims.  No  other  objections  to  the  pro- 
posed rule  were  received. 

In  light  of  the  above,  amendments  are  made 
to  49  CFR  §§  571.109,  571.110,  and  .571.119  .... 

E-jfectii'e  date:  August  5,  1975  for  Standard 
No.  109  and  110;  ]\Iarch  1,  1975,  for  Standard 
No.  119.  The  amendment  to  Standard  No.  119 
is  of  a  clarifying  na;ture,  and  should  be  made 
etTecti\-e  with  the  existing  effective  date  of  tha/t 
standard.  The  amendment  does  not  require,  sub- 
stantial leadtime  for  conformity,  and  it  is  found 
for  good  cause  shown  that  an  effective  date  less 
than  180  days  fixjm  publication  is  in  the  public 
interest. 

(Sees.  103,  119,  201,  202,  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80 
Stat.  718;  15  U.S.C.  §§1392,  1407,  1421,  1422; 
delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51.) 

Issued  on  January  31,  1975. 

James   B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

40  F.R.  5529 
February  6,  1975 


PART  571;  S  109— PRE  38 


Effective:   January    1,    1968 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.    109 
New  Pneumatic  Tires — Passenger  Cars 


51.  Scope.  [This  standard  specifies  tire  di- 
mensions and  laboratory  test,  requirements  for 
bead  unseating  resistance,  strengtli,  endurance, 
and  high  speed  performance;  defines  tire  load 
ratings;  and  specifies  labeling  requirements  for 
passenger  oar  tires.  (37  F.R.  16604 — August  17, 
1972.    Effective:  10/1/72)] 

52.  Application.  [This  standard  applies  to 
new  pneumatic  tires  for  use  on  passenger  cars 
manufactured  after  1948.  However,  it  does  not 
apply  to  any  tire  which  has  been  altered  so  as 
to  render  impossible  its  use,  or  its  repair  for  use, 
as  motor  vehicle  equipment.  (37  F.R.  16604 — 
August  17,  1972.     Effective:  10/1/72)] 

53.  Definitions. 

"Bead"  means  that  part  of  the  tire  made  of 
steel  wires,  wrapped  or  i-einforced  by  ply  cords, 
that  is  shaped  to  fit  the  rim. 

"Bead  separation"  means  a  breakdown  of  bond 
between  components  in  the  bead  area. 

"Bias  ply  tire"  means  a  pneumatic  tire  in 
which  the  ply  cords  that  extend  to  the  beads  are 
laid  at  alternate  angles  substantially  less  than 
90°  to  the  centerline  of  the  tread. 

"Carcass"  means  the  tire  structure,  except 
tread  and  sidewall  rubber. 

["Chunking"  means  the  breaking  away  of 
pieces  of  the  tread  or  sidewall.  (38  F.R.  27050 — 
September  28,  1973.    Effective:  3/29/74)] 

"Cord"  means  the  strands  forming  the  plies 
in  the  tire. 

"Cord  separation"  means  cord  parting  away 
from  adjacent  rubber  compounds. 

["Cracking"  means  any  parting  within  the 
tread,  sidewall,  or  innerliner  of  the  tire  extend- 
ing to  cord  material.  (38  F.R.  27050 — Septem- 
ber 28, 1973.    Effective:  3/29/74)] 

"Groove"  means  the  space  between  two  ad- 
jacent tread  ribs. 


["Innerliner"  means  the  layer (s)  forming  the 
inside  surface  of  a  tubeless  tire  that  contains  the 
inflating  medium  within  the  tire. 

"Innerliner  separation"  means  the  parting  of 
the  innerliner  from  cord  material  in  the  carcass. 
(39  F.R.  11423— March  28,  1974.  Effective: 
3/29/74)] 

"Load  rating"  means  the  maximum  load  a  tire 
IS  rated  to  carry  for  a  given  inflation  pressure. 

"Maximum  permissible  inflation  pressure" 
means  the  maximum  cold  inflation  pressure  to 
which  a  tire  may  be  inflated. 

"Maximum  load  rating"  means  the  load  rating 
at  the  maximum  permissible  inflation  pressure 
for  that  tire. 

["Open  splice"  means  any  parting  at  any 
junction  of  tread,  sidewall,  or  innerliner  that 
extends  to  cord  material.  (38  F.R.  27050— 
September  28,  1973.     Effective:  3/29/74)] 

"Overall  width"  means  the  linear  distance  be- 
tween the  exteriors  of  the  sidewalls  of  an  in- 
flated tire,  including  elevations  due  to  labeling, 
decorations,  or  protective  bands  or  ribs. 

"Ply"  means  a  layer  of  rubber-coated  parallel 
cords. 

"Ply  separation"  means  a  parting  of  rubber 
compound  between  adjacent  plies. 

"Pneumatic  tire"  means  a  mechanical  device 
made  of  rubber,  chemicals,  fabric  and  steel  or 
other  materials,  which,  when  mounted  on  an 
automotive  wheel,  provides  the  traction  and  con- 
tains the  gas  or  fluid  that  sustains  the  load. 

"Radial  ply  tire"  means  a  pneumatic  tire  in 
which  the  ply  cords  which  extend  to  the  beads 
are  laid  at  substantially  90°  to  the  centerline  of 
the  tread. 

"Rim"  means  a  metal  support  for  a  tire  or  a 
tire  and  tube  assembly  upon  which  the  tire  beads 
are  seated. 


(Reissued  8/7/74) 


PART  571;  S  109-1 


Effective:   January    1,    1968 


"Section  width"  means  the  linear  distance  be- 
tween the  exteriors  of  the  sidewalls  of  an  in- 
flated tire,  excluding  elevations  due  to  labeling, 
decoration,  or  protective  bands. 

"Sidewall"  means  that  portion  of  a  tire  be- 
tween the  tread  and  the  bead. 

["Sidewall  separation"  means  the  parting  of 
the  rubber  compound  from  the  cord  material  in 
the  sidewall.  (38  F.E.  27050— September  28, 
1973.    Effective:  3/29/74)] 

"Size  factor"  means  the  sum  of  the  section 
width  and  the  outer  diameter  of  a  tire  determined 
on  the  test  rim. 

["Test  rim"  means,  with  reference  to  a  tire 
to  be  tested,  a.ny  rim  that  is  listed  as  appix)priate 
for  use  with  that  tire  in  accordance  with  S4.4. 
For  purposes  of  this  section  and  section  571.110 
of  this  chapter,  each  rim  listing  shall  include 
dimensional  specifications  and  a  diagram  of  tlie 
rim.  (40  F.E.  5529— February  6,  1975.  Effec- 
tive: 8/5/75)] 

"Tread"  means  that  portion  of  a  tire  that 
comes  into  contact  with  the  road. 

"Tread  rib"  means  a  tread  section  running 
circumferentially  around  a  tire. 

"Tread  separation"  means  pulling  away  of  the 
tread  from  the  tire  carcass. 

S4.   Requirements. 

54.1  Size  and  Construction.  Each  tire  shall 
be  designed  to  fit  each  rim  specified  for  its  size 
designation  in  each  reference  cited  in  the  defini- 
tion of  "test  rim"  in  S.3. 

54.2  Performance   requirements. 

S4.2.1  General.  [Each  tire  shall  conform  to 
each  of  the  following:  (37  F.R.  16604— August 
17,  1972.     Effective:  10/1/72)] 

(a)  It  shall  meet  the  requirements  specified 
in  S4.2.2  for  its  tire  size  designation,  type,  and 
maximum  permissible  inflation  pressure. 

(b)  Its  maximum  permissible  inflation  pres- 
sure shall  be  either  32,  36,  or  40  p.s.i. 

(c)  Its  load  rating  shall  be  that  specified  in 
Table  I  for  its  size  designation,  type,  and  each 
appropriate  inflation  pressure. 

(d)  If  manufactured  on  or  after  August  1, 
1968,  it  shall  incorporate  a  tread  wear  indicator 
that  will  provide  a  visual  indication  tiiat  the 
tire  has  worn  to  a  tread  depth  of  i/ie  inch. 


[(e)  It  shall,  before  being  subjected  to  either 
the  endurance  test  jirocedure  specified  in  S5.4  or 
the  high  speed  performance  test  procedure  speci- 
fied in  S5.5,  exhibit  no  visual  evidence  of  tread, 
sidewall,  ply,  cord,  innerliner,  or  bead  separa- 
tion, chunking,  broken  cords,  cracking  or  open 
splices.  (38  F.R.  27050— September  28,  1973. 
Effective :  3/29/74)] 

S4.2.2   Test  requirements. 

54.2.2.1  Test  sample.  For  each  test  sample 
use — 

(a)  One  tire  for  physical  dimensions,  resist- 
ance to  bead  unseating,  and  strength,  in  se- 
quence ; 

(b)  Another  tire  for  tire  endurance;  and 

(c)  A  third  tire  for  high-speed  performance. 

54.2.2.2  Physical  Dimensions.  Each  tire,  when 
measured  in  accordance  with  S5.1,  shall  conform 
to  each  of  the  following : 

(a)  Its  actual  section  width  and  overall  width 
shall  not  exceed  by  more  than  7  percent  the  sec- 
tion width  specified  in  Table  I  for  its  size  desig- 
nation and  type;  and 

(b)  Its  size  factor  shall  be  at  least  as  large  as 
that  specified  in  Table  I  for  its  size  designation 
and  type. 

54.2.2.3  Tubeless  tire  resistance  to  bead  un- 
seating. When  tested  in  accordance  with  S5.2, 
the  applied  force  required  to  unseat  the  tire  bead 
at  the  point  of  contact  shall  not  be  less  than : 

(a)  1500  pounds  for  tires  with  a  designated 
section  width  of  less  than  six  (6)  inches; 

(b)  2000  pounds  for  tires  with  a  designated 
section  width  of  six  (6)  inches  or  more,  but  less 
than  eight  (8)  inches; 

(c)  2500  pounds  for  tires  with  a  designated 
section  width  of  eight  (8)  inches  or  more,  using 
the  section  width  specified  in  Table  I  for  the 
applicable  tire  size  designation  and  type. 

54.2.2.4  Tire  strength.  Each  tire  shall  meet 
the  requirements  for  minimum  breaking  energy 
specified  in  Table  II  when  tested  in  accordance 
with  S5.3. 

54.2.2.5  Tire  endurance.  [When  the  tire  has 
been  subjected  to  the  laboratory  endurance  test 
sfjecified  in  S5.4,  using  a  test  rim  that  undergoes 
no   permanent  deformation   and   allows   no   loss 


(Rev.    1/31/75) 


PART  571;  S  109-2 


Effective:   January    1,    1968 


of  air  through  the  portion  that  it  comprises  of 
the  tire-rim  pressure  chamber: 

(a)  There  shall  be  no  visual  evidence  of  tread, 
sidewall,  ply,  cord,  innerliner,  or  bead  separation, 
chunking,  broken  cords,  cracking,  or  open  splices. 

(b)  The  tire  pressure  at  the  end  of  the  test 
shall  be  not  less  than  the  initial  pressure  speci- 
fied in  S5.4.1.1.  (38  F.R.  27050— September  28, 
1973.    Effective:  3/29/74)] 

S4.2.2.6  High  speed  performance,  f\^'^^en  the 
tire  has  been  subjected  to  the  laboratory  high 
speed  performance  test  specified  in  S5.5,  using  a 
test  rim  that  undergoes  no  permanent  deforma- 
tion and  allows  no  loss  of  air  through  the  portion 
that  it  comprises  of  the  tire-rim  pressure  cham- 
ber, the  tire  shall  meet  the  requirements  set  forth 
in  S4.2.2.5(a)  and  (b).  (38  F.R.  27050— 
September  28,  1973.     Effective:  3/29/74)] 

S4.3  Labeling  requirements.  [Except  as  pro- 
vided in  S4.3.1  and  S4.3.2,  each  tire  shall  have 
permanently  molded  into  or  onto  both  sidewalls, 
in  letters  and  numerals  not  less  than  0.078  inches 
high,  the  information  shown  below  in  (a)  through 

(g):  .  , 

(a)  One  size  designation,  except  that  equiv- 
alent inch  and  metric  size  designations  may  be 
used ; 

(b)  Maximum  permissible  inflation  pressure; 

(c)  Maximum  load  rating; 

(d)  The  generic  name  of  each  cord  material 
used  in  the  plies  (both  sidewall  and  tread  area) 
of  the  tire; 

(e)  Actual  number  of  plies  in  the  sidewall, 
and  the  actual  number  of  plie^  in  the  tread  area 
if  different; 

(f)  The  words  "tubeless"  or  "tube  type"  as 
applicable;  and 

(g)  The  word  "radial"  if  the  tire  is  a  radial 
ply  tire. 

54.3.1  Each  tire  shall  be  labeled  with  the  sym- 
bol DOT  in  the  manner  specified  in  Part  574  of 
this  chapter,  which  shall  constitute  a  certification 
that  the  tire  conforms  to  applicable  Federal 
motor  vehicle  safety  standards. 

54.3.2  Each  tire  shall  be  labeled  with  the  name 
of  the  manufacturer,  or  brand  name  and  number 
assigned  to  the  manufacturer  in  the  manner  speci- 
fied in  Part  574.  (35  F.R.  16735— October  29, 
1970.    Effective:  12/1/70)] 


[S4.3.3  Each  tire  manufactured  between 
March  1,  1971,  and  May  22,  1971,  shall  either — 

(a)  Comply  with  S4.3(d)(2)  and  S4.3(i)  (as 
effective  until  May  22,  1971) ;  or 

(b)  Be  labeled  with  the  tire  identification 
number  required  by  Part  574.5  of  this  chapter 
and  comply  with  S4.3.1  and  S4.3.2  (as  effective  on 
and  after  May  22,  1971).  (36  F.R.  4290— March 
4,  1971.    Effective:  3/4/71)] 

[S4.4  Tire  and  rim  matching  information. 

54.4.1  Each  manufacturer  of  tires  shall  ensure 
that  a  listing  of  the  rims  that  may  be  used  with 
each  tire  that  he  produces  is  provided  to  the 
public.  A  listing  compiled  in  accordance  with 
paragraph  (a)  of  this  section  need  not  include 
dimensional  specifications  or  diagram  of  a  rim 
if  the  rim's  dimensional  specifications  and  dia- 
gram are  contained  in  each  listing  published  in 
accordance  with  paragraph  (b).  The  listing 
shall  be  in  one  of  the  following  forms: 

(a)  Listed  by  manufacturer  name  or  brand 
name  in  a  document  furnished  to  dealers  of  the 
manufacturers  tires,  to  any  person  upon  request, 
and  in  duplicate  to:  Tire  Di\asion,  National 
Highway  Traffic  Safety  Administration,  400 
Seventh  Street,  S.W.,  Washington,  D.C.  20590; 
or 

(b)  Contained  in  publications,  current  at  the 
date  of  manufacture  of  the  tire  or  any  later  date, 
of  at  least  one  of  the  following  organizations : 

The  Tire  and  Rim  Association. 

The    European    Tyre    and    Rim    Technical 

Organisation. 

eTapanese  Industrial  Standards. 

Deutsche  Industrie  Norm. 

The    Society    of    Motor    Manufacturers    & 

Traders,  L/td. 

British  Standards  Institution 

Scandinavian  Tire  and  Rim  Organisation. 

54.4.2  Information  contained  in  any  publica- 
tion specified  in  S4.4.1(b)  which  lists  general 
categories  of  tires  and  rims  by  size  designation, 
type  of  construction  and/or  intended  use,  shall 
be  considered  to  be  manufacturer's  information 
pursuant  to  S4.4.1  for  the  listed  tires  and  rims, 
unless  the  publication  itself  or  specified  infor- 
mation pro\'ided  according  to  S4.4.1(a)  indicates 
otherwise.  (40  F.R.  5529— February  6,  1975. 
Effective:  8/5/75)] 


(Rev.    1/31/75) 


PART  571;  S  109-3 


231-088   O  -  77  -  30 


Effective:   Jonuory    1,    1968 


S5.   Test  procedures. 

55.1  Physical  Dimensions.  Determine  tire 
physical  dimensions  under  uniform  ambient  con- 
ditions as  follows: 

(a)  [Mount  the  tire  on  a  test  rim  having  the 
test  rim  width  specified  in  Appendix  A  of  this 
section  for  that  tire  size  designation  and  inflate 
it  to  the  applicable  pressure  specified  in  Table 
III.  (40  F.R.  5529— February  6,  1975.  Effec- 
tive: 8/5/75)] 

(b)  Condition  it  at  ambient  room  temperature 
for  at  least  24  hours. 

(c)  Readjust  pressure  to  that  specified  in  (a). 

(d)  Caliper  the  section  width  and  overall 
width  at  six  points  approximately  equally  spaced 
around  the  tire  circumference. 

(e)  Record  the  average  of  these  measurements 
as  the  section  width  and  overall  width,  respec- 
tively. 

(f)  Determine  tire  outer  diameter  by  meas- 
uring the  maximum  circumference  of  the  tire 
and  dividing  this  dimension  by  pi  (3.14). 

55.2  Tubeless  tire  bead  unseating  resistance. 


4k 


Pivot  on  Centerline 


-"A" 


(Beam  Horizontal i 
{  Beam 


<^B 


-18.3- 


WHEEL  SIZE 

DIM.  "A" 

17 

12.0 

16 

11.5 

15 

11.0 

14 

10.5 

13 

10.0 

12 

9.5 

11 

9.0 

10 

8.5 

1.0  R 


SECTION  A-A 


FIGURE  1  -  Bead  Unseating  Fixture  Dimensions  in  incties 


MATER lAt.  Cast  Aluminum   355 
T-  b  Condition 
Finisti  -50  Micro  Incti 

FIGURE  2  -  Diagram  ol  Bead  Unsealing  Block  Dimensions  in  Incties 


55.2.1  Preparation  of  tire-wheel  assembly. 

55.2.1.1  Wash  the  tire,  dry  it  at  the  beads,  and 
mount  it  without  lubrication  or  adhesives  on  a 
clean,  painted  test  rim. 

55.2.1.2  Inflate  it  to  the  applicable  pressure 
specified  in  Table  III  at  ambient  room  tempera- 
ture. 

55.2.1 .3  Mount  the  wheel  and  tire  in  the  fixture 
shown  in  Figure  1,  and  force  the  standard  block 
shown  in  Figure  2  against  the  tire  sidewall  as 
required  by  the  geometry  of  the  fixture. 

55.2.2  Test  procedure. 

55.2.2.1  Apply  a  '.oad  through  the  block  to 
the  tire  outer  sidewall  at  the  distance  specified 
in  Figure  1  for  the  applicable  wheel  size  at  a 
rate  of  2  inches  per  minute,  with  the  load  arm 
substantially  parallel  to  the  tire  and  rim  as- 
sembly at  the  time  of  engagement. 

55.2.2.2  Increase  the  load  until  the  bead  un- 
seats or  the  applicable  ^^alue  specified  in  S4.2.2.3 
is  reached. 


(Reissued   8/7/74) 


PART  571:  S  109^ 


S5.2.2.3  Repeat  the  test  at  least  four  places 
equally  spaced  around  the  tire  circumference. 

S5.3   Tire  strength. 

55.3.1  Preparation  of  tire. 

55.3.1.1  Mount  the  tire  on  a  test  rim  and  in- 
flate it  to  the  applicable  pressure  specified  in 
Table  III; 

55.3.1.2  Condition  it  at  room  temperature  for 
at  least  3  hours ;  and 

55.3.1.3  Readjust  its  pressure  to  that  specified 
in  S5.3.1.1. 

55.3.2  Test  procedure. 

55.3.2.1  Force  a  3^-inch  diameter  cylindricsal 
steel  i^lunger  with  a  hemispherical  end  perpen- 
dicularly into  the  tread  rib  as  near  to  the  center- 
line  as  possible,  avoiding  penetration  into  the 
tread  groove,  at  the  rate  of  2  inches  per  minute. 

55.3.2.2  Record  the  force  and  penetration  at 
five  test  points  equally  spaced  around  the  cir- 
cumference of  the  tire.  If  the  tire  fails  to  break 
before  the  plunger  is  stopped  by  reaching  the 
rim,  record  the  force  and  penetration  as  the  rim 
is  reached  and  use  these  values  in  S5.3.2.3. 

55.3.2.3  Compute  the  breaking  energy  for  each 
test  point  by  means  of  the  following  formula : 

FxP 


W= 


where 
AV  =  Energy,  inch-pounds; 
F  =  Force,  pounds;  and 
P  =  Penetration,  inches. 

S5.3.2.4  Determine  the  breaking  energy  value 
for  the  tire  by  computing  the  average  of  the  five 
values  obtained  in  accordance  with  S5.3.2.3. 

S5.4  Tire  endurance. 

55.4.1  Preparation  of  tire. 

55.4.1.1  Mount  a  new  tire  on  a  test  rim  and 
inflate  it  to  the  applicable  pressure  specified  in 
Table  III. 

55.4.1.2  Condition  the  tire  assembly  to  100± 
5°F.  for  at  least  three  hours. 

55.4.1.3  Readjust  tire  pressure  to  that  speci- 
fied in  S5.4.1.1  immediately  before  testing. 

55.4.2  Test  procedure. 


Effective:   January    1,    1968 

55.4.2.1  Mount  the  tire  and  wheel  assembly  on 
a  test  axle  and  press  it  against  a  flat-faced  steel 
test  wheel  G7.23  inches  in  diameter  and  at  least 
as  wide  as  the  section  width  of  the  tire  to  be 
tested  or  an  approved  equivalent  test  wheel,  with 
the  applicable  test  load  specified  in  Table  I  for 
the  tire's  size  designation,  type,  and  maximum 
permissible  inflation  pressure. 

55.4.2.2  During  the  test,  the  air  surrounding 
the  test  area  shall  be  100±5°F. 

55.4.2.3  Conduct  the  test  at  50  miles  per  hour 
in  accordance  with  the  following  schedule  with- 
out pressure  adjustment  or  other  interruptions: 

Maximum   Permissible  Load  from  Table  I 

Inflation  j„r  for  for 

Pressure    (psi)  4   hrs.  6   hrs.  2k   hrs. 

32 24  lh/in=  28  lb/in'  32  lb/in' 

column  column  column 

36 28  lb/in=  32  lb/in'  36  lb/in' 

column  column  column 

40 32  lb/in'  36  lb/in=  40  lb/in' 

column  column  column 

55.4.2.4  [Immediately  after  running  the  tire 
the  required  time,  measure  its  inflation  pressure. 
Allow  the  tire  to  cool  for  one  hour.  Then  deflate 
the  tire,  remove  it  from  the  test  rim,  and  inspect 
it  for  the  conditions  specified  in  S4.2.2.5(a). 
(39  F.R.  11423— March  28,  1974.  Effective: 
3/29/74)] 

S5.5   High  speed  performance. 

S5.5.1  After  preparing  the  tire  in  accordance 
with  S5.4.1,  mount  the  tire  and  wheel  assembly 
in  accordance  with  S5.4.2.1,  and  press  it  against 
the  test  wheel  with  the  load  specified  in  Table  I 
for  the  tire's  size  designation  and  the  applicable 
pressure  specified  in  Column  B  of  the  following 
table : 


Maximum   Permissible 
Inflation  Pressure    (psi) 


B 
Load  from  Table  I 


32 
36 
40 


24  lb/in'  column 
28  lb/in'  column 
32  Ib/in^  column 


S5.5.2  Break  in  the  tire  by  running  it  for  2 
hours  at  50  mph. 


(Reissued  8/7/74) 


PART  571;  S  109-5 


EfFecfive:   March   29,    1974 


55.5.3  Allow  it  to  cool  to  100rt5°F  and  re- 
adjust the  inflation  pressure  to  the  applicable 
pressure  specified  in  Table  III. 

55.5.4  [Witliout  readjustinfi-  inflation  jiressure, 
test  at  75  mph  for  30  minutes,  80  mph  for  30 
minutes,  and  85  mph  for  30  minutes.  (35  F.E. 
11241— July  14,  1970.    Effective:  1/1/71)] 

55.5.5  [Immediately  after  running  the  tire  the 
required  time,  measure  its  inflation  pressure. 
Allow  the  tire  to  cool  for  one  hour.  Then  deflate 
the  tire,  remove  it  from  the  test  rim,  and  inspect 
it    for    the   conditions    specified    in    S4.2.2.5(a). 


(39    F.R.    11423— March    28,    1974. 

3/29/74)] 


Eifective : 


[S6.  Nonconforming  fires.  No  tire  of  a  type 
and  size  designation  specified  in  Table  I  of  Ap- 
pendix A  that  is  designed  for  use  on  passenger 
cars  and  manufactured  on  or  after  October  1, 
1972,  but  does  not  conform  to  all  the  require- 
ments of  this  standard,  shall  be  sold,  offered  for 
sale,  introduced  or  delivered  for  introduction  in 
interstate  commerce,  or  imported  into  the 
United  States,  for  any  purpose.  (37  F.R. 
16604— August   17,   1972.     Effective:   10/1/72)] 


(Reissued  8/7/74) 


PART  571;  S  109-6 


Effective:   March   29,    1974 


APPENDIX 


Table  II — Minimum  Brealving  Energy  Values 
(Incli-Pounds) 

Table  II-A — For  Bias  Ply  Tires 

With  Size  Designation  of  6.00  (or  155  Millimeters) 

and  Above  and  70  Series  Tires 

Maximum  Permissible  Inflation  Pressure 


Cord  Material 


J  2  Ih/in' 


se  lb/ in' 


iO  lb /in' 


Rayon 
Nylon  or 
Polyester 


1650  in.-lbs.     2574  in.-lbs.     3300  in.-lbs. 
2600  in.-lbs.     3900  in.-lbs.     5200  in.-lbs. 


Table  II-B— For  Bias  Ply  Tires 

With  Size  Designation  Below  6.00  Inches 

(or  1.55  Millimeters) 


Cord  Material 


Rayon 
Nylon  or 
Polyester 


Maximum  Permissible  Inflation  Pressure 


32  lb /in' 


se  lb/in' 


iO  lb /in' 


1000  in.-lbs.     1875  in.-lbs.     2500  in.-lbs. 
1950  in.-lbs.     2925  in.-lbs.     3900  in.-lbs. 


Table  II-C— For  Radial  Ply  Tires 


Maximum  Permissible  Inflation  Pressure 


Size  Designation 


S2  lb/in' 


S6  lb/in' 


iO  lb/in' 


Below  160 

Millimeters         19.50  in.-lbs.     2925  in.-lbs.     3900  in.-lbs. 

160  Millimeters 

or  above  2600  in.-lbs.     3900  in.-lbs.     5200  in.-lbs. 


Table  III — Test  Inflation  Pressures 


Maximum  permissible  inflation  pressure 
(in  psi) 


SB        se 


iO 


Pressure  (in  psi)  to  be  used  in 
tests  for  physical  dimensions, 
bead  unseating,  tire  strength, 
and  tire  endurance 

Pressure  ( in  psi )  to  be  used  in  test 
for   high-speed    performance 


24 
30 


28 
34 


32 
38 


(Reissued   8/7/741 


PAKT  571;  S  109-7 


« 


♦ 


Effactiv*:   Novcmbar  5,    196S 


APPENDIX  A 

GUIDELINES  FOR  ABBREVIATED  RULEMAKING  PROCEDURE  FOR  ADDING  TIRE  SIZES 

TO  STANDARD  NO.   109 


Tables  I-A  through  I-J  of  Standard  No.  109, 
as  amended  (33  F.R.  5946-5949)  are  deleted  and 
in  their  places  the  following  is  inserted: 

The  following  tables  list  tire  sizes  and  tire 
constructions  with  proper  load  and  inflation 
values.  The  tables  group  tires  of  related  con- 
struction and  load/inflation  values.  Persons  re- 
questing the  addition  of  new  tire  sizes  to  the 
tables  or  the  addition  of  tables  for  new  tire  con- 
struction may,  when  the  additions  requested  are 
compatible  with  existent  groupings,  or  when  ade- 
quate justification  for  new  tables  exists,  submit 
five  (5)  copies  of  information  and  data  support- 
ing the  request  to  the  Secretary  of  Transporta- 
tion, Attention:  Motor  Vehicle  Programs,  Na- 
tional Highway  Traffic  Safety  Administration, 
U.S.  Department  of  Transportation,  Washington, 
D.C.  20590. 

The  information  should  contain  but  not  be 
limited  to  the  following : 

(1)  The  tire  size  designation  and  whether  the 
tire  is  an  addition  to  a  category  of  tires  listed 
in  the  tables,  or  a  new  category  for  which  a  table 
has  not  been  developed. 

(2)  The  tire  dimensions,  including  aspect  ra- 
tio, size  factor,  section  width,  overall  width  and 
test  rim  size. 

(3)  The  load-inflation  schedule  of  the  tire. 

(4)  A  statement  as  to  whether  the  tire  size 
designation  and  load  inflation  schedule  has  been 


coordinated  with  an  organization  such  as  The 
Tire  and  Rim  Association,  The  European  Tyre 
and  Rim  Technical  Organization,  The  Society 
of  Manufacturers  and  Traders  Limited  and  the 
Japan  Automobile  Tire  Manufacturers  Associa- 
tion, whose  purpose  is  to  standardize  tire  and 
rim  sizes. 

(5)  Copies  of  test  data  sheets  showing  test 
conditions,  results  and  conclusions  obtained  for 
individual  tests  specified  in  FMVSS  No.  109. 

(6)  Justification  for  the  additional  tire  sizes. 

The  addition  of  new  size  tires  to  the  tables,  or 
the  addition  of  tables  for  new  tire  construction, 
is  accomplished  through  an  abbreviated  proce- 
dure consisting  of  the  publication  in  the  Federal 
Register  of  the  petitioned  tire  sizes  or  tables. 
If  no  comments  are  received,  the  amendment 
becomes  effective  after  30  days  from  the  date  of 
publication.  If  comments  objecting  to  amend- 
ment are  received,  additional  rule  making  pur- 
suant to  Part  353  of  the  Procedural  Rules  for 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standards  will  be  con- 
sidered. 

Amendments  to  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No. 
109  may  be  issued  by  the  Director  of  Motor 
Vehicle  Programs,  National  Highway  Traffic 
Safety  Administration. 

33  F.R.   14964 
October  5,   1968 


PART  571;  S  109A-PRE  1-2 


Efhcllvc:   Octobar   13,   1969 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  APPENDIX  A  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY 

STANDARD  NO.   109 

(Docket  No.  69-30;  Notice  No.   1) 


On  October  5,  1968,  the  Federal  Highway  Ad- 
ministration published  guidelines  in  the  Federal 
Register  (33  F.R.  14964)  by  which  routine  ad- 
ditions could  be  added  to  Appendix  A  of  Stand- 
ard No.  109  and  the  Appendix  A  of  Standard 
No.  110.  These  guidelines  provided  an  abbrevi- 
ated rule-making  procedure  for  adding  tire  sizes 
to  Standard  No.  109  and  alternative  rim  sizes  to 
Standard  No.  110,  whereby  the  addition  becomes 
effective  30  days  from  date  of  publication  in  the 
Federal  Register  if  no  objections  to  the  proposed 
additions  are  received.  If  comments  objecting 
to  the  amendment  warrant,  rule  making  pursuant 
to  the  rule  making  procedures  for  motor  vehicle 
safety  standards  (49  CFR  353)  will  be  followed. 

The  European  Tyre  and  Rim  Technical  Organ- 
isation has  petitioned  for  the  addition  of  the  new 
"Millimeter  70  Series"  radial  ply  tires  and  the 
new  "Low  Section"  radial  ply  tires  to  Table  I  of 
Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  109  and  the  appro- 
priate test  and  alternative  rims  to  Table  I  of 
Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  110.  Also,  the 
Toyota  Motor  Company,  Ltd.  has  petitioned  for 
the  addition  of  the  5-K  alternative  rim  size  for 
the  165R15  tire  size  designation  to  Table  1  of 
Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  110. 

On  the  basis  of  the  data  submitted  by  the 
European  Tyre  and  Rim  Technical  Organisation 
and  the  Toyota  Motor  Company,  Ltd.,  indicating 
compliance   with    the   requirements   of   Federal 


Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109  and  No. 
110  and  other  information  submitted  in  accord- 
ance with  the  procedural  guidelines  set  forth, 
Appendix  A  of  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  109  is  being  amended  and  Table  I 
of  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  110  is  being 
amended. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Section 
371.21  of  Part  371  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standards,  Appendix  A  of  Standards  No.  109 
(33  F.R.  14964)  and  Appendix  A  of  Standard 
No.  110  (34  F.R.  16102)  are  being  amended  as 
set  forth  below  eflFective  30  days  from  date  of 
publication  in  the  Federal  Register. 

These  amendments  are  issued  under  authority 
of  Sections  103  and  119  of  the  National  Traffic 
and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966  (15  USC 
1392,  1407),  and  delegation  from  the  Secretary 
of  Transportation  contained  in  §  1.4(c)  of  Part  1 
of  the  Regulations  of  the  Office  of  the  Secretary 
(49  CFR  1.4(c)),  and  the  delegation  from  the 
Federal  Highway  Administrator  of  October  5, 
1968  (33  F.R.  14964). 

H.  M.  Jacklin,  Jr. 
Acting  Director 

Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Performance  Service 

34  F.R.  14376 
Soptombor  13,  1969 


PART  571;  S  109A— PRE  3-4 


Effective:    June  3,  1971 


APPENDIX  A— FEDERAL  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   109 


The  following  tables  list  tire  sizes  and  tire 
constructions  with  proper  load  and  inflation 
values.  The  tables  group  tires  of  related  con- 
structions and  load/inflation  values.  Persons 
requesting  the  addition  of  new  tire  sizes  to  the 
tables  or  the  addition  of  tables  for  new  tire  con- 
structions may,  when  the  additions  requested  are 
compatible  with  existent  groupings,  or  when  ade- 
quate justification  for  new  tables  exists,  submit 
five  (5)  copies  of  information  and  data  support- 
ing the  request  to  the  Secretary  of  Transporta- 
tion, Attention:  Motor  Vehicle  Programs, 
National  Highway  Traffic  Safety  Administration, 
U.S.  Department  of  Transportation,  Washington, 
D.C.  20590. 

The  information  should  contain  the  following: 

1.  The  tire  size  designation,  and  a  statement 
that  the  tire  is  an  addition  to  a  category  for 
which  a  table  has  not  been  developed. 

2.  The  tire  dimensions,  including  aspect  ratio, 
size  factor,  section  width,  overall  width,  and  test 
rim  size. 

3.  The  load-inflation  schedule  of  the  tire. 

4.  A  statement  that  the  tire  size  designation 
and  load  inflation  schedule  has  been  coordinated 


with  the  Tire  and  Rim  Association,  the  European 
Tyre  and  Rim  Technical  Organisation,  the  So- 
ciety of  Manufacturers  and  Traders  Limited,  the 
Japan  Automobile  Tire  Manufacturers  Associa- 
tion, the  Deutsche  Industrie  Norm  and  the  Scan- 
dinavian Tire  and  Rim  Organization. 

5.  Copies  of  test  data  sheets  showing  test  con- 
ditions, results  and  conclusions  obtained  for 
individual  tests  specified  in  Federal  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  109. 

6.  Justification  for  the  additional  tire  sizes. 

The  addition  of  new  size  tires  to  the  tables,  or 
the  addition  of  tables  for  new  tire  construction, 
is  accomplished  through  an  abbreviated  proce- 
dure consisting  of  publication  in  the  Federal 
Register  of  the  petitioned  tire  sizes  or  tables.  If 
no  comments  are  received,  the  amendment  be- 
comes effective  30  days  from  the  date  of  publica- 
tion. If  objections  to  the  amendment  are 
received,  additional  rulemaking  pursuant  to  Part 
553  of  the  procedural  rules  for  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standards  will  be  initiated. 

36  F.R.  8298 
May  4,  1971 


PART  571:  S  109A-PRE  5-6 


EffecHvo:  June  3,    1971 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  APPENDIX  A  MOTOR  VEHICLE 
SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   109 

New  Pneumatic  Tires — Passenger  Cars 

(Docket  No.  7T-9;  Notice  No.   1) 

On  October  5,  1968,  guidelines  were  published  The  European  Tyre  and  Elm  Technical  Or- 

in  the  Federal  Register  (33  F.R.  14969)  by  which  ganisation  has  also  petitioned  for  the  addition 

routine  additions  of  tire  and  rim  sizes  could  be  of  the  following  alternative  rims  to  Table  I — 

added  to  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  109  and  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  110. 

to   Appendix  A  of  Standard   No.   110.     Under  Alternative 

these  guidelines,  the  addition  becomes  effective  Tire  size  designation :                                           rim 

30  days  from  the  date  of  its  publication  in  the  175-13/6.95-13   5%-J. 

Federal  Register,  if  no  objections  to  the  proposed  oo^^r  14 ^u.~tc 

additions    are    received.      If    objections    to    the  ^05  R  15                                                    6V>-Ij 

amendment   are   received,   rulemaking   pursuant 

to  the  procedures  for  motor  vehicle  safety  stand-  ^^  addition  to  the  above,  the  following  errors 

ards  (49  CFR  Part  553)  are  followed.    Numer-  in  t^e  tables  have  been  brought  to  the  National 

ous  additions  to  Appendix  A  of  Standard  109  Highway  Traffic  Safety  Administration's  atten- 

and   Appendix   A  of   Standard   110   have  been  tion  and  are  hereby  corrected : 

made  under  these  procedures,  and  Appendix  A  (a)  Standard    No.    109 — Appendix    A — Table 

of  Standard  No.  109  and  Appendix  A  of  Stand-  I-B.    The  26-pound  inflation  pressure  maximum 

ard  No.  110  are  being  reissued  at  this  time  to  load    for    the    A70-13   tire   size   designation   is 

incorporate  all  the  changes  that  have  been  made  changed  to  read  "940". 

to  these  appendices  since  October  5,  1968.  (b)  Standard  No.  110— Appendix  A— Table  I. 

At  the  top  of  each  table  in  the  appendices  The  alternate  rim  "5i/^-J"  of  the  6.40-15  tire 

there  is  an  amendment  number  that  indicates  the  size  in  section  Table  I-C  is  corrected  to  read 

number  of  times   the  table  has  been   amended  "5i/^-JJ". 

since  its  original  issue,    mere  feasible,  a  brief  j^  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  §  571.21  of 

note  below  the  table  mdicates  the  substance  of  p^^^  57^^  ^^^^^.^1  j^j^t^^.  y^-^^^^^  g^f^^     g^^^^. 

the  change  bemg  made.    This  procedure  will  be  ^^^^^  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  109  and  Ap- 

followed  in  future  amendments  to  the  tables.  ^^^^-^  ^  ^^  Standard  No.  110  are  amended  .  .  . 

In  addition  to  republishing  all  previous  addi-  effective  30  days  from  date  of  publication  in  the 

tions  to  the  tables,  new  tire  size  designations  and  Federal  Reoister. 
alternative    rims   are   hereby   added    to   various 

tables.    The  European  Tyre  and  Rim  Technical  I^^m^  on  April  16, 1971. 

Organisation  has  petitioned  for  the  addition  of  Rodolfo  A.  Diaz 

140  R  12  and  6.5-13  as  tire  size  designations  in  Acting  Associate  Administrator, 

Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  109,  and  has  re-  Motor  Vehicle  Programs 
quested  that  test  and  alternate  rim(s)  for  these 

tires  be  added  to  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  36  F.R.  8298 

110.  May  4,  1971 


PART  571 ;  S  109A-PRE  7-8 


♦ 


Efftclivc  July  2,    1971 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  APPENDIX  A  MOTOR  VEHICLE 
SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   109 

New  Pneumatic  Tires — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.  71-12;  Notice  No.   1) 


This  amendment  adds  certain  tire  sizes  and 
alternative  rim  sizes  to  the  passenger  car  tire 
standard  and  the  tire  selection  and  rim  standard. 

On  October  5,  1968,  guidelines  were  published 
in  the  Federal  Register  (33  F.R.  14964)  by  which 
routine  additions  could  be  added  to  Appendix  A, 
Standard  No.  109  and  to  Appendix  A,  Standard 
No.  110.  Under  these  guidelines,  the  addition 
becomes  effective  30  days  from  date  of  publica- 
tion in  the  Federal  Register,  if  no  objections  to 
the  proposed  additions  are  received.  If  objec- 
tions to  the  amendment  are  received,  rulemaking 
pursuant  to  the  procedures  for  motor  vehicle 
safety  standards  (49  CFR  553)  are  followed. 
All  changes  made  to  the  appendices  as  of  April 
16,  1971  were  reissued  and  incorporated  into  the 
tables  and  republished  in  the  Federal  Register 
of  May  4, 1971  ( 36  F.R.  8298 ) . 

The  Rubber  Manufacturers  Association  has 
petitioned  for  the  addition  of  the  new  AR78-13, 
CR78-13,  D78-13,  DR70-13,  BR78-14,  CR70-14, 
E60-14,  H60-14,  A78-15,  AR78-15,  and  HR60-15 
tire  size  designations  to  Table  I,  Appendix  A  of 
Standard  No.  109  and  the  appropriate  test  and 
alternative  rims  to  Table  I,  Appendix  A  of 
Standard  No.  110. 

The  Rubber  Manufacturers  Association  has 
also  petitioned  for  the  addition  of  the  6-JJ 
alternative  rim  size  for  the  JR70-15  and  LR70-15 
tire  size  designations;  the  8-JJ  alternative  rim 
size  for  the  FR60-15  and  GR60-15  tire  size 
designations  and  the  4-JJ  alternative  rim  size 


for  the  175R13  tire  size  designation  to  Table  I, 
Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  110. 

The  European  Tyre  and  Rim  Technical  Or- 
ganisation has  petitioned  for  the  addition  of  the 
8V2-L  and  8-K  alternative  rims  for  the  GP70-15 
tire  size  designation  to  Table  I,  Appendix  A  of 
Standard  No.  110. 

The  Ford  Motor  Company  has  petitioned  for 
the  addition  of  the  514-JJ  alternative  rim  size 
for  the  175R13  tire  size  designation  to  Table  I, 
Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  110. 

On  the  basis  of  the  data  submitted  by  the 
Rubber  Manufacturers  Association,  the  European 
Tyre  and  Rim  Technical  Organisation,  and  the 
Ford  Motor  Company  indicating  compliance 
with  the  requirements  of  Federal  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standards  No.  109  and  No.  110  and  other 
information  submitted  in  accordance  with  the 
procedural  guidelines  set  forth.  Table  I,  Ap- 
pendix A  of  Standard  No.  109  is  being  amended 
and  Table  I,  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  110 
is  being  amended. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  §  571.21  of 
Part  571  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Stand- 
ards, Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  109  and  Ap- 
pendix A  of  Standard  No.  110  are  amended  to 
read  as  set  forth  below,  effective  30  days  from 
date  of  publication  in  the  Federal  Register. 

Issued  on  May  24, 1971. 

Robert  L.  Carter 

Acting  Associate  Administrator 

Motor  Vehicle  Programs 


36  F.R.  10733 
June  2,  1971 


PART  571 ;  S  109A-PRE  9-10 


E«fKtiv«:   AugutI   21,    1971 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  APPENDIX  A  MOTOR  VEHICLE 

SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   109 

New  Pneumatic  Tires — Passenger  Cars 

(Docket  No.  71-16;  Notice  No.   1) 


This  amendment  adds  certain  tire  sizes  and 
alternative  rim  size  to  the  passenger  car  tire 
standard  and  the  tire  selection  and  rim  standard. 

On  October  5,  1968,  guidelines  were  published 
in  the  Federal  Register  (33  F.R.  14964)  by  which 
routine  additions  could  be  added  to  Appendix 
A,  Standard  No.  109  and  to  Appendix  A,  Stand- 
ard No.  110.  Under  these  guidelines,  the  addi- 
tion becomes  effective  30  days  from  date  of  pub- 
lication in  the  Federal  Register,  if  no  objections 
to  the  proposed  additions  are  received.  If  ob- 
jections to  the  amendment  are  received,  rule- 
making pursuant  to  the  procedures  for  motor 
vehicle  safety  standards  (49  CFR  553)  are  fol- 
lowed. All  changes  made  to  the  appendices  as 
of  April  16,  1971  were  reissued  and  incorporated 
into  the  tables  and  republished  in  the  Federal 
Register  of  May  4,  1971  (36  F.R.  8298). 

The  European  Tyre  and  Rim  Technical  Or- 
ganisation has  iJetitioned  for  the  following: 

(1)  The  addition  of  the  new  205/70  R14, 
215/70  R14,  225/70  R14,  195/70  R15,  205/70 
R15,  215/70  R15,  225/70  R15,  150  R12,  150  R14 
and  180  R15  tire  size  designations  to  Table  I, 
Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  109  and  the  ap- 
propriate test  and  alternative  rims  to  Table  I, 
Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  110. 

(2)  The  addition  of  the  5.50  B  altenative  rim 
for  the  165  R13  tire  size  designation  to  Table  I, 
Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  110. 

(3)  The  addition  of  the  16  psi  and  18  psi 
loads  to  Table  I-H,  Appendix  A  of  Standard 
No.  109. 


The  Rubber  Manufacturers  Association  has 
petitioned  for  the  addition  of  the  6-JJ  alterna- 
tive rim  size  for  the  DR  78-14  tire  size  designa- 
tion to  Table  I,  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No. 
110. 

On  the  basis  of  the  data  submitted  by  the 
European  Tyre  aand  Rim  Technical  Organisa- 
tion and  the  Rubber  Manufacturers  Association 
indicating  compliance  with  the  requirements  of 
Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standards  No.  109 
and  110  and  other  information  submitted  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  procedural  guidelines,  §  571.21 
of  Part  571  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standards,  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  109 
and  Apj^endix  A  of  Standard  No.  110  are 
amended  to  read  as  set  forth  below,  effective 
30  days  from  date  of  publication  in  the  Federal 
Register. 

In  addition,  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  109 
is  amended  in  order  to  make  it  clear  that  requests 
for  additional  tire  sizes  should  specify  whether 
the  tire  is  an  addition  to  a  category  of  tires 
listed  in  the  tables,  or  a  new  category  for  which 
a  table  has  not  been  developed. 

Issued  on  July  13, 1971. 

Robert  L.  Carter 

Acting  Associate  Administrator 

Motor  Vehicle  Programs 

36  F.R.   13601 
July  22,  1971 


PART  571;  S  109 A— PRE  11-12 


Effcdlvat  Auguit  29,   1971 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  APPENDIX  A  MOTOR  VEHICLE 
SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   109 
New  Pneumatic  Tires — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.   71-17;  Notice  No.   1) 


This  amendment  adds  certain  tire  sizes  and 
alternative  rim  size  to  the  passenger  car  tire 
standard  and  the  tire  selection  and  rim  standard. 

On  October  5,  1968,  guidelines  were  published 
in  the  Federal  Register  (33  F.R.  14964)  by  which 
routine  additions  could  be  added  to  Appendix  A, 
Standard  No.  109  and  to  Appendix  A,  Standard 
No.  110.  Under  these  guidelines,  the  addition 
becomes  effective  30  days  from  date  of  publica- 
tion in  the  Federal  Register^  if  no  objections  to 
the  proposed  additions  are  received.  If  objec- 
tions to  the  amendment  are  received,  rulemaking 
pursuant  to  the  procedures  for  motor  vehicle 
safety  standards  (49  CFR  553)  are  followed. 
All  changes  made  to  the  appendices  as  of  April 
16,  1971  were  reissued  and  incorporated  into  the 
tables  and  republished  in  the  Federal  Register 
on  May  4,  1971  (36  F.R.  8298). 

The  European  Tyre  and  Rim  Technical  Or- 
ganisation has  petitioned  for  the  addition  of  the 
7-K  alternative  rim  size  for  the  185/70  R15  tire 
size  designation  and  the  6-JJ  alternative  rim 
size  for  the  205/70  Rl4  tire  size  designation  to 
Table  I,  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  110. 

The  Rubber  Manufacturers  Association  has 
petitioned  for  the  addition  of  the  614-JJ  alter- 
native rim  size  for  the  G78-15  tire  size  designa- 
tion to  Table  I,  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No. 
110. 


The  Rubber  Manufacturers  Association  has 
petitioned  to  change  the  test  rim  from  7i/^-inch 
to  7-inch  for  the  J60-14,  J60-15  and  L60-15 
tire  size  designations  currently  listed  within  the 
Table  I-K,  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  109. 

Also,  the  Rubber  Manufacturers  Association 
has  petitioned  to  correct  the  section  width  and 
minimum  size  factor  measurements  for  the 
GR60-15  tire  size  designation  listed  within  Table 
I-R,  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  109. 

On  the  basis  of  the  data  submitted  by  the 
European  Tyre  and  Rim  Technical  Organisation 
and  the  Rubber  Manufacturers  Association  in- 
dicating compliance  with  the  requirements  of 
Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standards  No.  109 
and  110  and  other  information  submitted  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  procedural  guidelines,  §  571.21 
of  Part  571  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standards,  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  109 
and  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  110  are 
amended  as  set  forth  below,  effective  30  days 
from  date  of  publication  in  the  Federal  Register. 

Issued  on  July  22, 1971. 

Robert  L.  Carter 

Acting  Associate  Administrator 

Motor  Vehicle  Programs 

36  F.R.   14134 
July  30,    1971 


231-088   0-77-31 


PART  571;  S  109A— PRE  13-14 


Effective:   December   6,    1971 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR   VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   109 

Pneumatic  Tires — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.   71-20,   Notice   1) 


This  amendment  adds  certain  tire  sizes  and 
alternative  rim  sizes  to  the  passenger  car  tire 
standard  and  tire  selection  rim  standard. 

On  October  5,  1968,  guidelines  were  published 
in  the  Federal  Register  (33  F.K.  14964)  by  which 
routine  additions  could  be  added  to  Appendix  A, 
Standard  No.  109  and  to  Appendix  A,  Standard 
Xo.  110.  Under  these  guidelines,  the  addition 
becomes  effective  30  days  from  date  of  publica- 
tion in  the  Federal  Register^  if  no  objections  to 
the  proposed  additions  are  received.  If  objec- 
tions to  the  amendment  are  received,  rulemaking 
pursuant  to  the  procedures  for  motor  vehicle 
safety  standards  (49  CFR  Part  553)  are  followed. 

The  Rubber  Manufacturers  Association  has 
petitioned  for  the  following: 

(1)  The  addition  of  the  new  GR60-14  tire 
size  designation  to  Table  I,  Appendix  A  of 
Standard  No.  109  and  the  appropriate  test  and 
alternative  rims  to  Table  I,  Appendix  A  of 
Standard  No.  110. 

(2)  The  addition  of  the  following  alternative 
rims  to  Table  I,  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No. 
110: 

(a)  The  9-JJ  alternative  rim  size  for  the 
G60-15  tire  size  designations. 

(b)  The    5-JJ    and    6-JJ    alternative    rim 
sizes  for  the  FR78-14  tire  size  designation. 

(c)  The  8-JJ  alternative  rim  size  for  the 
F70-14  tire  size  designation. 

(d)  The  5-JJ  alternative  rim  size  for  the 
1)70-14  tire  size  designation. 

(e)  The  7-JJ  alternative  rim  size  for  the 
GR70-15  tire  size  designation. 

(f)  The  614-JJ  alternative  rim  size  for  the 
8.25-15  tire  size  designation. 


The  European  Tyre  and  Rim  Technical  Or- 
ganisation  has   petitioned   for  the   following: 

(1)  The  addition  of  the  new  230-15,  245/60 
R14  and  255/60  R15  tire  size  designations  to 
Table  I,  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  109  and 
the  appropriate  test  and  alternative  rims  to  Table 
I,  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  110. 

(2)  The  addition  of  the  following  alternative 
rims  to  Table  I,  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No. 
110: 

(a)  The   9-L   alternative  rim  size  for  the 
HR60-15  tire  size  designation. 

(b)  The  8K  and  Si^-L  alternative  rim  sizes 
for  the  225/70  R15  tire  size  designation. 

(c)  The  51/^- J  J  alternative  rim  size  for  the 
155  R13  tire  size  designation. 

On  the  basis  of  the  data  submitted  by  the 
European  Tyre  and  Rim  Technical  Organisation 
and  the  Rubber  Manufacturers  Association  in- 
dicating compliance  witli  the  requirements  of 
Federal  :Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standards  No.  109 
and  No.  110  and  other  information  submitted  in 
accordance  with  the  procedural  guidelines,  §  571.- 
21  of  Part  571  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standards,  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  109 
and  Appendix  A  of  Standard  110  are  amended 
to  read  as  set  fortli  below,  effective  30  days  from 
date  of  publication  in  the  Federal  Register. 

Issued  on  October  21,  1971. 

Robert  L.  Carter 

Acting  Associate  Administrator 

Motor  Vehicle  Programs 

36  F.R.  21355 
November  6,  1971 


PART  571;  S  109A— PRE  15-16 


Effecirv*  January  23,    1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  APPENDIX  A  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  109 

New  Pneumatic  Tires — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.   71-22;   Notice  No.   1) 


This  amendment  adds  certain  tire  sizes  and 
alternative  rim  sizes  to  the  passenger  car  tire 
standard   and   tire  selection   and   rim   standard. 

On  October  5,  1968,  guidelines  were  published 
in  the  Federal  Register  (33  F.R.  14964)  by 
which  routine  additions  could  be  added  to  Ap- 
pendix A,  Standard  No.  109  (§571.109)  and  to 
Appendix  A,  Standard  No.  110  (§571.110). 
Under  these  guidelines,  the  addition  becomes 
effective  30  days  from  date  of  publication  in  the 
Federal  Register,  if  no  objections  to  the  proposed 
additions  are  received.  If  objections  to  the 
amendment  are  received,  rulemaking  pursuant 
to  the  procedures  for  motor  vehicle  safety 
standards  (49  CFR  Part  553)  is  followed. 

The  Rubber  Manufacturers  Association  has 
petitioned  for  the  following: 

(1)  The  addition  of  the  new  AR70-18.  B60- 
13  and  BR60-13  tire  size  designations  to  Table  I, 
Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  109  and  the  ap- 
propriate test  and  alternative  rims  to  Table  I, 
Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  110. 

(2)  The  addition  of  the  following  alternative 
rim  sizes  to  Table  I,  Appendix  A  of  Standard 
No.  110: 

(a)  The  61/^- J  J  alternative  rim  size  for  the 
F78-15  tire  size  designation. 

(b)  The  6V2-JJ  alternative  rim  size  for  the 
7.75-15  tire  size  designation. 

The  European  Tyre  and  Rim  Technical  Orga- 
nisation has  petitioned  for  the  addition  of  the 
following  alternative  rim  sizes  to  Table  I,  Ap- 
pendix A  of  Standard  No.  110: 

(1)  The  5-JJ  alternative  rim  size  for  the 
145R13  tire  size  designation. 

(2)  The  4— J  J  alternative  rim  size  for  the 
150R13  tire  size  designation. 


(3)  The  61/^-JJ  alternative  rim  size  for  the 
185R14  tire  size  designation. 

(4)  The  61^-JJ  alternative  rim  size  for  the 
9.00-15  tire  size  designation. 

The  Ford  Motor  Company  has  petitioned  for 
tlie  addition  of  the  5i^-JJ  alternative  rim  size 
for  the  6.45-13/165-13  tire  size  designation  to 
Table  I,  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  110. 

The  Toyota  Motor  Company,  Ltd.,  has  peti- 
tioned for  the  addition  of  the  4-JJ  alternative 
rim  for  the  155R13  tire  size  designation  to  Table 
1,  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  110. 

On  the  basis  of  the  data  submitted  by  the 
European  Tyre  and  Rim  Technical  Organisation, 
the  Rubber  Manufacturers  Association,  the  Ford 
Motor  Company  and  Toyota  Motor  Company, 
Ltd.  indicating  compliance  with  the  requirements 
of  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standards  No. 
109  and  No.  110  and  other  information  submitted 
in  accordance  with  the  procedural  guidelines, 
§  571.109  and  §  571.110  of  Title  49,  Code  of  Fed- 
eral Regulations  are  amended,  effective  30  days 
from  date  of  publication  in  the  Federal  Register. 

(Sees.  103  and  119,  National  Traffic  and  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407; 
delegations  of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51  and 
501.8) 

Issued  on  December  15,  1971. 

Robert  L.  Carter 

Acting  Associate  Administrator 

Motor  Vehicle  Programs 

36  F.R.  24940 
December  24,   1971 


PART  571;  S  109A— PRE  17-18 


Effective:  September   1,    1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO 
APPENDIX  A  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   109 

New  Pneumatic  Tires — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.  72-18;  Notice   1) 


This  amendment  adds  certain  tire  sizes  and 
accompanying  values,  and  amends  values  for 
existing  tire  size  designations  in  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  109  (49  CFK  §571.109), 
and  adds  alternative  rim  sizes  and  test  rims  to 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  110  (49  CFR 
§571.110). 

On  October  5,  1968,  guidelines  were  published 
in  the  Federal  Register  (33  F.R.  14964)  by 
which  routine  additions  could  be  added  to  Ap- 
pendix A,  Standard  No.  109,  and  to  Appendix 
A,  Standard  No.  110.  Under  these  guidelines 
the  additions  become  effective  30  days  from  the 
date  of  publication  in  the  Federal  Register,  if 
no  objections  are  received.  If  objections  are  re- 
ceived, rulemaking  pursuant  to  the  procedures 
for  motor  vehicle  safety  standards  (49  CFR  553) 
is  followed. 

Beginning  in  January  1972,  the  NHTSA  in- 
augurated a  procedure  whereby  amendments  to 
the  tables  of  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  109 
and  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  110  would  be 
published  approximately  4  times  per  year:  on 


or  about  January  1,  April  1,  Julj'  1,  and  October 
1.  Amendments  to  the  tables  were  not  published 
April  1  or  July  1,  1972,  and  this  notice  publishes 
the  amendments  that  would  normally  have  been 
published  on  those  dates. 

Accordingly,  Appendix  A  of  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  109  (49  CFR  §571.109), 
and  Appendix  A  of  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Stand- 
ard No.  110  (49  CFR  §571.110),  are  amended, 
subject  to  the  thirty-day  provision  indicated 
above,  as  specified  below. 

This  notice  is  issued  under  the  authority  of 
sections  103,  119,  201,  and  202  of  the  National 
Traffic  and  ]Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  (15  USC 
1392,  1407,  1421,  1422)  and  the  delegations  of 
authority  at  49  CFR  1.51  and  49  CFR  501.8. 

Issued  on  July  27, 1972. 

Robert  L.  Carter 
Associate  Administrator  for 
Motor  Vehicle  Programs 

37  F.R.   15430 
August  2,  1972 


PART  571;  S  109A— PRE  19-20 


Effactiv*:  August  29,   1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO 
APPENDIX  A  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO. 


109 


New  Pneumatic  Tires,  Tire  Selection  and  Rims  for  Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.  72-18;  Notice  2) 


The  NHTSA  published  on  August  2,  1972  (37 
F.R.  15430),  additions  and  amendments  to  the 
tables  in  the  Appendices  of  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  109  (49  CFR  571.109)  and  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  110  (49  CFR  571.- 
110).  Guidelines  published  in  the  Federal  Reg- 
ister on  October  5,  1968  (33  F.R.  14964),  provide 
that  routine  additions  to  the  Tables  become  effec- 
tive 30  days  from  the  publication  date  if  no 
objections  are  received.  If  objections  are  re- 
ceived, rulemaking  pursuant  to  49  CFR  Part  553 
is  initiated. 

The  European  Tyre  and  Rim  Technical  Asso- 
ciation (E.T.A.T.O.)  has  raised  an  objection  to 
changes  made  by  the  August  2  publication  to 
load  values  in  Table  I-H  of  Standard  No.  109. 
Accordingly,  the  amendment  to  Table  I-H, 
Appendix  A,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard 
No.  109  (571.109),  published  August  2, 1972  (item 


3,  page  15430),  is  hereby  revoked.  Notice  of 
proposed  rulemaking  regarding  these  load  values 
will  be  issued.  The  other  amendments  issued  in 
the  i^ublication  of  August  2,  1972,  will  become 
effective  if  no  further  objections  are  received 
by  September  1,  1972. 

This  notice  is  issued  pursuant  to  sections  103, 
119,  201,  and  202  of  the  National  Traffic  and 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  (15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407, 
1421,  and  1422)  and  the  delegations  of  authority 
at  49  CFR  1.51,  49  CFR  501.8. 

Issued  on  August  29, 1972. 

Robert  L.  Carter 
Associate  Administrator 
Motor  Vehicle  Programs 

37  F.R.  17837 
September  1,  1972 


PART  571;  S  109A-PRE  21-22 


( 


Elhttlv*:  October   15,    1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO 
APPENDIX  A  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO. 


109 


New  Pneumatic  Tires,  Tire  Selection  and  Rims  for  Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.  72-21;  Notice  1) 


This  amendment  adds  certain  new  tire  size 
designations  and  accompanying  values  and 
amends  values  for  existing  tire  size  designations 
in  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109  (49 
CFR  §571.109),  and  adds  alternative  rim  sizes 
and  test  rims  to  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard 
No.  110  (49  CFR  §571.110). 

On  October  5,  1968,  guidelines  were  published 
in  the  Federal  Register  (33  F.R.  14964)  by  which 
routine  additions  could  be  added  to  Appendix  A, 
Standard  No.  109,  and  to  Appendix  A,  Standard 
No.  110.  Under  these  guidelines  the  additions 
become  effective  30  days  from  the  date  of  publica- 
tion in  the  Federal  Register,  if  no  objections  are 
received.  If  objections  are  received,  rulemaking 
pursuant  to  the  procedures  for  motor  vehicle 
safety  standards  (49  CFR  Part  533)  is  followed. 
An  amendment  to  the  tables  was  published  on 
August  2,  1972  (37  F.R.  15430).  This  notice 
adds  tire  size  designations  inadvertently  omitted 


and  corrects  certain  errors  made  in  that  publica- 
tion. It  also  adds  a  new  tire  size  designation  on 
which  a  petition  was  received  after  August  2, 
1972. 

Accordingly,  Appendix  A  of  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  109  (49  CFR  §571.109), 
and  Appendix  A  of  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Stand- 
ard No.  110  (49  CFR  §  571.110),  are  amended  .  .  . 

Effective:  October  15,  1972 

(Sec.  103,  119,  201,  202,  National  Traffic  and 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act.  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407, 
1421,  1422  delegations  of  authority  at  49  CFR 
1.51,  49  CFR  501.8) 

Issued  on  September  8, 1972. 

Robert  L.  Carter 
Associate  Administrator 
Motor  Vehicle  Programs 

37  F.R.  18733 
September  15,  1972 


PART  571;  S  109A-PRE  23-24 


( 


Effective:  September   14,    1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO 
APPENDIX  A  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  MO. 


109 


New  Pneumatic  Tires,  Tire  Selection  and  Rims  for  Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.  72-18;   Notice  3) 


The  NHTSA  published  on  August  2,  1972  (37 
F.R.  15430),  additions  and  amendments  to  the 
Tables  in  the  Appendices  of  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  109  (49  CFR  §  571.109)  and  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  110  (49  CFR 
§571.110).  Guidelines  published  in  the  Fed'Cral 
Register  on  October  5,  1968  (33  F.R.  14964),  pro- 
vide that  routine  additions  to  the  Tables  become 
effective  30  days  from  the  publication  date  if  no 
objections  are  received.  If  objections  are  re- 
ceived, rulemaking  pursuant  to  49  CFR  Part  553 
is  initiated. 

The  Rubber  Manufacturers'  Association  (R.M. 
A.)  and  the  B.F.  Goodrich  Tire  Company  have 
raised  an  objection  to  the  change  made  by  the 
August  2  publication  to  Footnote  1,  Table  I-R 
of  Standard  No.  109,  which  would  have  allowed 
the  letters  "HR",  "SR",  or  "VR"  to  be  included 
in  any   tire  size  designation  adjacent  to  or  in 


place  of  the  dash.  Accordingly,  the  amendment 
to  Footnote  1,  Table  I-R  of  Appendix  A,  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109  (571.109),  pub- 
lished August  2,  1972  (Item  17,  page  15432),  is 
hereby  revoked.  Notice  of  proposed  rulemaking 
regarding  this  change  will  be  issued  before  the 
rule  is  amended. 

This  notice  is  issued  pursuant  to  sections  103, 
119,  201,  and  202  of  the  National  Traffic  and 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  (15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407, 
1421,  and  1422)  and  the  delegations  of  authority 
at  49  CFR  1.51,  49  CFR  501.8. 

Issued  on  September  14,  1972. 

Elwood  T.  Driver 

Acting  Associate  Administrator 

Motor  Vehicle  Programs 

37  F.R.  19138 
September  19,  1972 


PART  571;  S  109A-PRE  25-26 


( 


Effective:   November    19,    1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  APPENDIX  A  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  109 

New  Pneumatic  Tires — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.  72-25;   Noticel) 


This  amendment  adds  certain  tire  size  desig- 
nations to  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No. 
109  (49  CFR  571.109)  and  adds  alternative  rim 
sizes  and  test  rims  to  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  110  (49  CFR  571.110). 

On  October  5,  1968,  guidelines  were  published 
in  the  Federal  Register  (33  F.R.  14964)  by  which 
routine  additions  could  be  made  to  Appendix  A, 
Standard  No.  109,  and  to  Appendix  A,  Standard 
No.  110.  Under  these  guidelines  the  additions 
become  effective  30  days  from  the  date  of  publi- 
cation in  the  Federal  Register^  if  no  objections 
are  received.  If  objections  are  received,  rule- 
making pursuant  to  the  procedures  for  motor 
vehicle  safety  standards  (49  CFR  Part  553)  is 
followed. 


Accordingly,  Appendix  A  of  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  109  (49  CFR  571.109),  and 
Appendix  A  of  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard 
No.  110  (49  CFR  571.110),  are  amended,  subject 
to  the  30-day  provision  indicated  above  .... 

This  notice  is  issued  pursuant  to  sections  103, 
119,  201  and  202  of  the  National  Traffic  and 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966  (15  USC  1392, 
1407,  1421,  1422)  and  the  delegation  of  authority 
of  49  CFR  1.51  and  40  CFR  501.8. 

Issued  on  October  16,  1972. 

Robert  L.  Carter 
Associate  Administrator 

37  F.R.  22620 
October  20,  1972 


PART  571;  S  109A— PRE  27-28 


( 


i 


Effective:   April    30,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  APPENDIX  A  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  109 


New  Pneumatic  Tires — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.  73-7;   Notice   1) 


This  amendment  adds  certain  tire  size  designa- 
tions to  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard 
No.  109  (49  CFR  571.109)  and  adds  alternative 
rim  sizes  and  test  rims  to  Federal  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  110  (49  CFR  571.110). 

On  October  5,  1968,  guidelines  were  published 
in  the  Federal  Register  (33  F.R.  14964)  by  which 
routine  additions  could  be  made  to  Appendix  A, 
Standard  No.  109,  and  to  Appendix  A,  Standard 
No.  110.  Under  these  guidelines  the  additions 
become  effective  30  days  from  publication  in  the 
Federal  Register^  if  no  objections  are  received. 
If  objections  are  received,  rulemaking  procedures 
for  the  issuance  of  motor  vehicle  safety  standards 
(49  CFR  Part  553)   are  followed. 

Accordingly,  Appendix  A  of  Federal  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109  (49  CFR  571.- 


109),  and  Appendix  A  of  Federal  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  110  (49  CFR  571.110), 
are  amended,  subject  to  the  30  day  provision  in- 
dicated above,  as  specified  below. 

Effective  date:  April  30,  1973,  if  objections 
are  not  received. 

(Sec.  103,  119,  201,  and  202,  Pub.  L.  89-563, 
80  Stat.  718,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407,  1421,  and  1422; 
delegations  of  authority  49  CFR  1.51,  49  CFR 
501.8) 

Issued  on-  March  26,  1973. 

Robert  L.  Carter 

Associate    Administrator 
Motor  Vehicle  Programs 

38  F.R.  S514 
April  3,  1973 


PART  571:  S  109A— PRE  29-30 


231-088   O  -  77  -  32 


( 


EINctIv*:  August  2,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  APPENDIX  A 
MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   109 

New  Pneumatic  Tires — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.  73-18;  Notice   1) 


This  amendment  adds  certain  tire  size  desig- 
nations to  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Stand- 
ard No.  109  (49  CFR  571.109)  and  adds 
alternative  rim  sizes  and  test  rims  to  Federal 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  110  (49  CFR 
571.110). 

On  October  5,  1968,  guidelines  were  published 
in  the  Federal  Register  (33  F.R.  14964)  by 
which  routine  additions  could  be  made  to  Ap- 
pendix A,  Standard  No.  109,  and  to  Appendix 
A,  Standard  No.  110.  Under  these  guidelines 
the  additions  become  effective  30  days  from  pub- 
lication in  the  Federal  Register^  if  no  objections 
are  received.  If  objections  are  received,  rule- 
making procedures  for  the  issuance  of  motor 
vehicle  safety  standards  (49  CFR  Part  553)  are 
followed. 


Accordingly,  Appendix  A  of  Federal  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109  (49  CFR  571.- 
109),  and  Appendix  A,  of  Federal  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  110  (49  CFR  571.110),  are 
amended,  subject  to  the  30  day  provision  in- 
dicated above. . . . 

Effective  date:  August  2,  1973,  if  objections 
are  not  received. 

(Sees.  103,  119,  201,  and  202,  Public  Law  89- 
563,  80  Stat.  718,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407,  1421,  and 
1422;  delegation  of  authority  at  38  F.R.  12147) 

Issued  on  June  26, 1973. 

James  E.  Wilson 
Associate  Administrator 
Traffic   Safety    Programs 

38  F.R.   17842 
July  5,  1973 


PART  571;  S  109A— PRE  31-32 


EffacHv*:   Nov*mb*r  9,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  APPENDIX  A  MOTOR 
VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   109 

New  Pneumatic  Tires — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.  73-23;  Notice  1) 


This  amendment  adds  certain  tire  size  desig- 
nations to  49  CFR  §571.109  (Federal  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109)  and  adds 
alternative  and  test  rim  sizes  to  49  CFR  §  571.110 
(Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No. 
110). 

On  October  5,  1968,  guidelines  were  published 
in  the  Federal  Register  (33  F.R.  14964)  by  which 
routine  additions  could  be  made  to  Appendix  A, 
§  571.109,  and  to  Appendix  A,  §  571.110.  Under 
these  guidelines  the  additions  become  effective 
30  days  from  publication  in  the  Federal  Register^ 
if  no  objections  are  received.  If  objections  are 
received,  rule  making  procedures  for  the  issuance 
of  motor  vehicle  safety  standards  (49  CFR  Part 
553)  are  followed. 


Accordingly,  Appendix  A  of  49  CFR  §  571.109 
and  Appendix  A  of  49  CFR  §571.110  are 
amended,  subject  to  the  30-day  provision  indi- 
cated above. 

Effective  date :  November  9,  1973,  if  objections 
are  not  received. 

(Sections  103,  119,  201,  and  202,  Pub.  L.  89- 
563,  80  Stat.  718,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407,  1421,  and 
1422 ;  delegations  of  authority  at  49  CFR  §  1.51 
and  49  CFR  §  501.8.) 

Issued  on  October  3, 1973. 

Robert  L.  Carter 
Associate  Administrator 
Motor  Vehicle  Programs 

38  F.R.  28569 
October  15,  1973 


PART  571;  S  109A— PRE  33-34 


Effective:   March    7,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  APPENDIX  A  MOTOR  VEHICLE 
SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.    109 

(Docket  No.  74-6;  Notice    1) 


This  amendment  adds  certain  tire  size  desig- 
nations and  corrects  certain  tire  size  criteria  in 
49  CFR  571.109  (Federal  Motor  Veliicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  109).  It  also  adds  alternative  and 
test  rim  sizes  to  49  CFR  571.110  (Federal  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  110). 

On  October  5,  1968,  guidelines  were  jjublished 
in  the  Federal  Register  (33  F.R.  14964)  by  which 
routine  additions  could  be  made  to  Appendix  A. 
§  571.109  and  to  Appendix  A,  §  571.110.  Under 
these  guidelines  the  additions  become  effective 
30  days  from  jjublication  in  the  Federal  Register^ 
if  no  objections  are  received.  If  objections  are 
received,  rulemaking  procedures  for  the  issuance 
of  motor  vehicle  safety  standards  (49  CFR  Part 
553)  are  followed. 

Accordingly,  Appendix  A  of  49  CFR  §  571.109 
and    Appendix    A    of    49    CFR    §571.110    are 


amended,  subject  to  the  30-day  provision  indi- 
cated above  .... 

Effective  date:  March  7,  1974,  if  objections  are 
not  received. 

(Sees.  103,  119,  201  and  202,  Pub.  L.  89-563; 
80  Stat.  718;  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407,  1421,  and 
1422;  delegations  of  authority  at  49  CFR  §1.51 
and  49  CFR  §501.8.) 

Issued  on  January  30,  1974. 

Robert  L.  Carter 
Associate  Administrator 
Motor  Vehicle  Programs 

39  F.R.  4664 
February  6,  1974 


PART  571;  S  109 A— PRE  35-36 


Effective:   May   22,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  APPENDIX  A   MOTOR  VEHICLE 
SAFETY  STANDARD   NO.    109 

(Docket  No.  74-17;   Notice   1) 


This  amendment  adds  certain  tire  size  desig- 
nations to  49  CFE  571.109  (Federal  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  109)  and  adds  alter- 
native and  test  rim  sizes  to  49  CFR  571.110 
(Federal  Motor  Veliicle  Safety  Standard  No. 
110). 

On  October  5,  1968.  guidelines  were  published 
in  the  Federal  Register  (33  F.R.  14964)  by  which 
routine  additions  could  be  made  to  ApjDendix  A, 
§571.109  and  to  Appendix  A,  §571.110.  Under 
these  guidelines  the  additions  become  effective 
30  days  from  publication  in  the  Federal  Register, 
if  no  objections  are  received.  If  objections  are 
received,  rulemaking  procedures  for  the  issuance 
of  motor  vehicle  safety  standards  (49  CFR  Part 
553)  are  followed. 

Accordingly,  Appendix  A  of  49  CFR  §  571.109 
and    Ajopendix    A    of    49    CFR    §571.110    are 


amended,  subject  to  the   30-day   provision  indi- 
cated above  .... 

Effective  date:  May  22,  1974,  if  objections  are 
not  received. 

(Sees.  103,  119,  201  and  202,  Pub.  L.  89-563, 
SO  Stat.  718,  15  LT.S.C.  1392,  1407,  1421  and  1422; 
delegations  of  authority  at  49  CFR  §  1.51  and 
49  CFR  §  501.8.) 

Issued  on  April  16,  1974. 


Robert  L.  Carter 
Associate  Administrator 
Motor  Vehicle  Programs 

39  F.R.  14595 
April  25,  1974 


PART  571 ;  S  109A— PRE  37-38 


Effective:   August    )9,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  APPENDIX  A  MOTOR  VEHICLE 
SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   109 

(Docket  No.   74-26;   Notice    1) 


This  amendment  adds  certain  tire  size  desig- 
nations to  49  CFR  571.109  (Federal  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109)  and  adds 
alternative  and  test  rim  sizes  to  49  CFR  571.110 
(Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No. 
110). 

On  October  5,  1968,  guidelines  were  published 
in  the  Federal  Register  (33  F.R.  14964)  by  which 
routine  additions  could  be  made  to  Appendix  A. 
§  571.109  and  to  Appendix  A,  §  571.110.  Under 
these  guidelines  the  additions  become  effective 
30  days  from  publication  in  the  Federal  Register, 
if  no  objections  are  received.  If  objections  are 
received,  rulemaking  procedures  for  the  issuance 
of  motor  vehicle  safety  standards  (49  CFR  Part 
.■)53)  are  followed. 

Accordingly,  Appendix  A  of  49  CFR  §  571.109 
and    Appendix    A    of    49    CFR    §571.110    are 


amended,  subject  to  the  30-day   provision  indi- 
cated above  .... 

Effective  date:  August  19,  1974,  if  objections 
are  not  received. 

(Sees.  103,  119,  201  and  202,  Pub.  L.  89-563, 
80  Stat.  718,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407,  1421  and  1422; 
delegations  of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51  and  49 
CFR  501.8.) 

Issued  on  July  11,  1974. 

Francis  Armstrong 

Acting  Associate  Administrator 

Motor  Vehicle  Programs 

39  F.R.  26404 
July  19,  1974 


PART  571;  S  109A— PRE  39^0 


Effective:    November   21,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  APPENDIX  A  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  109 

New  Pneumatic  Tires 
(Docket  No.   74-38;   Notice    1) 


This  amendment  adds  tire  load  ratings  to  49 
CFK  571.109  (Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  109)  and  adds  alternati\e  rim 
sizes  to  49  CFR  571.110  (Federal  ]Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  110). 

On  October  5,  1968,  guidelines  were  published 
in  the  Federal  Register  (33  F.R.  14964)  by 
which  routine  additions  would  be  made  to  Ap- 
pendix A,  §  571.109  and  to  Appendix  A,  §  571.110. 
Under  these  guidelines  the  additions  become  ef- 
fective 30  days  from  publication  in  the  Federal 
Register,  if  no  objections  are  received.  If  objec- 
tions are  received,  rulemaking  procedures  for 
the  issuance  of  motor  vehicle  safety  standards 
(49  CFR  Part  553)  are  followed. 


AccoKlingly,  Appendix  A  of  49  CFR  §  571.109 
and  Appendix  A  of  49  CFR  §571.110  are 
amended,  subject  to  the  ;i0-day  provision  indi- 
cated above  .... 

Ejfectlve  date:  November  21,  1974,  if  objec- 
tions are  not  received. 

(Sees.  103,  119,  201  and  202,  Pub.  L.  89-563, 
80  Stat.  718,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407,  1421  and  1422; 
delegations  of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51  and  49 
CFR  501.8.) 

Issued  on  October  16,  1974. 

Robert  L.  Carter 
Associate  Administi-ator 
Motor  Vehicle 
39  F.R.  37489 
October  22,  1974 


Pixjgrams 


PART  571;  S  109A— PRE  41-42 


Effective:   February   24,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  APPENDIX  A  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  109 

New  Pneumatic  Tires 
(Docket  No.  75-1;   Notice   1) 


This  amendment  adds  certain  tire  size  desig- 
nations to  49  CFR  571.109  (Federal  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  Xo.  109)  and  adds 
alternative  and  test  rim  sizes  to  19  CFR  571.110 
(Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No. 
110). 

Guidelines  were  published  in  the  Federal 
Register  October  5.  1968  (33  F.R.  14964),  and 
amended  August  13,  1974  (39  F.R.  28980),  speci- 
fying procetlui-es  by  which  routine  additions  are 
made  to  Appendix  A,  §  571.109  and  to  Appendix 
A,  §  571.110.  Under  these  guidelines  the  addi- 
tions become  effective  30  days  from  publication 
in  the  Federal  Register,  if  no  objections  are  re- 
ceived. If  objections  are  i^eceived,  nilemaking 
procedures  for  the  issuance  of  motor  veliicle 
safety  standai-ds  (49  CFR  Part  553)  are  fol- 
lowed. 


Accordingly,  Appendix  A  of  49  CFR  §571.109 
and  Appendix  A  of  49  CFR  §  571.110  are 
amended,  subject  to  the  30-day  provision  indi- 
cated above  .... 

Elective  date:  February  24,  1975,  if  objections 
are  not  received. 

(Sees.  103,  119,  201  and  202,  Pub.  L.  89-563, 
80  Stat,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407,  1421  and  1422; 
delegations  of  authority  at  49  CFR  §  1.51  and 
49  CFR  §501.8.) 

Issued  on  January  17.  1975. 

Robert,  L.  Carter 
Associate  Administrator 
Motor  Vehicle  Programs 

40  F.R.  3597 
January  23,  1975 


PART  571;  S  109A— PRE  43^t4 


EffecHve:   June   3,    1971 


I 


APPENDIX  A— FEDERAL  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  109 

Table  I-A 
TIRE  LOAD  RATINGS,  TEST  RIMS,  MINIMUM  SIZE  FACTORS,  AND  SECTION  WIDTHS  FOR  CONVENTIONAL  AND  LOW  SECTION 

HEIGHT  BIAS  PLY  TIRES 


Tire  size  designation  '  ■ 


Maximum  tire  loads  (pounds)  at  various  cold  inflation  pressures  (p.s.i.) 


20 


28 


30 


32 


Test  rim  Minimum   Section 

-    widtii    size  factor  width  ' 

(inches)    (inches)    (inches) 


> 


6.00-13 

6.60-13 

7.00-13 

6.00-14... 

6.45-14 

6.80-14 

6.95-14 

7.00-14. 

7.35-14 

7.60-14 

7.78-14 

8.00-14 

8.26-14 

S.60-\i 

8.65-14 

8.85-14 

9.00-14 

9.S0-14 

R.  00-16 

fi.  50-16 

6,70-16 

6.85-16 

7.00-16 1,170      1,240 

7.10-16 

7.35-15 

7.60-16 

7.76-16 

8.00-16 

8.15-15 

8.20-16 

8.25-15 1,030      1,190 

8.45-16 

8.55-15 1,220      1,290 

8.85-16 

8.90-16 

9.00-16 

9.16-16 

5.00-16 716         766 

6.00-16 

6.50-16 1,090      1,150 

6.70-16 1,185 

7.00-16 

7.60-16 

6.50-17 1,215 

L84-15 


770 

890 

980 

840 

860 

930 

950 

1,030 

1,040 

1,150 

1,150 

1,240 

1,250 

1,330 

1,360 

1,430 

1,430 

1,640 

890 

980 

1,110 

950 

1,310 

1,190 

1,070 

1,310 

1,150 

1,380 

1,240 

1,470 

1,250 

1,340 

1,360 

1,430 

1,700 

1,460 

1,510 

816 

1,075 

1,215 

1,240 

1,365 

1,565 

1,275 

1,510 


820 
930 
1,030 
900 
910 
990 
1,000 
1,100 
1,100 
1,230 
1,210 
1,320 
1,310 
1,420 
1,430 
1,510 
1,510 
1,640 
940 
1,040 
1,190 
1,000 
1,380 
1,270 
1,130 
1,400 
1,210 
1,470 
1,300 
1,570 
1,310 
1,410 
1,430 
1,510 
1,810 
1,540 
1,600 
860 
1,136 
1,280 
1,300 
1,440 
1,650 
1,330 
1,600 


860 
980 
1,080 
930 
960 
1,030 
1,050 
1,140 
1,160 
1,280 
1,270 
1,380 
1,380 
1,480 
1,510 
1,580 
1,580 
1,700 
980 
1,080 
1,230 
1,050 
1,460 
1,320 
1,180 
1,450 
1,270 
1,530 
1,370 
1,630 
1,380 
1,480 
1,610 
1,580 
1,880 
1,620 
1,680 
910 
1,195 
1,345 
1,355 
1,615 
1,735 
1,390 
1,680 


900 
1,030 
1,130 

980 
1,000 
1,080 
1,100 
1,190 
1,210 
1,340 
1,330 
1,440 
1,440 
1,550 
1,580 
1,660 
1,660 
1,780 
1,030 
1,130 
1,290 
1,100 
1,515 
1,380 
1,240 
1,520 
1,330 
1,600 
1,430 
1,710 
1,440 
1,550 
1,580 
1,650 
1,970 
1,690 
1,750 
975 
1,250 
1,405 
1,410 
1,585 
1,810 
1,450 
1,750 


930 
1,070 
1,180 
1,020 
1,040 
1,130 
1,140 
1,240 
1,260 
1.390 
1,390 
1,500 
1,500 
1,610 
1,640 
1,730 
1,730 
1,850 
1,070 
1,180 
1,340 
1,140 
1,580 
1,440 
1,290 
1,580 
1,380 
1,670 
1,490 
1,780 
1,500 
1,620 
1,640 
1,720 
2,050 
1,760 
1,830 
990 
1,300 
1,465 
1,465 
1,650 
1,890 
1,500 
1,830 


970 
1,110 
1,230 
1,060 
1,080 
1,170 
1,190 
1,290 
1,310 
1,450 
1,440 
1,560 
1,560 
1,670 
1,710 
1,790 
1,790 
1,930 
1,110 
1,230 
1,400 
1,190 
1,540 
1,500 
1,340 
1,640 
1,440 
1,730 
1,550 
1,860 
1,560 
1,680 
1,710 
1,790 
2,130 
1,830 
1,900 
1.030 
1,360 
1,525 
1,525 
1,715 
1,960 
1,560 
1,900 


1,010 

1,150 

1,270 

1,100 

1,120 

1,210 

1,230 

1,340 

1,360 

1,500 

1,500 

1,620 

1,620 

1,740 

1,770 

1,860 

1,860 

2,000 

1,150 

1,270 

1,450 

1,230 

1,700 

1,550 

1,390 

1,710 

1,490 

1,800 

1,610 

1,920 

1,620 

1,740 

1,770 

1,860 

2,210 

1,900 

1,970 

1,070 

1,400 

1,580 

1,580 

1,780 

2,035 

1,620 

1,970 


1,040 

1,190 

1,310 

1,130 

1,160 

1,250 

1,270 

1,380 

1,400 

1,550 

1,550 

1,670 

1,670 

1,790 

1,830 

1,920 

1,920 

2,060 

1,190 

1,320 

1,600 

1,270 

1,760 

1,600 

1,440 

1,760 

1,540 

1,860 

1,660 

1,980 

1,670 

1,800 

1,830 

1,920 

2,290 

1,970 

2,030 

1,110 

1,450 

1,635 

1,635 

1,840 

2,105 

1,680 

2,030 


1,080 

1,230 

1,360 

1,170 

1,200 

1,300 

1,310 

1,430 

1,460 

1,600 

1,600 

1,730 

1,730 

1,850 

1,890 

1,990 

1,990 

2,130 

1,230 

1,360 

1,550 

1,320 

1,820 

1,660 

1,480 

1,820 

1,590 

1,920 

1,720 

2,050 

1,730 

1,860 

1.890 

1,980 

2,360 

2,030 

2,100 

1.160 

1,500  , 

1,690 

1,690 

1,900  . 

2,175  . 

1,740 

2,100 


1,110 
1,270 
1,400 
1,210 
1,240 
1,330 
1,350 
1,470 
1,490 
1,650 
1,650 
1,780 
1,780 
1,910 
1,960 
2,050 
2,060 
2,200 
1,270 
1,400 
1,590 
1,360 
1,870 
1,710 
1,630 
1,880 
1,640 
1,980 
1,770 
2,110 
1,780 
1,920 
1,950 
2,040 
2,430 
2,090 
2.160 
1,185 


1,140 
1,300 
1,440 
1,240 
1,270 
1,370 
1,390 
1,520 
1,540 
1,700 
1,690 
1,830 
1,830 
1,960 
2,000 
2,100 
2,100 
2,260 
1,300 
1,440 
1,640 
1,390 
1,930 
1,760 
1,670 
1,930 
1,690 
2,040 
1,820 
2,170 
1,830 
1,970 
2,000 
2,100 
2,600 
2,160 
2,230 
1,220 


1,740      1,790 
1,740      1,795 


1,795      1,850 
2,160      2,230 


4 

i'i 

5 

4 

*'i 

4 

5 

5 

5 

5H 

iH 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6M 

d'A 

6H 

4 

4H 

i'A 

5 

5 

5 

SH 

5'A 
5H 


6 

6 

6 

6 

6H 

6H 

6 

<i'A 

3 

4 

4H 

iA 

5 

5M 
5 
6 


29.37 

30  75 

31.88 

30.64 

30.92 

31.75 

31.96 

32.88 

32.92 

34.19 

34.09 

35.17 

35.11 

36.91 

36.06 

36.82 

36.91 

37.74 

31.64 

32.75 

33.95 

32.48 

36.02 

34.89 

33.86 

36.05 

34.53 

36.84 

35.50 

37.60 

35.67 

36.37 

36.57 

37.29 

39.64 

37.45 

37.92 

31.03 

34.17 

35.69 

35.60 

37.02 

38.78 

37.00 

37.88 


6.00 

6.60 

7.10 

6.10 

6.60 

6.60 

7.00 

7.10 

7.30 

7.65 

7.76 

8.10 

8.20 

8.35 

8.60 

8.95 

8.80 

9.05 

6.10 

6.60 

7.00 

6.90 

7.35 

7.40 

7.60 

7.90 

7.66 

8.30 

8.15 

8.60 

8.20 

8.36 

8.46 

8.80 

9.30 

8.60 

9.05 

5.15 

6.25 

6.80 

7.40 

7.35 

8.00 

7.60 

8.65 


'The  letter  "H",  "S",  or  "V"  ma.v  be  included  in  any  specified  tire  size  designation  adjacent  to  or  in  place  of  the  "dash". 
=  Actual  section  -width  and  overall  width  shall  not  exceed  the  specified  section  width  by  more  than  7  percent. 


> 


(Rev.    7/n/74) 

231-08a   O  -  77  -  33 


PART  571;  S  109 A-1 


Effective:   June    3,    1971 


Table  I-B 
TIRE  LOAD  RATINGS,  TEST  RIMS,  MINIMUM  SIZE  FACTORS,  AND  SECTION  WIDTHS  FOR  "70  SERIES"  BIAS  PLY  TIRES 


Maximum  tire  loads  (pounds)  at  various  cold  inflation  pressures  (p.s.i.) 


Tire  Bife  designation  ' 


Test  rim  Minimum  Section 

-    width    size  laclor  width  i 

(inches)    (inches)    (Inches) 


A70-13 720 

B70-I3. _  780 

C70-13 840 

070-13 890 

D70-14 890 

£70-14 960 

F70-14 1,020 

070-14 1,100 

H70-14 1,200 

J70-14 1,260 

L70-14 1,340 

A70-15 720 

C70-15 840 

D70-15 890 

E70-16 950 

F70-16 1,020 

070-15 1,100 

H70-15 1,200 

J70-15 1,260 

K70-16 1,290 

L70-16 1,340 


770 

810 

860 

900 

940 

980 

1,020 

1,060 

1,090 

1,130 

1,160 

1,200 

5H 

30.27 

7.30 

840 

890 

930 

980 

1,030 

1,070 

1,110 

1,150 

1,190 

1,230 

1,270 

1,300 

5 

30.86 

7.35 

890 

950 

1,000 

1,050 

1,100 

1,140 

1,190 

1,230 

1,270 

1,320 

1,360 

1,400 

6H 

31.68 

7.80 

960 

1,010 

1,070 

1,120 

1,170 

1,220 

1,270 

1,320 

1,360 

1,410 

1,460 

1,490 

6H 

32.34 

8.00 

950 

1,010 

1,070 

1,120 

1,170 

1,220 

1,270 

1,320 

1,360 

1,410 

1.460 

1,490 

6!^ 

32.81 

7.85 

1,010 

1,070 

1,130 

1,190 

1,240 

1,300 

1,350 

1,400 

1,440 

1,490 

1.540 

1,680 

5H 

33.46 

8.  OS 

1,090 

1,160 

1,220 

1,280 

1,340 

1,400 

1,450 

1,600 

1,650 

1,610 

1,650 

1,700 

6H 

34.16 

8.30 

1.180 

1,250 

1,310 

1,380 

1,440 

1,500 

1,560 

1,620 

1,680 

1,730 

1,780 

1,830 

6 

36.18 

8.  78 

1,290 

1,360 

1,440 

1,510 

1,580 

1,660 

1,710 

1,770 

1,830 

1,890 

1,960 

2,010 

6 

36.19 

9.10 

1,350 

1,430 

1,600 

1,580 

1,650 

1,720 

1,790 

1,860 

1,920 

1,980 

2,040 

2,100 

m 

36.87 

9.60 

1,430 

1,520 

1,600 

1,680 

1,760 

1,830 

1,900 

1,970 

2,040 

2,100 

2,170 

2,230 

6H 

37.62 

9. 76 

770 

810 

860 

900 

940 

980 

1,020 

1,060 

1,090 

1,130 

1,160 

1.200 

il4 

30.99 

6.60 

890 

950 

1,000 

1,050 

1,100 

1,140 

1,190 

1,230 

1,270 

1,320 

1,360 

1,390 

5H 

32.76 

7.60 

960 

1,010 

1,070 

1,120 

1,170 

1,220 

1.270 

1,320 

1,360 

1,410 

1,450 

1,490 

6H 

33.37 

7.70 

1,010 

1,070 

1,130 

1,190 

1,240 

1,300 

1,350 

1,400 

1,440 

1,490 

1,540 

1,680 

6 

34.13 

8.10 

1,090 

1,160 

1,220 

1,280 

1,340 

1,400 

1,450 

1.600 

1,660 

1,610 

1,660 

1,700 

6 

34.89 

8.36 

1,180 

1,260 

1,310 

1,380 

1,440 

1,500 

1,560 

1.620 

1,680 

1,730 

1,780 

1,830 

6 

35.66 

8.60 

1,290 

1,360 

1,440 

1,610 

1,680 

1,650 

1,710 

1,770 

1,830 

1,890 

1,950 

2,010 

6 

36.64 

8.96 

1,350 

1,430 

1,500 

1,680 

1,660 

1,720 

1,790 

1,860 

1,920 

1,980 

2,040 

2,100 

6H 

37.36 

9.35 

1,380 

1,460 

1,540 

1,620 

1,690 

1,770 

1,830 

1,900 

1,970 

2,030 

2,090 

2,160 

6'A 

37.66 

9.40 

1,430 

1,520 

1,600 

1,680 

1,760 

1,830 

1,900 

1,970 

2,040 

2,100 

2,170 

2,230 

6'A 

38.09 

9.60 

'The  letter  "H".  "S",  or  "V"  may  be  included  in  any  specified  tire  size  designation  adjacent  to  or  in  place  of  the  "dash" 
^Actual  section  width  and  overall  width  shall  not  exceed  the  specified  section  width  by  more  than  7  percent. 


Table  I-C 
TIRE  LOAD  RATINGS,  TEST  RIMS,  MINIMUM  SIZE  FACTORS.  AND  SECTION  WIDTHS  FOR  BIAS  PLY  TIRES 


Tire  size  designation  ' 


16 


18 


Maximum  tire  loads  (pounds)  at  various  cold  inflation  pressures  (p.s.i.) 


20 


38 


Test  rim  Minimum  Section 

width    size  factor  width  ' 

40       (inches)    (inches)    (inches) 


"Super  Balloon"  Sizes 

4.80-10 320  366  390 

6.20-10.. 350  395  440 

5.90-10 386  430  475 

5.20-12 395  446  496 

5.60-12 460  520  576 

6.90-12 460  506  660 

6.20-12 .505  565  605 

6.20-13 430  486  540 

6.60-13 495  560  620 

5.90-13 565  625  695 

6.20-13 620  680  640 

6.40-13 630  705  786 

6.70-13 690  775  860 

6.90-13 696  745  795 

5.20-14 475  536  595 

6.60-14 630  595  660 

5.90-14 585  660  730 

6.40-14 660  745  826 

6.46-14 860 

6.20-16 606  670  630 

6.60-15 656  626  695 

6.90-16 615  695  770 

6.40-16.... 875 


430 

470 

490 

610 

636 

565 

575 

595  . 

3H 

23.90 

6.00 

485 

530 

655 

676 

605 

625 

650 

670 

696 

715 

3H 

24.84 

6.20 

515 

560 

680 

605 

630 

650 

675 

700  . 

4 

24.00 

6.80 

545 

595 

625 

656 

685 

710 

735 

760 

786 

810 

3H 

26.79 

6.20 

620 

670 

716 

760 

795 

825 

865 

885 

916 

940 

4 

27.83 

6.71 

595 

640 

665 

700 

730 

765 

785 

810  . 

4 

26.00 

6.90 

665 

705 

735 

775 

805 

836 

866 

896  . 

iH 

27.00 

6.30 

690 

640 

670 

710 

740 

766 

795 

820 

850 

876 

3H 

27.72 

6.20 

676 

725 

770 

810 

850 

880 

910 

945 

976 

1,006 

4 

28.92 

6.71 

755 

815 

860 

895 

936 

970 

1.005 

1,040 

1,075 

1.105 

4 

29.74 

5.91 

700 

750 

780 

820 

850 

880 

910 

945  . 

4H 

28.00 

6.30 

845 

915 

945 

986 

1,026 

1,060 

1,100 

1,140 

1,175 

1.210 

iH 

31.26 

6.42 

935 

1.000 

1.045 

1,090 

1,135 

1,175 

1,220 

1,260 

1,306 

1,340 

4M 

32,14 

6.69 

846 

915 

955 

1,005 

1,045 

1,086 

1,120 

1,160  . 

6 

30.00 

7.20 

646 

695 

735 

785 

825 

855 

885 

915 

945 

975 

3H 

28.89 

6.20 

715 

770 

815 

865 

890 

920 

955 

990 

1,020 

1,050 

4 

29.94 

6.71 

785 

860 

880 

925 

970 

1,005 

1,040 

1,080 

1,116 

1,145 

4 

30.76 

6.91 

890 

960 

1,000 

1.050 

1,090 

1,130 

1,170 

1,210 

1,260 

1,290 

4H 

32.19 

6.42 

910 

960 

1,000 

1,040 

1,080 

1.120  . 

4^ 

30.92 

6.60 

686 

740 

780 

830 

870 

900 

935 

965 

1,000 

1.030 

3H 

29.76 

6.20 

756 

815 

860 

895 

936 

970 

1,005 

1,040 

1,075 

1.105 

4 

30.87 

6.71 

826 

890 

935 

980 

1,016 

1.050 

1,090 

1.130 

1,165 

1.200 

4 

31.77 

6.91 

960 

1.010 

1,055 

1,100 

1,160 

1.190 

1,230 

1,260  . 

4H 

33.20 

6.42 

•The  letter  "H".  "S".  or  "V"  may  be  included  in  any  specified  tire  size  designation  adjacent  to  or  in  place  of  the  "dash" 
^Actual  section  width  and  overall  width  shall  not  exceed  the  specified  section  width  by  more  than  7  percent. 


(Rev.    7/11/74) 


PART  571 ;  S  109A-2 


EfFecKve:   June    3,    197) 


I 


Table  I-C— Continued 
TIRE  LOAD  RATINGS.  TEST  RIMS,  MINIMUM  SIZE  FACTORS,  AND  SECTION  WIDTHS  FOR  BIAS  PLY  TIRES 


Tire  slie  designation 


16 


Maximum  tire  loads  (pounds)  at  various  cold  inaation  pressures  (p.s.i.) 


18 


20 


22 


24 


26 


28 


30 


32 


34 


36 


38 


Test  rim  Minimum  Section 

width    size  factor  width ' 

40       (inches)     (inches)     (inches) 


> 


"Low  Section"  Sizes 

5.00-12 370  420  465  505  540  565  580  605  625  650  670  695  715  3J-«  25.62 

S-50-I2 _ 415  470  520  560  605  635  665  695  720  745  770  800  820  4  26.93 

6.00-12 485  545  605  655  705  735  785  815  845  875  905  935  965  4H  28.33 

B.oa-lZ _  410  460  510  545  685  610  635  660  685  710  735  755  780  3H  26.64 

8.60-13 445  495  550  595  640  670  710  740  765  795  820  860  875  4  27.95 

7.25-13 730  825  915  990  1,070  1,110  1.160  1,200  1,245  1,290  1,336  1,380  1,420  5  32.61 

7.60-13 775  875  970  1,040  1,120  1,180  1,226  1,270  1,315  1,365  1,410  1,460  l,!iOO  i'A  33.22 

5.60-16L 505  570  630  675  725  760  800  840  870  900  935  965  995  4  29.97 

8.0O-16L 595  665  740  800  860  890  930  970  1,005  1,040  1,080  1,115  1,145  4J^  31.29 

6.60-15L 675  755  840  900  970  1,010  1.060  1.105  1,145  1,185  1,230  1,270  1,305  4J^  32.68 

7.0O-15L 760  855  950  1.025  1.100  1,145  1,190  1,236  1.280  1,325  1,375  1,420  1.460  5  33.85 

"Super  Low  Section"  Sizes 

146-10/6.95-10 380  430  475  616  560  680  605  630  660  675  700  725  745  4  24.76 

125-12/5.35-12 336  380  420  460  485  610  535  550  570  590  610  630  650  332  24.68 

136-12/5.65-12 _  370  420  465  506  540  570  590  620  640  665  690  710  730  4  25.53 

145-12/5.95-12 440  495  550  595  640  665  70O  730  765  785  810  840  865  4  26.69 

165-12/6.15-12 485  545  605  655  705  735  775  805  835  865  895  925  960  4^  27.36 

136-13/5.65-13 415  470  520  555  596  625  655  685  710  735  760  785  810  4  26  53 

146-13/5.96-13 470  525  585  620  670  705  745  770  800  825  855  885  910  4  27.61 

165-13/6.16-13 515  576  640  700  760  780  820  850  880  910  945  975  1,005  4M  28.44 

166-13/6.46-13 575  645  715  770  825  865  905  935  970  1,005  1,040  1,075  1,105  4H  29.52 

175-13/6  95-13 635  715  795  845  915  955  1,005  1,045  1,085  1,120  1,160  1,200  1,236  5  30.34 

185-13/7.35-13 _  695  785  870  945  1,010  1,060  1,115  1,160  1,205  1,245  1,290  1,335  1,370  b'A  31.41 

136-14/5.65-14 440  496  550  695  640  665  700  730  755  785  810  840  865  4  27.54 

145-14/5,95-14 495  560  620  665  715  750  785  815  845  875  905  935  965  4  28.54 

165-14/6.15-14 640  610  675  730  780  825  860  895  926  960  995  1,030  1,060  4H  29.46 

125-16/6.35-16 395  445  495  635  570  600  625  660  676  700  720  745  770  3H  27.69 

136-16/5.65-16 460  520  575  610  660  690  720  750  775  805  835  860  885  4  28.63 

14.5-16/5.95-15 520  585  650  710  760  790  830  860  890  925  955  985  1,015  4  29.54 

165-16/6  36-15 685  660  730  780  835  875  915  950  985  1,020  1.056  1,090  1,125  i}4  30.45 

175-16'7. 15-15 705  795  880  955  1,020  1,070  1,125  1,170  1,215  1,255  1,300  1,345  1,385  5  32.42 

165-14 650  715  770  815  880  926  970  1,000  1,035  1,080  1.115  1,145  1,170  4H  31.22 

175-14 716  780  850  915  980  1,025  1,070  1,115  1,160  1,200  1,235  1,270  1,310  5  32.13 

185-14 805  870  940  1.000  1,080  1,136  1,190  1,235  1,290  1,325  1,370  1.400  1,435  5H  33.15 

195-14 860  950  1,025  1,106  1,180  1,235  1,290  1,345  1,400  1,445  1,490  1,636  1,680  5H  34.18 

206-14 940  1,026  1,116  1,190  1,270  1,335  1,400  1,455  1,510  1,565  1,610  1,666  1,700  6  34.84 

216-14 1,015  1,116  1,200  1,290  1,380  1,445  1,520  1,590  1,640  1,700  1,740  1,785  1,830  6  35.75 

225-14 1,080  1,180  1,280  1,380  1,465  1,540  1,620  1,700  1,750  1,810  1,850  1,915  1,970  6H  36.69 

165-16 685  750  805  860  915  970  1.016  1.060  1,105  1,135  1,180  1,200  1,235  i'A  31.73 

186-16 815  905  970  1,050  1.115  1,180  1,235  1,280  1,325  1,370  1,410  1.445  1,490  5J4  33.69 

195-16 880  970  1,060  1,135  1,215  1.280  1.335  1.390  1,446  1,490  1.535  1,580  1,620  5^  34.61 

206-16 970  1,060  1,145  1,225  1,300  1,370  1,445  1.500  1,565  1,610  1,665  1,720  1,765  6  36.79 

216-15 _  1,050  1,146  1,235  1,335  1,435  1,500  1,590  1,640  1,700  1,740  1,800  1,850  1,910  6  37.24 

235-16 1,150  1,295  1,435  1,546  1,660  1,735  1,825  1,895  1.965  2,036  2,110  2,180  2,245  6H  38.26 

6.0-16 460  520  576  610  660  690  720  760  775  805  835  860  885  4  28.63 

6.S-16 520  685  660  710  760  790  830  860  890  925  955  985  1,015  4  29.64 

'The  letter  "H".  "S",  or  "V"  may  be  included  in  any  specified  tire  size  designation  adjacent  to  or  in  place  of  the  "dash" 

'Actual   section  width  and   overall   width  shall   not  exceed   the  specified  section  width  by  more  than  7  percent. 


5.04 
5.69 
6.14 
6.04 
6.69 
7.24 
7.48 
5.69 
6.14 
6.64 
7.01 

5.79 
6.00 
5.39 
5.79 
6.18 
5.39 
5.79 
6.18 
6.67 
7.01 
7.40 
5.69 
5.79 
6.18 
5.00 
5.39 
5.79 
6.18 
7.01 
6.67 
7.01 
7.40 
7.80 
8.19 
8.68 
8.98 
6.67 
7.40 
7.80 
8.19 
8.68 
9.37 
5.39 
5.79 


(Rev.   9/8/721 


PART  571;  S  109A-3 


Effective:   June    3,    1971 

Table  I-D 
TIRE  LOAD  RATINGS,  TEST  RIMS,  MINIMUM  SIZE  FACTORS,  AND  SECTION  WIDTHS  FOR  DASH  (— )  RADIAL  PLY  TIRES 


Tire  size  designation  ' 


Maximum  tire  loads  (pounds)  at  various  cold  inflation  pressures  (p.s.i.) 


22 


Test  rim  Minimum   Section 

width    size  factor  width  ' 

38  40       (inches)    (inches)     (inches) 


145-10 495    525  645 

125-12 406    430  445 

135-12 480    510  530 

145-12 570    605  625 

155-12 630    670  695 

135-13 515    646  565 

145-13 605    640  665 

155-13 670    710  735 

165-13 _.   700    750  800 

175-13 810 

185-13.... 870 

195-13 970 

135-14 655    585  610 

145-14 646    680  710 

155-14... 630    680  720 

165-14 740    790  840 

175-14 830 

185-14 920 

195-14 1,020 

205-14. 1,100 

21.5-14 1,200 

225-14 1,320 

125-15... 495    526  545 

135-15 585    620  645 

145-15 680    720  760 

155-15 740    785  815 

165-15 770    820  870 

175-15 990 

180-15 925         980  1,020 

185-16 1,000 

195-16. 1,080 

205-15 1,190 

215-15 1,280 

220-15 1,320 

225-15 1,370 

230-15 1,405 

235-16 1,430 

240-16. 1,455 

185-16 1,140 

166-^00 800         860  920 


666 

685 

605 

625 

640 

656 

670 

686 

700 

710 

4 

24.76 

8.79 

465 

480 

495 

505 

525 

636 

550 

560 

675 

580 

3H 

24.68 

5.00 

560 

565 

585 

600 

620 

636 

650 

665 

675 

686 

4 

25.53 

5.39 

650 

676 

695 

715 

740 

760 

775 

790 

805 

816 

4 

26.69 

5.79 

720 

745 

770 

795 

820 

840 

860 

875 

890 

905 

4H 

27.36 

6.18 

590 

610 

630 

650 

670 

690 

706 

715 

730 

740 

4 

26.63 

5.39 

695 

720 

740 

765 

790 

815 

830 

845 

855 

870 

4 

27.61 

5.79 

765 

790 

815 

840 

870 

896 

910 

925 

940 

955 

4H 

28.44 

6.18 

850 

890 

930 

970 

1,010 

1,050 

1,090 

1.130 

1,170 

1.200 

4!^ 

29.52 

6.67 

860 

920 

980 

1,040 

1,100 

1,150 

1,200 

1,240 

1.300 

1,350 

4H 

30.30 

6.76 

940 

1,010 

1,080 

1,140 

1,210 

1,270 

1,330 

1,390 

1,450 

1,510 

5 

31.42 

7.26 

1,040 

1,110 

1,180 

1,250 

1,320 

1,400 

1,450 

1,520 

1,580 

1,640 

5H 

32.38 

7.70 

635 

656 

675 

695 

720 

740 

750 

766 

780 

790 

4 

27.54 

5.39 

735 

760 

785 

810 

840 

865 

886 

906 

920 

935 

4 

28.64 

5.79 

760 

800 

840 

880 

920 

960 

980 

1,010 

1,040 

1,070 

4M 

29.46 

6.18 

890 

940 

980 

1,020 

1.060 

1,100 

1,140 

1,180 

1,220 

1,250 

4H 

30.53 

6.67 

900 

960 

1,030 

1,100 

1,160 

1,230 

1,280 

1,350 

1,400 

1,470 

5 

31.63 

7.00 

1,000 

1,070 

1,140 

1,220 

1,290 

1,360 

1,420 

1.600 

1,560 

1,640 

5 

32.59 

7.30 

1,100 

1,180 

1,270 

1,340 

1,420 

1,600 

1,570 

1,650 

1,720 

1,800 

5H 

33.69 

7.80 

1,180 

1,270 

1.380 

1.350 

1,540 

1,620 

1,700 

1.770 

1,860 

1,940 

6 

34.82 

8.80 

1,300 

1,390 

1,510 

1,580 

1,670 

1,770 

1,860 

1,920 

2,010 

2,100 

6 

36.79 

8.60 

1,420 

1,510 

1,610 

1.710 

1,800 

1,900 

1,970 

2,050 

2,160 

2,230 

6H 

36.44 

8.95 

565 

585 

605 

625 

640 

655 

670 

686 

700 

710 

3H 

27.69 

5.00 

670 

695 

715 

735 

756 

776 

795 

810 

825 

840 

4 

28.53 

5.39 

780 

805 

830 

866 

875 

896 

920 

940 

960 

975 

4 

29.64 

5.79 

850 

880 

905 

930 

965 

980 

1,005 

1,026 

1,045 

1,060 

4H 

30.45 

6.18 

920 

970 

1,020 

1,070 

1,110 

1,150 

1,190 

1,230 

1,270 

1,310 

4H 

31.45 

6.67 

1,060 

1,100 

1,150 

1,200 

1,250 

1,300 

1,350 

1,400 

1,440 

1,480 

5 

32.41 

7.00 

1,060 

1,095 

1,130 

1,170 

1,190 

1,230 

1,260 

1,280 

1,305 

1,325 

i'A 

32.04 

6.62 

1,070 

1,140 

1,210 

1,280 

1,350 

1,420 

1,480 

1,540 

1,600 

1,660 

Sii 

33.68 

7.46 

1,160 

1,240 

1,330 

1,400 

1,470 

1,650 

1,620 

1,680 

1,760 

1,820 

5M 

34.22 

7.66 

1,280 

1,370 

1,450 

1,630 

1,620 

1,700 

1,760 

1,840 

1,920 

2,000 

6 

35.20 

8.10 

1,380 

1,480 

1,570 

1.660 

1,760 

1,860 

1,940 

2,020 

2,100 

2,200 

6 

36.00 

8.35 

1,420 

1,620 

1,610 

1.695 

1,785 

1,875 

1,960 

2,050 

2.135 

2,225 

6 

36.49 

8.35 

1,470 

1,680 

1,670 

1,780 

1,880 

1,980 

2,060 

2,160 

2,240 

2,340 

6H 

36.94 

8.80 

1,515 

1,625 

1,725 

1,825 

1,925 

2.020 

2,110 

2,190 

2,280 

2,360 

n'A 

37.30 

8.80 

1,540 

1,640 

1,750 

1,850 

1,960 

2,060 

2,160 

2.250 

2,350 

2,450 

6^ 

37.75 

9.06 

1,570 

1,680 

1,790 

1,890 

1,990 

2,090 

2,190 

2,280 

2,380 

2,480 

6H 

38.28 

9.06 

1,210 

1,270 

1,330 

1,390 

1,450 

1,600 

1,660 

1,600 

1,650 

1,700 

5>^ 

34.14 

7.40 

980 

1,030 

1,080 

1,130 

1,180 

1,220 

1,260 

1,300 

1,340 

1,380 

4.65 

32.04 

6.62 

'Tlie  letter  "H".  "S",  or  "V"  may  be  included  in  any  specified  tire  size  designation  adjacent  to  or  in  place  of  the 
-Actual  section   width  and   overall   width  .shall  not  exceed  the  specified  section  width  by  more  than  7  percent. 


'dash" 


Table   I-E 
TIRE  LOAD  RATINGS,  TEST  RIMS,  MINIMUM  SIZE  FACTORS,  AND  SECTION  WIDTHS  FOR  "77  SERIES"  BIAS  PLY  TIRES 


Tire  size  designation  > 


Maximum  tire  loads  (pounds)  at  various  cold  inflation  pressures  (p.s.i.) 


20 


22 


34 


Test  rim  Minimum  Section 

-    width    size  factor  width  ^ 

(inches)     (inches)     (inches) 


077-14.. 1,250      1,310      1,380      1,440      1,600      1,560      1,620      1,680      1,730      1,780      1,830 

5.9-10 

5.9-12 

6.2-12 

6.2-13. 

6.5-13... 

6.9-13 

6.2-15 

6.9-16 


385 
460 
486 
515 
575 
635 


430 
505 
545 
676 
646 


475 
550 
605 
640 
715 
795 


515 
696 
655 
700 
770 
846 
780 


560 
640 
705 
750 
826 
915 
835 


580 
665 
735 
780 
865 


605 
700 
775 
820 
905 


630 
730 
805 
850 
935 


660 
755 
835 
880 
970 


675 
785 
865 
910 
1,005 


700 
810 
895 
945 
1,040 


955   1,006   1,045   1,085   1,120   1,160 


925 

976 

1,076 

950 
1,005 
1,105 

875 


916 


950 


985   1,020   1,055   1,090   1,125 


955   1,020   1,070   1,125   1,170   1,215   1,256   1,300   1,346   1,385 


4 

4 

4 

4 

i'A 

i'A 

4 

i'A 


35.04 
24.00 
26.00 
27.21 
28.19 
29.18 
29.92 
30.17 
31.93 


8.46 
5.80 
5.90 
6.06 
6.06 
6.54 
6.77 
6.06 
6.77 


^The  letter  "H",  "S",  or  "V"  may  be  included  in  any  .specified  tire  size  designation  .adjacent  tn  or  in  place  of  the 
=  Actual   section   width  and   overall   width  shall   not  e.xceed  the  specified  section  width  by  more  than  7  percent. 


'dash" 


(Rev.   7/27/72) 


PART  571;  S  109A^ 


Effective:   June   3,    1971 


I 


Table  I-F 
TIRE  LOAD  RATINGS.  TEST  RIMS,  MINIMUM  SIZE  FACTORS,  AND  SECTION  WIDTHS  FORTYPE"R"  RADIAL  PLY  TIRES 


Maximum  tire  loads  (pounds)  at  various  cold  inflation  pressures  (p.s.i.) 


Tire  slie  designation ' 


20 


28 


30 


32 


34 


36 


38 


Test  rim  Minimum  Section 

width    size  factor  width  ' 

40       (inches)     (inches)     (inches) 


6.20R10 435 

5.00R12 480 

5.20R12 515 

5.60R12 520 

5.  60R12 _.  600 

5.00R13 -.-  535 

5.20R13 570 

5.50R13.... 575 

6.  60R13 655 

6.  00R13 _.  675 

5.90R13 705 

6.  40R13 810 

6.60R13 800 

6.  70R13 690 

7.00R13 870 

7.25R13 940 

5.20RU 605 

5.90R14 750 

7.00R14 925 

7.  60R14. 1,065 

5.60R15 705 

6.40R15 885 

6.  70R15 975 

7.60R15 1,160 


460 

485 

510 

535 

560 

585 

615 

635 

660 

685 

710 

735 

3H 

24.84 

S.20 

495 

515 

.535 

555 

575 

595 

615 

636 

650 

670 

690 

710 

3H 

25.62 

5.04 

540 

565 

590 

615 

640 

665 

696 

716 

740 

765 

790 

815 

3H 

26.79 

5.20 

545 

570 

595 

620 

650 

670 

705 

726 

760 

776 

800 

825 

4 

26.  93 

.5.59 

630 

655 

685 

715 

740 

770 

800 

825 

850 

875 

905 

930 

4 

27.83 

5.71 

555 

675 

690 

615 

630 

650 

670 

690 

706 

726 

745 

765 

3'A 

26.64 

6.04 

595 

620 

645 

670 

695 

720 

760 

770 

796 

820 

845 

870 

3H 

27.72 

5.20 

600 

625 

660 

675 

696 

725 

750 

775 

795 

825 

860 

875 

4 

27.95 

5.69 

685 

710 

740 

765 

795 

825 

855 

880 

905 

935 

960 

990 

4 

28.92 

5.71 

705 

736 

760 

790 

815 

845 

876 

900 

925 

950 

975 

1.006 

4 

29,37 

6.00 

780 

805 

830 

860 

885 

915 

940 

965 

990 

1.015 

1,045 

1,070 

4 

29.74 

5.91 

840 

870 

905 

940 

970 

1,005 

1.040 

1,070 

1.100 

1.135 

1,165 

1,200 

4H 

31.26 

6.42 

830 

860 

890 

926 

960 

995 

1.030 

1,060 

1.090 

1.120 

1.1.50 

1,180 

4!/2 

30.76 

6.60 

775 

860 

935 

1,000 

1,045 

1,090 

1.135 

1,175 

1.220 

1.260 

1.305 

1,340 

4!4 

32.14 

6.69 

910 

950 

985 

1,025 

1,060 

1.100 

1,145 

1,175 

1.215 

1.255 

1,295 

1,335 

5 

31.  8S 

7.10 

980 

1,020 

1.060 

1,100 

1,136 

1.175 

1.216 

1.255 

1.290 

1.330 

1,370 

1,410 

5 

32.61 

7.24 

640 

670 

700 

730 

760 

795 

830 

856 

885 

916 

950 

980 

3M 

28.89 

5.20 

785 

815 

845 

875 

906 

935 

970 

995 

1,025 

1.055 

1,085 

1,116 

4 

30.76 

5.91 

960 

1,000 

1,040 

1,075 

1,115 

1.155 

1.1S5 

1.236 

1.270 

1.320 

1,350 

1,380 

5 

32.88 

7.10 

1,100 

1.140 

1,180 

1,220 

1,260 

1.300 

1,340 

1.380 

1,416 

1.460 

1,600 

1,540 

6M 

34.19 

7.66 

780 

805 

830 

860 

885 

915 

940 

965 

990 

1.015 

1.046 

1,070 

4 

30.87 

5.71 

925 

965 

1,005 

1.040 

1,080 

1.120 

1,160 

1.200 

1,235 

1,275 

1.310 

1.350 

i'A 

33.26 

6.42 

1,015 

1,055 

1,095 

1,130 

1,170 

1.215 

1,255 

1.290 

1,325 

1,366 

1.405 

1.445 

4K2 

33.95 

7.00 

1,200 

1.245 

1,285 

1,325 

1,370 

1.415 

1,465 

1.500 

1.535 

1,576 

1.610 

1.655 

SH 

36.00 

7.90 

^The  letter  "H",  "S",  or  "V"  may  be  included  in  any  specified  tire  size  designation  adjacent  to  the  *'R". 

*  Actual   section   width  and  overall   width  .shall  not  exceed  the  specified  section  width  by  more  than  7  percent. 


\ 


Table  I-O 
TIRE  LOAD  RATINGS,  TEST  RIMS,  MINIMUM  SIZE  FACTORS,  AND  SECTION  WIDTHS  FOR  "70  SERIES"  TYPE  "R"  RADIAL  PLY 

TIRES 


Tire  site  designation  ' 


Maximum  tire  loads  (pounds)  at  various  cold  inflation  pressures  (p.s.i.) 


18 


20 


28 


30 


Test  rim  Minimum  Section 

width    size  factor  width  i 

40       (Inches)     (Inches)     (inches) 


AR70-13 720 

BR70-13 780 

CR70-13 840 

DR70-13 890 

CR70-14 840 

DR70-14 890 

ER70-14 960 

FR70-14 1,020 

aR70-14 1,100 

HR70-14 1,200 

JR70-14 1,260 

LR70-14 1,340 

DR70-15 890 

ER70-15 950 

FR70-15 1,020 

OR70-15 1,100 

HR70-15 1,200 

JR70-15 1,260 

KR70-15 1,290 

LR70-15 1,340 

MR70-15 1,420 


770 

810 

860 

900 

940 

980 

1.020 

1,060 

1.090 

1.130 

1.160 

1.200 

5 

30.04 

7.15 

840 

890 

930 

980 

1,030 

1.070 

1.110 

1.150 

1,190 

1.230 

1.270 

1.300 

b'A 

31.04 

7.60 

890 

960 

1,000 

1,050 

1,100 

1.140 

1.190 

1,230 

1,270 

1.320 

1,360 

1,400 

5 

31.65 

7.85 

950 

1,010 

1,070 

1.120 

1,170 

1,220 

1.270 

1.320 

1,360 

1,410 

1,450 

1,490 

5H 

32.29 

8.05 

890 

950 

1.000 

1,050 

1,100 

1,140 

1.190 

1.230 

1,270 

1.320 

1.360 

1,400 

5H 

32.23 

7.65 

950 

1,010 

1,070 

1,120 

1.170 

1.220 

1,270 

1.320 

1.360 

1.410 

1.450 

1,490 

5M 

32.78 

7.90 

1,010 

1,070 

1.130 

1.190 

1.240 

1.300 

1.350 

1.400 

1.440 

1.490 

1.540 

1.580 

5H 

33.42 

8.10 

1,090 

1,160 

1,220 

1.280 

1.340 

1.400 

1.460 

1,600 

1.550 

1,610 

1,650 

1.700 

6 

34.34 

8.55 

1,180 

1.250 

1,310 

1,380 

1,440 

1,500 

1,660 

1,620 

1,680 

1,730 

1,780 

1.830 

6 

35.12 

8.86 

1,290 

1.360 

1,440 

1,610 

1,580 

1,650 

1,710 

1.770 

1,830 

1.890 

1.950 

2,010 

m 

36.31 

9.40 

1,350 

1.430 

1,600 

1,680 

1,650 

1.720 

1,790 

1,860 

1.920 

1.980 

2,040 

2,100 

6H 

36.86 

9.56 

1,430 

1,620 

1,600 

1,680 

1,750 

1,830 

1,900 

1,970 

2,040 

2,100 

2,170 

2,230 

6H 

37.69 

9.80 

960 

1,010 

1,070 

1,120 

1.170 

1,220 

1,270 

1.320 

1,360 

1,410 

1,460 

1,490 

5K 

33.34 

7.75 

1,010 

1.070 

1,130 

1,190 

1,240 

1,300 

1,350 

1,400 

1,440 

1,490 

1.540 

1.580 

6H 

33.91 

7.95 

1,090 

1,160 

1.220 

1,280 

1,340 

1,400 

1,450 

1,600 

1,550 

1,610 

1,650 

1,700 

6 

34.87 

8.40 

1,180 

1,260 

1.310 

1,380 

1,440 

1,500 

1,560 

1,620 

1,680 

1,730 

1.780 

1,830 

6 

35.65 

8.65 

1,290 

1,360 

1,440 

1,610 

1,580 

1.650 

1.710 

1,770 

1,830 

1,890 

1,950 

2,010 

6H 

36.83 

9.20 

1,360 

1,430 

1.500 

1,580 

1,650 

1.720 

1,790 

1,860 

1,920 

1,980 

2,040 

2,100 

6H 

37.31 

9.40 

1,380 

1,460 

1,540 

1,620 

1,690 

1,770 

1,830 

1.900 

1,970 

2,030 

2,090 

2,160 

6M 

37.62 

9.60 

1,430 

1,520 

1,600 

1,680 

1,760 

1,830 

1,900 

1,970 

2,040 

2,100 

2,170 

2,230 

6H 

38.06 

9.65 

1,520 

1,610 

1,700 

1,780 

1,860 

1,940 

2,020 

2,090 

2,160 

2,230 

2,300 

2,370 

7 

38.93 

10.15 

\ 


*The  letter  "H",  "S",  or  *'V"  may  be  included  in  any  specified  tire  size  designation  adjacent  to  or  in  place  of  the  "dash". 
-Actual   section  width  and  overall  width  shall   not  exceed   the  specified  section  width  by  more  than  T  percent. 


(Rev.   6/26/73) 


PART  571;  S  109 A-5 


Effectivet   June    3,    1971 

Table  I-H 
TIRE  LOAD  RATINGS.  TEST  RIMS,  MINIMUM  SIZE  FACTORS,  AND  SECTION  WIDTHS  FOR  TYPE  "R"  RADIAL  PLY  TIRES 


Tire  size  designation  ' 


Maximum  tire  loads  (pounds)  at  various  cold  inflation  pressures  (p.s.i.) 


24 


26 


28 


32 


34 


Test  rim  Minimum  Section 

-    width    size  factor  width  » 

(inches)    (inches)     Cinches) 


145R10 ._  465 

125R12 _,  370 

135R12 440 

145R12 _ 530 

155RI2 590 

135R13 480 

145R13 590 

185R13 645 

165RI3 ._  680 

175R13 790 

185RI3 870 

195R13 955 

135R14 515 

146RI4 _.  595 

155R14 690 

165R14 760 

175R14 840 

185R14 920 

195R14... 1,020 

205R14... ._. 1,110 

215R14 1,210 

226R14 1,270 

125R15 460 

135R15 - 645 

145R15 640 

166R16_.. 690 

165R15 770 

176R15 840 

185R15 950 

195R15 1,020 

205R15 1,100 

215R15 1,190 

226R16 1,270 

235R15 1,340 

205R16 1,100 


495 

525 

550 

580 

606 

630 

656 

680 

700 

725 

750 

770 

4 

24.76 

6.79 

400 

430 

460 

475 

496 

616 

635 

566 

675 

,696 

610 

630 

3H 

24.68 

5.00 

475 

505 

636 

660 

585 

610 

635 

655 

680 

700 

725 

745 

4 

26.63 

6.39 

565 

600 

635 

666 

695 

726 

756 

780 

810 

836 

860 

885 

4 

26.69 

5.79 

630 

665 

700 

735 

770 

800 

835 

865 

895 

926 

960 

980 

i'A 

27.36 

6.18 

515 

545 

575 

600 

630 

666 

680 

705 

730 

755 

780 

800 

4 

26.63 

5.39 

630 

665 

700 

736 

770 

800 

835 

860 

890 

920 

950 

980 

4 

27.59 

5.79 

690 

730 

770 

810 

845 

886 

915 

960 

985 

1,015 

1,045 

1,076 

4H 

28.44 

6.18 

730 

770 

820 

860 

900 

930 

970 

1.010 

1,040 

1.080 

1.110 

1,140 

iH 

29.18 

6.40 

840 

890 

930 

980 

1,030 

1,070 

1,110 

1,160 

1,190 

1,230 

1,270 

1.300 

iH 

30.30 

6.76 

930 

980 

1,030 

1,080 

1,130 

1,180 

1,230 

1,270 

1,310 

1,360 

1.400 

1,440 

5 

31.42 

7.25 

1,010 

1,060 

1.110 

1,170 

1,220 

1,280 

1,320 

1.370 

1,420 

1,470 

1.610 

1.650 

6H 

32.38 

7.70 

550 

585 

616 

645 

675 

705 

730 

760 

785 

810 

835 

860 

4 

27.54 

6.39 

636 

675 

715 

760 

786 

816 

860 

880 

910 

940 

966 

996 

4 

28.54 

5.79 

740 

780 

820 

860 

900 

940 

970 

1,010 

1,040 

1,080 

1,110 

1,140 

4 

29.61 

6.06 

810 

860 

910 

960 

1,000 

1,040 

1,080 

1,120 

1,160 

1,200 

1,240 

1,270 

4H 

30.65 

6.66 

900 

950 

1.000 

1,050 

1.100 

1,140 

1,190 

1,230 

1,270 

1,310 

1,350 

1,390 

6 

31.63 

7.00 

980 

1,040 

I.IOO 

1.160 

1.210 

1.260 

1.310 

1,360 

1,400 

1,450 

1,490 

1,540 

5 

32.69 

7,30 

1,090 

1,150 

1.210 

1,270 

1.330 

1,390 

1.440 

1,600 

1,650 

1,600 

1,650 

1,690 

6M 

33.69 

7.80 

1,190 

1,250 

1.310 

1,380 

1,440 

1,500 

1,660 

1.620 

1,670 

1,730 

1,780 

1,830 

6 

34.82 

8.30 

1,290 

1,360 

1.430 

1,510 

1,580 

1,640 

1,710 

1,770 

1,830 

1,890 

1,950 

2.000 

6 

35.79 

8.60 

1,350 

1,430 

1,610 

1,580 

1,660 

1,730 

1,790 

1,860 

1,920 

1,990 

2,060 

2.100 

6M 

36.44 

8.96 

490 

520 

560 

576 

606 

630 

655 

680 

705 

726 

746 

770 

3H 

27.69 

6.00 

680 

616 

650 

680 

715 

746 

775 

800 

830 

856 

880 

910 

4 

28.63 

6.39 

680 

720 

760 

795 

830 

865 

900 

935 

965 

995 

1,025 

1,055 

4 

29.64 

6.79 

735 

780 

825 

865 

905 

940 

980 

1,016 

1,060 

1,085 

1,116 

1,160 

i'A 

30.46 

6.18 

820 

870 

910 

960 

1,000 

1,050 

1,090 

1,130 

1,170 

1,200 

1,240 

1,270 

4H 

31.18 

6.40 

900 

950 

1,000 

1,050 

1,100 

1,140 

1,190 

1,230 

1,270 

1,320 

1,360 

1,390 

5 

32.30 

6.90 

1,010 

1,070 

1,130 

1,180 

1,240 

1,290 

1,340 

1,390 

1,440 

1,480 

1.630 

1,670 

6H 

33.68 

7. 45 

1,090 

1,150 

1,210 

1,270 

1,330 

1,380 

1,440 

1,490 

1,540 

1,690 

1,640 

1,690 

5H 

34.22 

7.65 

1,170 

1,240 

1,300 

1,370 

1,430 

1,490 

1,650 

1,610 

1,660 

1,720 

1,770 

1,820 

6 

35.20 

8.10 

1,270 

1,340 

1,410 

1,480 

1,600 

1,020 

1.680 

1,740 

1,800 

1,860 

1,920 

1,970 

6 

36.00 

8.36 

1,3.50 

1,430 

1,610 

1,580 

1,650 

1,720 

1,790 

1,860 

1,920 

1,980 

2,040 

2,100 

6H 

36.94 

8.80 

1,430 

1,510 

1,600 

1,680 

1,760 

1,830 

1,900 

1,970 

2,030 

2,100 

2,160 

2,230 

6M 

37.76 

9.05 

1,170 

1,240 

1,300 

1,370 

1,430 

1,490 

1,650 

1,610 

1,660 

1,720 

1,770 

1.820 

6 

36.62 

8.19 

^The  letter  '*H",  "S",  or  "V"  may  be  included  In  any  specified  tire  size  designation  adjacent  to  the  "R". 
-Actual   section  width  and   nverall   width  shall   not  exceed  the  specified  section  width  by  more  than  7  percent. 


(Rev.    10/3/73) 


PART  571;  S  109A-6 


EfFeclive:   June    3,    1971 


I 


Table  I-T 
TIRE  LOAD  RATINGS,  TEST  RIMS.  MINIMUM  SIZE  FACTORS,  AND  SECTION  WIDTHS  FOR  "7S  SERIES"  BIAS  PLY  TIRES 


Tire  site  designation ' 


16 


Maximum  tire  loads  (pounds)  at  various  cold  inflation  pressures  (p.s.i.) 


18 


20 


22 


24 


2fi 


28 


30 


32 


34 


36 


38 


Test  rim  Minimum  Section 

width    size  factor  width  s 

40       (inches)     (inches)     (Inches) 


A78-13 720  770  810  860  900  940  980  1,020  1,060  1,090  1,130  1,160  1,200  4H  29.74  6.60 

B78-13 780  840  890  930  980  1,030  1,070  1,110  1,150  1,190  1,230  1,270  1,300  5  30.72  7.0f 

C78-13 840  890  950  1.000  1,050  1,100  1.140  1,190  1,230  1,270  1,320  1,360  1,400  5'A  31.66  7.45 

D78-13 890  950  1.010  1,070  1,120  1,170  1.220  1,270  1,320  1,360  1,410  1,450  1,490  S'A  32.18  7.70 

A78-14 720  770  810  860  900  940  980  1.020  1,060  1.090  1.130  1.160  1.200  i'A  30.31  6.45 

B78-14 780  840  890  930  980  1,030  1.070  1.110  1.150  1.190  1.2.30  1.270  1.300  4H  31.04  6.65 

078-14 840  890  950  1.000  1,050  1,100  1.140  1,190  1,230  1,270  1,320  1,360  1.400  5  31.95  7.06 

D78-:4 890  960  1,010  1,070  1.120  1,170  1,220  1,270  1,320  1,360  1,410  1,450  1,490  5  32.52  7,35 

E78-14 950  1,010  1,070  1.130  1,190  1,240  1,300  1,360  1.400  1,440  1,490  1,540  1,580  6V^  33.29  7.66 

F78-14 1,020  1,090  1,160  1.220  1,280  1,340  1,400  1,450  1,600  1,650  1,610  1,650  1,700  5'A  34.04  7.90 

078-14 1.100  1.180  1.250  1.310  1,380  1,440  1,600  1,560  1,620  1,680  1,730  1,780  1,830  6  36.02  8.35 

H78-14 1,200  1,290  1,360  1.440  1,610  1,580  1,650  1,710  1,770  1,830  1,890  1,950  2,010  6  36.06  8.70 

J7S-14 1,260  1,350  1,430  1,600  1,580  1,650  1,720  1,790  1,860  1.920  1,980  2,040  2,100  6  36.58  8.80 

A78-16 720  770  810  860  900  940  980  1.020  1.060  1.090  1.130  1,160  1,200  4H  30.85  6.36 

C78-I6 840  890  950  1,000  1,050  1,100  1,140  1,190  1,230  1,270  1,320  1.360  1,400  5  32.46  6.96 

D78-16 -  890  950  1,010  1,070  1,120  1,170  1.220  1,270  1,320  1,360  1.410  1.450  1,490  5  33.05  7.15 

E78-16 _  950  1,010  1,070  1,130  1,190  1.240  1.300  1,350  1,400  1,440  1,490  1,540  1,580  5  33.66  7.36 

F78-15 1,020  1,090  1,160  1,220  1,280  1,340  1,400  1.450  1,500  1,550  1,610  1,660  1,700  6H  34.56  7.70 

Q78-15 1,100  1,180  1.250  1.310  1,380  1,440  1,500  1,660  1,620  1,680  1,730  1,780  1,830  5H  35.36  8.05 

H78-15 1.200  1.290  1,360  1,440  1,510  1,580  1,650  1,710  1,770  1,830  1,890  1.950  2,010  6  36.50  8.65 

J78-16 1,260  1,350  1.430  1.500  1.580  1,660  1,720  1,790  1,860  1,920  1,980  2.040  2.100  6  37.02  8.70 

L78-15 1.340  1,430  1.520  1.600  1.680  1.750  1,830  1,900  1,970  2,040  2,100  2,170  2,230  6  37.73  8.85 

N78-15 1,500  1,600  1,700  1,790  1,880  1,970  2,050  2.130  2,210  2,280  2,360  2,430  2,600  7  39.60  9.80 

'The  letter  "H",  "S",  or  "V"  may  be  included  in  any  specified  tire  size  designation  adjacent  to  or  in  place  of  the  "dash". 

=  Actual   section   width  and   overall  width  shall   not  exceed   the  specified  section  width  by  more  than  7  percent. 

Table  I-K 

TIRE  LOAD  RATINGS,  TEST  RIMS,  MINIMUM  SIZE  FACTORS,  AND  SECTION  WIDTHS  FOR  "60  SERIES"  BIAS  PLY  TIRES 


\ 


Tire  size  designation  ' 


Maximum  tire  loads  (pounds)  at  various  cold  inflation  pressures  (p.s.i.) 


16 


18 


20 


22 


24 


26 


28 


30 


32 


34 


36 


38 


Test  rim  Minimum  Section 

width    size  factor  width  ' 

40       (inches)     (inches)     (inches) 


A60-13 720  770  810  860  900  940         980  1,020  1,060  1,090  1,130  1.160  1,200  5H  30.00 

B60-13 780  840  890  930  980  1.030  1,070  1,110  1.150  1,190  1,230  1,270  1,300  6  30.95 

060-13 840  890  950  1.000  1,050  1,100  1,140  1,190  1,230  1,270  1,320  1,360  1,400  6  31.68 

D60-13 890  950  1,010  1,070  1,120  1,170  1,220  1,270  1.320  1.360  1,410  1,450  1,490  6  32.20 

360-14 780  840  890  930  980  1,030  1,070  1.110  1,160  1,190  1,230  1,270  1,300  b'A  31.26 

D60-14 890  960  1,010  1,070  1,120  1,170  1.220  1.270  1,320  1,360  1,410  1,460  1,490  6  32.72 

E60-14 950  1,010  1,070  1,130  1,190  1,240  1,300  1,350  1,400  1,440  1,490  1,540  1,580  7  33.69 

F60-14 _,  1,020  1,090  1,160  1,220  1,280  1,340  1,400  1,450  1,600  1,550  1,610  1,650  1,700  7  34.44 

060-14 1,100  1,180  1,250  1,310  1,380  1,440  1,500  1,660  1,620  1,680  1,730  1,780  1,830  7  35.23 

H60-14 1,200  1,290  1.360  1.440  1,610  1,680  1,650  1,710  1,770  1,830  1,890  1,950  2,010  7  36.20 

J60-14. 1,260  1,350  1,430  1,500  1,580  1,650  1,720  1,790  1,860  1,920  1,980  2,040  2,100  7  36.70 

L60-14 1,340  1,430  1..520  1,600  1,680  1,750  1,830  1,900  1,970  2,040  2,100  2,170  2,230  8  37.83 

B60-15 780  840  890  930  980  1.030  1,070  1,110  1,160  1,190  1,230  1,270  1,300  5'A  31.85 

060-15 840  890  950  1,000  1,060  1,100  1,140  1,190  1,230  1,270  1,320  1,360  1,400  6  32.66 

E60-16 960  1.010  1,070  1,130  1,190  1,240  1,300  1,360  1,400  1,440  1,490  1,640  1,580  6  33.83 

F60-15 1,020  1,090  1,160  1,220  1,280  1,340  1,400  1,450  1,500  1,660  1,610  1,650  1.700  ^Mi  34.75 

060-15 1,100  1.180  1.250  1.310  1,380  1,440  1,500  1,660  1,620  1,680  1,730  1,780  1,830  7  35.73 

H60-16 1,200  1,290  1,360  1,440  1,510  1,580  1,650  1,710  1,770  1,830  1,890  1,950  2,010  7  36.70 

J60-16 1,260  1,350  1,430  1,500  1,680  1,650  1,720  1,790  1,860  1,920  1,980  2,040  2,100  7  37.20 

L60-16 1,340  1,430  1,520  1,600  1,680  1,750  1,830  1,900  1,970  2,040  2,100  2,170  2,230  7  37.91 

•The  letter  "H",  "S",  or  "V"  may  be  included  in  any  specified  tire  size  designation  adjacent  to  or  in  place  of  the  "dash" 

^Actual  section  width  and  overall  width  shall  not  exceed  the  specified  section  width  l)y  more  than  7  percent. 


7.86 
8.36 
8.60 
8.85 
8.00 
8.65 
9.30 
9.65 
9.86 
10.26 
10.45 
11.10 
7.80 
8.25 
8.70 
9.40 
9.70 
10.06 
10.26 
10.60 


\ 


(Rev.    7/11/74) 


PART  571;  S  109A-7 


Effective;    June    3,    1971 


TIRE  LOAD  RATINGS,  TEST  RIMS,  MINIMUM  SIZE  FACTORS,  AND  SECTION  WIDTHS  FOR  SERIES  50CANTILEVERED  SIDEWALL 

TIRES 


Maximum  tire  loads  (pounds)  at  various  cold  inflation  pressures  (p.s.i.) 


Tire  size  designation  i 


30 


36 


38 


40 


Test  rim  Minimum  Section 

-    width    size  factor  width  • 

(inches)    (inches)     (inches) 


E60C-16 1,070 

F80C-16 ----  1,160 

0600-17 1,250 

H60O-17 1,360 

L60C-18..- 1,520 


1.130 

1,190 

1,240 

1.300 

1.350 

1,400 

1,440 

1,220 

1,280 

1.340 

1.400 

1,450 

1.500 

1.550 

1,310 

1,380 

1,440 

1,500 

1,560 

1,620 

1,680 

1,440 

1,510 

1,580 

1,650 

1,710 

1.770 

1.830 

1,600 

1,680 

1,750 

1,830 

1,900 

1.970 

2,040 

1.490  1,540  1,580 

1.610  1.650  1.700 

1,730  1,780  1,830 

1,890  1,950  2,010 

2,100  2,170  2,230 


3H 
3M 
3H 

3H 
3H 


33.31 
34.04 
35.34 
36.30 
38.00 


7.96 
8.20 

8.45 
8.80 
9.10 


'The  letter  "H",  "S",  or  "V"  may  be  included  in  any  specified  tire  size  desisnation  adjacent  to  or  in  place  of  the  "da.sh" 
-Actual   section  width  and  overall  width  shall   not  exceed  the  specified  section  width  by  more  than  7  percent. 


Table  I-M 
TIRE  LOAD  RATINGS,  TEST  RIMS,  MINIMUM  SIZE  FACTORS,  AND  SECTION  WIDTHS  FOR  "78  SERIES"  RADIAL  PLY  TIRES 


Tire  size  designation  ' 


16 


Maximum  tire  loads  (pounds)  at  various  cold  inflation  pressures  (p.s.i.) 


Test  rim  Minimum  Section 

-    width    size  factor  width  ' 

(inches)     (inches)     (inches) 


AR78-13.. 720 

BR78-13... 780 

CR78-13 840 

AR78-14 720 

BR78-14 780 

OR78-14 840 

DR78-14 890 

ER78-14... _.  950 

FR78-14 1,020 

OR78-14. 1,100 

HR78-14 1,200 

JR78-14.. 1,260 

AR78-15 720 

BR78-16 780 

CR78-16 840 

ER78-15... 950 

FR78-15 1,020 

OR78-15 1.100 

HR78-15 1,200 

JR78-16.... 1,260 

LR78-15 1,340 

MR78-15 1,420 

NR78-15.-.- 1,500 


770 

810 

860 

900 

940 

980 

1,020 

1,060 

1,090 

1,130 

1.160 

1,200 

ili 

29.65 

6.60 

840 

890 

930 

980 

1,030 

1,070 

1,110 

1.160 

1,190 

1.230 

1.270 

1,300 

m 

30.31 

6.76 

890 

950 

1,000 

1.050 

1,100 

1,140 

1,190 

1,230 

1,270 

1,320 

1,360 

1,400 

6 

31.13 

7.16 

770 

810 

860 

900 

940 

980 

1,020 

1,060 

1,090 

1,130 

1,160 

1,200 

4H 

30.08 

6.40 

840 

890 

930 

980 

1,030 

1,070 

1,110 

1,150 

1,190 

1,230 

1,270 

1.300 

4K2 

30.84 

6.  60 

890 

950 

1,000 

1,050 

1,100 

1,140 

1,190 

1,230 

1,270 

1,320 

1,360 

1.400 

6 

31.67 

7.00 

950 

1.010 

1,070 

1,120 

1,170 

1,220 

1,270 

1,320 

1,360 

1,410 

1,450 

1,490 

5 

32.26 

7.20 

1,010 

1.070 

1,130 

1,190 

1.240 

1.300 

1,360 

1,400 

1,440 

1,490 

1,540 

1,580 

5 

32.86 

7.40 

1,090 

1,160 

1,220 

1,280 

1.340 

1.400 

1.450 

1,600 

1,660 

1,610 

1.650 

1,700 

5H 

33.78 

7.86 

1,180 

1,250 

1,310 

1,380 

1,440 

1,500 

1,560 

1.620 

1.680 

1,730 

1,780 

1,830 

6 

34.78 

8.30 

1,290 

1.360 

1,440 

1,610 

1,580 

1,650 

1,710 

1,770 

1,830 

1,890 

1,950 

2,010 

6 

36.77 

8.60 

1.350 

1,430 

1,600 

1,680 

1,650 

1,720 

1,790 

1,860 

1,920 

1,980 

2,040 

2,100 

6M 

36.47 

8.95 

770 

810 

860 

900 

940 

980 

1,020 

1,060 

1,090 

1.130 

1,160 

1,200 

4H 

30.66 

6.26 

840 

890 

930 

980 

1,030 

1,070 

1,110 

1,160 

1,190 

1.230 

1,270 

1,300 

4>^ 

31.38 

6.45 

890 

950 

1,000 

1,050 

1,100 

1,140 

1,190 

1,230 

1.270 

1,320 

1,360 

1,400 

6 

32.24 

6.85 

1,010 

1,070 

1,130 

1,190 

1,240 

1,300 

1,350 

1,400 

1,440 

1,490 

1,540 

1,580 

5H 

33.58 

7.46 

1,090 

1,160 

1,220 

1,280 

1,340 

1,400 

1,460 

1,500 

1,650 

1,610 

1,650 

1,700 

5H 

34.28 

7.70 

1,180 

1.250 

1,310 

1,380 

1.440 

1,500 

1,660 

1,620 

1,680 

1,730 

1,780 

1,830 

6 

35.30 

8.16 

1,290 

1,360 

1,440 

1,510 

1,580 

1,650 

1,710 

1.770 

1,830 

1,890 

1,950 

2,010 

6 

36.23 

8.45 

1,350 

1,430 

1,500 

1,680 

1,650 

1.720 

1,790 

1,860 

1,920 

1,980 

2,040 

2,100 

6H 

36.98 

8.80 

1,430 

1,520 

1,600 

1,680 

1,760 

1,830 

1,900 

1,970 

2,040 

2,100 

2,170 

2,230 

m 

37.66 

9.  CO 

1,520 

1,610 

1,700 

1,780 

1,860 

1,940 

2,020 

2,090 

2,160 

2,230 

2,300 

2,370 

m 

38.35 

9.20 

1,600 

1,700 

1,790 

1,880 

1,970 

2,060 

2,130 

2,210 

2,280 

2,360 

2,430 

2,600 

7 

39.17 

9.70 

^The  letter  "H",  "S",  or  "V"  may  be  included  in  any  specified  tire  size  designation  adjacent  to  or  in  place  of  the  "dash" 
-Actual   section  width  and  overall  width  shall  not  exceed   the  specified  section  width  by  more  than  7  percent. 


(Rev.    7/11/74) 


PART  571;  S  109A-8 


Effective:   June    3,    1971 


Table  I-N 
TIRE  LOAD  RATINGS,  TEST  RIMS.  MINIMUM  SIZE  FACTORS,  AND  SECTION  WIDTHS  FOR  "70  SERIES"  RADIAL  PLY  TIRES 


Maximum  tire  loads  (pounds)  at  various  cold  inflation  pressures  (p.s.i.) 


Tire  site  designation  < 


16 


18 


20 


30 


Test  inm  Minimum  Section 

-    width    size  factor  width' 

(inches)     (inches)     (inches) 


IM'70  R  10 585         600  615 

145/70R12 500         515  535 

175/70  R  12 -.  780 

165/70  R  13 750 

175/70  R  13 - 845 

185/70  R  13 - 940 

195/70  R  13.- -- 1,045 

156/70  R  14 700 

175/70  R14 880 

185/70  R  14 -  990 

195/70  R  14 1,090 

175/70  R  15 940 

185/70  R  16 890          915  1,040 


630 

650 

665 

680 

700 

715 

730 

745 

760 

780 

4H 

25  50 

6.60 

550 

570 

590 

605 

620 

640 

660 

675 

695 

710 

4 

25.50 

5.67 

805 

830 

855 

880 

900 

925 

950 

970 

995 

1,020 

5 

28.21 

6.92 

770 

795 

815 

835 

860 

880 

900 

920 

940 

960 

4H 

28.45 

6.50 

865 

890 

910 

935 

955 

980 

1,000 

1,025 

1,045 

1,070 

5 

29.31 

6.92 

965 

990 

1,015 

1,040 

1,065 

1,090 

1,115 

1,140 

1,165 

1,190 

5 

30.39 

7.31 

1,070 

1,100 

1,125 

1,155 

1,180 

1,210 

1,240 

1,265 

1,290 

1,320 

5H 

31.20 

7.74 

720 

740 

760 

780 

795 

815 

835 

850 

870 

890 

4 

28.15 

5.93 

905 

925 

950 

975 

1,000 

1,025 

1,050 

1,075 

1,100 

1,125 

5 

30.33 

6.92 

1,015 

1,045 

1,070 

1,100 

1,130 

1,155 

1,180 

1,210 

1,235 

1,265 

5 

31.39 

7.31 

1,120 

1,155 

1,185 

1,220 

1,250 

1,280 

1,310 

1,340 

1,375 

1,405 

5H 

32.30 

7.74 

965 

990 

1,015 

1,040 

1,065 

1,090 

1,115 

1,140 

1,165 

1,190 

5 

31.36 

6.92 

1,070 

1,100 

1,130 

1,165 

1,180 

1,210 

1,235 

1,265 

1,290 

1,320 

5 

32.34 

7.31 

^  The  letter  "H",  "S",  or  "V"  may  be  included  in  any  specified  tire  size  designation  adjacent  to  the  "R". 
'Actual  section  width  and  overall   width  shall  not  exceed  the  specified  section  width  by  more  than  7  percent. 

Table  I-O 
TIRE  LOAD  RATINGS,  TEST  RIMS,  MINIMUM  SIZE  FACTORS,  AND  SECTION  WIDTHS   FOR  "LOW  SECTION"  TYPE 

PLY  TIRES 


R"    RADIAL 


Tire  size  designation  i 


Maximum  tire  loads  (pounds)  at  various  cold  inflation  pressures  (p.s.i.) 


20 


28 


30 


32 


38 


Test  rim  Minimum   Section 

-    width    size  factor  width  ' 

(inches)    (inches)    (inches) 


140  R  12 490 

160  R  12 _ _ 570 

180  R  13 -  600 

160  R  13 -.- - 670 

170  R  13 720 

160  R  14 - - 640 

180  R  15 920 


520 

550 

580 

610 

640 

660 

690 

710 

740 

770 

26.20 

S.40 

610 

640 

670 

700 

730 

760 

790 

820 

850 

880 

27.19 

6.76 

640 

680 

720 

750 

780 

810 

840 

870 

900 

940 

28.17 

5.75 

700 

740 

780 

820 

860 

900 

940 

980 

1,010 

1,040 

4H 

29.23 

6.25 

760 

800 

840 

880 

920 

960 

1,000 

1,040 

1,080 

1,110 

30.08 

6.60 

670 

710 

750 

780 

820 

860 

900 

940 

970 

1,000 

29.16 

6.76 

970 

1,020 

1,070 

1,120 

1,170 

1,230 

1,280 

1,330 

1,380 

1,430 

5 

32.97 

6.85 

'The  letter  "H",  "S",  or  "V"  may  be  included  in  any  specified  tire  size  designation  adjacent  to  the  "R". 
'Actual   section  width  and   overall   width  shall   not  exceed   the  specified  section  width  by  more  than  7  percent. 

Table  I-P 
TIRE  LOAD  RATINGS,  TEST  RIMS,  MINIMUM  SIZE  FACTORS  AND  SECTION  WIDTHS  FOR  SERIES  45  CANTILEVERED  SIDEWALL 

TIRES 


Maximum  tire  loads  (poimds)  at  various  cold  Inflation  pressures  (p.s.i.) 


Tire  site  designation  > 


Test  rim  Minimum  Section 
-    width    size  factor  width  ' 


20 

22 

24 

26 

28 

30 

32 

34 

36 

38 

40 

(inches) 

(inches) 

(inches) 

G45C-16 

.— 1,205 

1,310 

1,3S0 

1,440 

1,500 

1.560 

1,620 

1,680 

1,730 

1,780 

1,830 

5 

35.53 

9.70 

'The  letter  "H",  "S",  or  "V"  may  be  included  in  any  specified  tire  size  designation  adjacent  to  or  in  place  of  the  "dash". 
'Actual  section  width  and  overall  width  shall  not  exceed  the  specified  section  width  by  more  than  7  percent. 

Table  I-R 
TIRE  LOAD  RATINGS,  TEST  RIMS,  MINIMUM  SIZE  FACTORS,  AND  SECTION  WIDTHS  FOR  "60  SERIES"  RADIAL  PLY  TIRES 


Tire  size  designation  i 


16 


Maximum  tire  loads  (pounds)  at  various  cold  inflation  pressures  (p.s.i.) 
20  22  24  26  28  30  32  34  36 


38 


40 


Test  rim  Minimum   Section 

-    width    size  factor  width  ^ 

(inches)    (inches)    (inches) 


AR60-13 720 

BR60-13 780 

ER60-13.. 950 

AR60-14. 720 

FRCO-14 1,020 

OR60-14 1,100 

LR60-14 1,340 

ER60-15 950 

FR60-15 1,020 

GR60-15 1,100 

HR60-15 1,200 

LR60-15 1.340 


770 

810 

860 

900 

940 

980 

1.020 

1,060 

1,090 

1,130 

1,160 

1.200 

m 

30.00 

7.85 

840 

890 

930 

980 

1,030 

1.070 

1,110 

1,150 

1,190 

1,230 

1,270 

1,300 

6 

30.95 

8.35 

1,010 

1,070 

1,130 

1,190 

1.240 

1,300 

1,350 

1,400 

1,440 

1,490 

1,540 

1,580 

6 

32.81 

9.05 

770 

810 

860 

900 

940 

980 

1,020 

1,060 

1,090 

1,130 

1.160 

1.200 

5H 

30.54 

7.70 

1,090 

1,100 

1,220 

1,280 

1,340 

1,400 

1,450 

1,500 

1,550 

1,610 

1,650 

1,70(1 

6M 

34.25 

9  35 

1,180 

1,250 

1,310 

1,380 

1,440 

1.500 

1,560 

1,620 

1,680 

1,730 

1.780 

1,830 

7 

35.24 

9.85 

1,430 

1,520 

1,600 

1,6S0 

1,750 

1.830 

1,900 

1,970 

2,040 

2,100 

2.170 

2,230 

8 

37.84 

11.10 

1,010 

1,070 

1,130 

1.190 

1,240 

1,300 

1,350 

1,400 

1,440 

1,490 

1,540 

1, 580 

6 

33.84 

8.70 

1,090 

1,160 

1,220 

1,280 

1,340 

1,400 

1,450 

1,500 

1,550 

1.610 

1.650 

1,700 

6H 

34.76 

».20 

1,180 

1,250 

1,310 

1,380 

1,440 

1,500 

1,560 

1,620 

1,680 

1,730 

1.780 

1,830 

i>A 

35.52 

9.60 

1,290 

1,360 

1,440 

1.510 

1,580 

1,650 

1,710 

1,770 

1,830 

1,890 

1,950 

2,010 

7 

36.70 

10.05 

1,430 

1,520 

1,600 

i.mo 

1,750 

1,830 

1,900 

1,970 

2.  ',140 

2,100 

2,170 

2,230 

7 

37.91 

10  60 

'The  letter  "H",  "S",  or  "V"  may  be  included  in  any  specified   tire  size  designation  adjacent  to  or  in  place  of  the 
'Actual   section  width  and   overall   width  shall   not  exceed  the  specified  section  width  by  more  than  7  percent. 


"dash" 


(Rov.  7/11/74) 


PART  571;  S  109A-9 


EffecKv*:   June   3,    1971 

Table  I-S 
TIRE  LOAD  RATINGS,  TEST  RIM8,  MINIMUM  SIZE  FACTORS,  AND  SECTION  WIDTHS  FOR  "60  SERIES"  RADIAL  PLY  TIRES 


Tire  size  designation  ■ 


16 


Maximum  tire  loads  (pounds)  at  various  cold  inflation  pressures  (p.s.i.) 


18 


20 


22 


24 


26 


28 


30 


32 


M 


36 


38 


40 


Test  rim  Minimum  Section 

-    width    site  factor  width  ' 

(Inches)    (inches)    (inches) 


18«/eO  R  13 780         815          845          880         915         945         980      1,010      1,045      1,075      1,110             5  28.61              7.38 

205/SO  R13 735         785         835         880         925         96S      1.005      1,045       1,085      1,120      1.160      1.19.1      1,230             6  30.41              8.19 

205/60  R  14 _.        780         840         890         930         980      1.030      1.070      1.110      1,150      1,190      1.230      1,270      1,300             6  31.62              8.13 

245/60  R  14 1,020      1,090      1,160      1.220      1.280      1.340      1.400      1.450      1.500      1,560      1,610      1.650      1,700             6%  34.25              9,36 

266/60  R14 1,200      1,290       1.360       1.440       1.610       1.580       1.650       1,710       1,770       1,830       1.890       1,950      2,010              7  36.20             10.25 

215/60  R16... 890         950      1,010      1,070      1.120      1,170      1,220      1.270      1,320      1.360      1.410      1.450      1.490             6  33.25              8.55 

255/60  R  16 1,200      1,290      1..360      1.440      1.510      1,580      1,650      1,710      1,770      1,830      1,890      1,950      2.010             7  36.70            10.05 

•The  letter  "H".  "S",  or  "V"  may  be  included  in  any  specified  tire  size  designation  adjacent  tn  the  "R". 
'Actual   section   width  and   overall  width  .shall  not  exceed   the  specified  section  width  by  more  than  7  percent. 

Table  I-T 

TIRE  LOAD  RATINGS,  TEST  RIMS,  MINIMUM  SIZE  FACTORS,  AND  SECTION  WIDTHS  FOR  "70  SERIES"  RADIAL  PLY  TIRES 


Tire  size  designation  > 


16 


Maximum  tire  loads  (pounds)  at  various  cold  inflation  pressures  (p.s.i.) 


18 


20 


22 


24 


26 


28 


30 


32 


34 


36 


38 


40 


Test  rim  Minimum  Section 

width    size  factor  width  ' 

(inches)    (inches)     (inches) 


205/70  R 13 890          950      1,010      1,070      1,120       1.170       1,220      1,270      1.320       1,360      1.410      1,450       1.490              5H  32.29  8.05 

205/70  R14 950      1,010      1,070      1,130      1,190       1,240      1,300      1.350      1.400      1,440      1,490      1.540      1,580              5H  33.42  8.10 

215/70  R14 1,020      1,090       1,160      1.220       1.280      1.340      1,400      1,450      1.600      1.550      1.610      1.650      1.700              6  34.34  8.55 

225/70  R14.... 1.100      1.180       1.250      1.310       1.380      1,440      1,500      1,560      1,620      1,680      1,730      1,780       1,830              6  35.12  8.86 

195/70  R15 890          950      1,010       1.070      1.120      1.170      1.220      1,270      1,320       1.360       1,410       1.4.50       1.490              SH  33.34  7.76 

205/70  R15 950      1.010       1.070      1,130      1.190      1.240      1.300      1,350       1.400      1.440       1.490       1.540       1.580              5H  33.91  7.95 

215/70  R15. 1,020      1,090       1,160      1,220       1.280      1.340       1,400      1.450      1.500      1.550       1,610       1.650      1,700              6  34.87  8.40 

226/70  R15 1,100      1,180      1,250      1.310      1,380      1,440      1,600      1,660      1,620      1,680      1,730      1,780      1.830             6  35.65  8.65 

'The  letter  "H".  "S",  or  "V"  may  be  included  in  any  specified  tire  size  designation  adjacent  to  the  "R". 
'Actual   section  width  and  overall   width  shall   not  exceed   the  specified  section  width  by  more  tlian  7  percent. 

Table  I-U 
TIKE  LOAD  RATINGS,  TEST  RIMS,  MINIMUM  SIZE  FACTORS,  AND  SECTION  WIDTHS  FOR  "60  SERIES"  CANTILEVERED  TIRES 


Tire  size  designation  ' 


Maximum  tire  loads  (pounds)  at  various  cold  inflation  pressures  (ps.i.) 


20 


36 


38 


Test  rim  Minimum   Section 

■     width    size  factor  width' 

(inches)  (inches)  (inches) 


B60C-13. 
C60C-15. 


780 
840 


840 
890 


890    930    980   1,030   1,070   1,110   1,150   1,190   1,230   1,270   1,300 
960   1,000   1,050   1,100   1,140   1,190   1,230   1,270   1,320   1,360   1.400 


4 


30.41 
31.92 


7.  C5 
7  36 


'The  letter  "H",  "S",  or  "V"  may  be  included  in  any  specified  tire  size  designation  adjacent  to  or  in  place  of  the  "dash". 
'Actual   section   width  and  overall  width   shall  not  exceed   the  specified  section  width  by  more  than  7  percent. 

Table  I-V 
TIRE  LOAD  RATINGS,  TEST  RIMS.  MINIMUM  SIZE  FACTORS.  AND  SECTION  WIDTHS  FOR  SERIES  "50"  BIAS  PLY  TIRES 


Tire  size  designation  ' 


Maximum  tire  loads  (pounds)  at  various  cold  Inflation  pressures  (p.s.i.) 


20 


22 


28 


Test  rim  Minimum   Section 

-    width    size  factor  width  ' 

anches)     (inches)    (inches) 


BSChii .„  780  840  890         930  980  1,030  1,070  1,110  1,150  1,190  1,230  1,270  1,300  6  30.84 

C50-13 840  890  950  1,000  1,050  1,100  1,140  1,190  1,230  1,270  1,320  1,360  1,400  6H  31.48 

D50-I3 890  950  1,010  1.070  1,120  1,170  1,220  1,270  1,320  1.360  1,410  1,450  1,490  6ii  32.29 

F60-14 1,020  1,090  1,160      1,220  1,280  1,340  1,400  1,450  1,500  1,550  1,610      1,650  1,700  7  34.10 

G50-14 1,100  1,180  1,250  1,310  1,380  1,440  1,600  1,660  1,620  1,690  1,730  1,780  1,930  8  35.29 

H60-14 1,200  1,290  1,360  1,440  1,510  1,580  1,650  1,710  1,770  1,830  1,890  1,950  2,010  8  36.24 

M50-14 1,420  1,520  1,616  1,700  1,780  1,860  1,940  2,020  2,090  2,100  2,230  2,300  2,370  9  38.51 

N60-14.. 1,500  1,600  1,700  1,790  1,880  1,970  2,050  2,130  2.210  2,280  2,360  2.430  2,500  9  39.17 

F50-15 950  1,010  1.070  1.130  1,190  1,240  1,300  1,350  1,400  1,440  1,490  1,540  1,580  6H  33.74 

G60-15 1,100  1,180  1,250  1,310  1,380  1,440  1,500  1,560  1,620  1.680  1,730  1,780  1,830  7  35.38 

H5D-15 1,200  1.290  1,360  1,440  1,510  1.580  1,650  1,710  1,770  1.830  1,890  1,960  2,010  8  36.76 

L60-15 1,340  1,430  1,520  1,60(1  1,680  1,750  1,830  1,900  1,970  2,040  2,100  2.170  2,230  8  31.94 

N50-15 1,500  1,600  1,700  1,790  1,880  1,970  2,050  2,130  2,210  2,280  2,360  2,430  2,600  9  39.65 

'The  letter  "H",  "S",  or  "V"  may  be  included  in  any  specified  tire  size  designation  adjacent  to  or  in  place  of  the  "dash" 

'Actual   section  width  and   overall   width  shall   not  exceed   the  specified  section  width  by  more  than  7  percent. 


9  15 
9.40 
9.85 
10.30 
10.95 
11.35 
12.55 
12.85 
9.  .50 
10.35 
11.15 
11.65 
12.65 


(Rev.   1 /1 7/75) 


PART  571;  S  109A-10 


Effective:   June    3,    1971 


Table  I-W 
TIRE  LOAD  RATINGS,  TEST  RIMS,  MINIMUM  SIZE  FACTORS,  AND  SECTION  WIDTHS  FOR  "50  SERIES"  RADIAL  PLY  TIRES 


Maximum  tire  loads  (pounds)  at  various  cold  inflation  pressures  (p.s.i.) 


Tire  site  designation  i 


Test  rim  Minimum  Section 

width    size  factor  width  » 

40       (inches)    (inches)    (inches) 


BR50-13 780  810          890  930          980  1,030      1,070  1,110      1,150      1,190      1,230      1,270      1,300              6H  30.84 

CR50-13 840  890          950      1,000      1,050  1,100      1,140  1,190      1,230      1,270      1,320      1,360      1,400              6H  31.48 

OR50-14 1,100  1,180      1,250  1,310      1,3S0  1,440      1,500  1,560      1,620      1,680      1,730      1,780      1,830             8  35.29 

JR50-14 1,260  1,350      1,430  1,500      1,680  1,650      1,720  1,790      1,860      1,920      1,980      2,040      2,100              8  36.74 

OR50-15 1,100  1,180      1,250  1,310      1,380  1,440      1,500  1,560       1,620      1,680       1,730      1,780       1,830              7  35.38 

HR60-15 1,200  1,290      1,360  1,440       1,510  1,580      1,650  1,710      1,770       1,8,30      1,890      1,950      2,010              8  36.76 

JR60-15 1,260  1,360      1,430  1,500       1,580  1,650      1,720  1,780      1,860       1,920       1,980      2,040      2,100              8  37.24 

LR50-15 1,340  1,430      1,520  1,000      1,680  1,750      1,820  1,900      1,970      2,040      2,100      2,170      2,230              8  37.94 

^The  letter  "H",  "S",  or  "V"  may  be  included  in  any  specified  tire  size  designation  adjacent  to  or  in  place  of  the  "dash", 

^Actual  section  width  and  overall  width  shall  not  e.xceed  the  specified  section  width  by  more  than  7  percent. 


9.15 
9.40 
10.95 
11.60 
10.35 
11.15 
11.35 
11.65 


TABLE   I-X 

TIRE    LOAD    EATINGS,    TEST    RIMS,    MINIMUM    SIZE    FACTORS,    AND    SECTION    WIDTHS    FOE 

MILLIMETEIC  "50  SERIES"  RADIAL  PLY  TIRES 


Tire  size  designation^ 

Maximum  tire 

loads, 

(pounds) 

at  various  cold  inflation  pressures  i 

[p.s.i.) 

Test  rim 
-   width 
(inches) 

Minimum    Section 

16 

18 

20 

22 

24 

26 

28 

30 

32 

34 

36 

38 

40 

(inches)    (inches) 

205/50R15 

22S/50R15 

.     720 
840 

770 
890 

810 
950 

860 
1,000 

900 
1,050 

940 
1,100 

980 
1,140 

1,020 
1,190 

1,060 
1,230 

1,090 
1,270 

1,130 
1,320 

1,160 
1,360 

1,200 
1,400 

6 

6'^ 

30.82            8.19 
32.37            8.98 

'The  letters   "H",   "S"   or  "V"   may  be  included  in  any  specific  tire  size  designation  adjacent  to  the  "R". 
^  Actual  section  width  and  overall  width  shall  not  exceed  the  specified  section  width  by  more  than  7  percent. 


I 


36   F.R.  6298 
May  4,  1971 


» 


(Rev.    1/17/75) 


PART  571;  S  109A-11 


I 


« 


c 


EHmHv*:   April    1,    196t 


PREAMBLE  TO  MOTOR  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   110 

Tire  Selection  and  Rims — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.   18) 


A  proposal  to  amend  §371.21  of  Part  371, 
Initial  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standards, 
by  adding  Standard  No.  109,  New  Pneumatic 
Tires — Passenger  Cars;  and  Standard  No.  110, 
Tire  Selection  and  Rims — Passenger  Cars;  was 
published  in  the  Federal  Register  on  July  22, 
1967  (32F.R.  10812). 

Interested  persons  have  been  afforded  an  op- 
portunity to  participate  in  the  making  of  the 
amendment. 

Compliance  with  the  labeling  requirements  of 
Standard  No.  109,  established  in  accordance  with 
section  201  of  the  National  Traffic  and  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966  (15  U.S.C.  1421), 
and  the  tread  wear  indicator  requirements  found 
in  the  standard  may  necessitate  the  modification 
of  tire  molds.  Several  tire  manufacturers  re- 
quested that  additional  time  be  allowed  to  modify 
these  tire  molds.  After  evaluation  of  all  data 
received,  it  was  determined  that  an  effective  date 
of  August  1,  1968,  for  paragraphs  S4.2.1  and 
S4.3  would  provide  a  reasonable  amount  of  time 
to  accomplirfi  the  necessary  mold  modifications. 

Many  comments  stated  that  no  practical  way 
is  known  to  permanently  affix  a  label  onto  the 
tire  sidewall,  as  would  have  been  required  by 
proposed  paragraph  S4.3.1  until  such  time  as  a 
label  is  molded  into  or  onto  the  tire.  Accord- 
ingly, S4.3.1  of  Standard  No.  109  has  been  modi- 
fied to  permit,  until  August  1,  1968,  the  use  of  a 
label  or  tag  containing  the  required  labeling 
information  not  permanently  molded  into  or  onto 
the  tire. 

Many  comments  objected  to  the  limitations 
imposed  by  the  maximum  tire  section  width  di- 
mensions specified  in  the  tables  of  the  notice. 
The  Administrator  has  determined  that  addi- 
tional latitude  is  necessary,  and  therefore  Stand- 
ard No.   109  specifies  that  to  provide  for  tire 


growth,  protective  side  ribs,  ornamentation, 
manufacturing  tolerances,  and  design  differences 
for  each  tire  size  designation  actual  tire  section 
width  and  overall  tire  width  may  exceed  the 
section  width  specified  in  Table  I  of  the  Standard 
by  7  percent. 

In  response  to  requests,  additional  tire  size 
designations  and  load/inflation  schedules  were 
added  when  necessary  information  was  available. 
In  addition.  Table  I  of  Standard  No.  109  and 
Table  II  of  Standard  No.  110  have  been  com- 
bined to  collate  related  information. 

Persons  desiring  an  amendment  to  Standard 
No.  109  adding  tires  not  presently  listed,  should 
submit  sufficient  pertinent  information  relative 
to  these  tires  in  10  copies  to  the  Secretary  of 
Transportation ;  Attention :  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Performance  Service,  National  Highway  Safety 
Bureau,  Federal  Highway  Administration,  U.S. 
Department  of  Transportation,  Washington,  D.C. 
20591. 

Data  received  have  shown  that  the  rim  refer- 
ences indicated  in  the  proposed  Standards  were 
inadequate  in  coverage.  Therefore,  a  more  com- 
prehensive list  of  foreign  and  domestic  trade 
association  publications  containing  appropriate 
rim  standards  or  practices  has  been  referenced 
in  the  Standards. 

Data  received  demonstrated  that  the  bead  un- 
seating and  tire  strength  requirements  were  in- 
appropriate for  certain  groups  of  small  tires. 
Accordingly,  tires  were  regrouped  and  the  test 
values  revised  to  provide  requirements  for  these 
small  tires  that  are  proportional  to  the  require- 
ments for  other  sizes  of  tires. 

Although  Standard  No.  109  applies  to  tires 
for  use  on  passenger  cars  manufactured  after 
1948,  some  of  the  tires  covered  by  the  Standard 
may  also  be  used  on  earlier  model  vehicles. 


PART  571;  S  110— PRE  1 


Efhctiv*:   April    1,    196S 


The  testing  procedures  set  forth  in  the  Stand- 
ard, size  designations,  and  related  data  are  based 
upon  existing  standards  or  practices  using  infor- 
mation furnished  by  such  organizations  as  the 
Society  of  Automotive  Engineers,  Federal  Trade 
Commission,  Tire  and  Rim  Association,  European 
Tire  and  Rim  Technical  Organization,  Japanese 
Standards  Association,  Japan  Automobile  Tire 
Manufacturers  Association,  Rubber  Manufactur- 
ers Association,  Tyre  Manufacturers  Conference, 
Ltd.,  and  the  Society  of  Motor  Manufacturers 
and  Traders,  Ltd. 

To  permit  production  of  suflScient  quantities 
of  tires  complying  with  the  requirements  of 
Standard  No.  109  after  its  effective  date  of  Jan- 
uary 1,  1968,  Standard  No.  110  applies  to  pas- 
senger cars  manufactured  on  or  after  April  1, 
1968. 

A  single  table  of  load/pressure  values  for 
radial  ply  tires  was  included  in  the  notice  and 
this  was  supported  by  many  comments.  Other 
comments  stressed  the  importance  of  including 
different  load/pressure  values  for  optimum  tire 
deflections.  Although  a  single  table  of  load/ 
pressure  schedules  combining  these  values  for 
these  radial  ply  tires  would  be  desirable,  it  was 
not  considered  advisable  to  include  such  a  table 
in  the  standard  promulgated  under  the  present 
notice. 

In  accordance  with  section  201  of  the  Act, 
S4.3  of  Standard  No.  109  requires  that  each  tire 
be  labeled  with  the  name  of  the  manufacturer  or 
his  brand  name  and  an  approved  code  mark  to 
permit  the  tire  seller  to  identify  the  tire  manu- 
facturer upon  the  purchaser's  request.  Any  tire 
manufacturer  desiring  an  approved  code  mark 
should  apply  for  his  code  number  assignment  to 
the  Secretary  of  Transportation;  Attention: 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Performance  Service,  Na- 


tional Highway  Safety  Bureau,  Federal  Highway 
Administration,  U.S.  Department  of  Transpor- 
tation, Washington,  D.C.  20591. 

Several  comments,  including  the  suggested  use 
of  a  "load  range"  system,  will  be  considered  for 
future  rule-making.     (See  32  F.R.  14279). 

Since  it  was  clearly  the  intent  of  the  Congress 
that,  to  enhance  the  safety  of  the  general  public. 
Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standards  for 
tires  become  effective  as  soon  as  practicable,  and 
since  no  adverse  comments  were  received  perti- 
nent to  the  proposed  effective  date  presented  in 
the  advance  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  (32 
F.R.  2417),  at  a  Government-industry  technical 
meeting,  and  in  the  notice  of  proposed  rulemak- 
ing (32  F.R.  10812),  and  no  undue  burden  was 
demonstrated,  good  cause  is  shown  that  an  effec- 
tive date  earlier  than  180  days  after  issuance  is 
in  the  public  interest. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  §  371.21  of 
Part  371,  Initial  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standards,  is  amended  .  .  .  Standard  No.  109 
becomes  effective  January  1,  1968,  and  Standard 
No.  110  becomes  effective  April  1,  1968. 

(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),  as  amended  Apr.  6, 1967  (32  F.R. 
6495),  July  27,  1967  (32  F.R.  11276),  Oct.  11, 
1967  (32  F.R.  14277),  November  8,  1967). 

Issued  in  Washington,  D.C,  on  November  8, 
1967. 

Lowell  K.  Bridwell, 

Federal  Highway  Administrator 

32  F.R.  15792 
November   16,   1967 


PART  571;  S  110— PRE  2 


MmHv«:  April  11,   196t 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   110 

Tire  Selection  and  Rims — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.   18R) 


Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109  (32 
F.R.  15792),  as  amended  (32  F.R.  17938),  speci- 
fies tire  dimensions  and  laboratory  test  require- 
ments for  bead  unseating  resistance,  strength, 
endurance,  and  high  speed  performance;  defines 
tire  load  ratings;  and  specifies  labeling  require- 
ments for  new  pneumatic  tires  for  use  on  pas- 
senger cars  manufactured  after  1948.  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  110  (32  F.R. 
15798)  specifies  tire  selection  and  rims  require- 
ments to  prevent  tire  overloading. 

Figures  2  and  3  of  Standard  No.  109  are  draw- 
ings of  the  bead  unseating  test  fixture  used  in 
performing  the  test  specified  in  S5.2. 

Section  S5.4.2.3  specifies  the  50  miles-per-hour 
test  schedules  for  the  tire  endurance  test. 

Tables  I-A  through  I-H  list  the  various  tire 
types  and  sizes  with  proper  load  and  inflation 
values. 

After  review  of  Petitions  for  Reconsideration 
received  under  Docket  No.  18R,  the  Administra- 
tor has  determined  that  certain  parts  of  Standard 
No.  109  require  clarification,  the  tire  tables  need 
revision  to  include  a  number  of  new  sizes  and 
there  is  need  for  a  table  listing  a  new  series  of 
tires. 

In  addition.  Standard  No.  110  requires  an  ad- 
ditional table  to  list  alternative  rims  for  tire  and 
rim  combinations  not  presently  covered  by  the 
standard. 

Therefore,  Standard  No.  109  is  being  amended 
by- 

(a)  Revising  Figures  2  and  3,  which  depict 
the  bead  unseating  test  fixture,  by  adding  on? 
additional  dimension  to  Figure  2  and  a  center 
line  and  tangent  line  to  Figure  3 ; 

(b)  Specifying  that  the  test  required  by 
S5.4.2.3  be  conducted  without  pressure  adjust- 
ment or  other  interruption; 


(c)  In  table  I-A  through  I-H 

( 1 )  Adding  additional  tire  size  designations ; 

(2)  Adding  footnotes  permitting  the  use  of 
the  letter  "H","S",  or  "V"; 

(3)  Correcting  typographical  errors; 

(d)  Adding  Table  I-J  which  lists  a  new  series 
of  low  section  height  tires. 

In  addition,  Standard  No.  110  is  being  amended 
by- 

(a)  Revising  paragraph  S4.4.1  to  include  al- 
ternative rims,  not  presently  listed  in  the  refer- 
ences cited  in  the  definition  of  Test  Rim  in  S3  of 
Standard  No.  109 ;  and 

(b)  Adding  a  new  table  of  approved  alterna- 
tive rims. 

Since  these  amendments  provide  clarification 
and  alternative  means  of  compliance,  relieve  re- 
strictions, and  impose  no  additional  burden  on 
any  person,  notice  and  public  procedure  hereon 
are  unnecessary.  The  Administrator  finds,  for 
good  cause  shown,  that  no  preparatory  period  is 
needed  to  effect  compliance  and  it  is  therefore  in 
the  public  interest  to  make  the  amendments  ef- 
fective immediately. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  §  371.21  of 
Part  371,  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Stand- 
ards, Standard  No.  109  (32  F.R.  15792),  as 
amended  (32  F.R.  17938),  and  Standard  No.  110 
(32  F.R.  15798),  are  amended,  effective  April  11, 
1968. .  .  . 

(Sees.  103,  119,  National  Traffic  and  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966  (15  U.S.C.  1392, 
1407) ;  delegation  of  authority  of  March  31,  1967 
(32  F.R.  5606),  as  amended  Nov.  8,  1967  (32 
F.R.  15710)). 

Issued  in  Washington,  D.C.,  on  April  11,  1968. 

Lowell  K.  Bridwell, 

Federal  Highway  Administrator. 

33  F.R.  5944 
April  18,  1968 


PART  571;  S  110— PRE  3-4 


r 


r 


( 


HtocHvt:  $*ptamb«r  37,   1961 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   110 

Tire  Selection  and  Rims — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.   18) 


On  September  11,  1968,  the  Federal  Highway 
Administration  published  in  the  Federal  Register 
amendments  to  Standard  Nos.  109  and  110  (33 
F.R.  12842).  Omitted  from  publication  as  part 
of  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  109  were  Tables 
1-A  through  1-J.  For  the  convenience  of  per- 
sons using  the  tables  the  preamble  to  the  amend- 
ments published  September  11,  1968,  and  the 
text  of  the  amendments,  as  corrected  by  the  ad- 
dition of  the  omitted  tables  are  published  below. 
Additionally,  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  110 
has  been  changed  to  specify  the  information  that 
should  be  submitted  with  requests  for  the  addi- 
tion of  alternative  rim  sizes. 

Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No. 

109  (32  F.R.  15792),  as  amended  (32  F.R.  17938 
and  33  F.R.  5944),  specifies  tire  dimensions  and 
laboratory  test  requirements  for  bead  unseating 
resistance,  strength,  endurance  and  high  speed 
performance;  defines  tire  load  ratings;  and 
specifies  labeling  requirements  for  new  pneumatic 
tires  for  use  on  passenger  cars  manufactured 
after  1948.    Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No. 

110  (32  F.R.  15798)  as  amended  (33  F.R.  5949) 
specifies  tire  selection  and  rim  requirements  to 
prevent  tire  overloading. 

Tables  1-A  through  1^  of  Standard  No.  109 
list  various  tire  types  and  sizes  with  proper  load 
and  inflation  values. 

Standard  No.  109  is  being  amended  to  desig- 
nate Tables  1-A  through  1-J  as  Appendix  A  of 
Standard  No.  109. 

In  addition,  Table  1-H  is  being  amended  by 
adding  additional  tire  size  designations. 

Table  I  of  Standard  No.  110,  is  a  list  of  alter- 
native rims  for  tire  and  rim  combinations  that 
are  not  contained  in  any  reference  in  §  3  of 
Standard  No.  109. 


Standard  No.  110  is  being  amended  to  desig- 
nate Table  I  as  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  110. 

In  addition,  the  table  is  being  amended  by 
adding,  as  alternative  rims  for  tire  size  8.55  x  16, 
rim  sizes  5i/^^K,  5i^-JJ  and  5y2-J;  F70-14, 
rim  size  7  J  J ;  and  G70-14,  rim  size  7  J  J. 

Additionally,  guidelines  by  which  persons  re- 
questing routine  additions  to  Appendix  A  of 
Standard  No.  109  and  Appendix  A  of  Standard 
No.  110,  are  set  forth  as  introductory  language 
to  both  appendices.  The  guidelines  provide  an 
abbreviated  rulemaking  procedure  for  adding 
tire  sizes  to  Standard  No.  109,  whereby  the  ad- 
dition becomes  eflFective  30  days  from  date  of 
publication  in  the  Federal  Register  if  no  com- 
ments are  received.  If  comments  objecting  to 
the  amendment  warrant,  the  Administration  will 
provide  for  additional  rulemaking  pursuant  to 
the  Rule  Making  Procedures  for  Motor  Vehicles 
Safety  Standards  (23  C.F.R.  216). 

Since  these  amendments  provide  an  alternative 
means  of  compliance,  relieve  restrictions,  and 
impose  no  additional  burdens  on  any  person,  no- 
tice and  public  procedure  hereon  are  unnecessary 
and  the  Administrator  finds,  for  good  cause 
shown,  that  no  preparatory  period  is  needed  to 
effect  compliance  and  it  is  in  the  public  interest 
to  make  the  amendments  effective  immediately. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  Section 
371.21  of  Part  371,  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standards,  Standard  No.  109  (32  F.R.  15792), 
as  amended  (32  F.R.  17938  and  33  F.R.  5944), 
and  Standard  No.  110,  (32  F.R.  15798),  as 
amended  (33  F.R.  5949),  are  amended  effective 
this  date  as  set  forth  below. 


PART  571;  S  110— PRE  5 


IffKHva:  S«ptmnb«r  27,   196* 

These  amendments  are  made  under  the  author-  Issued  in  Washington,  D.C.  on  September  27,      /^ 

ity  of  Sections  103  and  119  of  the  National  Traffic  1968.                                                                                t 

and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966  (15  U.S.C.  John  R.  Jamieson,  Deputy 

1392,  1407)  and  the  delegation  from  the  Secre-  Federal  Highway  Administrator 

tary  of  Transportation,  Part  I  of  the  Regulations  33  p.u.  14954 

of  the  Office  of  the  Secretary  (49  C.F.R,  §  1.4(c) ).  October  5,  1968 


PART  571;  S  110— PRE  6 


C 


Effective:    Augusf   5,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.    110 

Tire  Selection  and   Rims 
(Docket  No.  74-25;  Notice  2) 


This  notice  amends  tlie  definition  of  "tast  rim" 
in  49  CFR  571.109  (.Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  109)  and  modifies  related  provi- 
sions of  that  section  and  section  571.110  (Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  110).  A  conform- 
ing amendment  is  made  to  similar  pixjvisions  in 
section  571.119  (Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard 
No.  119).  The  notice  of  proposed  ndemnking 
on  which  this  amendment  is  based  was  published 
on  July  10. 1974  (39  F.R.  25329). 

The  definition  of  "test  rim"  has  previous  to 
this  amendment  referenced  the  1967  and  earlier 
editions  of  publications  of  various  foreiom  and 
domestic  tire  and  rim  associations  as  the  source 
for  determining:  rim  specifications  and  appro- 
priate tire/rim  matchinp-  information  for  testing 
tires  to  the  requirements  of  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  Xo.  109,  and  for  equi]>ping  passenger 
cars  pui-suant  to  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard 
No.  110.  The  Rubber  Manufacturers'  Associa- 
tion petitioned  that  this  reference  be  changed 
because  the  publications  ha^e  become  outdated 
in  terms  of  the  rim  information  they  provide. 
This  amendment,  which  adopts  the  proposed  rule 
of  Jidy  10,  1974,  in  essentially  the  form  pro- 
{)osed,  deletes  the  references  to  the  19G7  and 
earlier  publications  and  substitutes  for  them  the 
publications  of  the  \'arious  associations  current 
at  the  time  of  tire  manufacture. 

Under  the  amendment,  a  "test  rim"  will  be  any 
rim  listed  for  use  with  a  tire  size  designation  in 
any  of  the  current  publications  of  the  various 
foreign  and  domestic  tire  and  rim  associations. 
The  listing  will  apply  to  all  tires  that  fit  the 
description  (by  tire  size  designation,  use  oate- 
gorj',  etc.)  unless  the  publication  itself  or  a 
separately  published  manufacturer's  document 
states   otherwise.      A    manufacturer    wishing   to 


except  any  tire  manufactured  by  him  from  any 
listing  would  be  expected  to  request  the  associa- 
tion to  publisli  the  exception  in  its  publication. 
If  it  does  not,  the  manufacturer  must  himself 
publish  the  exception  in  his  own  listing,  which 
he  must  distribute  to  his  dealers,  this  agency,  and 
to  any  member  of  the  public  on  request.  The 
language  of  the  proi)osal  is  clarified,  and  a  con- 
forming amendment  made  to  Standard  No.  119 
to  show  that  an  exception  must  lie  published  in 
each  association  publication  listing  the  tire  and 
rim  combination.  The  amendment  further  speci- 
fies that  a  "listing"  of  a  rim  must  contain  di- 
mensional specifications,  including  diagrams,  for 
the  rim.  This  is  necessary  to  [ji-ovide  for  imi- 
fonnity  of  rim  dimensions  and  reflects  the  pres 
ent  practice  of  association  publications  of  pub- 
lishing such  dimensional  s])ecifications.  However, 
dimensional  specifications  or  a  diagram  of  a  rim 
need  not  be  included  in  manufacturers'  separate 
listings  if  the  specifications  and  diagram  for  the 
rim  appear  in  each  association  publication  where 
it  is  listed. 

liy  referencing  the  current  publications,  the 
nmendment  ends  the  need  for  Appendix  "A"  of 
Standard  No.  110,  which  lists  tire/rim  combina- 
tions appro\ed  for  use  subsequent  to  the  1967 
and  earlier  associations  publications.  The  asso- 
ciations and  various  manufacturere  should  ascer- 
tain that  all  tire/rim  combinations  presently 
listed  in  that  Appendix  are  incor[X)rated  into  at 
least  one  of  their  i-espective  i)ublications  before 
the  etl'ecti\e  date  of  this  amendment.  Moi-eover, 
the  addition  of  new  tire/rim  combinations  sub- 
sequent to  the  effective  date  becomes  the  sole 
resiK)nsibility  of  the  industry.  Api)endix  "A" 
of  Standard  No.  109.  listing  tire  size  designa- 
tions, is  not  affected  by  this  amendment. 


PART  571;  S  110— PRE  7 


Effective:   August   5,    1975 


An  effect  of  the  amended  definition  of  test  rim 
is  to  clarify  this  agency's  position  that  each  tire 
must  be  able  to  pass  each  performance  require- 
ment (except  that  for  physical  dimensions)  of 
Standard  No.  109  with  any  rim  with  which  it  is 
listed,  regardless  of  rim  width,  unless  that,  tii-e 
is  sjiecifically  excepted  from  each  listing  where 
it  api^ears.  The  requirements  for  physical  di- 
mensions must  be  met  only  on  a  test  rim  of  the 
width  specified  for  the  tire  size  designation  in 
Standard  No.  109.  A  tire  failing  the  i-equire- 
ments  on  any  test  rim  would  be  considered  as 
having  failed  the  requirements  on  all  test  rims. 
This  continues  existing  NHTSA  enforcement 
policy. 

One  of  the  two  comments  received  regarding 
the  proi>osal  objected  to  this  aspect  of  the  amend- 
ment, arguing  that  some  manufacturers  have 
traditionally  certified  conformity  on  the  basis 
of  test  results  using  only  the  test  rims  of  the 
specified  test  rim  width  and  that  no  safety  prob- 
lems had  been  encountered.  The  NHTSA  be- 
lieves, however,  that  the  intei-est  of  safety  de- 
mands that  manufacturers  ensure  that  tires 
certified  as  conforming  to  Standard  No.  109  will 
confonn  to  the  standards  requirements  on  any 
rim  which  the  manufacturer  lists  for  use  with 
the  tire  and  with  wliich  the  tire  may  conse- 
quently be  used  in  service.  This  position  has 
been  reflected  in  the  guidelines  for  the  additions 
of  new  tire/rim  combinations  to  the  Appendix 


of  Standard  No.  110,  which  have  required  that 
the  manufacturer  demonstrate  conformity  to 
Standard  No.  109  on  each  newly  requested  rim. 
If  a  manufacturer  doubts  the  ability  of  his  tires 
to  conform  to  the  standard  on  certain  recom- 
mended rims,  lie  has  the  option  of  excepting  his 
tires  fix>m  being  used  with  those  rims.  No  other 
objections  to  the  proix>sed  rule  were  i-eceived. 

In  light  of  tlie  above,  amendments  are  made 
to  49  CFR  §§  571.109,  571.110,  and  571.119  .... 

Effect'U'e  date:  August  5,  1975  for  Standard 
No.  109  and  110;  March  1,  1975,  for  Standard 
No.  119.  The  amendment  to  Standard  No.  119 
is  of  a  clarifying  nature,  and  should  be  made 
effective  with  the  existing  effective  date  of  that 
standard.  The  amendment  does  not  require  sub- 
stantial leadtime  for  conformity,  and  it  is  found 
for  good  cause  shown  that  an  effective  date  less 
than  180  days  tram  publication  is  in  the  public 
interest. 

(Sees.  103,  119,  201,  202,  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80 
Stat.  718;  15  U.S.C.  §§1392,  1407,  1421,  1422; 
delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51.) 


Issued  on  January  31, 1975. 


James  B.   Gregory       JL^ 
Administrator 

40  F.R.  5529 
February  6,  1975 


PART  571;  S  110— PRE  8 


Effective:    April    I,    1968 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.    110 
Tire  Selection  and  Rims — Passenger  Cars 


51.  Purpose  and  scope.  This  standard  speci- 
fies requiiemouts  for  tire  selection  to  prevent 
tire  overloading. 

52.  Application.  This  standard  applies  to  pas- 
senger cars. 

53.  Definitions. 

"Accessory  weight"  means  the  combined  weight 
(in  excess  of  those  standard  items  which  may  be 
replaced)  of  automatic  transmission,  power 
steering,  power  brakes,  power  windows,  power 
seats,  radio,  and  heater,  to  the  extent  that  these 
items  are  available  as  factory-installed  equipment 
(whether  installed  or  not). 

"Curb  weight"  means  the  weight  of  a  motor 
vehicle  with  standard  equipment  including  the 
maximum  capacity  of  fuel,  oil.  and  coolant,  and, 
if  so  equipped,  air  conditioning  and  additional 
weight  optional  engine. 

"JMaximum  loaded  vehicle  weight"  means  the 
sum  of — 

(a)  Curb  weight ; 

(b)  Accessory  weight; 

(c)  Vehicle  capacity  weight ;  and 

(d)  Production  options  weight. 

"Normal  occupant  weight"  moans  150  pounds 
times  the  number  of  occupants  specified  in  the 
second  column  of  Table  I. 

"Occupant  distribution"  means  distribution  of 
occupants  in  a  vehicle  as  specified  in  the  third 
column  of  Table  I. 

"Production  options  weight"  means  the  com- 
bined weight  of  those  installed  regular  produc- 
tion options  weighing  over  5  pounds  in  excess  of 
those  standard  items  which  they  replace,  not 
previously  considered  in  curb  weight  or  acces- 
sory weight,  including  heavy  duty  brakes,  ride 
levelers,  roof  rack,  heavy  duty  battery,  and  spe- 
cial trim. 


Tabuc  I 

Occupant  Loading  and  Distribution  for  Vehicle  Normal 

Load  for  Various  Designated  Seating  Capacities 

Occupant 
Designated   Seating        Vehicle  Normal  Distribution 

Capacity,   Wumber        Load,  Number  of  in  a   Normally- 

Occupants  Occupants  Loaded  Vehicle 


2  thru  4 

2 

2  in  front 

5  thru  10 

3 

2  in  front 

1  in  second  seat 

"Vehicle  capacity  weight"  means  the  rated 
cargo  and  luggage  load  plus  150  pounds  times 
the  vehicle's  designated  seating  capacity. 

"Vehicle  maximum  load  on  the  tire"  means 
that  load  on  an  individual  tire  that  is  determined 
by  distributing  to  each  axle  its  share  of  the 
maximum  loaded  vehicle  weight  and  dividing 
by  two. 

"Vehicle  normal  load  on  the  tire"  means  that 
load  on  an  individual  tire  that  is  determined  by 
distributing  to  each  axle  its  share  of  the  curb 
weight,  accessory  weight,  and  normal  occupant 
weight  (distributed  in  accordance  with  Table  I) 
and  dividing  by  two. 

S4.   Requirements. 

54.1  General.  Passenger  Cars  shall  be  equipped 
with  tires  that  meet  the  requirements  of  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109,  "New  Pneu- 
matic Tires — Passenger  Cars." 

54.2  Tire  load  limits. 

54.2.1  The  vehicle  maximum  load  on  the  tire 
shall  not  be  greater  than  the  applicable  maxi- 
mum load  rating  specified  in  Table  I  of  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Staandard  No.  109  for  the  tire's 
size  designation  and  type. 

54.2.2  The  vehicle  normal  load  on  the  tire 
shall  not  be  greater  than  the  test  load  used  in 
the  high  speed  performance  test  specified  in  S5.5 
of  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109  for 
that  tire. 


PART  571;  S  110-1 


Effeclive:   April    I,    1968 


S4.3  Placard.  A  placard,  permanently  affixed 
to  the  glove  compartment  door  or  an  equally 
accessible  location,  shall  display  the — 

(a)  Vehicle  capacity  weight; 

(b)  Designated  seating  capacity  (expressed  in 
tei'ms  of  total  number  of  occupants  and  in  terms 
of  occupants  for  each  seat  location) ; 

(c)  Vehicle  manufacturer's  recommended  cold 
tire  inflation  pressui-e  for  maximum  loaded  ve- 
hicle weight  and,  subject  to  tlie  limitations  of 
S4-.3.1,  for  any  other  manufacturer-specified  ve- 
hicle loading  condition;  and 

(d)  Vehicle  manufacturer's  recommended  tire 
size  designation. 

S4.3.1  No  inflation  pressure  other  than  the 
maximum  permissible  inflation  pressure  may  be 
specified  unless — 

(a)  It  is  less  than  the  maximum  permissible 
inflation  pressure; 

(b)  The  vehicle  loading  condition  for  that 
pressure  is  specified;  and 


(c)  The  tire  load  rating  from  Table  I  of  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109  for  the  tire 
at  that  pressure  is  not  less  than  the  vehicle  load 
on  the  tire  for  that  vehicle  loading  condition. 

S4.4   Rims. 

S4.4.1    Requirements.     Each  rim  shall : 

[(a)  Be  constructed  to  the  dimensions  of  a 
rim  that  is  listed  pursuant  to  the  definition  of 
"test  rim"  in  paragraph  S3,  of  §  571.109  (Stand- 
ard No.  109)  for  use  with  the  tire  size  designa- 
tion with  which  the  vehicle  is  equipped.  (40 
F.R.  5529— February  6,  1975.  Effective:  8/5/75)] 

[(b)  In  the  event  of  rapid  loss  of  inflation 
pressure  with  the  \ehicle  traveling  in  a  straight 
line  at  a  speed  of  60  miles  per  hour,  retain  the 
deflated  tire  until  the  vehicle  can  be  stopped 
with  a  controlled  braking  application.  (33  F.R. 
5949— April  18,  1968)] 

33   F.R.    14969 
October   5,    1968 


(Rev.    1/31/751 


PART  571;  S  110-2 


Effecllve:   January    I,    1968 


PREAMBLE  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   Ill 
Rearview  Mirrors — Passenger  Cars   and  Multipurpose  Passenger  Vehicles 

(Docket  No.   13) 


Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  Ill  (32 
F.R.  2413)  specifies  requirements  for  rearview 
mirrors  for  use  in  passenger  cars,  multipurpose 
passenger  vehicles,  and  passenger  car  and  multi- 
purpose passenger  car  equipment. 

Paragraph  S2,  entitled  "Application"  of  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  Ill  (32  F.R.  2413) 
requires  that  the  application  of  the  Standard  be 
as  follows :  "This  standard  applies  to  passenger 
cars,  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles,  and  pas- 
senger car  and  multipurpose  passenger  vehicle 
equipment." 

Paragraph  S3.2.1.2  entitled  "Mounting"  of 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  Ill  (32  F.R. 
2413)  requires  that  outside  mirrors  installed  on 
passenger  cars  and  multipurpose  passenger  ve- 
hicles be  mounted  as  follows:  "The  mounting 
shall  provide  a  stable  support  for  the  mirror 
and  neither  the  mirror  nor  the  mounting  shall 
protrude  further  than  the  widest  part  of  the 
vehicle  body,  except  to  the  extent  necessary  to 
meet  the  requirements  of  S3.2.1.1." 

The  National  Traffic  Safety  Agency  has  de- 
termined that  the  mirror  mounting  may  exceed 
the  width  of  the  vehicle  to  the  extent  necessary 


to  produce  a  field  of  view  meeting  or  exceeding 
the  requirements  of  paragraph  S3.2.1.1  of  Stand- 
ard No.  Ill  and  that  it  would  not  be  practicable 
to  extend  the  application  of  the  standard  to  re- 
placement parts  for  vehicles  manufactured  before 
the  effective  date  of  the  standard.  Therefore, 
the  standard  is  being  amended  to  apply  to  pas- 
senger cars  and  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles, 
and  to  permit  a  mirror  to  protrude  further  than 
the  widest  part  of  the  vehicle  body  to  the  extent 
necessary  to  produce  a  field  of  view  meeting  or 
exceeding  the  field-of-view  requirements  of  the 
standard. 

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, 
sees.  1392,  1407)  and  becomes  effective  January  1, 
1968. 

Issued  in  Washington,  D.C.,  on  March  29, 
1967. 

Lowell  K.  Bridwell, 
Acting  Under  Secretary  of 
Commerce  for  Transportation 
33  F.R.  5498 
April  4,   1967 


PART  571;  S  111— PRE  1-2 


c 


4 


Effective:    February    12,    1976 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   Ill 

Rearview   Mirrors 
(Docket  No.  74-20;   Notice  2) 


This  notice  amends  Standard  No.  Ill,  Rear- 
view  Mirror's  (49  CFR  571.111)  to  allow  in- 
stallation of  truck-type  mirror  systems  in 
multipurpose  passenger  vehicles  and  to  extend 
the  coverage  of  the  standard  to  trucks  and  buses. 

The  NHTSA  proposed  in  a  notice  published 
on  May  1,  1974  (39  F.R.  15143)  to  amend  Stand- 
ard No.  Ill,  to  specify  minimum  requirements 
for  mirror  size,  capability,  and  location  which 
would  be  applicable  to  all  trucks,  buses,  and 
motorcycles,  and  to  establish  an  option  which 
would  allow  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles  to 
meet  either  the  present  passenger-car  mirror 
requirements  or  to  satisfy  the  requirements  pro- 
posed in  the  notice  for  trucks  and  buses.  Stand- 
ard No.  Ill  currently  applies  only  to  passenger 
cars  and  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles,  speci- 
fying the  same  rearview  mirror  requirements  for 
each.  The  NHTSA  has  determined  that  a  need 
exists  to  extend  the  standard's  coverage  to  other 
vehicle  types  that  presently  lack  uniform  Federal 
regulation  in  order  to  ensure  observance  of  mini- 
mum mirror  performance  levels  essential  to 
motor  vehicle  safety. 

The  NHTSA  also  proposed  in  the  notice  pub- 
lished May  1,  1974  to  require  that  all  mirrors 
required  by  the  standard,  except  those  specified 
for  motorcycles,  be  designed  to  reflect  an  image 
of  unit  magnification,  thereby  limiting  any  devia- 
tion from  unit  magnification  to  normal  produc- 
tion variations  and  not  variations  which  are  the 
result  of  design.  To  this  end  it  was  proposed 
that  the  term  "substantially"  be  deleted  where 
it  modifies  "unit  magnification"  in  the  text  of 
Standard  No.  111. 

Interested  persons  were  afforded  an  oppor- 
tunity to  submit  coannents  on  the  proposal  by 
July  1,  1974  and  due  consideration  has  been 
given  to  the  36  comments  received. 


Two  commenters  opposed  deletion  of  the  term 
"substantial"  where  it  modifies  "unit  magnifica- 
tion" on  the  ground  that  only  mirrors  of  pre- 
cisely unit  magnification  will  now  be  acceptable. 
This  view  is  erroneous.  The  interpretation  fol- 
lowed by  the  NHTSA — and  proposed  to  be  in- 
corporated in  Standard  No.  Ill  in  this  issue  of 
the  Federal  Register — is  that  deviations  from 
unit  magnification  are  acceptable  under  the 
standard  as  amended  below  provided  tliat  the 
deviations  do  not  exceed  normal  manufacturing 
tolerances. 

All  comments  generally  agreed  with  the 
NHTSA  proposal  to  extend  a  Federal  rearview 
mirror  standard  to  trucks,  buses  and  motorcycles. 
However,  several  comments  recommended  mir- 
rors of  larger  area  than  those  required  in  the 
NHTSA  proposal  for  trucks  and  buses,  and 
suggested  the  use  of  convex  mirrors  in  addition 
to  unit  magnification  mirrors.  Others  recom- 
mended specific  requirements  for  school  buses 
and  clarification  of  the  proposed  standard  for 
motorcycles  with  regard  to  location  and  area  of 
mirrors  and  use  of  convex  mirrors.  "While  the 
NHTSA  considers  that  the  proposed  extension 
of  the  scope  of  Standard  No.  Ill  to  cover  trucks 
and  buses  will  promote  efficient  rearward  visi- 
bility, it  agrees  with  those  who  have  urged  fur- 
ther research  regarding  requirements  for  school 
buses  and  motorcycles.  Consequently,  Standard 
No.  Ill  is  amended  by  this  notice  to  extend  the 
scope  of  its  coverage  to  trucks  and  buses  (in- 
cluding school  buses).  At  the  same  time,  how- 
ever, tlie  NHTSA  is  proposing  in  this  issue  of 
the  Federal  Register  to  amend  Standard  No.  Ill 
to  specify  new  rearview  mirror  requirements  for 
motorcycles  and  further  requirements  for  school 
buses. 


PART  571;  S  111— PRE  3 


Effective:    February    12,    1976 


The  majority  of  comments  favored  the  pro- 
posal that  trucks,  buses,  and  multipurpose  pas- 
senger vehicles  with  a  GVWR  of  10,000  pounds 
or  less  comply  either  with  the  present  passenger 
car  mirror  requirements,  or  with  new  require- 
ments specifying  outside  mirrors  on  both  sides 
of  the  vehicle  with  not  less  than  19.5  in^  of 
reflective  surface.  This  option  is  intended  to 
overcome  difficulties  caused  by  classifying  trucks, 
buses,  and  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles  into 
groups  specifying  one  mirror  system  adequate  to 
fulfill  the  safety  needs  of  all. 

In  addition,  several  commenters  felt  that 
heavy  commercial  vehicles,  such  as  truck  tractors, 
moving  vans,  and  dump  trucks,  needed  outside 
mirrors  larger  than  50  in^  The  NHTSA  has 
determined  that  the  50  in^  mirror  is  adequate 
for  buses  and  for  smaller  multipurpose  passenger 
vehicles  and  trucks.  However,  for  multipurpose 
passenger  vehicles  and  trucks  with  a  GVWR  ex- 
ceeding 25,000  pounds,  a  75  in^  mirror  appears 
better  to  meet  the  safety  need.  Therefore,  while 
this  notice  amends  Standard  No.  Ill  to  require 
that  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles,  tracks, 
and  buses  with  a  GVWR  of  more  than  10,000 
l^ounds  have  outside  mirrors  of  not  less  than 
50  in-  of  reflective  surface,  the  NHTSA  is  pro- 
posing in  this  issue  of  the  Federal  Register  to 
amend  Standard  No.  Ill  to  require  mirrors  of 
at  least  75  in^  of  reflective  surface  on  multipur- 
pose passenger  vehicles  and  trucks  with  a 
GVIVR  of  25,000  pounds  or  more. 

Several  persons  contended  with  regard  to 
multipurpose  passenger  vehicles,  tmcks,  and 
buses  that  the  provision  requiring  that  mirrors 
be  adjustable  by  "tilting  in  both  the  horizontal 
and  vertical  direction"  did  not  take  into  account 


the  methods  used  to  mount  mirrors  on  these 
types  of  vehicles.  Large  mirrors,  such  as  the 
so-called  "AVest  Coast"  mirror  wliich  affords 
approximately  96  square  inches  of  reflective 
surface  area,  are  commonly  mounted  on  rigid 
brace  assemblies.  These  mirrors  can  be  adjusted 
to  provide  the  driver  a  view  to  the  rear.  How- 
ever, once  they  are  locked  into  place  they  are  not 
capable  of  "tilting  in  both  the  horizontal  and 
vertical  direction."  While  mirrors  mounted  on 
ball  sockets  are  fully  adjustable  in  the  horizontal 
and  vertical  directions  by  tilting,  the  NHTSA 
finds  no  reason  to  preclude  the  use  of  a  mirror 
that  possesses  full  adjustment  capability  and  is 
only  locked  into  a  position  once  it  satisfies  the 
particular  driver's  viewing  needs. 

The  NHTSA  has  decided  to  delete  the  words 
"by  tilting"  from  the  requirements  for  multi- 
purpose passenger  vehicles,  trucks,  and  buses. 
The  rule  requires  that  mirrors  on  such  vehicles 
"shall  be  adjustable  in  both  the  horizontal  and 
vertical  directions  to  view  the  rearward  scene." 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  Ill,  49  CFR  571.111, 
is  amended.  .  .  . 

Effective  date :  February  12, 1976. 

(Sees.  103,  119,  Pub.  L.  89563,  80  Stat.  718 
(15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407) ;  delegation  of  authority 
at  49  CFR  1.51.) 


Issued  on :  August  6, 1975. 


James  B.  Gregory 
Administrator 

40  F.R.  33825 
Aogusf  12,  1975 


PART  571;  S  111— PRE  4 


Effective:   February    12,    1976 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   Ill 
Rearview  Mirrors — Passenger  Cars,  Multipurpose  Passenger  Vehicles,  Trucks,  and  Buses 


51.  Scope.  This  standard  specifies  require- 
ments for  the  performance  and  location  of  rear- 
view  mirrors. 

52.  Purpose.  The  purpose  of  this  standard  is 
to  reduce  the  number  of  deaths  and  injuries  that 
occur  because  the  driver  of  a  motor  vehicle  does 
not  have  a  clear  and  reasonably  unobstructed 
view  to  the  rear. 

53.  Application.  This  standard  applies  to 
passenger  cars,  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles, 
trucks,  and  buses. 

54.  Requirements  for  passenger  cars. 

S4.1  Inside  rearview  mirror.  Each  passenger 
car  shall  have  an  inside  rearview  miri-or  of  unit 
magnification. 

54.1.1  Field  of  view.  Except  as  provided  in 
S4.3,  the  mirror  shall  provide  a  field  of  view 
with  an  included  horizontal  angle  measured 
from  the  projected  eye  point  of  at  least  20  de- 
grees, and  sufficient  vertical  angle  to  provide  a 
view  of  a  level  road  surface  extending  to  the 
horizon  beginning  at  a  point  not  greater  than 
200  feet  to  the  rear  of  the  vehicle  when  the  ve- 
hicle is  occupied  by  the  driver  and  four  passen- 
gers or  the  designed  occupant  capacity,  if  less, 
based  on  an  average  occupant  weight  of  150 
pounds.  The  line  of  sight  may  be  partially  ob- 
scured by  seated  occupants  or  by  head  restraints. 
The  location  of  the  driver's  eye  reference  point 
shall  be  that  established  in  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  104  (§  571.104). 

54.1.2  Mounting.  The  passenger  car  mirror 
mounting  shall  provide  a  stable  support  for  the 
mirror,  and  shall  provide  for  mirror  adjustment 
by  tilting  in  both  horizontal  and  vertical  direc- 
tions. If  the  mirror  is  in  the  head  impact  area, 
the  mounting  shall  deflect,  collapse,  or  break 
away  without  leaving  sharp  edges  when  the  mir- 


ror is  subjected  to  a  force  of  90  pounds  in  a 
forward  or  sideward  direction  in  any  plane  45° 
above  or  below  the  horizontal. 

54.2  Outside  rearview  mirror — driver's  side. 

54.2.1  Field  of  view.  Each  passenger  car  shall 
have  an  outside  mirror  of  unit  magnification. 
The  mirror  shall  provide  the  driver  a  view  of  a 
level  road  surface  extending  to  the  horizon  from 
a  line,  perpendicular  to  a  longitudinal  plane 
tangent  to  the  driver's  side  of  the  vehicle  at  the 
widest  point,  extending  8  feet  out  from  the 
tangent  plane  35  feet  behind  the  driver's  eyes, 
with  the  seat  in  the  rearmost  position.  The  line 
of  sight  may  be  partially  obscured  by  rear  body 
or  fender  contours.  The  location  of  the  driver's 
eye  reference  point  shall  be  that  established  in 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  104 
(§571.104). 

54.2.2  Mounting.  The  mirror  mounting  shall 
provide  a  stable  support  for  the  mirror,  and 
neither  the  mirror  nor  the  mounting  shall  pro- 
trude farther  than  the  widest  part  of  the  vehicle 
body  except  to  the  extent  necessary  to  produce 
a  field  of  view  meeting  or  exceeding  the  require- 
ments of  S4.2.1.  The  mirror  shall  not  be  ob- 
scured by  the  unwiped  portion  of  the  windshield, 
and  sliall  be  adjustable  by  tilting  in  both  liori- 
zontal  and  vertical  directions  from  the  driver's 
seated  position.  The  mirror  and  mounting  shall 
be  free  of  sharp  points  or  edges  that  could  con- 
tribute to  pedestrian  injury. 

54.3  Outside  rearview  mirror  passenger's  side. 

Each  passenger  car  whose  inside  rearview  mirror 
does  not  meet  the  field  of  view  requirements  of 
S4.1.1  shall  have  an  outside  rearview  mirror  of 
imit  magnification  installed  on  the  passenger's 
side.  The  mirror  mounting  shall  provide  a 
stable  support  and  be  free  of  sharp  points  or 
edges  that  could  contribute  to  pedestrian  injury. 


(Rev.    8/6/7S) 


PART  571;  S  111-1 


EfFecfive:   February    12,    1976 


The  mirror  need  not  be  adjustable  from  the 
driver's  seat  but  shall  be  capable  of  adjustment 
by  tilting  in  botli  horizontal  and  vertical  direc- 
tions. 

S5  Requirements  for  multipurpose  passenger 
vehicles,  trucks,  and  buses  with  GVWR  of  10,000 
pounds  or  less. 

S5.1  Each  multipurpose  passenger  vehicle, 
truck,  and  bus  with  GV^VR  of  10,000  pounds  or 
less  shall  have  either — 

(a)  Mirrors  that  conform  to  the  requirements 
of  S4;  or 

(b)  Outside  mirrors  of  unit  magnification, 
each  with  not  less  than  19.5  in-  of  reflective 
surface,  installed  with  stable  supports  on  both 
sides  of  the  vehicle,  located  so  as  to  provide  the 
driver  a  view  to  the  rear  along  both  sides  of  the 
vehicle,  and  adjustable  in  both  the  horizontal 
and  vertical  directions  to  view  the  rearward 
scene. 

S6.  Requirements  for  multipurpose  passenger 
vehicles,  trucks,  and  buses  with  GVWR  of  more 
than  10,000  pounds. 

S6.1  Each  multipurpose  passenger  vehicle, 
truck,  and  bus  with  a  GVWR  of  more  than 
10,000  pounds  shall  have  outside  mirrors  of  unit 
magnification,  each  with  not  less  than  50  in-  of 
reflective  surface,  installed  wit  hstable  supports 
on  both  sides  of  the  vehicle.    The  mirrors  shall 


be  located  so  as  to  provide  the  driver  a  view  to      ^ 
the  i-ear  along  both  sides  of  the  vehicle  and  shall      ^*" 
be  adjustable  in  both  the  horizontal  and  vertical 
directions  to  view  the  rearward  scene. 

S7.  Mirror  construction.  The  reflectance  value 
of  the  reflective  film  employed  on  any  mirror 
required  by  this  standard,  determined  in  accord- 
ance with  SAE  Recommended  Practice  J964, 
June,  1966,  shall  be  at  least  35  percent.  If  a 
mirror  is  of  the  selective  position  prismatic  type, 
the  reflectance  value  in  the  night  driving  posi- 
tion shall  be  at  least  4  percent. 

[INTERPRETATION 

(1)  AVlien  a  sui)plemental  mirror  is  furnished 
in  addition  to  the  inside  rearview  mirror  and 
the  driver's  side  outside  rearview  mirror,  the 
supplemental  mirror  need  not  be  adjustable  from 
the  driver's  seat. 

(2)  The  location  of  the  driver's  eye  reference 
point  may  be  that  established  in  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  104,  or  it  may  be  a  nominal 
location  appropriate  for  any  95th  percentile 
male  driver. 

(3)  The  horizontal  angle  is  measured  from  ^ 
the  projected  eye  point,  rather  than  the  plane  of  V^ 
the  mirror.     (32  F.R.  5499— April  4,  1967)3 

32   F.R.   2413 
February  3,   1967 


(Rev.   8/6^75) 


PART  571;  S  111-2 


PREAMBLE  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO   112 

Headlamp  Concealment  Devices — Passenger  Cars,  Multipurpose  Passenger  Vehicles,  Trucks, 

Buses,  and   Motorcycles 

(Docket  No.   1-16) 


A  proposal  to  amend  Part  371  by  adding  Fed- 
eral motor  vehicle  safety  standard  No.  112,  Head- 
lamp Concealment  Devices — Passenger  Cars, 
Multipurpose  Passenger  Cars,  Multipurpose  Pas- 
senger Vehicles,  Trucks,  Buses,  and  Motorcycles, 
was  published  as  an  advance  notice  of  proposed 
rule  making  on  October  14,  1967  (32  F.R.  14280) 
and  as  a  notice  of  proposed  rule  making  on  De- 
cember 28, 1967  (32  F.R.  20865). 

Interested  persons  have  been  given  the  oppor- 
tunity to  participate  in  the  making  of  this  amend- 
ment, and  careful  consideration  has  been  given 
to  all  relevant  matter  presented. 

Inadvertent  actuation  of  a  headlamp  conceal- 
ment devices,  due  to  a  defective  condition  thereby 
causing  headlamps  to  be  blacked  out,  has  com- 
promised the  safety  of  occupants  of  the  vehicle 
concerned  and  other  highway  users.  There  have 
been  reports  of  several  accidents  and  incidents 
caused  by  such  inadvertent  blacking  out  of  head- 
lamps. In  addition,  the  Administrator  considers 
headlamp  concealment  devices  present  a  contin- 
uing hazard  to  motor  vehicle  safety  in  that  they 
may  inadvertently  black  out  headlamps  while 
headlamps  are  in  use.  This  standard  requires 
that  fully  opened  headlamp  concealment  devices 
must  remain  fully  opened  whenever  there  is  a 
loss  of  power  to  or  within  the  device  and  when- 
ever any  malfunction  occurs  in  components  that 
control  or  conduct  power  for  the  operation  of  a 
concealment  device.  These  requirements  provide 
a  fail-safe  operation  which  serves  to  prevent  fur- 
ther incidents  of  inadvertent  blacking  out  of 
headlamps  by  headlamp  concealment  devices. 

In  addition,  other  safety  performance  criteria 
are  established.  Thus,  whenever  any  malfunc- 
tion occurs  in  components  that  control  or  conduct 
power  for  the  actuation  of  the  concealment  de- 


vice, additional  means  for  fully  opening  each 
headlamp  concealment  device  must  be  provided. 
A  single  mechanism  must  be  provided  for  actu- 
ating the  headlamp  concealment  device  and  il- 
luminating the  lights.  The  installation  of  each 
headlamp  concealment  device  must  be  such  that 
no  component  of  the  device,  other  than  compo- 
nents of  the  headlamp  assembly,  need  be  removed 
when  mounting,  aiming  and  adjusting  the  head- 
lamps. Headlamp  beams  that  illuminate  during 
opening  and  closing  of  the  headlamp  conceal- 
ment device  may  not  project  to  the  left  of  or 
above  the  position  of  the  beam  in  the  fully 
opened  position.  Finally,  within  the  tempera- 
ture ranges  specified,  headlamp  concealment  de- 
vices must  be  fully  opened  in  three  seconds  after 
actuation  of  the  appropriate  mechanism,  except 
in  the  event  of  a  power  loss.  These  additional 
performance  criteria  meet  the  needs  of  motor 
vehicle  safety  by  increasing  the  safe  and  reliable 
operation  of  headlamp  concealment  devices. 

Several  comments  stated  that  a  requirement 
for  fail-safe  operation  under  any  combination 
of  unforeseeable  circumstances  is  unreasonable. 
The  requirements  expressed  in  S4.1  are  not  in- 
tended to  impose  responsibility  for  failures 
caused  by  abuse,  poor  maintenance  practices  or 
other  conditions  not  encompassed  by  S4.1. 
Whether  or  not  failure  of  a  headlamp  conceal- 
ment device  to  remain  in  an  open  position  once 
fully  opened  is  a  violation  of  the  standard 
would,  of  course,  depend  upon  whether  the  device 
failed  under  the  conditions  encompassed  by  the 
standard.  Some  comments  requested  that  the 
conditions  expressed  in  S4.1  be  made  test  condi- 
tions and  one  commentator  submitted  a  suggested 
test  procedure  to  demonstrate  compliance.  Be- 
cause of  the  wide  variety  of  designs  and  types  of 


PART  571;  S  112— PRE  1 


Eff*cNv*:   January    1,    1969 


headlamp  concealment  devices  currently  in  use, 
no  single  demonstration  procedure  is  appropriate 
for  all.  Consequently,  prescription  of  a  standard 
demonstration  procedure  is  neither  practicable 
nor  feasible  under  the  circumstances.  The  Ad- 
ministrator concludes  that  the  needs  of  motor 
safety  require  that  headlamp  concealment  devices 
be  fail-safe.  The  Administrator  further  con- 
cludes that  the  most  appropriate  method  of 
meeting  those  needs  and  of  preventing  further 
hazard  from  obstructed  headlamps  caused  by 
headlamp  concealment  device  failures  is  by  the 
prescription  of  fail-safe  operational  criteria,  a^ 
specified  in  S4.1.  Accordingly,  the  requests  are 
denied. 

A  number  of  comments  stated  that  the  3-second 
operating  time  requirement  and  the  aiming  re- 
quirements for  rotating  headlamps  would  impose 
unreasonable  burdens  in  retooling  and  redesign- 
ing if  the  January  1,  1969,  effective  date  is  to  be 
met.  Based  upon  the  data  presented,  the  Ad- 
ministrator agrees  with  these  comments.  Ac- 
cordingly, S4.5  and  S4.6  are  made  effective  Jan- 
uary 1, 1970. 

Several  comments  recommended  additional 
provisions  expressly  permitting  headlamp  con- 
cealment devices  that  are  automatically  actuated 
by  light  sensing  mechanisms.  This  standard  is 
not  intended  to  prevent  the  use  of  light  sensing 
mechanisms.  Consequently,  language  has  been 
added  to  clarify  this  intention  if  the  light  sensing 
mechanism  meets  the  same  operational  require- 
ments prescribed  for  switch  operated  headlamp 
concealment  devices. 

Several  comments  requested  inclusion  of  a  pro- 
vision in  S4.3  permitting  an  additional  separate 
control  that  actuates  only  the  headlamp  conceal- 
ment device.  The  Administrator  considers  per- 
mitting this  additional  control  would  not  be  in 
the  best  interests  of  motor  vehicle  safety.  The 
requests  are,  therefore,  denied. 


Other  comments  suggested  that  rotating  head-  S 
lamps  be  required  to  return  to  the  correctly  ^ 
aimed  position  after  a  specified  minimum  num- 
ber of  opening  and  closing  cycles  that  power  be 
provided  for  at  least  one  opening  cycle  after  the 
vehicle  engine  has  been  stopped  for  a  specified 
length  of  time;  that  a  warning  device  be  re- 
quired to  indicate  to  the  driver  that  the  conceal- 
ment devices  are  malfunctioning;  that  require- 
ments for  aiming  and  adjusting  of  headlamps 
be  expanded  to  insure  that  vehicle  body  struc- 
ture and  lamp  ornaments  will  not  interfere  with 
these  operations;  that  the  standard  prohibit  de- 
signs which  permit  snow  and  ice  to  accumulate 
over  the  sealed  beam  headlamp  units;  that  re- 
quirements be  included  to  assure  capability  for 
opening  concealment  devices  that  are  frozen 
shut;  and  that  a  standard  be  established  to  pro- 
hibit the  use  of  headlam.p  concealment  devices. 
Although  some  of  these  suggestions  appear  to 
have  merit,  they  are  all  beyond  the  scope  of  the 
notice  and  will,  therefore,  be  considered  for  future 
rule  making  action. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  §  371.21  of 
Part  371  of  the  Federal  motor  vehicle  safety 
standards  is  amended  by  adding  Standard  No.  / 
112,  Headlamp  Concealment  Devices — Passenger  v 
Cars,  Multipurpose  Passenger  Vehicles,  Trucks, 
Buses,  and  Motorcycles  .  .  .  effective  January  1, 
1969. 

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 
(Public  Law  89-563,  15  U.S.C.  sections  1392  and 
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.  6469 
April  27,   1968 


PART  571;  S  112— PRE  2 


Eff«ctiv«:   January   25,    1969 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD   112 

Headlamp  Concealment  Devices — Passenger  Cars,  Multipurpose  Passenger  Vehicles,  Trucks, 

Buses  and  Motorcycles 


Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  112,  pub- 
lished in  the  Federal  Register  on  April  27,  1968 
(33  F.R.  6469),  specifies  requirements  for  head- 
lamp concealment  devices  for  passenger  cars, 
multipurpose  passenger  vehicle,  trucks,  buses  and 
motorcycles  manufactured  after  December  31, 
1968. 

Paragraph  S4.1  requires  that  each  fully  opened 
headlamp  concealment  device  remain  fully  opened 
whenever  either  or  both  of  the  following  occur — 

a.  Any  loss  of  power  to  or  within  the  head- 
lamp concealment  device ; 

b.  Any  disconnection,  restriction,  short-circuit, 
circuit  time  delay,  or  other  similar  malfunction 
in  any  wiring,  tubing,  hose,  solenoid  or  other 
component  that  controls  or  conducts  power  for 
operating  the  concealment  device. 

The  purpose  of  S4.1  is  to  prevent  a  malfunc- 
tioning headlamp  concealment  device  from  inad- 
vertently covering  an  illuminated  headlamp. 
However,  the  Administrator  has  concluded  that 
this  paragraph  may  be  construed  to  prohibit  the 
closing  of  headlamp  concealment  devices  while 
the  headlamps  are  not  illuminated.  Consequently, 
paragraph  S4.1  is  being  amended  to  clarify  that 
its  requirements  apply  only  while  the  headlamps 
are  illumrnated. 


Since  this  amendment  provides  clarification 
and  imposes  no  additional  burden  on  any  person, 
notice  and  public  procedure  hereon  are  unneces- 
sary. It  is  therefore  found,  for  good  cause 
shown,  that  an  effective  date  earlier  than  180 
days  after  issuance  is  in  the  public  interest  and 
in  the  interest  of  motor  vehicle  safety. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  §  371.21  of 
Part  371,  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Stand- 
ards, Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  112 
(33  F.R.  6469),  paragraph  S4.1  is  amended  ef- 
fective January  25, 1969. . . . 

This  amendment  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  pursuant  to  the  delegation  of 
authority  from  the  Secretary  of  Transportation, 
Part  1  of  the  regulations  of  the  Office  of  the 
Secretary  (49  CFR  1.4(c)). 

Issued  on  January  22, 1969. 

John  R.  Jamieson,  Deputy 
Federal  Highway  Administrator 

34   F.R.   1246 
January  25,   1969 


PART  571 ;  S  112— PRE  3-4 


EfftcHv*:   Jonuary    1,    1969 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   112 

Headlamp  Concealment  Devices — Passenger  Cars,  Multipurpose  Passenger  Vehicles,  Trucks, 

Buses  and   Motorcycles 


51.  Scope.  This  standard  specifies  require- 
ments for  headlamp  concealment  devices. 

52.  Application.  This  standard  applies  to  pas- 
senger cars,  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles, 
trucks,  buses,  and  motorcycles. 

53.  Definitions.  "Fully  opened"  means  the  po- 
sition of  the  headlamp  concealment  device  in 
which  the  headlamp  is  in  the  design  open  oper- 
ating position. 

"Headlamp  concealment  device"  means  a  de- 
vice, with  its  operating  system  and  components, 
that  provides  concealment  of  the  headlamp  when 
it  is  not  in  use,  including  a  movable  headlamp 
cover  and  a  headlamp  that  displaces  for  conceal- 
ment purposes. 

"Power"  means  any  source  of  energy  that  op- 
erates the  headlamp  concealment  device. 

54.  Requirements. 

54.1  [While  the  headlamp  is  illuminated,  its 
fully  opened  headlamp  concealment  device  shall 
remain  fully  opened  whenever  either  or  both  of 
the  following  occur — 

(a)  Any  loss  of  power  to  or  within  the  head- 
lam.p  concealment  device; 

(b)  Any  disconnection,  restriction,  short-cir- 
cuit, circuit  time  delay,  or  other  similar  mal- 
function in  any  wiring,  tubing,  hose,  solenoid 
or  other  component  that  controls  or  conducts 
power  for  operating  the  concealment  device. 
(34  F.R.  1246— Jan.  25, 1969)] 

54.2  Whenever  any  malfunction  occurs  in  a 
component  that  controls  or  conducts  power  for 
the  actuation  of  the  concealment  device,  each 
closed  headlamp  concealment  device  shall  be 
capable  of  being  fully  opened — 


(a)  By  automatic  means; 

(b)  By  actuation  of  a  switch,  lever  or  other 
similar  mechanism;  or 

(c)  By  other  means  not  requiring  the  use  of 
any  tools.  Thereafter,  the  headlamp  conceal- 
ment device  must  remain  fully  opened  until  in- 
tentionally closed. 

54.3  Except  for  cases  of  malfunction  covered 
by  S4.2,  each  headlamp  concealment  device  shall 
be  capable  of  being  fully  opened  and  the  head- 
lamps illuminated  by  actuation  of  a  single  switch, 
lever,  or  similar  mechanism,  including  a  mech- 
anism that  is  automatically  actuated  by  a  change 
in  ambient  light  conditions. 

54.4  Each  headlamp  concealment  device  shall 
be  installed  so  that  the  headlamp  may  be  mounted, 
aimed,  and  adjusted  without  removing  any  com- 
ponent of  the  device,  other  than  components  of 
the  headlamp  assembly. 

54.5  After  December  31,  1969,  the  headlamp 
beam  of  headlamps  that  illuminate  during  open- 
ing and  closing  of  the  headlamp  concealment 
device  may  not  project  to  the  left  of  or  above 
the  position  of  the  beam  when  the  device  is  fully 
opened. 

54.6  Except  for  cases  of  malfunction  covered 
by  S4.2,  after  December  31,  1969,  each  headlamp 
concealment  device  shall,  within  an  ambient 
temperature  range  of  —20  to  -1-120  degrees  F., 
be  capable  of  being  fully  opened  in  not  more 
than  three  seconds  after  actuation  of  the  mech- 
anism described  in  S4.3. 

34   F.R.   1246 
January  25,   1969 


PART  571;  S  USJ-l 


231-088  O  -  77  -  35 


i 


i 


« 


Effactiv*:  January   1,   1969 


PREAMBLE  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   113 
Hood  Latch  Systems — Passenger  Cars,  Multipurpose  Passenger  Vehicles,  Trucks,  and 

Buses  (Docket  No.   1-17) 


A  proposal  to  amend  Part  371  by  adding  Fed- 
eral motor  vehicle  safety  Standard  No.  113,  Hood 
Latch  Systems — Passenger  Cars,  Multipurpose 
Passenger  Vehicles,  Trucks,  and  Buses,  was  pub- 
lished as  an  advance  notice  of  proposed  rule 
making  on  October  14,  1967  (32  F.R.  14280), 
and  as  a  notice  of  proposed  rule  making  on 
December  28, 1967  (32  F.R.  20866). 

Interested  persons  have  been  given  the  oppor- 
tunity to  participate  in  the  making  of  this  amend- 
ment, and  careful  consideration  has  been  given 
to  all  relevant  matter  presented. 

This  new  standard  requires  that  all  motor  ve- 
hicles to  which  it  is  applicable  be  equipped  with 
a  hood  latch  system.  Additionally,  in  those  in- 
stances where  a  vehicle  is  equipped  with  a  front 
opening  hood,  which  in  any  open  position  par- 
tially or  completely  obstructs  a  driver's  forward 
view  through  the  windshield,  a  second  latch  po- 
sition on  the  hood  latch  system  or  a  second  hood 
latch  system  must  be  provided. 

Available  data  reveals  that  inadvertent  hood 
openings  pose  a  serious  hazard  to  the  safe  oper- 
ation of  motor  vehicles,  particularly  in  the  case 
of  front  opening  hoods.  By  requiring  a  hood 
latch  system  for  all  hoods,  and  under  certain 
circumstances,  a  second  position  on  that  system 
or  an  independent  second  system,  this  standard 
will  help  to  reduce  incidents  of  inadvertent  hood 
openings. 

All  the  comments  support  the  need  for  a  hood 
latch  system  or  hood  latch  systems,  as  the  case 
may  be.  Several  commentators  requested  inclu- 
sion of  a  definition  of  "hood"  and  "front  opening 
hood."  The  Administrator  agrees  that  "hood" 
should  be  defined  and  has  defined  it  as  any  ex- 
terior movable  body  panel  forward  of  the  wind- 
shield used  to  cover  an  engine,  luggage,  storage. 


or  battery  compartment.  However,  the  Admin- 
istration concludes  that  a  definition  of  "front 
opening  hood"  is  unnecessary;  that  phrase  is 
sufficiently  definite  and  is  clearly  distinguishable 
from  a  "side  opening"  or  "rear  opening"  hood. 

Several  commentators  conditioned  their  sup- 
port upon  the  understanding  that  the  requirement 
for  front  opening  hoods  could  be  met  by  a  single 
latch  system  with  two  positions,  by  two  separate 
primary  latch  systems,  or  separate  primary  and 
secondary  latches.  Language  changes  have  been 
made  to  S4.2  to  clarify  that  all  of  these  types  of 
installations  are  acceptable. 

Several  commentators  expressed  concern  over 
the  lack  of  quantitative  performance  criteria  for 
hood  latch  systems.  The  Administrator  finds 
that  additional  research  and  study  are  necessary 
before  meaningful  quantitative  performance  cri- 
teria can  be  appropriately  specified. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  §  371.21  of 
Part  371  of  the  Federal  motor  vehicle  safety 
standards  is  amended  by  adding  Standard  No. 
113,  Hood  Latch  Systems — Passenger  Cars,  Mul- 
tipurpose Passenger  Vehicles,  Trucks,  and  Buses 
. . .  effective  January  1, 1969. 

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 
(Public  Law  89-563,  15  U.S.C.  sections  1392  and 
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.  6470 
April  27,   1968 


PART  571;  S  113— PRE  1-2 


Effective:    January    1,    1969 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.    113 

Hood  Latch  Systems — Passenger  Cars,    Multipurpose  Passenger  Vehicles,  Trucks, 

and   Buses 


51.  Purpose  and  scope.  This  standard  estab- 
lishes the  requirement  for  providing  a  liood 
hi  tell  system  or  hood  latch  systems. 

52.  Application.  This  standard  applies  to  pas- 
senger cars,  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles, 
trucks  and  buses. 

53.  Definitions.  "Hood"  means  any  exterior 
movable  body  panel  forward  of  the  windshield 
that  is  used  to  cover  an  engine,  luggage,  storage, 
or  battery  compartment. 


S4.   Requirements. 

54.1  Each  hood  nnist  be  provided  with  a  hood 
latch  system. 

54.2  A  front  opening  hood  which,  in  any  open 
position,  partially  or  completely  obstructs  a 
driver's  forward  \'iew  through  the  windshield 
must  be  provided  with  a  second  latch  position 
on  the  hood  latch  system  or  with  a  second  hood 
latch  system. 

33   F.R.  6471 
April   27,   1968 


PART  571;  S  113-1 


r 


C 


Elftctiv*:   January    1,    1970 


PREAMBLE  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   114 
Theft  Protection — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.   1-21) 


A  proposal  to  amend  §  371.21  of  Part  371, 
Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standards  by 
adding  a  new  standard,  Theft  Protection — Pas- 
senger Cars,  was  published  in  the  Federal  Reg- 
ister on  December  28,  1967  (32  F.R.  20866). 

Interested  persons  have  been  afforded  an  op- 
portunity to  participate  in  the  making  of  the 
standard.  Their  comments  and  other  available 
information  have  been  carefully  considered. 

Responses  to  the  notice  and  other  information 
have  demonstrated  that  stolen  cars  constitute  n 
major  hazard  to  life  and  limb  on  the  highways. 
The  evidence  shows  that  cars  operated  by  un- 
authorized persons  are  far  more  likely  to  cause 
unreasonable  risk  of  accident,  personal  injury, 
and  death  than  those  which  are  driven  by  author- 
ized individuals.  Further,  the  incidence  of  theft, 
and  hence  the  risk  of  accidents  attributable 
thereto,  is  increasing.  According  to  a  recent 
study  by  the  Department  of  Justice  there  were 
an  estimated  94,000  stolen  cars  involved  in  acci- 
dents in  1966,  and  more  than  18,000  of  these 
accidents  resulted  in  injury  to  one  or  more  people. 
On  a  proportionate  basis,  18.2  percent  of  the 
stolen  cars  became  involved  in  accidents,  and 
19.6  percent  of  the  stolen-car  accidents  resulted 
in  personal  injury.  The  same  study  predicted 
that  automobile  thefts  in  1967  total  about 
650,000;  about  100,000  of  these  stolen  cars  could 
be  expected  to  become  involved  in  highway  acci- 
dents. Comparing  these  figures  with  statistics 
for  vehicles  which  are  not  stolen,  the  approxi- 
mate rate  for  stolen  cars  would  be  some  200 
times  the  normal  accident  rate  for  other  vehicles. 
Thus,  a  reduction  in  the  incidence  of  auto  theft 
would  make  a  substantial  contribution  to  mott)r 
vehicle  safety.  It  would  not  only  reduce  the 
number  of  injuries  and  deaths  among  those  who 
steal  cars,  it  would  also  protect  the  many  inno- 


cent members  of  the  public  who  are  killed  and 
injured  by  stolen  cars  each  year. 

The  President's  Commission  on  Law  Enforce- 
ment and  Administration  of  Justice,  in  its  report 
"The  Challenge  of  Crime  in  a  Free  Society," 
noted  the  rising  cost  in  lives  and  dollars  as  a 
result  of  auto  theft,  highlighted  the  need  for 
measures  to  reduce  auto  thefts  and  suggested 
that  "The  responsibility  could  well  be  assigned 
to  the  National  Highway  Safety  Agency  as  part 
of  its  program  to  establish  safety  standards  for 
automobiles."     (pp.  260-261).  » 

The  Administrator  has  concluded  that  a 
standard  that  would  reduce  the  incidence  of  un- 
authorized use  of  cars  meets  the  needs  for  motor 
vehicle  safety.  Consequently,  he  rejects  those 
comments  on  the  proposed  standard  which  ques- 
tioned its  validity  on  the  ground  that  it  is  not 
related  to  improving  motor  vehicle  safety.  As 
indicated  below,  amateur  car  thieves  make  up 
the  majority  of  those  unauthorized  drivers  who 
become  involved  in  motor  vehicle  accidents. 
Many  of  these  thieves  make  use  of  keys  left  in 
the  ignition  locks  to  start  the  cars  they  steal. 
Hence,  the  standard  requires  each  car  to  be 
equipped  with  a  device  to  remind  drivers  to  re- 
move the  key  when  leaving  the  car.  The  number 
of  car  thieves  who  start  cars  with  so-called 
"master  keys"  and  devices  which  bypass  the  lock 
is  also  large  enough  to  produce  a  significant 
safety  hazard.  Therefore,  the  standard  also  re- 
quires devices  which  tend  to  defeat  this  category 
of  thief :  A  large  number  of  locking-system  com- 
binations and  a  steering  or  self-mobility  lock. 

Several  comments  urged  that  the  warning- 
device  requirement  be  eliminated  from  the  stand- 
ard upon  the  ground  that  the  removal  of  the  key 
is  the  driver's  responsibility.  It  was  also  said 
that,  since  any  locking  system,  no  matter  how 


PART  571;  S  114-PRE  1 


EffMtlva:   January   1,    1970 


it  is  constructed,  can  be  defeated  by  persons 
possessing  sufficient  skill,  equipment,  and  ten- 
acity, provisions  for  ensuring  removal  of  ignition 
keys  would  be  futile  because  a  thief  need  not 
make  use  of  a  key. 

As  the  Department  of  Justice  survey  men- 
tioned above  demonstrates,  however,  the  large 
majority  of  car  thieves  are  amateurs,  almost 
half  of  whom  are  engaged  in  so-called  "joy- 
riding." The  evidence  shows  that  a  high  pro- 
portion of  these  thieves,  most  of  whom  are 
juveniles,  start  the  cars'  engines  simply  by  using 
the  key  which  has  been  left  in  the  ignition  lock. 
It  is,  of  course,  the  operator's  responsibility  to 
remove  the  key  when  the  car  is  left  unattended 
and  drivers  should  continue  to  be  exhorted  or 
required  to  take  this  elementary  precaution. 
Nevertheless,  many  do  not,  and  the  interest  of 
safety  would  be  promoted  by  the  existence  of  a 
visible  or  audible  warning  device  on  the  car, 
reminding  the  driver  when  he  has  neglected  his 
responsibility.  This  is  an  instance  in  which 
engineering  of  vehicles  is  more  likely  to  have  an 
immediate  beneficial  impact  than  a  long-range 
process  of  mass  education. 

The  requirement  of  a  warning  when  the  key 
is  left  in  the  lock  was  also  the  subject  of  several 
comments  which  asked  that  the  warning  be  re- 
quired when  the  front-seat  passenger's  door,  as 
well  as  the  driver's  door,  is  opened.  There  is 
considerable  validity  in  the  contention  that  the 
device  should  operate  upon  the  opening  of  either 
door,  particularly  because,  in  some  jurisdictions, 
exiting  from  a  car  on  the  left  side  is  prohibited 
in  certain  circumstances.  However,  the  notice 
of  proposed  rule  making  stated  that  the  standard 
under  consideration  made  the  warning-device 
requirement  applicable  only  when  the  driver's 
door  is  opened.  Information  available  to  the 
Administrator  shows  that  development  of  such 
warning  devices  has  concentrated  on  warnings 
that  are  activated  only  in  the  event  the  driver's 
door  is  opened  while  the  key  remains  in  the  lock. 
To  extend  this  requirement  to  the  opening  of 
either  door  might  necessitate  both  the  initiation 
of  new  rulemaking  proceedings  and  an  extension 
of  the  standard's  effective  date.  For  these  rea- 
sons, the  requirement  is,  with  minor  exceptions 
discussed  below,  in  substance  unchanged  from 
the  one  which  appeared  in  the  notice  of  proposed 


rulemaking.     Extension   of   the   requirement   to     ^ 
passenger-door    warning    devices    will    be    kept     . 
under  consideration. 

The  January  1,  1970,  effective  date  also  re- 
mains unchanged.  Most  of  the  comments  which 
focused  on  the  proposed  effective  date  stated  that 
the  standard  could  be  complied  with  by  that 
date.  One  manufacturer  sought  a  1-year  exten- 
sion on  the  ground  that  it  could  not  produce  a 
steering  or  mobility  lock  in  sufficient  time  to 
equip  its  automobiles  with  such  a  device  by 
January  1,  1970.  Although  this  comment  al- 
leged that  data  in  the  possession  of  its  author 
showed  that  the  cost  of  purchasing  and  installing 
a  device  to  comply  with  the  standard  would  im- 
pose an  unreasonable  economic  burden,  neither 
those  data  nor  the  basis  for  the  company's  con- 
clusion have  been  supplied  to  the  Administration. 
In  short,  nothing  supported  the  request  except 
the  broad  generalization  that  the  proposed  effec- 
tive date  would  cause  some  undefined  hardship. 
Balancing  this  unsubstantiated  generalization 
against  the  increase  in  deaths  and  injuries  that 
postponing  the  effective  date  for  a  year  would 
probably  cause,  the  Administrator  has  concluded 
that  a  change  in  the  effective  date  to  January  1.  - 
1971,  would  not  be  in  the  interest  of  safety,  that  ( 
the  January  1,  1970,  effective  date  is  a  prac- 
ticable one,  and  that  the  request  to  extend  it  for 
1  year  is  denied. 

Many  persons  who  responded  to  the  notice 
asked  that  specific  theft  protection  devices  be 
prescribed.  These  specific  devices  included  brake 
locks  and  so-called  "pop-out"  keys  which  auto- 
matically eject  from  the  locking  system,  to  de- 
vices which  purportedly  make  by-passing  the 
ignition  switch  impossible.  The  Administrator 
concludes  that  it  would  be  unwise  to  establish  a 
standard  in  terms  so  restrictive  as  to  discourage 
technological  innovation  in  the  field  of  theft  in- 
hibition. Consequently,  the  standard  has  been 
framed  to  permit  as  many  specific  devices  as 
possible  to  meet  its  requirements.  In  addition, 
the  standard  does  not  preclude  the  use  of  supple- 
mentary theft  protection  measures,  such  as  the 
"pop-out"  key,  so  long  as  automobiles  comply 
with  the  standard's  minimum  requirement. 

In  drafting  the  standard,  a  number  of  revi- 
sions were  made  in  the  language  employed  in 
the   notice   of   proposed    rulemaking.     Many   of 


PART  571 ;  S  114— PRE  2 


Effactiva:   January    1,    1970 


these  revisions  clarify  definitional  problems  that 
were  raised  in  responses  to  the  notice.  The  term 
"key"  is  defined  so  as  to  include  methods  of 
activating  the  locking  system  other  than  the 
commonly  accepted  concept  of  a  key.  The  term 
"combination"  was  defined  to  clarify  its  meaning, 
and  the  1,000-combinations  requirement  has  been 
changed  to  make  it  clear  that,  after  the  stand- 
ard's eflfective  date,  each  manufacturer  must 
produce  at  least  1,000  different  locking  system 
combinations,  unless  he  manufactures  less  than 
1,000  passenger  cars.  In  response  to  comments 
which  pointed  out  the  impossibility  of  construct- 
ing a  system  which,  upon  removal  of  the  key, 
would  prevent  operation  of  the  powerplant  ab- 
solutely and  in  all  events,  the  provisions  of 
paragraph  S3  (a)  of  the  notice  were  revised  to 
require  only  that  removal  of  the  key  must  pre- 
vent normal  activation  of  the  powerplant.  Para- 
graph S4.2  represents  a  clarification  of  the  re- 
quirement contained  in  paragraph  S3.3  of  the 
notice.  It  is  intended  to  permit  the  driver  of  a 
car  to  turn  off  the  engine  in  emergency  situations 
while  the  car  is  in  motion  without  also  activating 
the  steering  or  self-mobility  lock.  Other  minor 
changes  were  made  for  amplification  or  clarifi- 
cation. 

Shortly  after  the  issuance  of  this  standard, 
the  Administrator  will  issue  a  notice  of  proposed 
rulemaking   to   determine   the   practicability   of 


improving  the  standard  by  adding  a  requirement 
that  key  locking  systems  be  designed  and  con- 
structed to  preclude  accidental  or  inadvertent 
activation  of  the  deterrent  required  by  S4.1(b) 
while  the  car  is  in  motion.  The  notice  will  pro- 
pose an  effective  date  for  the  additional  require- 
ment identical  to  that  of  the  present  standard: 
January  1,  1970. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  §  371.21  of 
Part  371,  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Stand- 
ards, is  amended  by  adding  Standard  No.  114, 
. . .  ,  effective  January  1, 1970. 

In  accordance  with  section  103(c)  of  the  Na- 
tional Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  of 
1966,  I  find  that  it  would  be  impractical  to  re- 
quire compliance  with  this  standard  within  1 
year  and  therefore  it  is  in  the  public  interest  to 
adopt  a  later  effective  date. 

This  amendment  is  made  under  the  authority 
of  sections  103  and  119  of  the  National  Traffic 
and  Motor  Vehicle  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.  6471 
April  27,   1968 


PART  571 ;  S  114r-PRE  3-4 


c 


r 


c 


Effactiva:   January    I,    1970 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   114 

Theft  Protection — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.   1-21) 


The  Administrator  is  amending  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  114,  Theft  Protection— Pas- 
senger Cars,  for  tlie  purpose  of  making  several 
clarifying  changes  to  it.  The  standard  was  issued 
on  April  24,  1968  (33  F.R.  6471)  and  becomes 
effective  on  January  1,  1970.  After  the  stand- 
ard was  issued,  the  Administrator  received  a 
number  of  requests  for  interpretations  or  clarify- 
ing amendments.  While  each  of  the  requests  dis- 
cussed below  could  have  been  disposed  of  by 
interpretation  of  the  present  standard,  tiie  Ad- 
ministrator has  chosen  to  change  the  text  of  the 
standard  in  order  to  ensure  that  it  is  clear  on  its 
face. 

Paragraph  S4.1  (b)  of  the  standard,  as  adopted, 
requires  each  passenger  car  to  have  a  key  lock- 
ing system  that,  with  the  key  removed,  will  pre- 
vent "either  steering  or  self -mobility  of  the  car 
or  both."  Several  persons  pointed  out  that  a 
literal  interpretation  of  this  provision  would  re- 
quire a  manufacturer  who  seeks  to  comply  with 
the  self-mobility  requirement  to  install  a  system 
that  prevents  both  forward  and  rearward  self- 
mobility.  In  view  of  the  improbability  of  a  suc- 
cessful theft  of  a  car  capable  only  of  rearward 
self-mobility,  the  Administrator  agrees  that  such 
a  literal  interpretation  would  not  be  consistent 
with  the  general  purpose  of  the  standard.  There- 
fore, paragraph  S4.1(b)  is  being  clarified  by  in- 
serting the  word  "forward"  before  the  word 
"self-mobility". 

Several  persons  sought  clarification  of  para- 
graph S4.4,  which  requires  activation  of  a  warn- 
ing to  the  driver  whenever  the  key  has  been  left 
in  the  locking  system  and  the  driver's  door  is 
opened.  The  purpose  of  this  provision  is  to  pre- 
vent, as  far  as  possible,  drivers  from  inadvertently 
leaving  the  key  in  the  ignition  lock  when  the  car 
is  unoccupied.    As  stated  in  the  preamble  to  the 


standard  when  it  was  adopted,  "the  standard 
requires  each  car  to  be  equipped  with  a  device  to 
remind  drivers  to  remove  the  key  when  leaving 
the  car"  (emphasis  added). 

It  was  pointed  out  that  a  literal  reading  of  the 
phrase  "left  in  the  locking  system"  (emphasis 
added)  would  require  activation  of  the  warning 
regardless  of  the  extent  to  which  the  key  is  in- 
serted in  the  lock,  even  if  the  driver  deliberately 
chooses  to  withdraw  it  partially  from  the  lock. 
These  comments  argued  that  it  was  practically 
impossible  to  design  a  warning  system  that  would 
function  if,  for  example,  the  key  is  so  far  re- 
moved as  to  be  dangling  from  the  locking  mecha- 
nism. It  was  the  purpose  of  this  provision  to  re- 
quire activation  of  the  warning  device  whenever 
the  key  is  left  in  the  lock  in  a  position  from 
which  the  lock  can  be  turned.  Once  the  driver 
has  withdrawn  the  key  beyond  the  position,  he  is 
presumably  aware  of  the  location  of  the  key,  and 
no  warning  need  be  given  to  him.  Paragraph 
S4.4  is  being  amended  to  clarify  this  intent. 

Paragraph  S4.4  is  also  being  amended  to  avoid 
the  possibility  of  an  interpretation  that  would 
prohibit  use  of  a  type  of  locking  system  and  steer- 
ing lock  that  has,  in  the  past,  been  a  successful 
deterrent  against  theft.  In  this  system,  the  warn- 
ing to  the  driver  works  in  conjunction  with  the 
activation  of  the  steering  lock  device.  The  steer- 
ing lock  is  not  activated  when  the  key,  after  hav- 
ing been  withdrawn  from  the  ignition  lock,  is 
simply  reinserted  in  the  locking  system.  Nor  is 
the  warning  to  the  driver  actuated  until  the  key 
is  turned  so  that  the  steering  lock  is  deactivated. 
As  noted  above,  the  purpose  of  paragraph  S4.4 
is  not  to  guarantee  that  drivers  will  remove  the 
key  upon  leaving  the  car;  rather,  it  seeks  to  en- 
sure that  drivers  do  not  inadvertently  leave  their 
keys  in  ignition  locks.     In  all  but  a  very  small 


(R*v.   6/13/69) 


PART  571;  S  114^PRE  5 


Effacllv*:  January   1,    1970 

number  of  cases,  a  driver  who  has  withdrawn 
and  then  reinserted  the  key  cannot  be  said  to  have 
inadvertently  left  it  in  the  locking  system  when 
he  thereafter  exits  from  the  car.  Tiierefore,  para- 
graph S4.4  is  being  amended  to  make  it  clear  that 
the  warning  device  need  not  operate  after  the 
key  has  been  removed  and  reinserted  in  the  lock- 
ing system  without  turning  the  key. 

Finally,  several  persons  pointed  out  that  the 
language  of  paragraph  S4.4  would  require  acti- 
vation of  the  warning  device  even  if  the  locking 
system  is  in  the  "on"  or  "start''  position.  A  posi- 
tive physical  act  is  usually  required  to  bring  the 
system  to  the  "on"  position  or  the  "start'"  posi- 
tion. Moreover,  a  forgetful  driver  would  not 
normally  leave  the  key  in  the  "on"  position  if  he 
opened  his  door  with  the  intent  of  leaving  the 
car  unattended.  In  most  cases,  it  is  impossible 
for  him  to  leave  the  key  in  the  "start"  position 
without  physically  holding  it  in  that  position. 
Hence,  no  valid  purpose  would  be  served  by  re- 
quiring the  warning  to  be  activated  when  the 
locking  system  is  in  either  of  those  positions,  and 


the  standard  is  being  amended  to  omit  any  impli- 
cation that  such  a  requirement  is  imposed. 

Since  these  changes  are  clarifying  and  inter- 
pretive in  nature,  and  since  they  impose  no  addi- 
tional burden  on  any  person,  I  find  that  notice 
and  public  procedure  thereon  is  unnecessary. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  section  371.21 
of  Part  371,  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Stand- 
ards, Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  114 
(33  F.R.  6741)  is  amended,  effective  January  1, 
1970,  as  set  forth  below. 

(Sees.  103  and  119,  National  Traffic  and  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966  (15  U.S.C.  1392, 1407) 
and  the  delegation  of  authority  at  49  C.F.R. 
1.4(c)) 

Issued  on  June  9,  1969. 

F.  C.  Turner 

Federal   Highway   Administrator 

June  13,  1969 
34  F.R.  9342 


(R«v.  6/13/69) 


PAKT  571;  S  114^PRE  6 


Effccllv*:   April   1,    1970 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   114 

Theft  Protection — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.    1-21) 


Dnver-Warning  Requirement — Denial  of  Petition 
for  Amendment;  Extension  of  Effective  Date 
General  Motors  Corporation  has  filed  a  peti- 
tion for  amendment  of  paragrapli  S4.4  of  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  114.  That  para- 
graph requires  each  passenger  car  manufactured 
after  December  .31,  1969  to  have  a  warning  to  a 
driver  who  neglects  to  remove  his  key  from  the 
ignition  lock  before  he  leaves  the  car.  As  amended 
(34  F.R.  9.342),  the  standard  provides  that  the 
warning  need  not  operate  "after  the  key  has  been 
mai.jal'.y  withdrawn  to  a  position  from  which  it 
may  not  be  turned." 

The  basis  of  the  petition  is  that,  in  the  current- 
model  General  Motors  system,  manufacturing 
tolerances  may  be  such  as  to  permit  a  driver  to 
manipulate  the  ignition  key  into  a  position  at 
which  the  warning  buzzer  will  be  deactivated 
while  the  ignition  lock  remains  operative.  Gen- 
eral Motors  seeks  an  amendment  to  permit  the 
warning  to  be  inoperative  "after  the  key  has  been 
manually  withdrawn  from  the  normal  operating 
position." 

Upon  consideration  of  the  petition  and  other 
evidence,  the  Administrator  has  concluded  that  it 
would  not  be  in  the  public  interest  to  grant  the 
relief  General  Motors  has  requested.  The  pur- 
pose of  paragraph  S4.4  is  to  make  it  virtually 
impossible  for  a  driver  inadvertently  to  leave  his 
key  in  the  ignition  lock  when  he  exits  and  thereby 
to  reduce  car  thefts  along  with  the  high  potential 
for  accidental  injury  and  death  that  stolen  cars 
have.  If  it  were  possible  for  a  driv;er  to  manipu- 
late the  key  so  as  to  render  the  warning  inopera- 
tiv^e  while,  at  the  same  time,  to  continue  to 
operate  the  vehicle  with  the  key  in  the  lock,  the 
salutary  purpose  of  the  warning  requirement 
would  be  defeated.  Therefore,  the  petition  for 
amendment  is  denied. 


However,  the  Administrator  recognizes  that  the 
tolerance  problem  General  Motors  has  raised  is 
a  genuine  one.  It  may  be  related  to  the  fact  that 
General  Motors  attempted,  in  good  faith,  to 
manufacture  cars  that  complied  with  Standard 
No.  114  well  before  the  standard's  effective  date. 
This  is  a  laudable  action  for  which  Greneral 
Motors  should  not  be  penalized.  Furthermore, 
the  Administrator  realizes  that  the  General  Mo- 
tors system  is  installed  not  only  on  its  own  pro- 
ductoin  but  also  in  passengers  car  produced  by 
other  high-volume  manufacturers. 

Therefore,  the  Administrator  has  concluded 
that  the  effective  date  of  paragraph  S4.4  of 
Standard  No.  114  should  be  extended  to  allow 
additional  time  to  overcome  the  tolerance  prob- 
lem. According  to  the  best  information  avail- 
able at  this  time,  it  appears  that  a  90-day 
extension  of  the  January  1,  1970  effective  date 
will  provide  sufficient  time  for  redesigning  and 
retooling  the  General  Motors  system  so  that  it 
fully  conforms  to  the  standard's  requirements 
and  to  put  the  new  system  into  production.  This 
conclusion  is  based  on  the  expectation  that  the 
problems  involved  will  be  attacked  on  an  urgent, 
high  priority  basis,  as  they  should  be  in  view 
of  the  safety  need  that  paragraph  S4.4  meets. 
The  Administrator  may  consider  a  further  exten- 
sion at  a  later  date  if  additional  evidence  to 
justify  such  an  extension  is  adduced  at  that  time. 

Because  of  the  shortness  of  time  before  the 
effective  date  of  Standard  No.  114  and  because 
extension  of  that  effective  date  for  compliance 
with  paragraph  S4.4  of  the  standard  will  impose 
no  additional  burden  on  any  person,  notice  and 
public  procedure  hereon  are  found  to  be  unneces- 
sary and  impracticable. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  the  effective 
date  of  paragraph  S4.4  of  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 


(Rav.    12/11/69) 


PART  571 ;  S  114— PRE  7 


EKkHv*:  April    1,   1970 

Standard  No.  114,  in  §  371.21  of  Part  371  is  ex-  Issued  on  December  3, 1969.  i^ 

tended  to  April  1, 1970. 

(Sees.  103  and  119,  National  Traffic  and  Motor  ?]•  ?'  '^"™®'',  .... 

Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966  (15  U.S.C.  1392, 1407)  ^^^^^""^   Highway   Administrator 
and    the    delegation    of    authority    at    49    CFR  34  F.R.  19547 

1.4(c)).  December  11,  1969 


(■•*.  iJ/n/69)  PART  571;  S  114^PRE  8 


^ 


Effacllva:   April    I,    1970 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   114 
Theft  Protection: — Passenger  Cars 


51.  Purpose  and  scope.  This  standard  speci- 
fies requirements  for  theft  protection  to  reduce 
the  incidence  of  accidents  resulting  from  un- 
authorized use. 

52.  Application.  This  standard  applies  to  pas- 
senger cars. 

53.  Definitions.  "Combination"  means  one  of 
the  specifically  planned  and  constructed  varia- 
tions of  a  locking  system  which,  when  properly 
actuated,  permits  operation  of  the  locking  system. 

"Key"  includes  any  other  device  designed  and 
constructed  to  provide  a  method  for  operating  a 
locking  system  which  is  designed  and  constructed 
to  be  operated  by  that  device. 

54.  Requirements. 

S4.1  Each  passenger  car  shall  have  a  key- 
locking  system  that,  whenever  the  key  is  removed, 
will  prevent — 

(a)  Normal  activation  of  the  car's  engine  or 
other  main  source  of  motive  power;  and 

(b)  Either  steering  or  forward  self-mobility 
of  the  car,  or  both. 


54.2  The  prime  means  for  deactivating  the 
car's  engine  or  other  main  source  of  motive  power 
shall  not  activate  the  deterrent  required  by 
S4.1(b). 

54.3  The  number  of  different  combinations  of 
the  key  locking  systems  required  by  84.1  of  each 
manufacturer  shall  be  at  least  1,000,  or  a  number 
equal  to  the  number  of  passenger  cars  manufac- 
tured by  such  manufacturer,  whichever  is  less. 

54.4  A  warning  to  the  driver  shall  be  acti- 
vated whenever  the  key  required  by  S4.1  has  been 
left  in  the  locking  system  and  the  driver's  door 
is  opened.  The  warning  to  the  driver  need  not 
operate — 

(a)  after  the  key  has  been  manually  withdrawn 
to  a  position  from  which  it  may  not  be  turned; 

(b)  when  the  key-locking  system  is  in  the  "on" 
or  "start"  position ;  or 

(c)  after  the  key  has  been  inserted  in  the  lock- 
ing system  and  before  it  has  been  turned. 

33  F.R.  6472 
April  27,   1968 


PART  571;  S  114-1 


< 


t 


V. 


Eff*ctlvt:   January   1,    1969 


PREAMBLE  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   115 
Vehicle  Identification  Number — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.   1-22) 


A  proposal  to  amend  section  371.21  of  Part 
371,  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standards, 
by  adding  a  new  standard.  Vehicle  Identification 
Number — Passenger  Cars,  was  published  in  the 
Federal  Register  on  December  28,  1967  (32  F.K. 
20886). 

Interested  persons  have  been  aflforded  an  op- 
portunity to  participate  in  the  making  of  the 
standard.  Their  comments  and  other  available 
information  have  been  carefully  considered. 

The  Administrator  has  concluded  that  preven- 
tion and  deterrence  of  passenger  car  thefts  would 
substantially  reduce  the  number  and  seriousness 
of  motor  vehicle  accidents.  Available  evidence 
shows  that  cars  operated  by  unauthorized  persons 
are  far  more  likely  to  cause  unreasonable  risk  of 
accidents,  personal  injuries  and  deaths  than  those 
which  are  driven  by,  or  with  the  permission  of, 
their  owners.  The  incidence  of  theft  and  the 
risk  of  accidents  attributable  thereto  is  increas- 
ing. According  to  a  recent  study  by  the  Depart- 
ment of  Justice,  an  estimated  94,000  stolen  cars 
were  involved  in  accidents  in  1966,  and  more 
than  18,000  of  these  accidents  resulted  in  injury 
to  one  or  more  people.  18.2  percent  of  the  stolen 
cars  became  involved  in  accidents,  and  19.6  per- 
cent of  the  stolen-car  accidents  caused  personal 
injury.  The  same  study  predicted  that  automo- 
bile thefts  in  1967  would  total  about  650,000; 
about  100,000  of  these  stolen  cars  would  be  ex- 
pected to  become  involved  in  accidents.  Com- 
paring these  figures  with  statistics  for  cars  which 
are  not  stolen,  the  approximate  accident  rate  for 
stolen  cars  would  be  some  200  times  the  rate  for 
other  cars.  Thus,  a  reduction  in  the  invidence 
of  auto  theft  would  meet  the  need  for  motor 
vehicle  safety.  It  would  not  only  reduce  the 
number  of  injuries  and  deaths  among  those  who 
steal  cars,  it  would  also  protect  the  many  inno- 


cent members  of  the  public  who  are  killed  and 
injured  by  stolen  cars  each  year. 

In  its  report,  "The  Challenge  of  Crime  in  a 
Free  Society,"  the  President's  Conmiission  on 
Law  Enforcement  and  Administration  of  Justice 
noted  the  rising  cost  of  auto  thefts  in  lives  and 
dollars,  highlighted  the  need  for  measures  to  re- 
duce auto  thefts  and  suggested  that  "The  respon- 
sibility could  well  be  assigned  to  the  National 
Highway  Safety  Agency  as  part  of  its  program 
to  establish  safety  standards  for  automobiles." 
(pp.  260-261). 

The  Administrator  has  decided  that  the  prob- 
lem of  reducing  the  incidence  of  automobile 
thefts  should  be  attacked  on  a  two-pronged  basis. 
On  one  hand,  physical  impediments  should  be 
placed  in  the  path  of  potential  thieves;  to  ac- 
complish this,  a  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard 
on  Theft  Protection — Passenger  Cars  has  been 
promulgated.  That  standard  prescribes  automo- 
bile equipment  which  tends  physically  to  defeat 
an  attempted  theft.  It  is  equally  important  to 
interpose  psychological  deterrents  to  automobile 
theft.  A  unique  identification  number  affixed  to 
each  car  in  a  uniform  location  and  readable  from 
outside  the  car  would  serve  as  such  a  deterrent. 
The  present  standard  requires  manufacturers  to 
install  such  a  number  in  each  passenger  car. 
When  so  installed,  it  will  enable  law  enforcement 
agencies  to  find  stolen  cars  and  apprehend  car 
thieves  with  much  greater  facility  than  now 
exists.  By  confronting  a  potential  thief  with 
the  promise  of  swift  and  sure  apprehension,  com- 
pliance with  the  standard  will  deter  him  from 
making  off  with  someone  else's  automobile.  All 
law  enforcement  agencies,  as  well  as  many  other 
organizations  concerned  with  the  rising  incidence 
of  car  thefts,  that  responded  to  the  Notice  of 
Proposed  Rule  Making  endorsed  the  concept  of 


PART  571;  S  115— PRE  1 


231-08R   O  -  77  -  36 


Effective:    January    1,    1969 


a  visible  identification  number  embodied  in  the 
standard.  Many  of  these  groups  said  that  the 
standard  would  promote  efforts  to  curb  un- 
authorized use  of  passenger  cars.  The  Admin- 
istrator has  therefore  concluded  that  issuance  of 
the  standard  will  protect  the  public  against  the 
unreasonable  risk  of  accidents  stemming  from 
widespread  automobile  theft. 

The  Administrator  has  carefully  considered  the 
contention,  which  some  manufacturers  advanced, 
that  the  standard  might  actually  increase  the 
risk  of  automobile  theft  because  a  thief,  armed 
with  ready  access  to  the  car's  identification  num- 
ber, might  thereby  obtain  a  key  for  its  ignition 
lock.  The  acquisition  of  master  or  identical  keys 
procured  through  knowledge  of  a  vehicle's  iden- 
tification number  is  a  lengthy  and  arduous  pro- 
cess. Hence,  it  is  a  technique  that  is  rarely,  if 
ever,  used  by  amateur  thieves  whose  activities 
create  the  greatest  risk  of  stolen-car  accidents. 
Furthermore,  as  a  practical  matter,  it  is  possible 
to  utilize  this  technique  only  with  respect  to  a 
relatively  small  number  of  cars.  The  Theft  Pro- 
tection standard,  effective  January  1,  1970,  will 
result  in  a  larger  number  of  combinations  for 
ignition  locks,  and  this  should  substantially  re- 
duce the  effectiveness  of  master  keys.  In  addi- 
tion, improved  key-control  measures  can  prevent 
thieves  from  acquiring  duplicate  keys  simply  by 
knowing  the  vehicle  identification  number.  On 
balance,  therefore,  the  Administrator  does  not 
agree  with  those  who  argue  that  the  standard 
will  not  result  in  an  overall  reduction  in  the 
number  of  automobile  thefts. 

The  Administrator  also  rejects  the  contention 
that  the  standard  is  unnecessary  because  of  the 
almost  universal  requirement  that  all  automobiles 
must  bear  at  least  one  license  plate.  Experience 
has  shown  that  ordinary  license  plates,  located 
on  the  outside  of  a  car  and  installed  with  screws, 
are  often  removed  and  replaced  with  other  plates. 
Knowing  only  the  number  of  the  license  plates 
sold  to  the  owner  of  the  stolen  car,  the  police 
have  no  sure  way  of  identifying  the  car  when 
other  plates  have  been  attached  to  it.  The  stand- 
ard attempts  to  overcome  this  problem  by  re- 
quiring that  the  car's  identification  number  be 
affixed  with  relative  permanency. 

In  addition  to  license-plate  requirements,  the 
laws  of  many  states  contain  provisions  lelating 


to  identifying  numbers  on  motor  vehicles.  The  , 
primary  purpose  of  these  state-law  requirements  JT 
is  to  facilitate  the  issuance  and  transfer  of  titles 
to  motor  vehicles.  So  far  as  the  Administrator 
is  aware,  no  state  provides  for  a  number  which 
is  readable  from  outside  a  vehicle  without  open- 
ing a  door,  hood  or  other  part  of  the  vehicle. 
These  state  requirements  are  neither  safety 
standards,  nor  do  they  relate  directly  to  the  pre- 
vention of  motor  vehicle  thefts  or  the  apprehen- 
sion of  thieves.  Consequently,  the  Administrator 
has  concluded  that  the  standard  will  have  no 
preemptive  effect  upon  such  state  laws. 

Several  changes  have  been  made  in  the  form 
of  the  standard  as  it  appeared  in  the  Notice  of 
Proposed  Rule  Making.  A  number  of  comments 
objected  to  the  requirement,  as  stated  in  the  No- 
tice, that  the  vehicle  identification  number  must 
"provide  permanent  legibility"  on  the  ground 
that  it  was  unrealistic  and  unattainable.  In  re- 
sponse to  these  comments,  the  requirement  was 
deleted.  The  term  "permanent  structure"  was 
defined  to  clarify  its  meaning,  in  the  light  of  a 
number  of  submissions  which  indicated  that 
some  manufacturers  were  confused  about  the 
parts  of  the  automobile  that  were  included  within  , 
the  meaning  of  the  term.  y. 

Some  comments  questioned  the  requirement 
that  the  number  must  be  affixed  in  such  a  manner 
that  "removal,  replacement,  or  alteration  of  the 
number  will  show  evidence  of  tampering."  The 
requirement  has  been  deleted.  The  standard  now 
provides  that  the  number  must  either  be  sunk 
into  or  embossed  upon  each  car's  permanent 
structure  or  upon  a  separate  plate  that  is  perma- 
nently affixed  to  the  permanent  structure.  The 
term  "permanently  affixed"  is  used  in  section  114 
of  the  National  Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Act,  and  it  was  retained  in  the  standard  notwith- 
standing contentions  that  it  was  not  sufficiently 
definitive. 

The  portion  of  the  Notice  pertaining  to  read- 
ability of  the  number  (paragraph  S4.4)  was 
amended  to  include  the  conditions  under  which 
the  number  must  be  readable.  This  provision 
was  also  redrafted  to  make  it  clear  that  the 
number  must  be  readable  from  a  position  outside 
the  vehicle  without  moving  any  part  of  the  ve- 
hicle. This  precludes  placing  the  number  in  a 
location  such  that,  in  order  to  read  it,  a  door. 


PART  571;  S  115— PRE  2 


i 


Effactlva:  January  1,   1969 

trunk  lid  or  other  portion  of  the  car's  body  must  1392,  1407)   and  the  delegation  of  authority  of 

be  opened.  April  24,  1968. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  section  371.21  Issued  in  Washington,  D.C.,  on  July  3,  1968. 
of    Part    371,    Federal    Motor    Vehicle    Safety 
Standards,  is  amended  by  adding  Standard  No. 

115  .. .  effective  January  1, 1969.  Lowell  K.  Bridwell, 

This  amendment  is  made  under  the  authority  Federal  Highway  Administrator 

of  sections  103  and  119  of  the  National  Traffic  33  F.R.  10207 

and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966  (15  U.S.C.  July  17,  1968 


PART  571;  S  116— PRE  3-4 


V. 


Effsclivt:   January    1,    1969 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   115 
Vehicle  Identification   Number — Passenger  Cars 


51.  Purpose  and  scope.  This  standard  speci- 
fies requirements  for  veliicle  identification  num- 
bers to  reduce  the  incidence  of  accidents  resulting 
from  unauthorized  use. 

52.  Application.  This  standard  applies  to  pas- 
senger cars. 

53.  Definition. 

"Vehicle  identification  number"  means  a  num- 
ber consisting  of  arabic  numerals,  roman  letters, 
or  both,  which  the  manufacturer  assigns  to  the 
vehicle  for  identification  purposes. 

54.  Requirements. 

54.1  Each  passenger  car  shall  have  a  vehicle 
identification  number. 

54.2  The  vehicle  identification  numbers  of  two 
vehicles  manufactured  by  a  manufacturer  within 
a  ten-year  period  shall  not  be  identical. 


54.3  The  vehicle  identification  number  of  each 
passenger  car  shall  be  sunk  into  or  embossed 
upon  either  a  part  of  the  vehicle  (other  than  the 
glazing)  that  is  not  designed  to  be  removed  ex- 
cept for  repair  or  a  separate  plate  which  is 
permanently  affixed  to  such  a  part. 

54.4  The  vehicle  identification  number  shall  be 
located  inside  the  passenger  compartment  and 
shall  be  readable,  without  moving  any  part  of 
the  vehicle,  through  the  vehicle  glazing  under 
daylight  lighting  conditions  by  an  observer 
having  20/20  vision  (Snellen)  whose  eye-point 
is  located  outside  the  vehicle  adjacent  to  the  left 
windshield  pillar. 

Effective  Date:  January  1,  1969. 

33  F.R.   10208 
July   17,    1968 


PART  571;  S  115-1 


r 


{ 


Effective:   March    1,    1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   116 

Motor  Vehicle  Brake  Fluids 
(Docket  No.   70-23;  Notice  3) 


This  notice  amends  §  571.21  of  Title  49,  Code 
of  Federal  Regulations,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  116,  Motor  Vehicle  Brake  Fluids, 
to  establish  new  performance  requirements  for 
brake  fluid,  and  to  extend  its  application  to  all 
motor  vehicles  equipped  with  hydraulic  brake 
systems,  and  to  all  brake  fluid  for  use  in  hy- 
draulic brake  systems  of  motor  vehicles.  The 
amendment  also  establishes  requirements  for 
brake  fluid  containers  and  labeling  of  containers. 

A  notice  of  proposed  amendment  to  Federal 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  116  was  pub- 
lished on  September  30,  1970  (35  F.R.  15229). 
Interested  persons  have  been  afforded  an  oppor- 
tunity to  participate  in  the  rulemaking  process 
and  their  comments  have  been  carefully  con- 
sidered. 

The  amendment  adopts  requirements  that  were 
proposed  for  grades  DOT  3  and  DOT  4  brake 
fluid,  eliminates  SAE  Type  70R1  brake  fluid, 
specifies  more  stringent  requirements  for  physical 
and  chemical  properties,  specifies  the  use  of  SAE 
SBR  wheel  cylinder  cups  in  testing,  and  sets 
forth  requirements  for  brake  fluid  containers  and 
brake  fluid  container  labeling. 

Comments  and  available  data  indicated  that 
the  proposed  DOT  2  type  brake  fluid  is  not  a 
commercially  available  fluid  but  is  manufactured 
primarily  for  military  use  in  Arctic  regions  and 
that  there  is  no  current  need  for  this  additional 
grade  of  brake  fluid.  DOT  2  brake  fluid  has 
therefore  been  excluded  from  the  amendment. 

Requirements  for  DOT  3  and  DOT  4  grade 
fluids  are  adopted  as  proposed,  with  a  minor 
modification  in  the  wet  boiling  point  of  the  DOT 
4  grade  fluid.  The  NHTSA  has  determined  that 
there  is  a  need  for  two  grades  of  brake  fluid 
until  an  all-weather  fluid  is  developed  with 
viscosity  and  boiling  point  characteristics  suit- 


able for  use  in  all  braking  systems.  In  order  to 
provide  an  added  margin  of  protection  against 
vapor  locking  in  severe  braking  service,  some  car 
manufacturers  may  wish  to  recommend  use  of 
a  DOT  4  fluid  for  certain  severe  conditions. 
Such  recommendations  should  point  out  that  use 
of  the  DOT  4  fluid  for  improved  resistance  to 
vapor  locking  may  result  in  poorer  system  per- 
formance in  very  cold  weather. 

The  wet  equilibrium  reflux  boiling  point  test 
procedure  has  been  adopted  as  it  represents  a 
measure  of  the  capability  of  the  fluid  in  service. 
Tests  have  been  run  and  data  accumulated  which 
demonstrate  that  this  test  is  sufficiently  repeat- 
able  to  justify  its  inclusion.  However,  when 
sufficient  data  become  available  on  methods  of 
measuring  resistance  to  vapor  lock,  this  agency 
may  consider  proposing  a  new  test  procedure. 

The  proposed  low  temperature  viscosity  re- 
quirements for  the  DOT  3  and  DOT  4  grade 
fluids  have  been  adopted  unchanged.  Adequate 
data  exist  to  support  the  need  for  the  specified 
kinematic  viscosities  at  low  temperatures  to  as- 
sure adequate  brake  system  performance  in  cold 
weather.  Since  high  boiling  points  are  sacrificed 
for  low  viscosities  at  low  temperatures,  the  dif- 
ferences in  kinematic  viscosities  between  DOT 
3  and  DOT  4  grade  fluids  are  justifiable. 

The  flash  point  test  proposal  has  not  been 
adopted  because  comments  indicated  that  the 
test  is  not  pertinent  to  in-use  performance  char- 
acteristics. The  NHTSA,  however,  may  re- 
examine the  potential  flammability  hazard  posed 
by  motor  vehicle  brake  fluids  at  a  later  date,  par- 
ticularly in  the  event  that  central  hydraulic  sys- 
tems are  introduced. 

Brake  fluid  containers  with  a  capacity  of  six 
ounces  or  more  must  be  provided  with  a  reseal- 


PART  571;  S  116— PRE  1 


Effective:    March    1,    1972 


able  closure  to  reduce  the  likelihood  of  contami- 
nation after  the  initial  opening. 

The  labeling  requirements  as  adopted  do  not 
require,  in  all  instances,  that  the  manufacturers 
name  be  placed  upon  the  container.  Many  com- 
ments indicated  that  the  manufacturer  cannot 
be  held  resposible  for  the  quality  of  a  fluid  once 
it  has  been  transferred  to  a  packager  who  may 
contaminate  or  alter  the  fluid,  and  the  NHTSA 
concurs.  However,  the  manufacturer,  when  he  is 
not  the  packager,  will  be  required  to  certify  com- 
piance  to  the  packager.  The  packager  will  be 
required  to  state  the  name  of  the  manufacturer 
and  the  distributor  on  the  container  label,  either 
directly  or  in  code.  He  wil  be  required  also  to 
affix  a  number  identifying  the  packaged  lot  and 
date  of  packaging.  It  is  expected  that  pack- 
agers will  keep  records  sufficient  to  pro\  ide  the 
NHTSA  with  all  identifying  information  when 
such  is  requested.  The  safety  warnings  have 
been  reworded  to  avoid  misinterpretations. 

Several  comments  indicated  that  the  proposed 
effective  date  of  October  1,  1971  would  place  a 
hardship  on  packagers  who  deal  solely  in  the 
aftermarket,  alleging  that  lithographed  cans 
must  be  purchased  in  quantity.  Accordingly, 
an  effective  date  of  March  1,  1972,  has  been 
adopted  to  oflfer  sufficient  lead  time  to  insure  that 
all  motor  vehicle  brake  fluids  manufactured  on 
and  after  that  date  will  be  packaged  in  containers 
which  meet  requirements  also  effective  March  1, 
1972. 

Petroleum-based  fluids  are  no  longer  exempted 
from  meeting  the  requirement  of  this  standard. 
However,  the  NHTSA  realizes  that  some  manu- 
facturers wish  to  use  these  fluids  in  central  power 
systems  and  is  issuing  today  an  advance  notice 
of  proposed  rulemaking  requesting  comments  for 
a  suitable  performance  standard  for  petroleum- 
based  fluids  (Docket  No.  71-13;  36  F.R.  12032). 

Test  procedures  adopted  are,  in  general, 
similar  to  current  ASTM  Methods,  with  SAE 


Standards  J  1702b  and  J  1703b  as  reference 
sources.  ASTM  ilethods  consulted  in  develop- 
ing the  test  procedures  include:  E  298-68  "As- 
say of  Organic  Peroxides,"  D  1120-65  "Boiling 
Point  of  Engine  Antifreezes,"'  D  1121-67  "Re- 
serve Alkalinity  of  Engine  Antifreezes  and 
.Vntitrusts,"  D  2240-68  "Indentation  Hardness  of 
Rubber  and  Plastics  by  ISIeans  of  a  Durometer," 
D  344-39  "Relative  Dry  Hiding  Power  of 
Paints,"  D  97-66  "Pour  Point,"  D  1415-68  "In- 
ternational Hardness  of  Vulcanized  Natural  and 
Synthetic  Rubbers,"  E  1-68  "ASTM  Thermom- 
eters,"" E  77-66  "Verification  and  Calibration  of 
Liquid-In-Glass  Thermometers,"'  D  2515-66 
"Kinematic  Glass  Viscometers,"'  E  70-68  "pH 
of  Aqueous  Solutions  with  the  Glass  Electrode," 
E  29-67  "Indicating  Which  Places  of  Figures 
are  to  be  Considered  Significant  in  Specified 
Limiting  Values,"  D  1123-59  "Water  in  Con- 
centrated Engine  Antifreezes  by  the  Iodine  Rea- 
gent Method,"  D  445-65  "Viscosity  of  Trans- 
parent and  Opaque  Liquids  (Kinematic  and  Dy- 
namic Viscosities),"  D  91-61  "Precipitation 
Number  of  Lubricating  Oils,"  and  E  96-66 
"Water  Vapor  Transmission  of  Materials  in 
Sheet  Form."  SAE  Referee  Materials  (SAE 
RM)  used  in  testing  may  be  obtained  from  the 
Society  of  Automotive  Engineers,  Inc.,  Two 
T'ennsylvania  Plaza,  New  York,  N.Y.  10001. 

Effective  date:  March  1,  1972. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  49  CFR 
571.21,  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard 
No.  116,  Motor  Vehicle  Brake  Fluids,  is  amended. 


Issued  on  June  16,  1971. 


Douglas  W.  Toms 
Acting  Administrator 

36  F.R.  11987 
June  24,  1971 


PART  571;  S  116— PRE  2 


Eff«ctlv«:  March    1,    1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR   VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   116 

Motor  Vehicle  Brake  Fluids 
(Docket  No.   70-23;  Notice  4) 


Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  116,  estab- 
lishing requirements  for  motor  vehicle  brake 
fluids  and  containers  was  amended  on  June  24, 
1971  (36  F.K.  11987).  Corrections  were  pub- 
lished on  August  11,  1971  (36  F.R.  14742)  and 
August  17,  1971  (36  F.R.  15534).  Pursuant  to 
49  CFR  553.35  (35  F.R.  5119)  petitions  for  re- 
consideration of  the  amendment  were  filed  by 
Automotive  Parts  and  Accessories  Association, 
Inc.,  Citroen  S.A.,  General  Motors  Cohporation, 
R.  ]\I.  Hollingshead  Corporation,  Union  Carbide 
Corporation,  and  Wagner  Electric  Corporation. 
Subsequently,  requests  for  rulemaking  were  re- 
ceived from  Gold  Eagle  Products  Co.,  and  Union 
Carbide. 

In  response  to  information  contained  in  several 
of  the  petitions,  and  to  data  recently  available  to 
the  Administrator,  the  standard  is  being  amended. 
The  Administrator  has  declined  to  grant  re- 
qested  relief  from  other  requirements  of  the 
standard. 

1.  Deletion  of  grade  DOT  4  ftuid.  Wagner 
Electric  petitioned  for  the  deletion  of  grade 
DOT  4  fluid,  and  the  adoption  of  a  single  mini- 
mum standard  with  the  viscosity  requirements  of 
grade  DOT  4  and  the  boiling  point  character- 
istics of  grade  DOT  3. 

As  the  Administration  noted  in  the  June  24 
amendment  to  Standard  No.  116,  "there  is  a  need 
for  two  grades  of  brake  fluid  until  an  all-weather 
fluid  is  developed  with  viscosity  and  boiling 
point  characteristics  suitable  for  use  in  all  brak- 
ing systems."'  Temperatures  of  fluids  in  use  in 
Western  mountain  driving  have  reached  295 °F., 
and  the  Administration  deems  it  essential  to  retain 
the  DOT  4  fluid,  with  its  minimum  wet  equi- 
librium reflux  boiling  point  (ERBP)  of  311°F. 
Accordingly,  Wagner's  petition  is  denied. 


2.  Deletion  or  modification  of  wet  ERBP  re- 
quirements. Wagner,  Union  Carbide,  and  Holl- 
ingshead petitioned  for  the  deletion  of  the  wet 
ERBP  requirements  on  the  grounds  that  the  test 
procedure  is  not  sufficiently  reproducible,  and 
that  vapor  lock  temperature  is  a  more  appro- 
priate factor  to  use  for  determination  of  opera- 
tional characteristics  of  a  brake  fluid. 

The  wet  ERBP  test  is  based  primarily  upon 
the  SAE  test  for  determination  of  the  as  re- 
ceived boiling  point  of  brake  fluid,  a  test  that  has 
been  used  by  industry  for  years.  The  major 
problems  in  determining  water  content  have  been 
resolved.  While  the  wet  ERBP  test  procedure 
does  not  measure  actual  vapor  lock  temperature, 
which  is  often  substantially  below  that  of  the  wet 
boiling  point,  it  provides  a  basis  for  measuring 
the  in-service  capacity  of  the  fluid  to  resist  vapor 
lock.     The  petitions  are  denied. 

3.  Petroleum-hased  and  silicone-hased  fluids. 
Standard  No.  116  as  in  effect  until  March  1,  1972, 
specifically  excludes  petroleum-based  fluids  from 
its  applicability.  The  amendment  of  June  24, 
however,  applies  to  "all  brake  fluid  for  use  in 
hydraulic  brake  systems  of  motor  vehicles,"  and 
effectively  prohibits  the  manufacture  of  petro- 
leum-based and  silicone-based  fluids  whose  per- 
formance characteristics  difi'er  from  conventional 
brake  fluids.  Although  we  have  asked  for  com- 
ments on  appropriate  performance  requirements 
for  non-hygroscopic  fluids  (Docket  No.  71-13, 
Notice  1,  36  F.R.  12032),  to  be  incorporated  into 
a  standard  with  a  proposed  effective  date  of  Jan- 
uary 1,  1973,  there  will  be,  at  a  minimum,  a 
10-month  period  during  which  manufacture  of 
these  fluids  is  eifectivey  prohibited.  General 
Motors  and  Citreon  have  asked  us  to  reconsider 
this  point,  the  latter  stating  that  all  its  vehicles 


PART  571;  S  116— PRE  3 


EfFKliva:  March   I,   1972 


use  a  petroleum-based  fluid,  and  that  its  sales  in 
the  U.S.  will  be  effectively  curtained  during  the 
hiatus  between  the  two  standards. 

In  the  absence  of  a  demonstrable  safety  prob- 
lem concerning  the  use  of  petroleum-based  and 
silicone-based  fluids,  the  petitions  are  deemed  to 
have  merit  and  Standard  No.  116  is  being 
amended  to  exclude  these  fluids  from  its  ambit. 
We  urge  manufacturers,  however,  to  take  pre- 
cautions to  assure  that  adverse  cross-contamina- 
tion with  hygroscopic  fluids  does  not  occur  in 
the  absence  of  appropriate  regulations  intended 
to  eliminate  this  hazard. 

4.  Labeling  requirements.  Automotive  Parts 
and  Accessories,  Greneral  Motors,  Hollingshead, 
Union  Carbide,  and  Wagner  Electric  petitioned 
for  reconsideration  of  various  portions  of  the 
labeling  requirements.  Gold  Eagle  also  apprised 
us  of  problems  with  labeling  requirements. 

The  petitioners  have  brought  to  our  attention 
that  packagers  may  use  more  than  one  manu- 
facturer as  a  source  for  brake  fluid  packaged 
under  a  single  brand  name,  and  that  under  the 
present  regulation  requiring  manufacturer  iden- 
tification on  the  can,  packagers  will  either  have 
to  stock  dupicate  cans  or  purchase  from  one 
source.  We  initially  considered  manufacturer 
identification  to  be  necessary  in  the  event  of 
brake  fluid  defect  notification  campaigns.  How- 
ever, it  has  been  determined  that  the  serial  num- 
ber identifying  the  packaged  lot  and  date  of 
packaging  will  be  sufficient  for  the  packager  to 
identify  the  manufacturer  of  any  defective  fluid, 
and  paragraph  S5.2.2.2(b)  is  being  amended  to 
delete  manufacturer  identification.  In  response 
to  requests  for  alternate  location  of  the  serial 
number,  S5.2.2.2(d)  is  being  amended  to  allow 
the  number  to  be  placed  below  the  information  by 
S5.2.2.2(c).  An  alternate  location  has  also 
been  specified  for  the  information  required  by 
S5.2.2.2(b)  if  it  is  in  code  form. 

Two  petitioners  voiced  the  fear  that  the  safety 
warning  of  paragraph  S5.2.2.2(g)  (1),  to  follow 
the  vehicle  manufacturer's  recommendations  in 
adding  brake  fluid,  might  result  in  the  promotion 
by  automobile  dealers  of  specified  brand  names, 
possibly  creating  an  imfair  trade  practice.  The 
agency  views  this  possibility  as  unrelated  to 
motor  vehicle  safety  since  presumably  all  brake 


fluid  will  conform  to  Standard  No.  116.    In  any    r 
event,  a  change  of  wording  cannot  eliminate  this 
possibility,  and  the  petitions  are  denied. 

Petitions  were  also  received  requesting  that 
the  safety  warnings  against  refilling  containers 
(S5.2.2.2(g)  (4))  not  apply  to  storage  containers 
with  a  capacity  in  excess  of  5  gallons,  since  con- 
tainers (30  and  50  gallon  sizes,  tank  cars,  etc.) 
differ  from  retail  sale  size  cans  and  are  reused 
for  shipping  purposes  after  cleaning.  These 
petitions  are  granted  and  S5.2.2.2(g)  (4)  is  being 
amended  accordingly. 

5.  Applicability  to  motor  vehicles.  Union  Car- 
bide asked  whether  brake  fluid  in  a  vehicle  must 
meet  the  requirements  of  Standard  No.  116  when 
the  vehicle  is  sold,  pointing  out  that  in  extreme 
cases  as  long  as  a  year  may  pass  between  its 
manufacture  and  sale.  The  NHTSA  recognizes 
that  original  dry  boiling  points  and  viscosity  of 
brake  fluid  may  degrade  due  to  the  permeability 
of  the  brake  system  when  a  vehicle  is  exposed  to 
the  atmosphere  over  a  period  of  time  prior  to  its 
first  sale  for  purposes  other  than  resale,  and  that 
it  is  impracticable  to  require  that  brake  fluid 
meet  Standard  No.  116  at  time  of  sale  when  the  JL 
"container"  is  a  motor  vehicle.  Therefore,  the  \ 
standard  is  being  amended  so  that  the  main  por- 
tion applies  only  to  brake  fluid,  with  an  added 
requirement  applicable  to  motor  vehicles,  that 
they  be  equipped  either  with  brake  fluid  manu- 
factured and  packaged  in  conformity  with  Stand- 
ard No.  116,  or  with  petroleum-based  or  silicone- 
based  brake  fluid  (new  paragraph  S5.3). 

6.  Resistance  to  oxidation:  preparation.  An 
amendment  to  paragraph  S6.11.4(b)  specifies 
that  the  oxidation  resistance  test  is  to  be  con- 
ducted not  later  than  24  hours  after  the  test  mix- 
ture has  been  removed  from  the  oven. 

7.  Effect  on  SBR  cups :  procedure  and  calcula- 
tion. The  SAE  has  also  proposed  a  reduction 
of  the  time  that  the  cups  and  fluid  are  exposed 
to  oven  heat  at  70°C.  The  NHTSA  is  amending 
S6.12.4  to  reduce  exposure  time  to  70±2  hours,  as 
it  has  been  found  that  virtually  all  rubber  swell 
occurs  at  this  temperature  during  the  first  48 
hours. 

The  SAE  has  also  concluded  that  cups  should 
be  retested  and  remeasured  when  the  base  diam- 
eters  of   the   tested   cups   differ  by  more  than     / 


PART  571;  S  116— PRE  4 


Effactiva:  March    1,    1972 


0.10  mm.  This  agency  has  determined  that  aver- 
ag;ing  four  vahies  as  the  change  in  base  diameter, 
when  a  spread  greater  than  0.10  mm  occurs,  will 
result  in  a  more  precise  determination  of  whether 
the  requirements  of  paragraph  S5.1.12(a)  have 
been  met,  and  is  amending  paragraph  S6.12.'5(a) 
appropriately. 

8.  Typographical  errors.  An  erroneous  stand- 
ard barometric  pressure  figure  of  750  mm  ap- 
peared in  the  subscript  of  Table  III  and  is  being 
corrected  to  760  mm.  SAE  Standard  Jl703a, 
referred  to  in  S7.6,  is  corrected  to  read  "Jl703b." 

9.  Interpretations.  Several  petitions  evidenced 
confusion  over  whether  sale  of  fluids  manufac- 
tured prior  to  March  1,  1972,  will  be  allowed 
after  that  date.  Sale  of  such  fluids  is  permissible 
on  and  after  March  1,  1972,  until  supplies  are 
e.xhausted,  with  the  legal  requirement  that  they 
conform  at  time  of  sale  to  Standard  No.  116  as  in 
effect  prior  to  March  1,  1972. 

The  agency  was  also  asked  whether  name  of 
city  and  zip  code  is  acceptable  as  the  complete 
mailing  address  of  the  distributor,  required  by 
paragraph  S5.2.2.2(c).  A  mailing  address  is  con- 
sidered complete  only  if  it  is  sufficient  for  the 
delivery  of  mail  by  the  U.S.  Postal  Service,  and 
containers  must  be  marked  accordingly. 


Several  petitioners  asked  for  a  delay  to  July  1, 
1972,  of  various  portions  of  the  labeling  require- 
ments of  paragraph  S5.2.2.2  because  of  the  logis- 
tics involved  in  modifying,  in  one  instance,  as 
many  as  ninety  difi"erent  labels.  A  delay  in  the 
effective  date  has  not  been  found  to  be  in  the 
public  interest,  and  the  petitions  on  this  point  are 
denied.  Gummed  labels  meeting  the  require- 
ments of  S.5.2.2.2,  however,  may  be  affixed  to 
these  cans  until  new  cans  are  available. 

Finally,  several  petitioners  requested  clarifica- 
tion of  the  container  sealing  terminology  in  para- 
graph S5.2.1.  The  "inner  seal"  is  the  cap  liner. 
Examples  of  "tamper-proof  features"  are  de- 
vices such  as  a  metal  insert  in  the  neck  of  the 
container,  a  plastic  over-wrap,  or  a  twist-off 
aluminum  cap  with  a  breakaway  portion. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  116  in  49  CFR  571.21 
is  revised.  .  .  . 

Effective  date:  March  1,  1972. 

Issued  on  November  8,  1971. 

Charles  H.  Hartman 
Acting  Administrator 

36   F.R.   21594 
November    11,    1971 


PART  571;  S  116— PRE  5-6 


f 


i 


i 


Effsctiv*:  Au9u>l  29,    1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   116 

Motor  Vehicle  Brake  Fluids 
(Docket  No.  70-23;  NoHce  5) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  amend  49  CFR 
§571.116,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No. 
116,  Hydraulic  Brake  Fluids,  to  permit  certain 
required  information  to  be  placed  on  any  perma- 
nent part  of  brake  fluid  containers. 

Paragraphs  S5.2.2.2(b)  and  S5.2.2.2(d)  specify 
respectively  that  the  name  of  the  packager  of  the 
brake  fluid,  if  in  code  form,  and  a  serial  number 
identifying  the  packaged  lot  and  date  of  packag- 
ing shall  be  placed  either  beneath  the  distributor's 
name  and  mailing  address,  or  on  the  bottom  of 
the  container.  Gold  Eagle  Products  Co.  has 
asked  if  it  is  permissible  to  place  the  information 
required  by  S5.2.2.2(b)  on  the  top  of  square 
gallon  brake  fluid  containers.  Such  location  is 
not  presently  allowed.  The  Administration, 
however,  has  concluded  that  manufacturers 
should  not  be  restricted  in  their  choice  of  loca- 
tion and  that  if  it  is  more  convenient  for  them 
to  place  the  required  information  on  the  side  or 
top  of  a  container  they  should  be  allowed  to  do 
so,  provided  that  the  information  is  on  a  perma- 
nent  part  of   the   container.     Accordingly,  the 


NHTSA  is  amending  the  requirements  to  allow 
all  required  certification,  marking  and  labeling 
information  to  be  placed  in  any  location  except 
on  a  removable  part  such  as  a  lid. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  paragraph 
S5.2.2.2  of  49  CFR  §571.116,  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  116,  is  revised  in  part  .... 

Efective  date:  August  29,  1972.  Because  the 
amendment  relaxes  an  existing  requirement  and 
creates  no  additional  burden,  it  is  found  for 
good  cause  shown  that  an  effective  date  earlier 
than  180  days  after  issuance  is  in  public  interest. 

This  notice  is  issued  under  the  authority  of 
sections  103,  112,  and  119  of  the  National  Traffic 
and  Motor  Vehicle  Traffic  Safety  Act  of  1966 
(15  use  1392,  1401,  and  1407)  and  the  delega- 
tion of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51. 

Issued  on  August  22, 1972. 

Douglas  W.   Toms 
Administrator 

37  F.R.  17474 
August  29,  1972 


PART  571;  S  116— PRE  7-8 


f 


( 


i 


EffKllv*:  July   I,   1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   116 

Motor  Vehicle  Brake  Fluids 
(Dockot  No.  71-13;  Notice  3) 


This  notice  amends  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  116,  Motor  Vehicle  Brake  Fluids, 
49  CFR  §  571.116,  to  establish  container  labeling 
requirements  for  those  fluids  that  are  currently 
unregulated  by  the  standard.  The  requirements 
are  effective  July  1,  1973. 

The  amendment  is  based  upon  a  notice  pub- 
lished March  22,  1972,  (37  F.R.  5825).  The 
NHTSA  proposed  labeling  requirements  for  "cen- 
tral hydraulic  system  oil"  and  "silicone-based 
brake  fluid",  similar  to  requirements  already  in 
existence  for  conventional  hydraulic  brake  fluids. 
The  packager  would  be  required  to  place  his 
name  on  the  container.  His  name  could  appear 
in  code  form.  The  packager  would  also  be  re- 
quired to  provide  the  complete  name  and  mailing 
address  of  the  distributor,  a  serial  number  iden- 
tifying the  packaged  lot  and  date  of  packaging 
of  the  fluid,  description  of  the  contents,  and  cer- 
tain safety  warnings. 

The  comments  received  generally  supported 
the  proposal,  and  Standard  No.  116  is  being 
amended  accordingly.  The  term  "central  hy- 
draulic system  oil"  has  not  been  adopted  as  some 
central  hydraulic  systems  are  designed  for  use 
of  DOT  brake  fluids.  Instead,  the  term  "hy- 
draulic system  mineral  oil"  is  adopted.  It  is 
defined  as  "a  mineral-oil-based  fluid  designed 
primarily  for  use  in  motor  vehicle  brake  systems 
in  which  none  of  the  components  contacting  the 
fluid  are  SBR,  EPDM,  Neoprene,  or  natural 
rubber".  Paragraphs  S3,  S5,  S5.1,  S5.2.2.1,  and 
S5.2.2.2  are  being  amended  in  a  manner  that 
more  clearly  evidences  the  NHTSA's  intent  that 
Standard  No.  116  applies  to  all  fluid  used  as 
brake  fluids,  but  that  silicone-based  brake  fluids 
and  hydraulic  system  mineral  oil  are  currently 


excepted  from  performance,  container,  and  label- 
ing requirements  applicable  to  DOT  fluids.  A 
new  S5.2.2.3  specifies  the  labeling  requirements 
for  packagers  of  silicone-based  brake  fluids  and 
hydraulic  system  mineral  oil,  and  these  generally 
parallel  those  required  of  packagers  of  DOT 
fluids.  Packagers  of  hydraulic  system  mineral 
oil  must  furnish  the  additional  warning  that  the 
fluid  is  not  compatible  with  the  rubber  com- 
ponents of  brake  systems  designed  for  use  with 
DOT  brake  fluids. 

The  amendment  also  differs  from  the  proposal 
in  reflecting  the  revision  of  Standard  No.  116  of 
August  29,  1972  (37  F.R.  17474)  that  allows  in- 
formation to  be  placed  on  a  container  "in  any 
location  except  on  a  removable  part  such  as  a 
lid."  Minor  changes  have  been  made  in  the  text 
of  the  warning  on  fluid  storage  so  that  it  is  iden- 
tical with  the  warning  required  for  DOT  fluids. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  49  CFR 
§571.116,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No. 
116,  is  amended.  .  .  . 

Effective  date:  July  1,  1973.  Because  these 
amendments  relate  to  labeling  requirements  that 
do  not  entail  product  redesign,  an  effective  date 
less  than  180  days  after  the  issue  date  is  found 
to  be  in  the  public  interest. 

(Sees.  103,  112,  119,  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80  Stat. 
718,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1407;  delegation  of  au- 
thority at  49  CFR  1.51.) 

Issued  on :  January  4,  1973. 

Douglas  W.  Toms 
Administrator 

38  F.R.  2981 
January  31,  1973 


PART  571;  S  116— PRE  9-10 


f 


( 


i 


Effective  July    1,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   116 

Motor  Vehicle  Brake  Fluids 
(Docket  No.  71-13;   Notice  4) 


This  notice  responds  to  a  petition  for  recon- 
sideration of  brake  fluid  container  labeling  re- 
quirements by  amending  49  CFR  §  571.116  in 
minor  respects. 

Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  116,  Motor 
Vehicle  Brake  Fluids,  was  amended  on  January 
31,  1973,  (33  F.R.  2981)  to  establish  container 
labeling  requirements  for  those  fluids  that  are 
currently  unregulated  by  the  standard.  There- 
after, a  petition  for  reconsideration  of  the  amend- 
ment was  filed  by  General  Motors  Corporation 
pursuant  to  49  CFR  §  553.35.  In  response  to  the 
petition  minor  amendments  are  made  to  the 
standard. 

General  Motors  believes  that  the  NHTSA  has 
not  clearly  indicated  which  mineral  oil  used  in 
vehicle  hydraulic  systems  must  meet  Standard 
No.  116.  Hydraulic  system  mineral  oil  has  been 
defined  in  part  as  a  fluid  "designed  primarily 
for  use  in  motor  vehicle  brake  systems  .  .  ."  GM 
asserts  that  it  is  not  clear  whether  a  fluid  "for 
use  in  a  central  hydraulic  system  composed  of 
the  power  brake  boost  and  the  power  steering 
systems  must  be  considered  primarily  as  a  brake 
system  application  or  primarily  as  a  power  steer- 
ing system  application."  GM  believes  that  since 
the  power  brake  system  is  an  auxiliary  system 
whose  fluids  operate  in  a  different  environment 
than  those  in  the  primary  system  the  standard 
should  not  include  hydraulic  boost  system  mineral 
oils. 

The  NHTSA  intends  the  definition  of  hy- 
draulic system  mineral  oil  to  include  fluids  used 
in  any  type  of  brake  system  regardless  of  the 
configuration.  This  definition  must  include  fluids 
used  in  any  hydraulic  brake  boost  unit  whose 
design  is  such  that  when  a  component  fails,  the 
boost  unit  fluid  enters  the  master  cylinder  reser- 


\oir,  hence  contaminating  the  entire  brake  system. 
Such  fluid  must  meet  the  applicable  require- 
ments of  Standard  No.  116.  Fluids  for  use  in 
systems  where  a  failure  will  not  introduce  them 
into  the  master  cylinder  reservoir  are  not  covered 
by  Standard  No.  116.  The  word  "primarily" 
is  being  deleted  from  the  definition  of  hydraulic 
system  mineral  oil  to  remove  any  doubt  on  this 
point. 

GM  points  out  that  the  warning  a  mineral  oil 
manufacturer  is  currently  required  to  provide 
refers  to  the  oil  as  "brake  fluid,"  in  the  container 
warning  statements  specified  by  the  standard. 
Since  mineral  oil  is  not  compatible  with  conven- 
tional or  silicone-based  brake  fluid,  GM  believes 
it  essential  that  it  not  be  referred  to  as  "brake 
fluid".  The  NHTSA  concurs  and  is  granting 
GM"s  petition  by  amending  the  labeling  require- 
ments concerned. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  49  CFR 
§  571.116  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  116 
is  amended. . .  . 

Effective  Date:  July  1,  1973.  Because  these 
amendments  relate  to  labeling  requirements  that 
do  not  entail  product  redesign,  an  effective  date 
less  than  180  days  after  the  issue  date  is  foimd 
to  be  in  the  public  interest. 

(Sec.  103,  112,  119,  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80  Stat  718, 
15  use  1392, 1401,  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.   12922 
May   17,   1973 


PART  571;  S  116— PRE  11-12 


231-088  O  -  77  -  37 


( 


i 


i 


EfFecfive:   October    1,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.    116 

Motor  Vehicle  Brake  Fluids 
(Docket  No.  71-13;   Notice  6) 


This  notice  amends  49  CFR  571.116,  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  116,  Motor  Vehicle 
Brake  Fluids,  to  specify  performance  require- 
ments for  a  low- water-tolerance  (DOT  5)  grade 
brake  fluid,  effective  October  1,  1974,  and  to  re- 
quire a  color  coding  system  for  all  brake  fluids 
and  hydraulic  system  mineral  oils,  effective 
May  1,  1975,  to  safeguard  against  intermixing 
of  incompatible  fluids. 

A  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  on  this  sub- 
ject was  published  on  November  21,  1973  (.38 
F.E.  32142),  and  an  opportunity  afforded  for 
comment.  The  notice  proposed  performance  re- 
quirements for  brake  fluids  of  low  water  toler- 
ance, which  would  include  but  not  be  limited  to 
silicone-based  brake  fluids.  The  notice  also  pro- 
posed a  minor  revision  in  the  test  procedures  for 
determining  cloudiness  and  lack  of  clarity  in  all 
brake  fluids.  Finally,  the  NHTSA  proi^osed 
color  coding  for  brake  fluids  and  their  containers 
as  an  appropriate  method  to  prevent  any  brake 
system  contamination.  As  the  amendments 
adopted  are  substantially  similar  to  those  pro- 
posed, interested  persons  may  refer  to  the  notice 
which  contains  a  full  discussion  of  the  [)roposals 
and  the  NHTSA's  rationale  for  them. 

A  substantial  number  of  comments  submitted 
in  response  objected  to  either  tlie  idea  of  requir- 
ing a  color  coding  system  or  the  actual  colors 
proposed  for  the  different  grades  of  fluid.  The 
NHTSA  considers  that  a  properly  implemented 
color  coding  system  of  fluids,  containers,  and 
reservoirs  is  an  appropriate  method  of  prevent- 
ing brake  system  contamination.  However,  it 
realizes  that  sufficient  time  must  be  allotted  to 
effect  an  orderly  changeover  and,  therefore,  these 
requirements  have  a  delayed  effective  date.  Sev- 
eral commenters  requested  modifications  to  spe- 


cific color  coding  requirements.  Citroen  asked 
that  the  color  green  be  permitted  as  an  optional 
alternative  to  red  for  identifying  mineral  oils, 
based  on  its  established  use  of  this  color  in  cen- 
tral hydraulic  systems  since  1965.  This  request 
has  been  denied  in  the  interest  of  uniformity  to 
minimize  the  possibility  of  inadvertent  mixing 
of  incompatible  fluids.  Several  manufacturers 
of  conventional  glycol-type  fluids  stated  that 
corrosion  inhibitors  and  antioxidants  often  im- 
part a  reddish  brown  or  straw  color  to  the  com- 
pleted fluid  prohibiting  comjiliance  with  the 
proposed  color  ranges.  In  view  of  this  informa- 
tion, the  color  range  for  DOT  3  and  DOT  4 
fluids  has  been  broadened  to  allow  variations 
from  clear  to  amber,  except  for  the  container 
border  which  must  be  yellow.  Further,  it  has 
been  determined  that  visual  inspection  for  color 
compliance  is  adequate,  and  the  proposed  wave- 
length bands  have  been  deleted. 

The  other  main  issue  raised  was  the  use  of  the 
term  "low  water  tolerance"  when  referring  to 
silicone  based  brake  fluids.  Many  commenters 
felt  that  the  phrase  "water  intolerant"  would 
more  accurately  describe  the  silicone  fluids  in 
light  of  the  fact  that  the  water  tolerance  test  for 
DOT  5  fluids  does  not  demand  the  absorption  or 
retention  of  a  specified  percentage  of  water. 
DOT  5  grade  fluid,  however,  is  not  limited  to 
silicone  based  brake  fluids.  The  term  "low  water 
tolerance''  is  found  to  be  the  most  satisfactory 
description  for  a  range  of  fluids  potentially 
meeting  the  DOT  5  requirements  and  which  may 
vary  in  water  tolerance  from  0.01%  to  3.0%. 

Several  commenters  pointed  out  that  the  chem- 
ical stability  test  of  S6.5.4  is  not  applicable  to 
DOT  5  fluids.  The  NHTSA  concurs,  and  finds 
that  the  elimination  of  a  chemical  stability  re- 


PART  571;  S  116— PRE  13 


Effective:    October    1,    1974 

quirenient  for  DOT  5  fluids  will  not  significantly 
compromise  safety.  The  standard  has  been 
amended  accordin<i:ly. 

The  U.S.  Army  Chemical  and  Coating  Lab- 
oratory and  Bendix  Corporation  both  submitted 
comments  which  requested  that  the  low  tempera- 
ture viscosity  requirement  be  established  at  a 
lower  temperature,  for  instance  —67°  F.,  or  that 
the  maximum  viscosity  at  —40°  F.  be  set  at 
(iOO  cSt.  Both  comments  were  constructive,  one 
relating  the  operational  characteristics  of  silicone 
Huids  at  temperatures  of  -67°  F.  and  below  and 
the  other  relating  the  necessary  operational 
properties  for  the  proper  functioning  of  anti- 
lock  systems  at  low  temperatures.  They  are  out- 
side the  scope  of  the  proposal,  however,  and  the 
NHTSA  will  consider  these  matters  in  future 
rulemaking. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  49  CFR 
571.116,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  116, 
Motor  Vehicle  Brake  Fluids^  is  amended.  .  .  . 


E-ffeetive  date:  October  1,  1974,  with  certain 
i-equirements  effective  May  1,  1975,  as  noted 
therein.  Brake  fluid  of  the  type  regvilated  by 
this  standard  is  presently  prohibited  by  the 
regulations  of  several  States,  and  evidently  is 
not  being  produced  and  sold  for  connnercial 
l)urposes.  The  effect  of  this  amendment,  there- 
fore, is  to  permit  what  was  previously  prohib- 
ited, and  an  effective  date  earlier  than  ISO  days 
from  the  date  of  issuance  is  found  for  good 
cause  shown  to  be  in  the  public  interest. 

(Sees.  lO;^,  11:^,  119,  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80  Stat. 
718;  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1427;  delegation  of 
authority  at  49  CFR  1.51.) 


Issued  on  August  16,  1974. 


James   B.   Gregory 

Administrator 

39  F.R.  30353 
August  22,  1974 


PART  571;  S  116— PRE  14 


Elhctiva:  March  25,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   116 

Motor  Vehicle  Brake  Fluids 
(Docket  No.  71-13;   Notice  8) 


This  notice  partially  responds  to  petitions  for 
reconsideration  of  amendments  to  49  CFR 
571.116  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  116, 
Motor  Vehicle  Brake  Fluids^  that  were  published 
in  the  Federal  Register  on  August  22,  1974  (39 
KR  30353,  as  corrected  at  32759).  The  standard 
is  further  amended  to  delete  the  reciuirements 
that  were  to  have  become  effective  May  1,  1975 
for  brake  fluid  color  and  for  a  color  border 
around  safety  warnings  on  brake  fluid  container 
labels. 

Standard  No.  116  requires  effective  May  1, 
1975,  that  DOT  3  and  DOT  4  fluids  be  clear  to 
amber  in  color,  DOT  5  be  blue,  and  hydraulic 
system  mineral  oil  be  red.  For  Motor  Company 
petitioned  for  a  reconsideration  of  the  color  re- 
quirements, asking  that  DOT  5  be  clear  or  silver. 
Officine  Alfieri  Muserati,  S.A.  Automobiles  Cit- 
roen, and  U.S.  Technical  Research  Corporation 
have  asked  that  the  color  of  hydraulic  system 
mineral  oil  be  changed  from  red  to  green.  Other 
petitioners  requested  a  delay  in  the  effective  date 
for  color  coding.  Ob\  iously  a  change  in  the  color 
of  the  fluid  would  require  a  corresponding  change 
in  the  color  of  the  borders  on  container  labels. 

Consideration  of  these  and  other  arguments  by 
I)etitioners  have  delayed  a  formal  response  to  the 
amendments  of  August  22,  1974.  If  the  NHTSA 
determines  that  a  petition  for  change  of  fluid 
color  has  merit,  it  will   propose  the  change,  in 


order  to  have  the  benefit  of  public  comment, 
rather  than  amending  the  standard  without 
notice.  In  tlie  meantime,  to  alleviate  the  prob- 
lems of  manufacturers  faced  with  the  immediate 
need  to  order  container  labels,  the  NHTSA  is 
amending  the  standard  to  delete  the  color  re- 
quirements for  fluid  and  cxintainer  labeling.  The 
deletion  is  only  intended  to  be  a  temporary  one, 
until  the  response  to  the  petitions  for  recon- 
sideration of  the  amendments  of  August  22,  1974 
is  published.  A  new  effective  date  creating  a 
leadtime  of  not  less  than  180  days  will  then  be 
proposed. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing  49  CFR 
571.116  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  116 
is  amended. . . . 

Effective  date:  March  25,  1975.  Because  the 
amendment  relieves  a  re.striction  and  creates  no 
additional  burden,  it  is  found  for  good  cause 
sliown  that  an  effective  date  earlier  than  180 
days  after  issuance  is  in  the  public  interest. 

(Sec.  103,  112,  119,  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80  Stat. 
718  (15  U.S.C.  1.392,  1401,  1427);  delegation  of 
authority  at  49  CFR  1.51). 

Issued  on  March  19,  1975. 

James  B.  Gregory 
Administrator 

40F.R.  13219 
March  25,   1975 


PART  571;  S  116— PRE  15-16 


( 


i 


♦ 


Effective:   May    16,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   116 

Motor  Vehicle  Brake  Fluids 
(Docket  No.  71-13;  Notice  9) 


This  notice  further  responds  to  petitions  for 
reconsideration  of  amendments  to  49  CFR 
571.116,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  116, 
Moto)'  Vehicle  Brake  Fluids,  that  were  published 
in  the  Federal  Register  on  Au^st  22,  1974  (39 
FR  30353,  as  corrected  at  39  FR  32739).  A 
partial  response  deleting  color  coding  require- 
ments was  published  on  March  25,  1975  (40  FR 
13219).  This  notice  amends  the  standard  in 
minor  respects. 

Petitions  were  received  from  General  Motors 
Corporation,  Ford  Motor  Company,  Wagner 
Electric  Corporation,  Officine  Alfieri  Maserati, 
S.A.  Automobiles  Citroen,  and  U.S.  Technical 
Research  Corporation.  Late-filed  petitions  were 
received  from  EIS  Automotive  and  the  Bell 
Company  and  in  accordance  with  49  CFR  553.31 
they  have  been  treated  as  petitions  for  rulemak- 
ing. The  issues  raised  by  the  petitions  and  their 
disposition  are  set  forth  below. 

Revocation.  Ford  petitioned  to  revoke  the 
amendments  adding  DOT  5  brake  fluids,  because 
"it  has  reason  to  believe  that  they  are  incom- 
patible with  at  least  some  of  the  brake  systems 
currently  used  on  Ford  vehicles."  Specifically 
Ford  argues  tliat  the  fluids  "may  cause  hazardous 
deterioration  of  brake  systems  or  their  com- 
ponents.'' In  support  Ford  referenced  a  recent 
letter  from  Bendix  to  the  Non-Conventional 
Brake  Fluid  Task  Group  of  the  Society  of  Auto- 
motive Engineers,  describing  a  series  of  tests  con- 
ducted with  silicone  brake  fluid  "in  a  hydrovac 
brake  system  typical  of  the  system  used  in  some 
Ford  products."  NHTSA  has  learned  that  Ben- 
dix subsequently  informed  SAE  that  the  tests 
were  erroneously  reported  and  recommended  fur- 
ther testing.    This  agency  finds  that  good  cause 


has  not  been  shown  for  the  revocation,  and  Ford's 
petition  is  denied. 

Ford  also  commented  that  DOT  5  fluid  would 
not  have  sufficient  electrical  conductivity  to  per- 
mit the  operation  of  its  intended  brake  fluid  level 
sensor  to  meet  a  requirement  of  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  105-75  Hydraulic  Brake 
Systems.  The  NHTSA  regards  this  as  a  design 
problem,  peculiar  to  Ford,  that  is  outweighed  by 
the  safety  advantages  of  allowing  motor  vehicle 
manufacturers  and  motorists  the  option  of  choos- 
ing a  low-water-tolerant  brake  fluid.  Ford's  peti- 
tion is  denied. 

Fluid  color.  A  discussion  of  issues  raised  by 
the  petitions  for  reconsideration  of  fluid  color 
and  labeling  will  be  contained  in  a  notice  of  pro- 
posed iiilemaking  on  this  subject  to  be  published 
shortly.     (Docket  No.  71-13;  Notice  10). 

Minor  aineiulments.  An  editorial  error  in  the 
amendment  to  paragraph  S5. 1.5.2  published  on 
September  11,  1974  (39  FR  32739)  is  corrected. 
Paragraph  S5.2.2.3  is  amended  to  remove  super- 
fluous references  to  "brake  fluid."  Paragraph 
S6.7.3(a)  is  amended  to  include  a  reference  to 
isopropanol.  Finally,  to  agree  with  a  change 
made  in  S6.12.4  (39  FR  21599)  S6.12.1  is  cor- 
rected by  changing  a  reference  to  "120  hours"  to 
"70  hours." 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing  49  CFR 
571.116  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  116 
is  amended. . . . 

Effective  date:  May  16,  1975.  Because  the 
amendments  correct  errors  and  create  no  addi- 
tional burden  on  any  person  it  is  found  for  good 
cause  shown  that  an  immediate  effective  date  is 
in  the  public  interest. 


PART  571;  S  116— PRE  17 


Effective:  May    16,    1975 

(Sec.  103,  112,  119,  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80  Stat.  James  B.  Gregory       £■ 

718   (15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1407) ;  delegation  of  Administrator  ^ 

authority  at  49  CFK  1.51).  40  F  R    21474 

Issued  on  May  12, 1975.  May  16,   1975 


i 


PART  571;  S  116— PEE  18 


« 


Effective:    March    1,    1972 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   116 

Motor  Vehicle  Brake  Fluids — Passenger  Cars,   Multipurpose  Passenger  Vehicles,  Trucks, 
Buses,  and  Motorcycles,  and  Brake  Fluid  and   Brake  Fluid  Containers 

(Docket  No.   70-23;   Notice  3) 


51.  Scope.  This  standard  specifies  require- 
ments for  brake  fluids  for  use  in  hydraulic  brake 
systems  of  motor  vehicles,  brake  fluid  containers, 
and  brake  fluid  container  labeling. 

52.  Purpose.  The  purpose  of  this  standard  is 
to  reduce  failures  in  the  hydraulic  braking  sys- 
tems of  motor  vehicles  which  may  occur  because 
of  the  manufacture  or  use  of  improper  or  con- 
taminated brake  fluid. 

53.  Application.  [This  standard  applies  to  all 
fluid  for  use  in  hydraulic  brake  systems  of  motor 
vehicles.  In  addition,  S5.3  applies  to  passenger 
cars,  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles,  trucks, 
buses,  trailers,  and  motorcycles.  (38  F.R.  2981 — 
January  31,  1973.    Effective:  7/1  73)] 

54.  Definitions. 

"Blister"  means  a  cavity  or  sac  on  the  surface 
of  a  brake  cup. 

"Chipping"  means  a  condition  in  which  small 
pieces  are  missing  from  the  outer  surface  of  a 
brake  cup. 

["Hydraulic  system  mineral  oil"  means  a  min- 
eral-oil-based fluid  designed  for  use  in  motor 
vehicle  brake  systems  in  which  none  of  the  com- 
ponents contacting  the  fluid  are  SBR,  EPDM, 
Neoprene,  or  natural  rubber.  (38  F.R.  12922— 
May  17,  1973.    Effective:  7/1/73)] 

"Duplicate  samples"  means  2  samples  of  brake 
fluid  taken  from  a  single  packaged  lot  and  tested 
simultaneously. 

"Packager"  means  any  person  who  fills  con- 
tainers with  brake  fluid  that  are  subsequently 
distributed  for  retail  sale. 

"Packaged  lot"  is  that  quantity  of  brake  fluid 
shipped  by  the  manufacturer  to  the  packager  in 
a  single  container,  or  that  quantity  of  brake  fluid 
manufactured  by  a  single  j^lant  run  of  24  hours 


or  less,  through  the  same  processing  equipment 
and  with  no  change  in  ingredients. 

"Scuffing"  means  a  visible  erosion  of  a  portion 
of  the  outer  surface  of  a  brake  cup. 

"Sloughing"  means  degradation  of  a  brake  cup 
as  evidenced  by  the  presence  of  carbon  black 
loosely  held  on  the  brake  cup  surface,  such  that 
a  visible  black  streak  is  produced  when  the  cup, 
with  a  500ztlO  gram  dead  weight  on  it,  is  drawn 
base  down  over  a  sheet  of  white  bond  paper 
placed  on  a  firm  flat  surface. 

"Stickiness"  means  a  condition  on  the  surface 
of  a  brake  cup  such  that  fibers  will  be  pulled 
from  a  wad  of  U.  S.  P.  absorbent  cotton  when 
it  is  drawn  across  the  surface. 

S5.  Requirements.  [This  section  specifies  re- 
quirements for  DOT  brake  fluids  (grades  DOT 
3,  DOT  4,  and  DOT  5),  brake  fluid  containers, 
and  brake  fluid  container  labeling.  Wliere  a 
range  of  tolerances  is  specified,  the  brake  fluid 
must  be  capable  of  meeting  the  requirements  at 
all  points  within  the  range.  (39  F.R.  30353— 
August  22,  1974.    Effective:  10/1/74)] 

55.1  Motor  vehicle  brake  fluid.  [When  tested 
in  accordance  with  S6,  motor  vehicle  brake  fluids 
other  than  hydraulic  system  mineral  oil  shall 
meet  the  following  requirements.  (39  F.R. 
30353— August  22,    1974.     Effective:   10/1/74)] 

55.1.1    Equilibrium    reflux    boiling    point    (ERBP). 

■\Vhen  brake  fluid  is  tested  according  to  S6.1,  the 
ERBP  shall  not  be  less  than  the  following  value 
for  the  grade  indicated: 

(a)  DOT  3:  205°  C.  (401°  F.). 

(b)  DOT4:230°C.  (446°F.). 

[(c)  DOT  5  :260°  C.  (500°  F.).  (39  F.R. 
30353— August  22,  1974.    Effective:  10/1/74)] 


(Rev.   8/16/74) 


PART  571;  S  116-1 


Effective:   March    1,    1972 


55.1.2  Wet  ERBP.  "Wlien  brake  fluid  is  tested 
according  to  S6.2,  tlie  wet  ERBP  shall  not  be 
less  than  the  following  value  for  the  grade  in- 
dicated : 

(a)  DOTS:  140°  C.  (284°  F.). 

(b)  DOT 4:  155°  C.  (311°  F.). 

[(c)  DOT  5  :180°  C.  (356°  F.).  (39  F.R. 
30353— August  22,  1974.    Effective:  10/1/74)] 

55.1.3  Kinematic  viscosities.  When  brake  fluid 
is  tested  according  to  S6.3,  the  kinematic  viscosi- 
ties in  centistokes  (cSt)  at  stated  temperatures 
shall  be  neither  less  than  1.5  cSt  at  100°  C. 
(212°  F.)  nor  more  than  the  following  maximum 
value  for  the  grade  indicated : 

(a)  DOT  3 :  1500  cSt  at  minus  40°  C.  (minus 
40°  F.). 

(b)  DOT  4:  1800  cSt  at  minus  40°  C.  (minus 
40°  F.). 

(c)  [DOT  5  :  900  cSt  at  minus  40°  C.  (minus 
40°  F.).  F.R.  30353— August  22,  1974.  Effec- 
tive: 10/1/74)] 

55.1.4  pH  value.  [^Vhen  DOT  3  or  DOT  4 
brake  fluid  is  tested  according  to  S6.4,  the  pH 
value  shall  not  be  less  than  7.0  nor  more  than 
11.5.  (39  F.R.  30353— August  22,  1974.  Effec- 
tive: 10/1/74)] 

55.1.5  Brake  fluid  stability. 

55. 1.5.1  High-temperature  stability.  When 
brake  fluid  is  tested  according  to  S6.5.3  the 
ERBP  shall  not  change  by  more  than  3.0°  C. 
(5.4°  F.)  plus  0.05  degree  for  each  degree  that 
the  ERBP  of  the  fluid  exceeds  225°  C.  (437°  F.). 

55. 1.5.2  Chemical  stability.  [When  DOT  3  or 
DOT  4  brake  fluid  is  tested  according  to  S6.5.4, 
the  change  in  temperature  of  the  refluxing  fluid 
mixture  shall  not  exceed  3.0°C  (5.4°F)  plus  0.05 
degree  for  each  degree  that  the  ERBP  of  the 
fluid  exceeds  225°C  (437°F).  (40  F.R.  21474— 
May  16,  1975.    Effective  5/16/75)] 

55. 1.6  Corrosion.  When  brake  fluid  is  tested 
according  to  S6.6 — 

(a)  The  metal  test  strips  shall  not  show  weight 
changes  exceeding  the  limits  stated  in  Table  I. 


Max.  permissible 

weight  change. 

Test  strip  material 

mg/sq  cm  of 

surface 

Steel,  Tinned  Iron,  Cast  Iron 

0.2 

Aluminum 

0.1 

Brass,  Copper 

0.4 

(b)  Excluding  the  area  of  contact  (13±lmm. 
(i/^±i/32  inch)  measured  from  the  bolt  hole  end 
of  the  test  strip),  the  metal  test  strips  shall  not 
show  pitting  or  etching  to  an  extent  discernible 
without  magnification; 

(c)  [The  water-wet  brake  fluid  at  the  end  of 
the  test  shall  show  no  jelling  at  23±5°  C. 
(73.4±9°  F.) ;  (39  F.R.  30353— August  22,  1974. 
Effective:  10/1/74)] 

(d)  No  crystalline  deposit  shall  form  and  ad- 
here to  either  the  glass  jar  walls  or  the  surface 
of  the  metal  strips ; 

(e)  [At  the  end  of  the  test,  sedimentation  of 
the  water-wet  brake  fluid  shall  not  exceed  0.10 
percent  by  volume;  (39  F.R.  30353 — August  22, 
1974.    Effective:  10/1/74)] 

(f)  [The  pH  value  of  water- wet  DOT  3  and 
DOT  4  brake  fluid  at  the  end  of  the  test  shall 
not  be  less  than  7.0  nor  more  than  11.5;  (39  F.R. 
30353— August  22,  1974.    Effective:  10/1/74)] 

(g)  The  cups  at  the  end  of  the  test  shall  show 
no  disintegration,  as  evidenced  by  blisters  or 
sloughing ; 

(h)  The  hardness  of  the  cup  shall  not  decrease 
by  more  than  15  International  Rubber  Hardness 
Degrees  (IRHD) ;  and 

(i)  The  base  diameter  of  the  cups  shall  not 
increase  by  more  than  1.4  mm.  (0.055  inch). 

55. 1.7  Fluidity  and  appearance  at  low  temper- 
ature. When  brake  fluid  is  tested  according  to 
S6.7,  at  the  storage  temperature  and  for  the 
storage  times  given  in  Table  II — 

(a)  [The  fluid  shall  show  no  sludging,  sedi- 
mentation, crystallization,  or  stratification;  (39 
F.R.  30353— August  22,  1974.  Effective:  10/ 
1/74)] 

(b)  [Upon  inversion  of  the  sample  bottle,  the 
time  required  for  the  air  bubble  to  travel  to  the 
top  of  the  fluid  slaall  not  exceed  the  bubble  flow 
times  shown  in  Table  II;  and  (39  F.R.  30353— 
August  22,  1974.    Effective:  10/1/74)] 


IBev.  5/12/75) 


PART  571:  S  116-2 


Effective:   March    1,    1972 


\  (c)  [On   warming  to   room   temperature,  the 

fluid  shall  resume  the  appearance  and  fluidity 
that  it  had  before  chilling.  (39  F.R.  30353— 
August  22,  1974.    Effective:  10/1/74)] 


storage  temperature 

storage 
time 

Max. 
bubble  flow 

(hours) 

(seconds) 

minus  40±2°  C.  (minus 

40±3.6°  F.) 

144±4.0 

10 

minus  50±2°  C.  (minus 

58±3.6°  F.) 

6±0.2 

35 

55.1.8  Evaporation.  When  brake  fluid  is 
tested  according  to  S6.8 — 

(a)  The  loss  by  evaporation  shall  not  exceed 
80  percent  by  weight ; 

(b)  The  residue  from  the  brake  fluid  after 
evaporation  shall  contain  no  precipitate  that  re- 
mains gritty  or  abrasive  when  rubbed  with  the 
fingertip;  and 

(c)  The  residue  shall  have  a  pour  point  below 
minus  5°  C.  (+23°  F.). 

55.1.9  Water  tolerance. 

(a)  At  low  temperature.  'When  brake  fluid 
is  tested  according  to  S6.9(a)  — 

(1)  [The  fluid  shall  show  no  sludging,  sedi- 
mentation, crj'stallization,  or  stratification;  (39 

F.R.      30353— August      22,      1974.        Effective: 
10/1/74)3 

(2)  [Upon  inversion  of  the  centrifuge  tube, 
the  air  bubble  shall  travel  to  the  top  of  the 
fluid  in  not  more  than  10  seconds;    (39  F.R. 

30353— August  22,  1974.    Effective:  10/1/74)] 

(3)  [If  cloudiness  has  developed,  the  wet 
fluid  shall  regain  its  original  clarity  and  fluid- 
ity  when  warmed  to  room  temperature;   and 

(39    F.R.    30353— August   22,    1974.      Effective: 
10/1/74)] 

(b)  At  60°  C.  (U0°  P-)-  When  brake  fluid  is 
tested  according  to  S6.9(b)  — 

(1)  The  fluid  shall  show  no  stratification; 
and 

(2)  Sedimentation  shall  not  exceed  0.15  per- 
cent by  volume  after  centrifuging. 


55.1.10  Compatibility. 

[(a)  At  loio  temperature.  When  brake  fluid 
is  tested  according  to  S6.10.3(a)  the  test  speci- 
men shall  show  no  sludging,  sedimentation,  or 
crystallization.  In  addition  DOT  3  and  DOT  4 
fluids  shall  show  no  stratification. 

(b)  At  60°  C.  (U0°  F.).  When  brake  fluid 
is  tested  according  to  S6. 10.3(b)  — 

(1)  Sedimentation  shall  not  exceed  0.05  per- 
cent by  volume  after  centrifuging;  and 

(2)  DOT  3  and  DOT  4  fluids  shall  show  no 
stratification.        (39     F.R.     30353— August     22, 

1974.     (Effective:  10/1/74)] 

55.1.11  Resistance  to  oxidation.  ^^Tien  brake 
fluid  is  tested  according  to  S6.ll- — 

(a)  The  metal  test  strips  outside  the  areas  in 
contact  with  the  tinfoil  shall  not  show  pitting  or 
etching  to  an  extent  discernible  without  magnifi- 
cation ; 

(b)  No  more  than  a  trace  of  gum  shall  be 
deposited  on  the  test  strips  outside  the  areas  in 
contact  with  the  tinfoil ; 

(c)  The  aluminum  strips  shall  not  change  in 
weight  by  more  than  0.05  mg/sq  cm;  and 

(d)  The  cast  iron  strips  shall  not  change  in 
weight  by  more  than  0.3  mg/sq  cm. 

55.1.12  EflFects  on  cups.  ^Vhen  brake  cups  are 
subjected  to  brake  fluid  in  accordance  with 
S6.12(a)  and  (b)  — 

(a)  The  increase  in  the  diameter  of  the  base 
of  the  cups  shall  be  not  less  than  0.15  mm 
(0.006  inch)  or  more  than  1.40  mm  (0.055  inch) ; 

(b)  The  decrease  in  hardness  of  the  cups  shall 
be  not  more  than  10  IRHD  at  70°  C.  (158°  F.) 
or  more  than  15  IRHD  at  120°  C.  (248°  F.), 
and  there  shall  be  no  increase  in  hardness  of  the 
cups;  and 

(c)  The  cups  shall  show  no  disintegration  as 
evidenced  by  stickiness,  blisters,  or  sloughing. 

55.1.13  Stroking  properties.  "When  brake  fluid 
is  tested  according  to  S6.13 — 

(a)  Metal  parts  of  the  test  system  shall  show 
no  pitting  or  etching  to  an  extent  discernible 
without  magnification ; 

(b)  The  change  in  diameter  of  any  cylinder 
or  piston  shall  not  exceed  0.13  mm  (0.005  inch) ; 

(c)  The  average  decrease  in  hardness  of  nine 
of  the  ten  cups  tested  (eight  wheel  cylinder  and 


(Rev.   8/16/74) 


PART  571;  S  116-3 


Effective:   March    1,    1972 


one  master  cylinder  primary)  shall  not  exceed 
15  IRHD.  Not  more  than  one  of  the  nine  cups 
shall  have  a  decrease  in  hardness  greater  than 
17  IRHD ; 

(d)  None  of  the  ten  cups  shall  be  in  an  un- 
satisfactory operating  condition  as  evidenced  by 
stickiness,  scuffing,  blisters,  cracking,  chijaping,  or 
other  change  from  its  original  appearance; 

(e)  None  of  the  ten  cups  shall  show  an  in- 
crease in  base  diameter  greater  than  0.90  mm 
(0.035  inch) ; 

(f)  The  average  lip  diameter  set  of  the  ten 
cups  shall  not  be  greater  than  65  percent; 

(g)  During  any  period  of  24,000  strokes,  the 
volume  loss  of  fluid  shall  not  exceed  36  milli- 
liters; 

(h)  The  cylinder  pistons  shall  not  freeze  or 
function  improperly  throughout  the  test; 

(i)  The  total  loss  of  fluid  during  the  100 
strokes  at  the  end  of  the  test  shall  not  exceed  36 
milliliters ; 

(j)  The  fluid  at  the  end  of  the  test  shall  show 
no  formation  of  gels ; 

(k)  At  the  end  of  the  test  the  amount  of  sedi- 
ment shall  not  exceed  1.5  percent  by  volume;  and 

(1)  Brake  cylinders  shall  be  free  of  deposits 
that  are  abrasive  or  that  cannot  be  removed  when 
rubbed  moderately  with  a  nonabrasive  cloth 
wetted  with  ethanol. 

S5.2  Packaging  and  labeling  requirements  for 
motor  vehicle  brake  fluids. 

55.2.1  Container  sealing.  [Each  brake  fluid 
or  hydraulic  system  mineral  oil  container  with  a 
capacity  of  6  fluid  ounces  or  more  shall  be  pro- 
vided with  a  resealable  closure  that  has  an  inner 
seal  impervious  to  the  packaged  brake  fluid.  The 
container  closure  shall  include  a  tamper-proof 
feature  that  will  either  be  destroyed  or  substan- 
tially altered  when  the  container  closure  is  ini- 
tially opened.  (39  F.R.  30353— August  22,  1974. 
Effective:  10/1/74)] 

55.2.2  Certification,  marking,  and  labeling. 

S5.2.2.1  [Each  manufacturer  of  a  DOT  grade 
brake  fluid  shall  furnish  to  each  packager,  dis- 
tributor,  or  dealer   to   whom  he  delivers  brake 


fluid,     the     following     information:     (39     F.R.      d 
30353— August  22,    1974.     Effective:    10/1/74)]      ' 

(a)  A  serial  number  identifying  the  produc- 
tion lot  and  the  date  of  manufacture  of  the  brake 
fluid. 

(b)  [The  grade  (DOT  3,  DOT  4,  or  DOT  5) 
of  the  brake  fluid.  (39  F.R.  30353— August  22, 
1974.    Effective:  10/1/74)] 

(c)  The  minimum  wet  boiling  point  in  Fahr- 
enheit of  the  brake  fluid. 

(d)  Certification  that  the  brake  fluid  conforms 
to  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No. 
116. 

S5.2.2.2  [Each  packager  of  a  brake  fluid  other 
than  hydraulic  system  mineral  oil  shall  furnish 
the  following  information  clearly  and  indelibly 
marked  on  each  brake  fluid  container,  in  any 
location  except  a  removable  part  such  as  a  lid. 
(39  F.R.  30353— August  22,  1974.  Effective: 
10/1/74)] 

(a)  Certification  that  the  brake  fluid  conforms 
to  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No. 
116. 

(b)  [The  name  of  the  packager  of  the  brake  d 
fluid,  which  may  be  in  code  form.  (37  F.R.  " 
17474— August  29,   1972.     Effective:   8/29/72)] 

(c)  The  name  and  complete  mailing  address 
of  the  distributor. 

(d)  [A  serial  number  identifying  the  pack- 
aged lot  and  date  of  packaging.  (37  F.R. 
17474— August  29,  1972.    Effective:  8/29/72)] 

[(e)  Designation  of  the  contents  as  "DOT  — 
MOTOR  VEHICLE  BRAKE  FLUID" 

(Fill  in  "3",  "4",  or  "5"  as  applicable.) 

(f)  The  minimum  wet  boiling  point  in  Fah- 
renheit of  the  DOT  brake  fluid  in  the  container. 

(g)  The  following  safety  warnings  in  capital 
and  lower  case  letters  as  indicated:  (40  F.R. 
13219— March  25,  1975.    Effective:  3/25/75)] 

(1)  FOLLOW  VEHICLE  MANUFAC- 
TURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS  WHEN 
ADDING  BRAKE  FLUID. 

(2)  KEEP  BRAKE  FLUID  CLEAN 
AND  DRY.  Contamination  with  dirt,  water, 
petroleum  products  or  other  materials  may 
result  in  brake  failure  or  costly  repairs. 


(Rev.   3/19/75) 


PART  571;  S  116-4 


Effective    March    1,    1972 


(3)  STORE  BRAKE  FLUID  ONLY  IN 
ITS  ORIGINAL  CONTAINER.  KEEP 
CONTAINER  CLEAN  AND  TIGHTLY 
CLOSED  TO  PREVENT  ABSORPTION 
OF  MOISTURE. 

(4)  CAUTION :  DO  NOT  REFILL  CON- 
TAINER, AND  DO  NOT  USE  FOR  OTHER 
LIQUIDS.  [(Not  required  for  containers 
with  a  capacity  in  excess  of  5  gallons).  (36 
F.R.  21594^Nov.  11, 1971.  Effective:  3/1/72)] 

S5.2.2.3  [Each  packager  of  hydraulic  system 
mineral  oil  shall  furnish  the  following  informa- 
tion clearly  and  indelibly  marked  on  each  con- 
tainer in  any  location  except  a  removable  part 
such  as  a  lid: 

(a)  The  name  of  the  packager  of  the  hy- 
draulic system  mineral  oil,  which  may  be  in  code 
form.  (39  F.R.  30353— August  22,  1974.  Effec- 
tive: 10/1/74)] 

(b)  The  name  and  complete  mailing  address  of 
the  distributor. 

(c)  A  serial  number  identifying  the  packaged 
lot  and  date  of  packaging. 

(d)  [Designation  of  the  contents  as  "HY- 
DRAULIC SYSTEM  MINERAL  OIL"  in 
capital  letters  at  least  i/g  of  an  inch  high.  (39 
F.R.  30353— August  22,  1974.  Effective: 
10/1/74)] 

(e)  [The  following  safety  warnings  in  capital 
and  lower  case  lettei>  as  indicated:  (40  F.R. 
13219— March  25,  1975.     Effective:  3/25/75)] 

(1)  [FOLLOW  VEHICLE  MANUFAC- 
TURER-S  RECOMMENDATIONS  WHEN 
ADDING  HYDRAULIC  SYSTEM  MIN- 
ERAL OIL.  (40  F.R.  21474— May  16,  1975. 
Effective:   5/16/75)] 

(2)  [Hydraulic  System  IMineral  Oil  is  NOT 
COMPATIBLE  with  the  rubber  components 
of  brake  systems  designed  for  use  with  DOT 
brake  fluids.  (39  F.R.  30353— August  22,  1974. 
Effective:  10/1/74)] 

(3)  [KEEP  HYDRAULIC  SYSTEM 
MINERAL  OIL  CLEAN.  Contamination 
with  dust  or  other  materials  may  result  in 
brake  failure  or  costly  repair. 

(4)  CAUTION:  STORE  HYDRAULIC 
SYSTEM  IMINERAL  OIL  ONLY  IN  ITS 
ORIGINAL    CONTAINER.      KEEP    CON- 


TAINER CLEAN  AND  TIGHTLY 
CLOSED.  DO  NOT  REFILL  CONTANER 
OR  USE  OTHER  LIQUIDS.  (The  last  sen- 
tence is  not  required  for  container  wih  a  ca- 
pacity in  excess  of  5  gallons.)  (40  F.R.  21474 
—May  16,  1975.    Effective:  5/16/75)] 

S5.3  Motor  vehicle  requirement.  [Each  passen- 
ger car,  multipurpose  passenger  vehicle,  truck, 
bus,  trailer,  and  motorcycle  that  has  a  hydraulic 
brake  system  shall  be  equipped  with  brake  fluid 
that  has  been  manufactured  and  packaged  in 
conformity  with  the  requirements  of  this  stand- 
ard. (38  F.R.  2981— January  31,  1973.  Effec- 
tive: 7/1/73)] 

S6.     Test  procedures. 

S6.1  Equilibrium  reflux  boiling  point.  Deter- 
mine the  ERBP  of  a  brake  fluid  by  running 
duplicate  samples  according  to  the  following 
procedure  and  averaging  the  results. 

56.1 .1  Summary  of  procedure.  Sixty  milli- 
liters (ml)  of  brake  fluid  are  boiled  under  speci- 
fied equilibrium  conditions  (reflux)  at  atmos- 
pheric pressure  in  a  100-ml  flask.  The  average 
temperature  of  the  boiling  fluid  at  the  end  of  the 
reflux  period,  corrected  for  variations  in  baro- 
metric pressure  if  necessary,  is  the  ERBP. 

56.1.2  Apparatus.  (See  Figure  1)  The  test 
apparatus  shall  consist  of — 

(a)  Flash.  (See  Figure  2)  A  100-ml  round- 
bottom,  short-neck  heat-resistant  glass  flask  hav- 
ing a  neck  with  a  19/38  standard  taper,  female 
ground-glass  joint  and  a  side-entering  tube,  with 
an  outside  diameter  of  10  millimeters  (nmi), 
which  centers  the  thermometer  bulb  in  the  flask 
6.5  mm  from  the  bottom ; 

(b)  Condenser.  A  water-cooled,  reflux,  glass- 
tube  type,  condenser  having  a  jacket  200  mm  in 
length,  the  bottom  end  of  which  has  a  19/38 
standard-taper,  drip-tip,  male  ground-glass  joint ; 

(c)  Boiling  stones.  Three  clean,  unused  sili- 
con carbide  grains  (approximately  2  mm  (0.08 
inch)  in  diameter,  grit  No.  8) ; 

(d)  Thermometer.  Standardized  calibrated 
partial  immersion  (76  mm),  solid  stem,  ther- 
mometers conforming  to  the  I'equirements  for  an 


(Rev.   5/12/75) 


PART  571;  S  116-5 


Effective:  March    1,    J972 


ASTM  2C  or  2F,  and  an  ASTM  3C  or  3F  ther- 
mometer; and 

(e)  Heat  source.  Variable  antotransformer- 
controlled  heating  mantle  designed  to  fit  the 
flask,  or  an  electric  heater  with  rheostat  heat 
control. 

S6.1.3   Preparation  of  apparatus. 

(a)  Thoroughly  clean  and  dry  all  glassware. 

(b)  Insert  thermometer  through  the  side  tube 
until  the  tip  of  the  bulb  is  6.5  mm  (14  inch) 
from  the  bottom  center  of  the  flask.  Seal  with 
a  short  piece  of  natural  rubber,  EPDM,  SBR  or 
butyl  tubing. 


-f^JOINT 


ASTM 
THERMOMETER 


RUBBER  SLEEVE 


LING  STONES 
REFRACTORY 


BOILING 


32-38  mm 


FIG.! 
POINT  TEST  APPARATUS 


IIO±5mm 


FIRE  POLISHED 


-14mm  O.D. 
BEAD 


8-9mm  I.D. 


-60±2mm  O.D.  SPHERE 


FIG. 2 
DETAIL  OF  lOOml    SHORT-NECK    FLASK 

(c)  Place  60 ±1  ml  of  brake  fluid  and  the 
silicon  carbide  grains  into  the  flask. 

(d)  Attach  the  flask  to  the  condenser.  When 
using  a  heating  mantle,  place  the  mantle  under 
the  flask  and  support  it  with  a  ring-clamp  and 
laboratory-type  stand,  holding  the  entire  as- 
sembly in  place  by  a  clamp.  When  using  a 
rheostat-controlled  heater,  center  a  standard 
porcelain  or  hard  asbestos  refractory,  having  a 
diameter  opening  32  to  38  mm,  over  the  heating 
element  and  moimt  the  flask  so  that  direct  heat 
is  applied  only  through  the  opening  in  the  re- 
fractory. Place  the  assembly  in  an  area  free 
from  drafts  or  other  types  of  sudden  tempera- 
ture changes.  Connect  the  cooling  water  inlet 
and  outlet  tubes  to  the  condenser.  Turn  on  the 
cooling  water.  The  water  supply  temperature 
shall  not  exceed  28°  C.  (82.4°  F.)  and  the  tem- 
perature rise  through  the  condenser  shall  not 
exceed  2°  C.  (3.6°  F.). 

S6.1.4   [Procedure  for  preparation  of  apparatus. 

Apply  heat  to  the  flask  so  that  within  10±:2 
minutes  the  fluid  is  refluxing  in  excess  of  1  drop 
per  second.     The  reflux  rate  shall  not  exceed  5 


(Rev.    5/12/751 


PAET  571;  S  116-6 


Effecirve:   March    1,    1972 


drops  per  second  at  any  time.  Immediately  ad- 
just the  heating  rate  to  obtain  an  equilibrium 
reflux  rate  of  1  to  2  drops  per  second  over  the 
next  5  ±2  minutes.  Maintain  this  rate  for  an 
additional  2  minutes,  taking  four  temperature 
readings  at  30-second  intervals.  Record  the  av- 
erage of  these  as  the  observed  ERBP.  If  no 
reflux  is  e^^dent  when  the  fluid  temperature 
reaches  260°  C.  (500°  F.),  discontinue  heating 
and  report  ERBP  as  in  excess  of  260°  C.  (500° 
F.).  (39  F.R.  30353— August  22,  1974.  Effec- 
tive: 10/1/74)] 

S6.1.5  Calculation. 

(a)  Thermometer  inaccuracy.  Correct  the  ob- 
served ERBP  by  applying  any  correction  factor 
obtained  in  standardizing  the  thermometer. 

(b)  Variation  from,  standard  barometric  pres- 
sure. Apply  the  factor  shown  in  Table  III  to 
calculate  the  barometric  pressure  correction  to 
the  ERBP. 

Table  III. — Correction  For  Barometric  Pressure 


Observed  ERBP  corrected 
for  thermometer  inaccuracy 


Correction  per  1  mm 

difference  in  pressure^ 

°C.  CF.) 


100°  C.  (212°  F.)  to 

190°  C.  (374°  F.) 
Over  190°  C.  (374°  F.) 


0.039         (0.07) 
0.04  (0.08) 


•  To  be  added  in  case  barometric  pressure  is  below 
760  mm ;  to  be  subtracted  in  case  barometric  pressure 
is  above  760  mm. 

(c)  If  the  two  corrected  observed  ERBP's 
agree  within  2.0°  C.  (4.0°  C.  for  brake  fluids 
having  an  ERBP  over  230°  C./446°  F.)  average 
the  duplicate  rims  as  the  ERBP;  otherwise,  re- 
peat the  entire  test,  averaging  the  four  corrected 
observed  values  to  determine  the  original  ERBP. 

S6.2  Wet  ERBP.     Determine  the  wet  ERBP  of 

a  brake  fluid  by  running  duplicate  samples  ac- 
cording to  the  following  procedure. 

S6.2.1  Summary  of  the  procedure.  A  100-ml 
sample  of  the  brake  fluid  is  humidified  under 
controlled  conditions;  100  ml  of  SAE  RM-1 
Compatibility  Fluid  is  used  to  establish  the  end 
point  for  humidification.  After  humidification 
the  water  content  and  ERBP  of  the  brake  fluid 
are  determined. 


56.2.2  Apparatus  for  humidification.  (See 
Figure  3)     Test  apparatus  shall  consist  of — 

(a)  Glass  jars.  Four  SAE  RM-i9  corrosion 
test  jars  or  equivalent  screw-top,  straight-sided, 
round  glass  jars  each  having  a  capacity  of  about 
475  ml  and  approximate  inner  dimensions  of 
100  mm  in  height  by  75  mm  in  diameter,  with 
matching  lids  having  new,  clean  inserts  providing 
water- vapor-proof  seals ; 

(b)  Desiccator  and  cover.  Four  bowl-form 
glass  desiccators,  250  mm  inside  diameter,  having 
matching  tubulated  covers  fitted  with  No.  8  rub- 
ber stoppers ;  and 

(c)  Desiccator  plate.  Four  280  mm  diameter, 
perforated  porcelain  desiccator  plates,  without 
feet,  glazed  on  one  side. 

56.2.3  Reagents  and  materials. 

(a)  Ajnmonium  sulfate,  (NH4)2S04.  Reagent 
or  A.C.S.  grade. 

(b)  Distilled  water,  see  S7.1. 

(c)  SAE  RM-1  compatibility  fluid. 

56.2.4  Preparation  of  apparatus.  Lubricate 
the  ground-glass  joint  of  the  desiccator.  Load 
each  desiccator  with  450±25  grams  of  the  am- 
monium sulfate  and  add  125dzl0  ml  of  distilled 
water.     The  surface  of  the  salt  slurry  shall  lie 


3^,S" 


1 

No.8  RUBBER  STOPPER 


GLASS  DESICCATOR  WITH 
TUBULATED  COVER 


FLUID 
SAMPLE 


■^—LUBRICATED 
GROUND  JOINT 


GLASS  JAR 


SALT  SLURRY 


-2|0±IOmm|.D. 


■PORCELAIN 
DESICCATOR 
PLATE 


FIG. 3 
HUMIDIFICATION    APPARATUS 


(Rev.   5/12/75) 


PART  571;  S  116-7 


Effective:   March    1,    1972 


within  45 ±7  mm  of  the  top  surface  of  the  desic- 
catxjr  i^late.  Place  the  desiccators  in  an  area 
with  temperature  controlled  at  23±2°  C. 
(73.4±3.6°  F.)  throughout  the  humidification 
procedure.  Load  the  desiccators  with  the  slurry 
and  allow  to  condition  with  the  covers  on  and 
stoppers  in  place  at  least  12  hours  before  use. 
Use  a  fresh  charge  of  salt  slurry  for  each  test. 

S6.2.5  Procedure.  Pour  lOOdil  ml  of  the 
brake  fluid  into  a  corrosion  test  jar.  Promjjtly 
place  the  jar  into  a  desiccator.  Prepare  dupli- 
cate test  sample,  and  two  duplicate  specimens  of 
the  SAE  RM-1  compatibility  fluid.  Adjust 
water  content  of  the  SAE  RM-l  fluid  to 
0.50  ±0.05  percent  by  weight  at  the  start  of  the 
test  in  accordance  with  S7.2.  At  intervals  re- 
move the  rubber  stopper  in  the  top  of  each  desic- 
cator containing  SAE  KM-1  fluid.  Using  a 
long  needled  hypodermic  syringe,  take  a  sample 
of  not  more  than  2  ml  from  each  jar  and  deter- 
mine its  water  content.  Remove  no  more  than 
10  ml  of  fluid  from  each  SAE  RM-1  sample 
during  the  humidification  procedure.  When  the 
water  content  of  the  SAE  fluid  reaches  3.50±0.05 
percent  by  weight  (average  of  the  duplicates), 
remove  the  two  test  fluid  specimens  from  their 
desiccators  and  promptly  cap  each  jar  tightly. 
Measure  the  water  contents  of  the  test  fluid  speci- 
mens in  accordance  with  S7.2  and  determine 
their  ERBP's  in  accordance  with  S6.1  through 
S6.1.5.  If  the  2  ERBP's  agree  within  4°  C. 
(8°  F.),  average  them  to  determine  the  wet 
ERBP;  otherwise  repeat  and  average  the  four 
individual  ERBP's  as  the  wet  ERBP  of  the 
brake  fluid. 

S6.3  Kinematic  viscosity.  Determine  the  kine- 
matic viscosity  of  a  brake  fluid  in  centistokes 
(cSt)  by  the  following  procedure.  Run  dupli- 
cate samples  at  each  of  the  specified  temperatures, 
making  two  timed  runs  on  each  sample. 

S6.3.1  Summary  of  the  procedure.  The  time 
is  measured  for  a  fixed  volume  of  the  brake 
fluid  to  flow  through  a  calibrated  glass  capillary 
viscometer  under  an  accurately  reproducible  head 
and  at  a  closely  controlled  temperature.  The 
kinematic  viscosity  is  then  calculated  from  the 
measured  flow  time  and  the  calibration  constant 
of  the  viscometer. 


56.3.2  Apparatus.  S 

(a)  Viscometers.  Calibrated  glass  capillary- 
type  viscometers,  ASTM  D2515-66,  "Standard 
Specification  for  Kinematic  Glass  Viscometers," 
measuring  viscosity  within  the  precision  limits 
of  S6.4.7.  Use  suspended  level  viscometers  for 
viscosity  measurements  at  low  temperatures. 
Use  Cannon-Fenske  Routine  or  other  modified 
Ostwald  viscometers  at  ambient  temperatures 
and  above. 

(b)  Viscomeier'  holders  mid  frames.  Mount 
a  viscometer  in  the  constant-temperature  bath 
so  that  the  mounting  tube  is  held  within  1  de- 
gree of  the  vertical. 

(c)  Viscometer  bath.  A  transparent  liquid 
bath  of  sufficient  depth  such  that  at  no  time 
during  the  measurement  will  any  portion  of  the 
sample  in  the  viscometer  be  less  than  2  cm  below 
the  surface  or  less  than  2  cm  above  the  bottom. 
The  bath  shall  be  cylindrical  in  shape,  with 
turbulent  agitation  sufficient  to  meet  the  tem- 
perature control  requirements.  For  measure- 
ments within  15  to  100°  C.  (60  to  212°  F.)  the 
temperature  of  the  bath  medium  shall  not  vary 

by  more  than  0.01°  C.  (0.02°  F.)  over  the  length       / 
of  the  viscometers,  or  between  the  positions  of      " 
the  viscometers,  or  at  the  locations  of  the  ther- 
mometers.     Outside    this    range,    the    variation 
shall  not  exceed  0.03°  C.  (0.05°  F.). 

(d)  Thermovieters.  Liquid-in-glass  Kinematic 
Viscosity  Test  Thermometers,  covering  the  range 
of  test  temperatures  indicated  in  Table  IV  and 
conforming  to  ASTM  El-68,  "Specifications  for 
ASTM  Thermometers,"  and  in  the  IP  require- 
ments for  IP  Standard  Thermometers.  Stand- 
ardize before  use  (see  S6.3.3(b)).  Use  two 
standardized  thermometers  in  the  bath. 

(e)  Timing  device.  Stop  watch  or  other  tim- 
ing device  graduated  in  divisions  representing 
not  more  than  0.2  second,  with  an  accuracy  of  at 
least  ±0.05  percent  when  tested  over  intervals 
of  15  minutes.  Electrical  timing  devices  may  be 
used  when  the  current  frequency  is  controlled  to 
an  accuracy  of  0.01  percent  or  better. 

56.3.3  Standardization. 

(a)  Viscometers.  Use  viscometers  calibrated 
in  accordance  with  Appendix  1  of  ASTM 
D445-65,  "Viscosity  of  Transparent  and  Opaque 


(Rev.   5/12/75) 


PART  571;  S  116-8 


Effective:   March    1,    1972 


TABLE    IV 

KINEMATIC  VISCOSITY  THERMOMETERS 


Temperature  range 

For 

tests 

at 

Subdivisions 

Thermometer  number 

deg  C. 

deg  P. 

deg  C. 

deg  F. 

deg  C. 

deg  F. 

ASTM 

IP 

minus  55.3  to 
minus  52.5 

minus  67.5  to 
minus  62.5 

minus    55 

minus    67 

0.05 

0.1 

74  F 

69  F.  or  C. 

minus  41.4  to 
minus  38.6 

minus  42.5  to 
minus  37.5 

minus    40 

minus     40 

0.05 

0.1 

73  F 

68  F.  or  C. 

98.6  to 

101.4 

207.5  to 
212.5 

100 

212 

0.05 

0.1 

30  F 

32  F.  or  C. 

Liquids  (Kinematic  and  Dynamic  Viscosities.)"' 
The  calibration  constant,  C,  is  dependent  upon 
the  gravitational  acceleration  at  the  place  of 
calibration.  Thus  must,  therefore,  be  supplied 
b}'  the  standardization  laboratory  together  with 
the  instrument  constant.  Where  the  acceleration 
of  gravity,  g,  in  the  two  locations  ditFers  by  more 
than  0.1  percent,  correct  the  calibration  constant 
as  follows: 

^=^XC. 
gi 

where  the  subscripts  1  and  2  indicate  respectively 

the   standardization  laboratory   and   the   testing 

laboratory. 

(b)  Thermometers.  Check  liquid-in-glass  ther- 
mometers to  the  nearest  0.01°  C.  (0.02°  F.)  by 
direct  comparison  with  a  standardized  ther- 
mometer. Kinematic  Viscosity  Test  Thermom- 
eters shall  be  standardized  at  "total  immersion." 
The  ice  point  of  standardized  thermometers  shall 
be  determined  before  use  and  the  official  correc- 
tions shall  be  adjusted  to  conform  to  the  changes 
in  ice  points.  (See  ASTM  E77-66,  "Verification 
and  Calibration  of  Liquid-in-Glass  Thermom- 
eters.") 

(c)  Timers.  Time  signals  are  broadcast  by  the 
National  Bureau  of  Standards,  Station  'WIVV, 
Washington,  D.C.  at  2.5,  5,  10,  15,  20,  25,  30  and 
35  Mc/sec  (MHz).  Time  signals  are  also  broad- 
cast by  Station  CHIT  from  Ottawa,  Canada,  at 
3.330,  7.335  and  14.670  Mc/sec,  and  Station  MSF 
at  Rugby,  United  Kingdom,  at  2.5,  5  and  10 
Mc/sec. 

S6.3.4   Procedure. 

(a)  Set  and  maintain  the  bath  at  the  appro- 
priate test  temperature  (See  S5.1.3)   within  the 


limits  specified  in  S6.3.2(c).  Apply  the  neces- 
sary corrections,  if  an}',  to  all  thermometer  read- 
ings. 

(b)  Select  a  clean,  dry,  calibrated  viscometer 
giving  a  flow  time  not  less  than  its  specified 
minimum,  or  200  seconds,  whichever  is  the 
greater. 

(c)  Charge  the  viscometer  in  the  manner  used 
when  the  instrument  was  calibrated.  Do  not 
filter  or  dry  the  brake  fluid,  but  protect  it  from 
contamination  by  dirt  and  moisture  during  fill- 
ing and  measurements. 

(1)  Charge  the  suspended  level  viscometers 
by  tilting  about  30  degrees  from  the  vertical 
and  pouring  sufficient  brake  fluid  through  the 
fill  tube  into  the  lower  reservoir  so  that  when 
the  viscometer  is  returned  to  vertical  position 
the  meniscus  is  between  the  fill  marks.  For 
measurements  below  0°C  (32°F),  before  plac- 
ing the  filled  viscometer  into  the  constant 
temperature  bath,  draw  the  sample  into  the 
working  capillary  and  timing  bub  and  insert 
small  rubber  stoppers  to  suspend  the  fluid  in 
this  position,  to  prevent  accumulation  of  water 
condensate  on  the  walls  of  the  critical  portions 
of  the  viscometer.  Alternatively,  fit  loosely 
packed  drying  tubes  onto  the  open  ends  of  the 
viscometer  to  prevent  water  condensation,  but 
do  not  restrict  the  flow  of  the  sample  under 
test  by  the  pressures  created  in  the  instrument. 

(2)  If  a  Cannon-Fenske  Routine  viscometer 
is  used,  charge  by  inserting  and  immersing 
the  smaller  arm  into  the  brake  fluid  and  ap- 
plying vacuum  to  the  larger  arm.  Fill  the 
tube  to  the  upper  timing  mark,  and  return  the 
viscometer  to  an  upright  position. 


(Rev.   5/12/75) 


PART  571;  S  116-9 


231-088  O  -  77  -  38 


Effective:   March    1,    1972 


(d)  Mount  the  viscometer  in  the  bath  in  a  true 
vertical  position   (See  S6.3.2(b)). 

(e)  The  viscometer  shall  remain  in  the  bath 
imtil  it  reaches  the  test  temperature. 

(f)  At  temperature  below  0°C  (32°F)  con- 
duct an  imtimed  preliminary  run  by  allowing 
the  brake  fluid  to  drain  through  the  capillary 
into  the  lower  reservoir  after  the  test  temper- 
ature has  been  established. 

(g)  Adjust  the  head  level  of  the  brake  fluid 
to  a  position  in  the  capillary  arm  about  5  mm 
above  the  first  timing  mark. 

(h)  With  brake  fluid  flowing  freely  measure 
to  within  0.2  second  the  time  required  for  the 
meniscus  to  pass  from  the  first  timing  mark  to 
the  second.  If  this  flow  time  is  less  than  the 
minimum  specified  for  the  viscometer,  or  200 
seconds,  whichever  is  greater,  repeat  using  a 
viscometer  with  a  capillary  of  smaller  diameter. 

(i)  Eepeat  S6.3.4(g)  and  (h).  If  the  two 
timed  runs  do  not  agree  within  0.2  percent,  re- 
ject and  repeat  using  a  fresh  sample  of  brake 
fluid. 

56.3.5  Cleaning   of  viscometers. 

(a)  Periodically  clean  the  instrument  with 
chromic  acid  to  remove  organic  deposits.  Rinse 
thoroughly  with  distilled  water  and  acetone,  and 
dry  with  clean  dry  air. 

(b)  [Between  successive  samples  rinse  the 
viscometer  with  ethanol  (isopropanol  when  test- 
ing DOT  5  fluids)  followed  by  an  acetone 
or  ether  rinse.  Pass  a  slow  stream  of  filtered 
dry  air  through  the  viscometer  until  the  last  trace 
of  solvent  is  removed.  (39  F.R.  30353— August 
22,  1974.     Effective:  10/1/74)] 

56.3.6  Calculation. 

(a)  The  following  viscometers  have  a  fixed 
volume  charged  at  ambient  temperature,  and  as 
a  consequence  C  varies  with  test  temperature: 
Cannon-Fenske  Routine,  Pinkevitch,  Cannon- 
Manning  Semi-Micro,  and  Cannon  Fenske 
Opaque.  To  calculate  C  at  test  temperatures 
other  than  the  calibration  temperature  for  these 
viscometers,  see  ASTM  D2515-66,  "Kinematic 
Glass  Viscometers"  or  follow  instructions  given 
on  the  manufacturer's  certificate  of  calibration. 


(b)  Average  the  four  timed  runs  on  the  dupli-  j 
cate  samples  to  determine  the  kinematic  viscos-  \ 
ities. 

S6.3.7  Precision  (at  95  percent  confidence  level). 

(a)  Repeatability.  If  results  on  duplicate 
samples  by  the  same  operator  differ  by  more 
than  1.0  percent  of  their  mean,  repeat  the  tests. 

S6.4  pH  value.  Determine  the  pH  value  of  a 
brake  fluid  by  nmning  one  sample  according  to 
the  following  procedure. 

56.4.1  Summary  of  the  procedure.  Brake  fluid 
is  diluted  with  an  equal  volume  of  an  ethanol- 
water  solution.  The  pH  of  the  resultant  mixture 
is  measured  with  a  prescribed  pH  meter  assembly 
at  23°C   (73.4°F). 

56.4.2  Apparatus.  The  pH  assembly  consists 
of  the  pH  meter,  glass  electrode,  and  calomel 
electrode,  as  specified  in  Appendices  Al.l,  A1.2 
and  A1.3  of  ASTM  Dl  121-67,  "Standard  Method 
of  Test  for  Reserve  Alkalinity  of  Engine  Anti- 
freezes and  Antitrusts."     The  glass  electrode  is 

a  full  range  type  (pH  0-14),  with  low  sodium       , 
error.  \ 

56.4.3  Reagents.  Reagent  grade  chemicals 
conforming  to  the  specifications  of  the  Committee 
on  Analytical  Reagents  of  the  American  Chem- 
ical Society. 

(a)  Distilled  water.  Distilled  water  (S7.1) 
shall  be  boiled  for  about  15  minutes  to  remove 
carbon  dioxide,  and  protected  with  a  soda-lime 
tube  or  its  equivalent  while  cooling  and  in 
storage.  (Take  precautions  to  prevent  contam- 
ination by  the  materials  used  for  protection 
against  carbon  dioxide).  The  pH  of  the  boiled 
distilled  water  shall  be  between  6.2  and  7.2  at 
25°C  (77''C). 

(b)  Standard  iujfer  soutions.  Prepare  buffer 
solutions  for  calibrating  the  pH  meter  and  elec- 
trode pair  from  salts  sold  specifically  for  use, 
either  singly  or  in  combination,  as  pH  standards. 
Dry  salts  for  1  hour  at  110°C  (230°F)  before 
use  except  for  borax  which  shall  be  used  as  the 
decahydrate.  Store  solutions  with  pH  less  than 
9.5  in  bottles  of  chemically  resistant  glass  or 
polyethylene.    Store  the  alkaline  phosphate  solu- 


(Rev.   5/12/75) 


PART  571;  S  116-10 


Effective:   March    1,    1972 


\     tion  in  a  glass  bottle  coated  inside  with  paraffin. 
'     Do  not  use  a  standard  with  an  age  exceeding 
three  months. 

(1)  Potassium  hydrogen  phthalate  buffer 
solution  (0.05  M,  pH  =  4.01  at  25°C  (77°F)). 
Dissolve  10.21  g  of  potassium  hydrogen 
phthalate  (KHC8H4O4)  in  distilled  water. 
Dilute  to  1  liter. 

(2)  Neutral  phosphate  buffer  solution  (0.025 
M  with  respect  to  each  phosphate  salt,  pH  = 
6.86  at  25''C  (77°F)).  Dissolve  3.40  g  of 
potassium  dihydrogen  phosphate  (KH2PO4) 
and  3.55  g  of  anhydrous  disodium  hydrogen 
phosphate  (NA2HPO4)  in  distilled  water. 

(3)  Borax  buffer  solution  (0.01  M,  pH  = 
9.18  at  25°C  (77°F)).  Dissolve  3.81  g  of 
disodium  tetraborate  decahydrate  (Na2B407.10 
H2O)  in  distilled  water,  and  dilute  to  1  liter. 
Stopper  the  bottle  except  when  actually  in  use. 

(4)  Alkaline  phosphate  buffer  solution  (0.01 
M  trisodium  phosphate,  pH  =  11.72  at  25°C 
(77°F)).  Dissolve  1.42  g  of  anhydrous  diso- 
dium hydrogen  phosphate  (NajHPOi)  in  100 
ml  of  a  0.1  M  carbonate- free  solution  of  so- 
dium hydroxide.     Dilute  to  1  liter  with  dis- 

^  tilled  water. 

(5)  Potassium  chloride  electrolyte.  Prepare 
a  saturated  solution  of  potassium  chloride 
(KCl)  in  distilled  water. 

(c)  Ethanol-water  mixture.  To  80  parts  by 
volume  of  ethanol  (S7.3)  add  20  parts  by  volume 
of  distilled  water.  Adjust  the  pH  of  the  mix- 
ture to  7.0±0.1  using  0.1  N  sodium  hydroxide 
(NaOH)  solution.  If  more  than  4.0  ml  of 
NaOH  solution  per  liter  of  mixture  is  required 
for  neutralization,  discard  the  mixture. 

S6.4.4   Preparation   of  electrode   system. 

(a)  Maintenance  of  electrodes.  Clean  the 
glass  electrode  before  using  by  immersing  in 
cold  chromic-acid  cleaning  solution.  Drain  the 
calomel  electrode  and  fill  with  KCl  electrolyte, 
keeping  level  above  that  of  the  mixture  at  all 
times.  'When  not  in  use,  immerse  the  lower 
halves  of  the  electrodes  in  distilled  water,  and 
do  not  immerse  in  the  mixture  for  any  appreci- 
able  period  of  time  between   determinations. 

(b)  Preparation  of  electrodes.  Condition  new 
glass  electrodes  and  those  that  have  been  stored 


dry  as  recommended  by  the  manufacturer.  Be- 
fore and  after  using,  wipe  the  glass  electrode 
thoroughly  with  a  clean  cloth,  or  a  soft  absorbent 
tissue,  and  rinse  with  distilled  water.  Before 
each  pH  determination,  soak  the  prepared  elec- 
trode in  distilled  water  for  at  least  2  minutes. 
Immediately  before  use,  remove  any  excess  water 
from  the  tips  of  the  electrode. 

S6.4.5  Standardization  of  the  pH  assembly  and 
testing  of  the  electrodes. 

(a)  Immediately  before  use,  standardize  the 
pH  assembly  with  a  standard  buffer  solution. 
Then  use  a  second  standard  buffer  solution  to 
check  the  linearity  of  the  response  of  the  elec- 
trodes at  different  pH  values,  and  to  detect  a 
faulty  glass  electrode  or  incorrect  temperature 
compensation.  The  two  buffer  solutions  bracket 
the  anticipated  pH  value  of  the  test  brake  fluid. 

(b)  Allow  instrument  to  warm  up,  and  adjust 
according  to  the  manufacturer's  instructions. 
Immerse  the  tips  of  the  electrodes  in  a  standard 
buffer  solution  and  allow  the  temperature  of  the 
buffer  solution  and  the  electrodes  to  equalize. 
Set  the  temperature  knob  at  the  temperature  of 
the  buffer  solution.  Adjust  the  standardization 
or  asymmetry  potential  control  until  the  meter 
registers  a  scale  reading,  in  pH  units,  equal  to 
the  known  pH  of  the  standardizing  buffer  solu- 
tion. 

(c)  Einse  the  electrodes  with  distilled  water 
and  remove  excess  water  from  the  tips.  Immerse 
the  electrodes  in  a  second  standard  buffer  solu- 
tion. The  reading  of  the  meter  shall  agree  with 
the  known  pH  of  the  second  standard  buffer 
solution  within  ±0.05  unit  without  changing  the 
setting  of  the  standardization  of  asymmetry  po- 
tential control. 

(d)  A  faulty  electrode  is  indicated  by  failure 
to  obtain  a  correct  value  for  the  pH  of  the  second 
standard  buffer  solution  after  the  meter  has  been 
standardized  with  the  first. 

S6.4.6  Procedure.  To  50±1  ml  of  the  t«st 
brake  fluid  add  50  ±1  ml  of  the  ethanol-water 
(S6.4.3(c))  and  mix  thoroughly.  Immerse  the 
electrodes  in  the  mixture.  Allow  the  system  to 
come  to  equilibrium,  readjust  the  temperature 
compensation  if  necessary,  and  take  the  pH 
reading. 


(Rev.   5/12/75) 


PART  571;  S  11&-11 


EfFective:   March    1,    1972 


S6.5  Fluid  Stability.  Evaluate  the  heat  and 
chemical  stability  of  a  brake  fluid  by  tlie  fol- 
lowing i^rocedure,  running  duplicate  samples  for 
each  test  and  averaging  the  results. 

56.5.1  Summary  of  the  procedure.  The  de- 
gradation of  the  brake  fluid  at  elevated  tem- 
perature, alone  or  in  a  mixture  with  a  reference 
fluid,  is  evaluated  by  determining  the  change  in 
boiling  point  after  a  period  of  heating  under 
reflux  conditions. 

56.5.2  Apparatus.  Use  the  apparatus  and 
preparation  specified  in  S6.1.2  and  S6.1.3. 

56.5.3  High   temperature  stability. 

56.5.3.1  Procedure. 

(a)  [Heat  a  new  60 ±1  ml  sample  of  the  brake 
fluid  to  185dz2''C  (365dz3.6°F).  Hold  at  this 
temperature  for  120±5  minutes.  Bring  to  a 
reflux  rate  in  excess  of  1  drop  per  second  within 
5  minutes.  The  reflux  rate  should  not  exceed 
5  drops  per  second  at  any  time.  Over  the  next 
5±2  minutes  adjust  the  heating  rate  to  obtain  an 
equilibrium  reflux  rate  of  1  to  2  drops  per  second. 
Maintain  this  rate  for  an  additional  2  minutes, 
taking  4  temperature  readings  at  30-second  in- 
tervals. Average  these  as  the  observed  ERBP. 
If  no  reflux  is  evident  when  the  fluid  tempera- 
ture reaches  260°  C.  (500°  F.),  discontinue  heat- 
ing and  report  ERBP  as  in  excess  of  260°  C. 
(500°  F.).  (39  F.R.  30353— August  22,  1974 
Effective:  10/1/74)] 

56.5.3.2  Calculation.  Correct  the  observed 
ERBP  for  thermometer  and  barometric  pressure 
factors  according  to  S6.1.5(a)  and  (b).  Aver- 
age the  corrected  ERBP's  of  the  duplicate  sam- 
ples. The  diiference  between  this  average  and 
the  original  ERBP  obtained  in  S6.1  is  the 
change  in  ERBP  of  the  fluid. 

56.5.4  Chemical  stability. 

56.5.4.1  Materials.  SAE  RM-1  Compatibil- 
ity Fluid,  as  described  in  Appendix  A  of  SAE 
Standard  J1703b,  "Motor  Vehicle  Brake  Fluid," 
April  1968. 

56.5.4.2  Procedure. 

(a)  Mix  30±1  ml  of  the  brake  fluid  with 
30±1  ml  of  SAE  RM-1  Compatibility  Fluid  in 


a  boiling  point  flask  (S6.1.2(a)).  Determine  ^ 
the  initial  ERBP  of  the  mixture  by  applying  V 
heat  to  tlie  flask  so  that  the  fluid  is  refluxing  in 
10d=2  minutes  at  a  rate  in  excess  of  1  drop  per 
second,  but  not  more  than  5  drops  per  second. 
Note  the  maximum  fluid  temperature  observed 
during  the  first  minute  after  the  fluid  begins 
refluxing  at  a  rate  in  excess  of  1  drop  per  second. 
Over  the  next  15dzl  minutes,  adjust  and  main- 
tain the  reflux  rate  at  1  to  2  drops  per  second. 
Maintain  this  rate  for  an  additional  2  minutes, 
recording  the  average  \'alue  of  four  temperature 
readings  taken  at  30-second  intervals  as  the  final 
ERBP. 

(b)  Thermometer  and  barometric  corrections 
are  not  required. 

S6. 5.4.3  Calculation.  The  difference  between 
the  initial  ERBP  and  the  final  average  tem- 
perature is  the  change  in  temperature  of  the  re- 
fluxing mixture.  Average  the  results  of  the 
duplicates  to  the  nearest  0.5°C    (1°F). 

S6.6  Corrosion.  Evaluate  the  corrosiveness  of 
a  brake  fluid  by  running  duplicate  samples  ac- 
cording to  the  following  procedure. 

56.6.1  Summary  of  the  procedure.  Six  speci- 
fied metal  corrosion  test  strips  are  polished, 
cleaned,  and  weighed,  then  assembled  as  de- 
scribed. Assembly  is  placed  on  a  standard  wheel 
cylinder  cup  in  a  corrosion  test  jar,  immersed 
in  the  water-wet  brake  fluid,  capped  and  placed 
in  an  oven  at  100°C  (212°F)  for  120  hours. 
Upon  removal  and  cooling,  the  strips,  fluid,  and 
cups  are  examined  and  tested. 

56.6.2  Equipment. 

(a)  Balance.  An  analytical  balance  having  a 
minimum  capacity  of  50  grams  and  capable  of 
weighing  to  the  nearest  0.1  mg. 

(b)  Desiccators.  Desiccators  containing  silica 
gel  or  other  suitable  desiccant. 

(c)  Oven.  Gravity  convection  oven  capable 
of  maintaining  the  desired  set  point  within  2°C 
(3.6°F). 

(d)  Micrometer.  A  machinist's  micrometer  25 
to  50  mm  (1  to  2  inches)  capacity,  or  an  optical 
comparator,  capable  of  measuring  the  diameter 


(Rev.   5/12/75) 


PART  571;  S  116-12 


EReclive:   March    1,    1972 


of  the  SBR  wheel  cylinder   (WC)   cups  to  the 
nearest  0.02  mm  (0.001  inch). 

S6.6.3   Materials. 

(a)  Corrosion  test  strips.  Two  sets  of  strips 
from  each  of  the  metals  listed  in  Appendix  C  of 
SAE  Standard  Jl703b.  Each  strip  shall  be  ap- 
proximately 8  cm  long,  1.3  cm  wide,  not  more 
than  0.6  cm  thick,  and  have  a  surface  area  of 
25±5  sq  cm  and  a  hole  4  to  5  mm  (0.16  to  0.20 
inch)  in  diameter  on  the  centerline  about  6  mm 
from  one  end.  The  hole  shall  be  clean  and  free 
from  burrs.  Tinned  iron  strips  shall  be  unused. 
Other  strips,  if  used,  shall  not  be  employed  if 
they  cannot  be  polished  to  a  high  finish. 

(b)  SBR  cups.  Two  unused  standard  SAE 
SBR  wheel  cylinder  (WC)  cups,  as  specified  in 
S7.6. 

(c)  Corrosion  test  jars  and  lids.  Two  screw- 
top  straight-sided  round  glass  jars,  each  having 
a  capacity  of  approximately  475  ml  and  inner 
dimensions  of  approximately  100  mm  in  height 
and  75  mm  in  diameter,  and  a  tinned  steel  lid 
(no  insert  or  organic  coating)  vented  with  a  hole 
0.8±0.1  mm  (0.031±0.004  inch)  in  diameter  (No. 
68  drill). 

(d)  Machine  screios  and  nuts.  Clean,  rust  and 
oil-free,  uncoated  mild  steel  round  or  fillister 
head  machine  screws,  size  6  or  8-32  UNC-Class 
2 A,  5/8  or  3/4  inch  long,  (or  equivalent  metric 
sizes),  and  matching  imcoated  nuts. 

(e)  Supplies  for  polishing  strips.  Waterproof 
silicon  carbide  paper,  grit  No.  320  A;  grade  00 
steel  wool,  lint-free  polishing  cloth. 

(f)  Distilled  water  as  specified  in  S7.1. 

(g)  Ethanol  as  specified  in  S7.3. 

[(h)  Isopropanol  as  specified  in  S7.7.  (39F.E. 
30353— August    22,    1974.      Effective    10/1/74)] 

S6.6.4  Preparation. 

(a)  Corrosion  test  strips.  [Except  for  the 
tinned  iron  strips,  abrade  corrosion  test  strips 
on  all  surface  areas  with  silicon  carbide  paper 
wet  with  ethanol  (isopropanol  when  testing 
DOT  5  fluids)  until  all  surface  scratches,  cuts 
and  pits  are  removed.  Use  a  new  piece  of  paper 
for  each  different  type  of  metal.  Polish  the 
strips  with  the  00  grade  steel  wool.  Wash  all 
strips,  including  the  tinned  iron  and  the  as- 
sembly hardware,  with  ethanol;  dry  the  strips 


and  assembly  hardware  with  a  clean  lint-free 
cloth  or  use  filtered  compressed  air  and  place  the 
strips  and  hardware  in  a  desiccator  containing 
silica  gel  or  other  suitable  desiccant  and  main- 
tained at  23±5°C  (73.4±9°F),  for  at  least  one 
hour.  Handle  tlie  strips  with  forceps  after 
polishing.  Weigh  and  record  the  weight  of  each 
strijj  to  the  nearest  0.1  mg.  Assemble  the  strips 
on  a  clean  dry  machine  screw,  with  matching 
plain  nut,  in  the  order  of  tinned  iron,  steel, 
aluminum,  cast  iron,  brass,  and  copper.  Bend 
the  strips,  other  than  the  cast  iron,  so  that  there 
is  a  separation  of  Szti^  mm  (i/^±%4  inch)  be- 
tween adjacent  strips  for  a  distance  of  about  5 
cm  (2  inches)  from  the  free  end  of  the  strips. 
(See  Figure  4.)  Tighten  the  screw  on  each  test 
strip  assembly  so  that  the  strips  are  in  elec- 
trolytic contact,  and  can  be  lifted  by  either  of 
the  outer  strips  (tinned  iron  or  copper)  without 
any  of  the  strips  moving  relative  to  the  others 
when  held  horizontally.  Immerse  the  strip  as- 
semblies in  90  percent  ethyl  alcohol.  Dry  with 
dried  filtered  compressed  air.  then  desiccate  at 
least  one  hour  before  use.  (39  F.R.  30353— 
August  22,  1974.     Effective:  10/1/74)] 

(b)  SBR  WC  cups.  Measure  the  base  diam- 
eters of  the  2  standard  SBR  cups,  using  an  op- 
tical comparator  or  micrometer,  to  the  nearest 
0.02  mm  (0.001  inch)  along  the  centerline  of  the 


t—  3mm  (TYPICAL  SPACING 
CAST     BETWEEN  STRIPS) 


TINNED 
RON 


6oR 8-32x5/8  UNCOATED  H 
MILD  STEEL  RD  HD 
MACH  SCREW  &  NUT 


CORROSION 


FIG. 4 

STRIP  ASSEMBLY 


(Rev.   8/16/74) 


PART  571;  S  116-13 


EfFective:   March    1,    1972 


SAE  and  rubber-type  identifications  and  at 
right  angles  to  this  centerline.  Take  the  mea- 
surements at  least  0.4  mm  (0.015  inch)  above  the 
bottom  edge  and  parallel  to  the  base  of  the  cup. 
Discard  any  cup  if  the  two  measured  diameters 
differ  by  more  than  0.08  mm  (0.003  inch).  Aver- 
age the  two  readings  on  each  cup.  Determine 
the  hardness  of  the  cups  according  to  S7.4. 

S6.6.5  Procedure.  [Kinse  the  cups  in  ethanol 
(isopropanol  when  testing  DOT  5  fluids)  for 
not  more  than  30  seconds  and  wipe  dry  with 
a  clean  lint- free  cloth.  Place  one  cup  with  lip 
edge  facing  up,  in  each  jar.  Insert  a  metal  strip 
assembly  inside  each  cup  with  the  fastened  end 
down  and  the  free  end  extending  upward.  (See 
Figure  5.)  When  testing  DOT  3  and  DOT  4 
brake  fluids,  mix  760  ml.  of  brake  fluid  with 
40  ml.  of  distilled  water,  or,  when  testing  DOT 
5  brake  fluids,  humidify  800  ml.  of  brake  fluid 
in  accordance  with  S6.2,  eliminating  determina- 
tion of  the  ERBP ;  using  this  water-wet  mixture, 
cover  each  strip  assembly  to  a  minimum  depth 
of  10  mm.  above  the  tops  of  the  strips. 
Tighten  the  lids  and  place  the  jars  for  120±2 
hours  in  an  oven  maintained  at  100±2°  C. 
(212±3.6°  F.).  Allow  the  jars  to  cool  at  23±5° 
C.  (73.4±9°  F.)  for  60  to  90  minutes.  Im- 
mediately remove  the  strips  from  the  jars  using 
forceps,  agitating  the  strip  assembly  in  the  fluid 
to  remove  adhering  sediment.  Examine  the  test 
strips  and  jars  for  adhering  crystalline  deposits. 
Disassemble  the  metal  strips,  and  remove  adher- 
ing fluid  by  flushing  with  water ;  clean  each  strip 
by  wiping  with  a  clean  cloth  wetted  with  ethanol. 
Examine  the  strips  for  evidence  of  corrosion  and 
pitting.  Disregard  staining  or  discoloration. 
Place  the  strips  in  a  desiccator  containing  silica 
gel  or  other  suitable  desiccant,  maintained  at 
28±5°  C.  (73.4±9°  F.),  for  at  least  1  hour. 
Weigh  each  strip  to  the  nearest  0.1  mg.  Deter- 
mine the  change  in  weight  of  each  metal  strip. 
Average  the  results  for  the  two  strips  of  each  type 
of  metal.  Immediately  following  the  cooling  per- 
iod, remove  tlie  cups  from  the  jars  with  forceps. 
Remove  loose  adhering  sediment  by  agitation  of 
the  cups  in  the  mixture.  Rinse  the  cups  in 
ethanol  and  air-dry.  Examine  the  cups  for  evi- 
dence of  sloughing,  blisters,  and  otlier  forms  of 


0.8  ±0.1  mm  DIA  VENT 


-TINNED 
STEEL  LID 


■475ml 

GLASS  JAR 


75mm  HIN  DIA 


FIG. 5 
CORROSION  TEST 
APPARATUS 

disintegration.  Measure  the  base  diameter  and 
hardness  of  each  cup  within  15  minutes  after 
removal  from  the  mixture.  Examine  the  mixture 
for  gelling.  Agitate  the  mixture  to  suspend  and 
uniformly  disperse  sediment.  From  each  jar, 
transfer  a  100  ml  portion  of  the  mixture  to  an 
ASTM  cone-shaped  centrifuge  tube.  Determine 
the  percent  sediment  after  centrifuging  as  de- 
scribed in  S7.5.  Measure  the  pH  value  of  the 
DOT  3  and  DOT  4  test  mixture  according  to 
S6.4.6  (39  F.R.30353— August  22,  1974.  Ef- 
fective: 10/1/74)] 

S6.6.6  Calculation. 

(a)  Measure  the  area  of  each  type  of  test  strip 
to  the  nearest  square  centimeter.  Divide  the 
average  change  in  weight  for  each  type  by  the 
area  of  that  type. 

(b)  Note  other  data  and  evaluations  indicating 
compliance  with  S5.1.6.  In  the  event  of  a  mar- 
ginal pass  on  inspection  by  attributes,  or  of  a 
failure  in  one  of  the  duplicates,  run  another  set 
of  duplicate  samples.  Both  repeat  samples  shall 
meet  all  requirements  of  S5.1.6. 


(Rev.   8/16/74) 


PART  571;  S  116-14 


Effective:   Morch    I,    1972 


^,  S6.7  Fluidity  and  appearance  at  low  tempera- 

ff'  tures.  Determine  the  fluidity  and  apjjearance  of 
a  sample  of  brake  fluid  at  each  of  two  selected 
temperatures  by  the  following  procedure. 

56.7.1  Summary  of  procedure.  Brake  fluid 
is  chilled  to  expected  minimum  exposure  tem- 
peratures and  observed  for  clarity,  gellation, 
sediment,  separation  of  components,  excessive 
viscosity  or  thixotropy. 

56.7.2  Apparatus. 

(a.)  Oil  sample  hottle.  Two  clear  flint  glass  4- 
ounce  bottles  made  especially  for  sampling  oil 
and  other  liquids,  with  a  capacity  of  approx- 
imately 125  ml,  an  outside  diameter  of  37.0±0.05 
mm  and  an  overall  height  of  165  ±2.5  mm. 

(b)  Gold  chamber.  An  air  bath  cold  chamber 
capable  of  maintaining  storage  temperatures 
down  to  minus  55°C  (minus  67°F)  with  an  ac- 
curacy of  ±2°C   (3.6°F). 

(c)  Timing  device.  A  timing  device  in  ac- 
cordance with  S6.3.2(e). 

56.7.3  Procedure. 

[(a)  Place  lOOztl  ml.  of  brake  fluid  at  room 
temperature  in  an  oil  sample  bottle.  Stopper  the 
^)\i  bottle  with  an  unused  cork  and  place  in  the  cold 
chamber  at  the  higher  storage  temperature  speci- 
fied in  Table  II  (S5.1.7(c)).  After  144±4  hours 
remove  the  bottle  from  the  chamber,  quickly 
wipe  it  with  a  clean,  lint-free  cloth,  saturated 
with  ethanol  (isopropanol  when  testing  DOT  5 
fluids)  or  acetone.  Examine  the  fluid  for  evi- 
dence of  sludging,  sedimentation,  crystallization, 
or  stratification.  Invert  the  bottle  and  determine 
the  number  of  seconds  required  for  the  air  bub- 
ble to  travel  to  the  top  of  the  fluid.  Let  sample 
warm  to  room  temperature  and  examine.  (39 
F.R.  30353— August  22,  1974.  Effective:  10/ 
1/74)] 

(b)  Repeat  S6.7.3(a),  substituting  the  lower 
cold  chamber  temperature  specified  in  Table  II, 
and  a  storage  period  of  6  hours  ±  12  minutes. 
NOTE :  Test  specimens  from  either  storage  tem- 
perature may  be  used  for  the  other  only  after 
warming  up  to  room  temperature. 

S6.8  Evaporation.  The  evaporation  residue, 
and  pour  point  of  the  evaporation  residue  of 
brake  fluid,  are  determined  by  the  following  pro- 
cedure.    Four  replicate  samples  are  run. 


56.8.1  Summary  of  the  procedure.  The  volatile 
diluent  portion  of  a  brake  fluid  is  evaporated  in 
an  oven  at  100°C  (212°F).  The  non-volatile 
lubricant  jrortion  (evaporation  residue)  is  mea- 
sured and  examined  for  grittiness;  the  residues 
are  then  combined  and  checked  to  assure  fluidity 
at  minus  5°C  (23°F). 

56.8.2  Apparatus. 

(a)  Petri  dishes.  Four  covered  glass  petri 
dishes  approximately  100  mm  in  diameter  and  15 
mm  in  height. 

(b)  Oven.  A  top-vented  gravity-convection 
oven  capable  of  maintaining  a  temperature  of 
100±2°C  (212±3.6°F). 

(c)  Balance.  A  balance  having  a  capacity  of 
at  least  100  grams,  capable  of  weighing  to  the 
nearest  0.01  gram,  and  suitable  for  weighing 
the  petri  dishes. 

(d)  Oil  sample  bottle.  A  glass  sample  bottle 
as  described  in  S6.7.2(a). 

(e)  Cold  chamber.  Air  bath  cold  chamber 
capable  of  maintaining  an  oil  sample  bottle  at 
minus  5Hzl°C  (23=t2°  F). 

(f)  Timing  device.  A  timing  device  as  de- 
scribed in  S6.3.2(e). 

56.8.3  Procedure.  Obtain  the  tare  weight  of 
each  of  the  four  covered  petri  dishes  to  the 
nearest  0.01  gram.  Place  25±1  ml  of  brake 
fluid  in  each  dish,  replace  proper  covers  and 
reweigh.  Determine  the  weight  of  each  brake 
fluid  test  specimen  by  the  difference.  Place  the 
four  dishes,  each  inside  its  inverted  cover,  in  the 
oven  at  100±2°C  (212±3.6°F)  for  46±2  hours. 
(Note:  Do  not  simultaneously  heat  more  than 
one  fluid  in  the  same  oven.)  Remove  the  dishes 
from  the  oven,  allow  to  cool  to  23±5°C  (73.4±- 
9°F),  and  weigh.  Return  to  the  oven  for  an  ad- 
ditional 24±2  hours.  If  at  the  end  of  72±4 
hours  the  average  loss  by  evaporation  is  less 
than  60  percent,  discontinue  the  evaporation  pro- 
cedure and  proceed  with  examination  of  the  resi- 
due. Otherwise,  continue  this  procedure  either 
imtil  equilibrium  is  reached  as  evidenced  by  an 
incremental  weight  loss  of  less  than  0.25  gram  in 
24  hours  on  all  individual  dishes  or  for  a  maxi- 
mum of  7  days.  During  the  heating  and  weigh- 
ing operation,  if  it  is  necessary  to  remove  the 
dishes  from  the  oven  for  a  period  of  longer  than 
1  hour,  the  dishes  shall  be  stored  in  a  desiccator 


(Rev.   8/16/74) 


PART  571;  S  116-15 


Effective:   March    1,    1972 


as  soon  as  cooled  to  room  temperature.  Calcu- 
late the  percentage  of  fluid  e\aporated  from  each 
dish.  Examine  tlie  residue  in  the  dishes  at  the 
end  of  1  hour  at  23zt5°C  (73.4±9°F).  Rub 
any  sediment  with  the  fingertip  to  determine 
grittiness  or  abrasiveness.  Combine  the  residues 
from  all  four  dishes  in  a  4-ounce  oil  sample 
bottle  and  store  vertically  in  a  cold  chamber  at 
minus  5±1°C  (23±:2°F)  for  60±10  minutes. 
Quickly  remove  the  bottle  and  place  in  the  hori- 
zontal position.  The  residue  must  flow  at  least 
5  mm  (0.2  inch)  along  the  tube  within  5  seconds. 

S6.8.4  Calculation.  The  average  of  the  per- 
centage evaporated  from  all  four  dishes  is  the 
loss  by  evaporation. 

S6.9  Water  tolerance.  Evaluate  the  water 
tolerance  characteristics  of  a  brake  fluid  by  run- 
ning one  test  specimen  according  to  the  follow- 
ing procedure. 

56.9.1  Summary    of    the    procedure.      [DOT    3 

and  DOT  4  brake  fluid  is  diluted  with  3.5  per 
cent  water,  and  DOT  5  brake  fluid  is  humidified, 
then  stored  at  minus  40°  C.  (minus  40°  F.)  for 
120  hours.  The  cold,  water-wet  fluid  is  first  ex- 
amined for  clarity,  stratification,  and  sedementa- 
tion,  then  placed  in  an  oven  at  60  °C.  (140°F.) 
for  24  hours.  On  removal,  it  is  again  examined 
for  stratification  and  the  volume  percent  of  sedi- 
ment determined  by  centrifuging.  (39  F.R. 
30353— August   22,   1974.     Effective:    10/1/74)] 

56.9.2  Apparatus. 

(a)  Centrifuge  tube.     See  S7.5.1(a). 

(b)  Centrifuge.     See  S7.5.1(b). 

(c)  Cold  chamber.     See  S6.7.2(b). 

(d)  Oven.    Gravity  or  forced  convection  oven. 

(e)  Timing  device.    See  S6.3.2(e). 

56.9.3  Procedure. 

(a)  At  loiv  temperature.  [Humidify  100±1 
ml.  of  DOT  5  brake  fluid  in  accordance  with 
S6.2  eliminating  determination  of  the  ERBP. 
When  testing  DOT  3  and  DOT  4  brake  fluids, 
mix  3.5±0.1  ml.  of  distilled  water  with  100±1 
ml.  of  the  brake  fluid;  pour  into  a  centrifuge 
tube.  Stopper  the  tube  with  a  clean  cork  and 
place  in  the  cold  chamber  maintained  at  minus 
40±2°  C.  (minus  40±3.6°  F.).  After  120  hours 
±2  hours   remove   the  tube,  quickly   wipe   with 


clean  lint-free  cloth  saturated  with  ethanol  or 
acetone  and  examine  the  fluid,  for  evidence  of  | 
sludging,  sedimentation,  crj'stallization,  or  strati- 
fication. Invert  the  tube  and  determine  the 
number  of  seconds  required  for  the  air  bubble 
to  travel  to  the  top  of  the  fluid.  (The  air  bubble 
is  considered  to  have  reached  the  top  of  the  fluid 
when  the  top  of  tlie  bubble  reaches  the  2  ml. 
graduation  of  the  centrifuge  tube.)  If  the  wet 
fluid  has  become  cloudy,  warm  to  23  ±5°  C. 
(73.4dz9°  F.)  and  note  appearance  and  fluidity. 
(39  F.R.  30353— August  22,  1974.  Effective: 
10/1/74)] 

(b)  At  60°C  (UO°F).  Place  tube  and  brake 
fluid  from  S6.9.3(a)  in  an  oven  maintained  at 
60±2°C  (140±3.6°F)  for  24±2  hours.  Remove 
the  tube  and  immediately  examine  the  contents 
for  evidence  of  stratification.  Determine  the 
percent  sediment  by  centrifuging  as  described  in 
S7.5. 

S6.10  Compatibility.  The  compatibility  of  a 
brake  fluid  with  other  brake  fluids  shall  be  eval- 
uated by  running  one  test  sample  according  to 
the  following  procedure. 

56.10.1  Summary  of  the  procedure.  Brake 
fluid  is  mixed  with  an  equal  volume  of  SAE  * 
RM-1  Compatibility  Fluid,  then  tested  in  the 
same  way  as  for  water  tolerance  (S6.9.3)  ex- 
cept that  the  bubble  flow  time  is  not  measured. 
This  test   is  an  indication  of  the  compatibility 

of  the  test  fluid  with  other  motor  ^-ehicle  brake 
fluids  at  both   high   and   low  temperatures. 

56.10.2  Apparatus  and   materials. 

(a)  Centrifuge  tube.     See  S7.5.1(a). 

(b)  Centrifuge.     See  S7.5.1(b). 

(c)  Cold  chamber.    See  S6.7.2(b). 

(d)  Oven.    See  S6.9.2(d). 

(e)  SAE  RM-1  C omfatihility  Fluid.  As  de- 
scribed in  Ai^pendix  A  of  SAE  Standard  Jl703b. 

56. 10.3  Procedure. 

(a)  At  low  tem,perature.  [Mix  50±0.5  ml  of 
brake  fluid  with  50±0.5  ml  of  SAE  RM-1  Com- 
patibility Fluid.  Pour  this  mixture  into  a  cen- 
trifuge tube  and  stopper  with  a  clean  dry  cork. 
Place  tube  in  the  cold  chamber  maintained  at 
minus  40±2°C  (minus  40±3.G°F).  After  24±2 
hours,  remove  tube,  quickly  wipe  with  a  clean 


(Rev.   8/16/74) 


PART  571;  S  116-16 


Effective:   March    1,    1972 


lint-free  cloth  saturated  with  ethanol  (isopropa- 
nol  when  testing  DOT  5  fluids)  or  acetone. 
Examine  the  test  specimen  for  evidence  of 
sludging,  sedimentation,  or  crystallization.  DOT 
3  and  DOT  4  test  fluids  shall  also  be  examined 
for  stratification.  (39  F.R.  30353— August  22, 
1974.     Effective:  10/1/74)] 

(b)  lAt  60°C  (lJfi°F).  Place  tube  and  test 
fluid  from  S6.10.3(a)  for  24±2  hours  in  an  oven 
maintained  at  60±2°  C.  (140±3.6°  F.).  Re- 
move tube  and  immediately  examine  the  contents 
of  DOT  3  and  DOT  4  test  mixtures  for  evidence 
of  stratification.  Determine  percent  sediment  by 
centrifuging  as  described  in  S7.5.  (39  F.R. 
30353— August  22,  1974.    Effective:  10/1/74)] 

S6.1 1  Resistance  to  oxidation.  The  stability  of 
a  brake  fluid  under  oxidative  conditions  shall  be 
evaluated  by  running  duplicate  samples  accord- 
ing to  the  following  procedure. 

56.11.1  Summary  of  the  procedure.  [DOT  3 
and  DOT  4  brake  fluids  are  activated  with  a 
mixture  of  approximately  0.2  percent  benzoyl 
peroxide  and  5  percent  water.  DOT  5  brake 
fluid  is  humidified  in  accordance  with  S6.2 
eliminating  determination  of  the  ERBP,  and 
then  approximately  0.2  percent  benzoyl  peroxide 
is  added.  A  corrosion  test  strip  assembly  con- 
sisting of  a  cast  iron  and  an  aluminum  strip  sep- 
arated by  tinfoil  squares  at  each  end  is  then  rested 
on  a  piece  of  SBR  WC  cup  positioned  so  that  the 
test  strip  is  half  immersed  in  the  fluid,  and  oven- 
aged  at  70°  C.  (158°  F.)  for  168  hours.  At  the 
end  of  this  period  the  metal  strips  are  examined 
for  pitting,  etching,  and  weight  loss.  (39  F.R. 
30353— August  22,  1974.    Effective:  10/1/74)] 

56.11.2  Equipment. 

{z,)  Balance.    See  S6.6.2(a). 

(b)  Desiccators.    See  S6.6.2(b). 

(c)  Oven.    See  S6.6.2(c). 

(d)  Three  glass  test  tubes  approximately  22 
mm  outside  diameter  by  175  mm  in  length. 

56.11.3  Reagents  and   materials. 

(a)  Benzoyl  peroxide.,  reagent  grade.,  96  per- 
cent. (Benzoyl  peroxide  that  is  brownish,  or 
dusty,  or  has  less  than  90  percent  purity,  must 
be  discarded.)  Reagent  strength  may  be  eval- 
uated by  ASTM  E298-68,  "Standard  Methods 
for  Assay  of  Organic  Peroxides." 


(b)  Corrosion  test  strips.  Two  sets  of  cast 
iron  and  aluminum  metal  test  strips  as  described 
in  Appendix  C  of  SAE  Standard  Jl703b. 

(c)  Tinfoil.  Four  unused  pieces  of  tinfoil  ap- 
proximately 12  mm  (14  inch)  square  and  be- 
tween 0.02  and  0.06  mm  (0.0008  and  0.0024  inch) 
in  thickness.  The  foil  shall  be  at  least  99.9  per- 
cent tin  and  contain  not  more  than  0.025  percent 
lead. 

(d)  SBR  cups.  Two  unused,  approximately 
one-eighth  sections  of  a  standard  SAE  SBR  WC 
cup  (as  described  in  S7.6). 

(e)  Machine  screw  and  nut.  Two  clean  oil- 
free,  No.  6  or  8-32  X  %  or  1/2  inch  long  (or 
equivalent  metric  size),  roimd  or  fillister  head, 
uncoated  mild  steel  machine  screws,  with  match- 
ing plain  nuts. 

56.11.4  Preparation. 

(a)  Corrosion  test  strips.  Prepare  two  sets  of 
alimiinum  and  cast  iron  test  strips  according  to 
S6.6.4(a)  except  for  assembly.  Weigh  each  strip 
to  the  nearest  0.1  mg  and  assemble  a  strip  of 
each  metal  on  a  machine  screw,  separating  the 
strips  at  each  end  with  a  piece  of  tinfoil. 
Tighten  the  nut  enough  to  hold  both  pieces  of 
foil  firmly  in  place. 

(b)  Test  mixture.  [Place  30ztl  ml.  of  the 
brake  fluid  under  test  in  a  22  by  175  mm.  test 
tube.  For  DOT  3  and  DOT  4  fluids,  add 
0.060±.002  gram  of  benzoyl  peroxide,  and 
1.50±:0.05  ml.  of  distilled  water.  For  DOT  5 
fluids,  use  test  fluid  humidified  in  accordance 
with  S6.2,  and  add  only  the  benzoyl  peroxide. 
Stopper  the  tube  loosely  with  a  clean  dry  cork, 
shake,  and  place  in  an  oven  for  2  hours  at  70±2° 
C.  (158±3.6°  F.).  Shake  every  15  minutes  to 
effect  solution  of  the  peroxide,  but  do  not  wet 
work.  Remove  the  tube  from  the  oven  and  allow 
to  cool  at  23±5°  C.  (73.4±9°  F.).  Begin  testing 
according  to  paragraph  S6.11.5  not  later  than  24 
hours  after  removal  of  tube  from  oven.  (39  F.R. 
30353— August  22,  1974.    Effective:  10/1/74)] 

56.11.5  Procedure.  [Place  a  one-eighth  SBR 
cup  section  in  the  bottom  of  each  tube.  Add  10 
ml  of  prepared  test  mixture  to  each  test  tube. 
Place  a  metal-strip  assembly  in  each,  the  end  of 
the  strip  without  the  screw  resting  on  the  rubber, 
and    the    solution    cohering   about    one-half   the 


(Rev.   8/16/74) 


PART  571:  S  11&-17 


Effective:   March    1,    1972 


length  of  the  strips.  Stopper  the  tubes  with 
clean  dry  corks  and  store  upright  for  70=t2  hours 
at  23dr5°C  (73.4±9°F).  Loosen  the  corks  and 
place  the  tubes  for  168 ±2  Iiours  in  an  oven  main- 
tained at  70±2''C  (158±3.6°F).  Afterwards 
remove  and  disassemble  strips.  Examine  the 
strips  and  note  any  gum  deposits.  Wipe  the 
strips  with  a  clean  cloth  wet  with  ethanol  (iso- 
propanol  when  testing  DOT  5  fluids)  and 
note  any  pitting,  etching  or  roughening  of  sur- 
face disregarding  stain  or  discoloration.  Place 
the  strips  in  a  desiccator  over  silica  gel  or  other 
suitable  desiccant,  at  23±5°C  (73.4±9°F)  for 
at  least  1  hour.  Again  weigh  each  strip  to  the 
nearest  0.1  mg.  (39  F.R.  30353— Augiist  22, 
1974.    Effective:  10/1/74)] 

S6.11.6  Calculation.  Determine  corrosion  loss 
by  dividing  the  change  in  weight  of  each  metal 
strip  by  the  total  surface  area  of  each  strip  mea- 
sured in  square  centimeters,  to  the  nearest  square 
centimeter.  Average  the  results  for  the  two 
strips  of  each  type  of  metal,  rounding  to  the 
nearest  0.05  mg  per  square  centimeter.  If  only 
one  of  the  duplicates  fails  for  any  reason,  run  a 
second  set  of  duplicate  samples.  Both  repeat 
samples  shall  meet  all  requirements  of  S5.1.11. 

S6.12  Effect  on  SBR  cups.  The  effects  of  a 
brake  fluid  in  swelling,  softening,  and  otherwise 
affecting  standard  SBR  WC  cups  shall  be  eval- 
uated by  the  following  procedure. 

56.12.1  Summary  of  the  procedure.  [Four 
standard  SAE  SBR  WC  cups  are  measured  and 
their  hardnesses  determined.  The  cups,  two  to  a 
jar,  are  immersed  in  the  test  brake  fluid.  One 
jar  is  heated  for  70  hours  at  70°C  (158°F),  and 
the  other  for  70  hours  at  120°C  (248°F).  After- 
wards, the  cups  are  washed,  examined  for  dis- 
integration, remeasured,  and  their  hardnesses  re- 
determined. (40  F.R.  21474— May  16,  1975.  Ef- 
fective: 5/16/75)3 

56.12.2  Equipment  and   supplies. 

(a)  Oven.    See  S6.6.2(c). 

(b)  Glass  jars  and  lids.  Two  screw-top, 
straight-sided  round  glass  jars,  each  having  a 
capacity  of  approximately  250  ml  and  inner  di- 
mensions of  approximately  125  mm  in  height 
and  50  mm  in  diameter,  and  a  tinned  steel  lid 
(no  insert  or  organic  coating). 

(c)  SBR  cups.    See  S7.6. 


56.12.3  Preparation.     Measure  the  base  diam-     C^ 
eters  of  the  SBR  cups  as  described  in  S6.6.4(b),    ' 
and  the  hardness  of  each  as  described  in  S7.4. 

56.12.4  Procedure.  [Wash  the  cups  in  90  per- 
cent ethanol  (isopropanol  when  testing  DOT  5 
fluids)  (see  S7.3),  for  not  longer  than  30 
seconds  and  quickly  dry  with  a  clean,  lint-free 
cloth.  Using  forceps,  jjlace  two  cups  into  each 
of  the  two  jars;  add  75  ml  of  brake  fluid  to  each 
jar  and  cap  tightly.  Place  one  jar  in  an  oven 
held  at  70°±2°C  (158±3.6°F)  for  70°±2  hours. 
Place  the  other  jar  in  an  oven  held  at  120±2°C 
(248±3.6°F)  for  70±2  hours.  Allow  each  jar 
to  cool  for  60  to  90  minutes  at  23±5°C  (73.4 
±9°F).  Remove  cups,  wash  with  ethanol  for 
not  longer  than  30  seconds,  and  quickly  dry.  Ex- 
amine the  cups  for  disintegration  as  evidenced  by 
stickiness,  blisters,  or  sloughing.  Measure  the 
base  diameter  and  hardness  of  each  cup  within 
15  minutes  after  removal  from  the  fluid.  (39  F.R. 
30353— August  22,  1974.    Effective:  10/1/74)] 

56.12.5  Calculation. 

[(a)  Calculate  the  change  in  base  diameter 
for  each  cup.  If  the  two  values,  at  each  tem-  /' 
perature,  do  not  differ  by  more  than  0.10  mm  ^ 
(0.004  inch)  average  them  to  the  nearest  0.02 
mm  (0.001  inch).  If  the  two  values  differ  by 
more  than  0.10  mm,  repeat  the  test  at  the  ap- 
propriate temperature  and  average  the  four 
\'alues  as  the  change  in  base  diameter.  (36  F.R. 
21594— Nov.  11,  1971.     Effective  3/1/72)] 

(b)  Calculate  the  change  in  hardness  for  each 
cup.  The  average  of  the  two  values  for  each 
pair  is  the  change  in  hardness. 

(c)  Note  disintegration  as  evidenced  by  stick- 
iness blisters  or  sloughing. 

S6.13  Stroking  properties.  Evaluate  the  lubri- 
cating properties,  component  compatibility,  re- 
sistance to  leakage,  and  related  qualities  of  a 
brake  fluid  by  running  one  sample  according  to 
the  following  procedures. 

S6.13.1  Summary  of  the  procedure.  Brake 
fluid  is  stroked  under  controlled  conditions  at  an 
elevated  temperature  in  a  simulated  motor  ve- 
hicle hydraulic  braking  system  consisting  of  four 
slave  wheel  cylinders  and  an  actuating  master 


(Rev.   5/12/75) 


PART  571;  S  116-18 


Effective:   March    1,    1972 


cylinder  connected  by  steel  tubing.  Referee 
standard  parts  are  used.  All  parts  are  carefully 
cleaned,  examined,  and  cei-tain  measurements 
made  immediately  prior  to  assembly  for  test. 
During  the  test,  temj^erature,  rate  of  pressure 
rise,  maximum  pressure,  and  rate  of  stroking, 
are  specified  and  controlled.  The  system  is  ex- 
amined periodicall}'  during  stroking  to  assure 
that  excessive  leakage  of  fluid  is  not  occurring. 
Afterwards,  the  sj-stem  is  torn  down.  Metal 
parts  and  SBR  cups  are  examined  and  remea- 
sured.  The  brake  fluid  and  any  resultant  sludge 
and  debris  are  collected,  examined  and  tested. 

S6.13.2  Apparatus  and  Equipment.  Either  the 
drum  and  shoe  type  of  stroking  apparatus  (see 
Figure  1  of  SAE  Standard  ,Tl703b),  or  the 
stroking  fixture  type  (see  Figure  3  of  SAE 
J1703b)  arranged  as  shown  in  Figure  2  of  Jl703b. 
The  following  components  are  required. 

(a)  Brake  assemblies.  With  the  drum  and 
shoe  apparatus:  four  drum  and  shoe  assembly 
units  (SAE  RM-29a)  consisting  of  four  for- 
ward brake  shoes  and  four  re\-erse  brake  shoes 
with  linings  and  four  front  wheel  brake  drum 
assemblies  with  assembly  component  parts.  With 
stroking  fixture  type  apparatus:  four  fixture 
units  including  appropriate  adapter  mounting 
plates  to  hold  brake  wheel  cylinder  assemblies. 

(b)  Braking  pressure  actuation  mechanism. 
An  actuating  mechanism  for  applying  a  force 
to  the  master  cylinder  pushrod  without  side 
thrust.  The  amount  of  force  applied  by  the 
actuating  mechanism  shall  be  adjustable  and  cap- 
able of  applying  sufficient  thrust  to  the  master 
cylinder  to  create  a  pressure  of  at  least  70  kg/sq 
cm  (1,000  psi)  in  the  simulated  brake  system. 
A  hydraulic  gage  or  pressure  recorder,  having 
a  range  of  at  least  0  to  70  kg/sq  cm  (0  to  1,000 
psi),  shall  be  installed  between  the  master  cylin- 
der and  the  brake  as.semblies  and  shall  be  pro- 
vided with  a  shut-off  valve  and  with  a  bleeding 
valve  for  removing  air  from  the  connecting  tub- 
ing. The  actuating  mechanism  shall  be  designed 
to  permit  adjustable  stroking  rates  of  approx- 
imately 1,000  strokes  per  hour.  Use  a  me- 
chanical or  electrical  counter  to  record  the  total 
number  of  strokes. 


(c)  Heated  air  bath  cabinet.  An  insulated 
cabinet  or  oven  having  sufficient  capacity  to 
house  the  four  mounted  brake  assemblies  or 
stroking  fixture  assemblies,  master  cylinder,  and 
necessary  connections.  A  thermostatically  con- 
trolled heating  system  is  required  to  maintain 
a  temperature  of  70±:5°C  (158±9°F)  or  120±- 
5°C  (248±:9°F).  Heaters  shall  be  shielded  to 
prevent  direct  radiation  to  wheel  or  master  cyl- 
inder. 

(d)  Master  cylinder  (MC)  assembly  (SAE 
RM-15a).  One  cast  iron  housing  hydraulic  brake 
system  cylinder  having  a  diameter  of  approx- 
imately 28  mm  (li/g  inch)  and  fitted  for  a  filler 
cap  and  standpipe  (see  S6.13.2(e)).  The  MC 
piston  shall  be  made  from  SAE  CA360  copper- 
base  alloy  (half  hard).  A  new  MC  assembly  is 
I'equired  for  each  test. 

(e)  Filler  cap  and  standpipe.  MC  filler  cap 
provided  with  a  glass  or  uncoated  steel  stand- 
pipe.  Standpipe  must  provide  adequate  volume 
for  thermal  expansion,  yet  permit  measurement 
and  adjustment  of  the  fluid  le\el  in  the  system 
to  ±3  ml.  Cap  and  standpipe  may  be  cleaned 
and  reused. 

(f)  Wheel  cylinder  (WC)  assemblies  (SAE 
RM-Ha).  Four  unused  cast  iron  housing 
straight  bore  hydraulic  brake  WC  assemblies 
having  diameters  of  approximately  28  mm  (1% 
inch)  for  each  test.  Pistons  shall  be  made  from 
unanodized  SAE  AA2024:  aluminum  alloy. 

(g)  Micrometer.     Same  as  S6.6.2(d). 

S6.13.3   Materials. 

(a)  Standard  SBR  brake  cups.  Eight  stand- 
ard SAE  SBR  wheel  cylinder  test  cups,  one  pri- 
mary MC  test  cup,  and  one  secondary  MC  test 
cup,  all  as  described  in  S7.6,  for  each  test. 

(b)  Steel  tubing.  Double  wall  steel  tubing 
meeting  SAE  specification  J527.  A  complete  re- 
placement of  tubing  is  essential  when  visual  in- 
spection indicates  any  corrosion  or  deposits  on 
inner  surface  of  tubing.  Tubing  from  master  cyl- 
inder to  one  wheel  cylinder  shall  be  replaced  for 
each  test  (minimum  length  3  feet).  Uniformity 
in  tubing  size  is  required  between  master  cylinder 
and  wheel  cylinder.  The  standard  master  cylin- 
der has  two  outlets  for  tubing,  both  of  which 
must  be  used. 


PART  571;  S  116-19 


Effective:   March    1,    1972 


S6.13.4   Preparation   of  test  apparatus. 

(a)  Wheel  cylinder  assemblies.  [Use  unused 
wheel  cylinder  assemblies.  Disassemble  cylin- 
ders and  discard  cups.  Clean  all  metal  jiarts 
with  ethanol  (isopropanol  when  testing  DOT  5 
fluids).  Inspect  the  working  surfaces  of 
all  metal  parts  for  scoring,  galling,  or  pitting 
and  cylinder  bore  roughness,  and  discard  all  de- 
fective parts.  Remove  any  stains  on  cylinder 
walls  with  crocus  cloth  and  ethanol.  If  stains 
cannot  be  removed,  discard  the  cylinder.  Meas- 
ure the  internal  diameter  of  each  cylinder  at  a 
location  approximately  19  mm  (0.75  inch)  from 
each  end  of  the  cylinder  bore,  taking  measure- 
ments in  line  with  the  hydraulic  inlet  opening 
and  at  right  angles  to  this  centerline.  Discard 
the  cylinder  if  any  of  these  four  readings  ex- 
ceeds the  maximum  or  minimum  limits  of  2S.66 
to  28.60  mm  (1.128  to  1.126  inch).  Measure  the 
outside  diameter  of  each  piston  at  two  points  ap- 
proximately 90  degrees  apart.  Discard  any  pis- 
ton if  either  reading  exceeds  the  maximum  or 
minimum  limits  of  28.55  to  28.52  mm  (1.124  to 
1.123  inch).  Select  parts  to  insure  that  the 
clearance  between  each  piston  and  matching  cyl- 
inder is  within  0.08  to  0.13  mm  (0.003  to  0.005 
inch).  Use  unused  SBR  cups.  To  remove  dirt 
and  debris,  rinse  the  cups  in  90  percent  ethyl 
alcohol  for  not  more  than  30  seconds  and  wijDe 
dry  with  a  clean  lint-free  cloth.  Discard  any 
cups  showing  defects  such  as  cuts,  molding 
flaws,  or  blistei's.  Measure  the  lip  and  base 
diameters  of  all  cups  with  an  optical  comparator 
or  micrometer  to  the  nearest  0.02  mm  (0.001 
inch)  along  the  centerline  of  the  SAE  and  rub- 
ber-type identifications  and  at  right  angles  to 
this  centerline.  Determine  base  diameter  mea- 
surements at  least  0.4  mm  (0.015  inch)  above  the 
bottom  edge  and  parallel  to  the  base  of  the  cup. 
Discard  any  cup  if  the  two  measured  lip  or 
base  diameters  differ  by  more  than  0.08  mm 
(0.003  inch).  Average  the  lip  and  base  diam- 
eters of  each  cui>.  Determine  the  hardness  of  all 
cups  according  to  S7.4.  Dip  the  rubber  and 
metal  parts  of  wheel  cylinders,  except  liousing 
and  rubber  boots,  in  the  fluid  to  be  tested  and 
install  them  in  accordance  with  the  manufac- 
turer's instructions.  Manually  stroke  the  cylin- 
ders to  insure  that  they  operate  easily.     Install 


cylinders  in  the  simulated  brake  system.    (39  F.R. 


< 


30353— August  22,  1974.    Effective :  10/1/74)] 

(b)  Master  cylinder  assembly.  Use  an  unused 
master  cylinder  and  unused  standard  SBR  pri- 
mary and  secondary  MC  cups  which  hav-e  been 
inspected,  measured  and  cleaned  in  the  manner 
specified  in  S6.13.4(a),  omitting  hardness  of  the 
secondary  MC  cup.  However,  prior  to  deter- 
mining the  lip  and  base  diameters  of  the  second- 
ary cup,  dip  the  cup  in  test  brake  fluid,  assemble 
on  the  MC  piston,  and  maintain  the  assembly 
in  a  vertical  position  at  23±5°C  (73.4±9°F)  for 
at  least  12  hours.  Inspect  the  relief  and  supply 
ports  of  the  master  cylinder;  discard  the  cylin- 
der if  ports  have  burrs  or  wire  edges.  Measure 
the  internal  diameter  of  the  cylinder  at  two 
locations  (approximately  midway  between  the  re- 
lief and  supply  ports  and  approximately  19  mm 
(0.75  inch)  beyond  the  relief  port  toward  the 
bottom  or  discharge  end  of  the  bore),  taking 
measurements  at  each  location  on  the  vertical 
and  horizontal  centerline  of  the  bore.  Discard 
the  cylinder  if  any  reading  exceeds  the  maximum 
or  mmimum  limits  of  28.65  to  28.57  mm  (1.128  to 
1.125  inch).  INIeasure  the  outside  diameter  of 
each  end  of  the  master  cylinder  piston  at  two  - 
points  approximately  90  degrees  apart.  Dis-  " 
card  the  piston  if  any  of  these  four  readings 
exceed  the  maximum  or  minimum  limits  of  28.55 

to  28.52  mm  (1.124  to  1.123  inch).  Dip  the  rubber 
and  metal  parts  of  the  master  cylinder,  except 
the  housing  and  push  rod-boot  assembly,  in  the 
brake  fluid  and  install  in  accordance  with  manu- 
facturer's instructions.  Manually  stroke  the 
master  cylinder  to  insure  that  it  operates  easily. 
Install  the  master  cylinder  in  tlie  simulated  brake 
system. 

(c)  Assembly  and  adjustment  of  test  appa- 
ratus. When  using  a  shoe  and  drum  type  appa- 
ratus, adjust  the  brake  shoe  toe  clearances  to 
l.OztO.l  mm  (0.040±0.004  inch).  Fill  the  sys- 
tem with  brake  fluid,  bleeding  all  wheel  cylinders 
and  the  pressure  gage  to  remo\e  entrapped  air. 
Operate  the  actuator  manually  to  apply  a  pressure 
greater  than  the  required  operating  pressure  and 
inspect  the  system  for  leaks.  Adjust  the  actuator 
and/or  pressure  relief  valve  to  obtain  a  pressure 
of  70±3.5  kg/sq  cm  (1,000±50  psi).  A  smooth 
pressure-stroke  pattern  is  required  when  using  a 
shoe  and  drum  type  apjmratus.      (Figure  4  of 


(Rev.    8/16/741 


PART  571;  S  116-20 


Effective:    March    1,    1972 


A  SAE  Jl703b  illustrates  the  approximate  pres- 
W  sure  buildup  versus  the  master  cylinder  piston 
movement  with  the  strokino-  fixture  apparatus.) 
The  pressure  is  relatively  low  during  the  first 
part  of  the  stroke  and  then  builds  uj)  smoothly 
to  the  maximum  stroking  pressure  at  the  end  of 
the  stroke.  The  stroke  length  is  about  23  mm 
(0.9  inch).  This  permits  the  primary  cup  to  pass 
the  compensating  hole  at  a  relatively  low  pres- 
sure. Using  stroking  fixtures,  the  WC  piston 
travel  is  about  2.5±0.25  mm  (O.lOOztO.OlO  inch) 
when  a  pressui'e  of  70  kg/sq  cm  is  reached.  Ad- 
just the  stroking  rate  to  1,000±100  strokes  per 
hour.  Eecord  the  fluid  level  in  the  master  cylin- 
der standpipe. 

S6.13.5  Procedure.  [Operate  the  system  for 
16,000±:1,000  cycles  at  23±5°C  (73.4±9°F).  Re- 
pair any  leakage,  readjust  the  brake  shoe  clear- 
ances, and  add  fluid  to  the  master  cylinder  stand- 
pipe  to  bring  to  the  level  originally  recorded,  if 
necessary.  Start  the  test  again  and  raise  the  tem- 
perature of  the  cabinet  within  6±2  hours  to 
120±5°C  (248±9°F).  During  the  test  observe 
operation  of  wheel  cylinders  for  improper  func- 
.  tioning  and  record  the  amount  of  fluid  required 
jy  to  rei:)lenish  any  loss,  at  intervals  of  24,000 
strokes.  Stop  the  test  at  the  end  of  85,000  total 
recorded  strokes.  These  totals  shall  include  the 
number  of  strokes  during  operation  at  23±5°C 
(73.4±:9°F)  and  the  number  of  strokes  required 
to  bring  the  system  to  the  operating  temperature. 
Allow  equipment  to  cool  to  room  temperature. 
Examine  the  wheel  cylinders  for  leakage.  Stroke 
the  assembly  an  additional  100  strokes,  examine 
wheel  cylinders  for  leakage  and  record  \'olume 
loss  of  fluid.  Within  16  hours  after  stopping 
the  test,  remove  the  master  and  wheel  cylinders 
from  the  .system,  retaining  the  fluid  in  the  cylin- 
ders by  immediately  capping  or  plugging  the 
ports.  Disassemble  the  cylinders,  collecting  the 
fluid  from  the  master  cylinder  and  wheel  cylin- 
ders in  a  glass  jar.  When  collecting  the  stroked 
fluid,  remove  all  residue  which  has  deposited  on 
rubber  and  metal  internal  parts  by  rinsing  and 
agitating  such  j^arts  in  the  stroked  fluid  and 
using  a  soft  brush  to  assure  that  all  loose  adhering 
sediment  is  collected.  Clean  SBR  cups  in  ethanol 
(isopropanol     when     testing     DOT     5     fluids) 


and  dry.  Inspect  the  cups  for  stickiness,  scuffing, 
blistering,  cracking,  chipping,  and  change  in 
shape  from  original  appearance.  Within 
1  hour  after  disassembly,  measure  the  lip  and 
base  diameters  of  each  cylinder  cup  by  the  pro- 
cedures specified  in  S6.13.4(a)  and  (b)  with  the 
exception  that  lip  or  base  diameters  of  cups  may 
now  differ  by  more  than  0.08  mm  (0.003  inch). 
Determine  the  hardness  of  each  cui)  according 
to  S7.4.  Note  any  sludge  or  gel  present  in  the 
test  fluid.  Within  1  hour  after  draining  the 
cylinders,  agitate  the  fluid  in  a  glass  jar  to 
suspend  and  uniformly  disperse  sediment  and 
ti-ansfer  a  100  ml  portion  of  this  fluid  to  a 
centrifuge  tube  and  determine  percent  sediment 
as  described  in  S7.5.  Allow  the  tube  and  fluid 
to  stand  for  24  hours,  recentrifuge  and  record 
any  additional  sediment  recovered.  Inspect  cyl- 
inder parts,  note  any  gumming  or  any  pitting  on 
pistons  and  cylinder  walls.  Disregard  staining 
or  discoloration.  Rub  any  deposits  adhering  to 
cylinder  walls  with  a  clean  soft  cloth  wetted  with 
ethanol  to  determine  abrasiveness  and  remova- 
bility. Clean  cylinder  parts  in  ethanol  and  dry. 
Measure  and  record  diameters  of  jiistons  and 
cylinders  according  to  S6.13.4(a)  and  (b).  Re- 
peat the  test  if  mechanical  failure  occurs  that 
may  effect  the  evaluation  of  the  brake  fluid. 
(35  F.R.  3035.3— August  22.  1974.  Effective: 
10/1/74)] 

S6.13.6  Calculation. 

(a)  Calculate  the  changes  in  diameters  of 
cylinders  and  pistons  (see  S5.1.13(b)). 

(b)  Calculate  the  average  decrease  in  hardness 
of  the  nine  cups  tested,  as  well  as  the  individual 
values    (see  S5.1.13(c)). 

(c)  Calculate  the  increases  in  base  diameters 
of  the  ten  cups  (see  S5.1. 13(e)). 

(d)  Calculate  the  lip  diameter  interference  set 
for  each  of  the  ten  cups  by  the  following  form- 
ula and  average  the  ten  values  (see  S5. 1.13(f)). 

Di-D, 


D:  -  D3 


X  100  =  percentage  Lip  Diameter 
Interference  Set 


A^Hiere : 

Di  =  Original  lip  diameter 

D2  =  Final  lip  diameter 

D3  =  Original  cylinder  bore  diameter 


(Rev.    8/16/74) 


PART  571;  S  116-21 


Effective.   March    1,    1972 


S7.  Auxiliary  test  methods  and  reagent 
standards. 

57.1  Distilled  water.  Non-referee  reagent  wa- 
ter as  speciHed  in  ASTM  Dl  193-70,  "Standard 
Specifications  for  Reagent  Water,'"  or  water  of 
equal  purity. 

57.2  Water  content  of  motor  vehicle  brake 
fluids.  Use  analytical  methods  based  on  ASTM 
Dl  123-59,  "Standard  Method  of  Test  for  Water 
in  Concentrated  Engine  Antifreezes  by  the  Io- 
dine Reagent  Method,"  for  determining  the  wa- 
ter content  of  brake  fluids,  or  other  methods  of 
analysis  yielding  comparable  results.  To  be 
acceptable  for  use,  such  other  method  must  mea- 
sure the  weight  of  water  added  to  samples  of 
the  SAE  RM-1  Compatibility  Fluid  within  ±15 
percent  of  the  water  added  for  additions  up  to 
0.8  percent  by  weight,  and  within  ±5  percent 
of  the  water  added  for  additions  greater  than 
0.8  percent  by  weight.  The  SAE  RM-1  Com- 
patibility Fluid  used  to  prepare  the  samples 
must  have  an  original  ERBP  of  not  less  than 
182°C  (360°F)  when  tested  in  accordance  with 
S6.1. 

57.3  Ethonol.  95  percent  (190  proof)  ethyl 
alcohol,  USP  or  ACS,  or  Formula  3-A  Specially 
Denatured  Alcohol  of  the  same  concentration 
(see  Part  212  of  Title  26,  Code  of  Federal  Reg- 
ulations— U.S.  Treasury  Department,  I.R.S. 
Publication  No.  368).  For  pre-test  washings  of 
equipment  use  approximately  90  percent  ethyl 
alcohol,  obtained  by  adding  5  parts  of  distilled 
water  to  95  parts  of  ethanol. 

57.4  Measuring  the  hardness  of  SBR  brake 
cups.  Hardness  measurements  on  SBR  wheel 
cylinder  cups  and  master  cylinder  primary  cups 
shall  be  made  by  using  the  following  apparatus 
and  the  following  procedure. 

S7.4.1    Apparatus. 

(a)  Anvil.  A  rubber  anvil  having  a  flat  cir- 
cular top  20 ±1  mm  (i%6±Vi6  inch)  in  diameter, 
a  thickness  of  at  least  9  mm  (%  inch)  and  a 
hardness  within  5  IRHDs  of  the  SBR  test  cup. 

(b)  Hardness  fester.  A  hardness  tester  meet- 
ing the  requirements  for  the  standard  instru- 
ment as  described  in  ASTM  D1415-68,  "Stand- 
ard Method  of  Test  for  International  Hardness 
of  Vulcanized  Natural  and  Synthetic  Rubbers," 
and  graduated  directly  in  IRHD  units. 


S7.4.2  Procedure.  Make  hardness  measure- 
ments at  23±2°C  (73.4±3.6°F).  Equilibrate 
the  tester  and  anvils  at  this  temperature  prior 
to  use.  Center  brake  cups  lip  side  down  on  an 
anvil  of  approjDriate  hardness.  Following  the 
manufacturer's  operating  instructions  for  the 
hardness  tester,  make  one  measurement  at  each  of 
four  points  one-fourth  inch  from  the  center  of 
the  cup  and  spaced  90  degrees  apart.  Average 
the  four  values,  and  round  off  to  the  nearest 
IRHD. 


t— 36.00-37.75mm  O.D. 
I7±mm  I.D. 


CONICAL  TAPER  MUST 
BE  STRAIGHT 


INSIDE  SURFACE 
OF  CONICAL  TIP 
FIG.  6 

ASTM    8-in  CENTRIFUGE  TUBE 

S7.5  Sediment  by  centrifuging.  The  amount 
of  sediment  in  the  test  fluid  shall  be  determined 
by  the  following  procedure. 

S7.5.1    Apparatus. 

(a)  Centiifuge  tube.  Cone-shaped  centrifuge 
tubes  conforming  to  the  dimensions  given  in 
Figure    6,    and    made    of    thoroughly    annealed 


PART  571;  S  116-22 


Effective:   March    1,    1972 


glass.  The  graduations  shall  be  numbered  as 
shown  in  Figure  6,  and  shall  be  clear  and  dis- 
tinct. Scale-error  tolerances  and  smallest  gradua- 
tions between  various  calibration  marks  are  given 
in  Table  V  and  apply  to  calibrations  made  with 
air-free  water  at  20°C  (68°F). 

TABLE  V— CALIBRATION  TOLERANCES 
FOR  8-inch  CENTRIFUGE  TUBE 

Volume 


Range,  ml 

Subdivision, 

Toleranc 

ml 

ml 

0   to   0.1 

0.05 

±0.02 

Above  0.1  to  0.3 

0.05 

±0.03 

Above  0.3  to  0.5 

0.05 

±0.05 

Above  0.5  to  1.0 

0.10 

±0.05 

Above  1.0  to  2.0 

0.10 

±0.10 

Above  2.0  to  3.0 

0.20 

±0.10 

Above  3.0  to  5.0 

0.5 

±0.20 

Above  5.0  to  10.0 

1.0 

±0.50 

Above  10.  to  25. 

5.0 

±1.00 

Above  25.  to  100. 

25. 

±1.00 

(b)  Centnfuge.  A  centrifuge  capable  of  whirl- 
ing two  or  more  filled  centrifuge  tubes  at  a  speed 
which  can  be  controlled  to  give  a  relative  cen- 
trifugal force  (rcf )  between  600  and  700  at  the 
tip  of  the  tubes.  The  revolving  head,  trunnion 
rings,  and  trunnion  cups,  including  the  rubber 
cushion,  shall  withstand  the  maximum  cen- 
trifugal force  capable  of  being  delivered  by  the 
power  source.  The  trunnion  cups  and  cushions 
shall  firmly  support  the  tubes  when  the  centrifuge 
is  in  motion.  Calculate  the  speed  of  the  ro- 
tating head  using  this  equation : 


rpm 
where : 


265 


<- 


rcf 


rcf  =  relative  centrifugal  force,  and 
d  =  diameter  of  swing,  in  inches, 
measured  between  tips  of  opposite 
tubes  when  in  rotating  position. 

Table  VI  shows  the  relationship  between  diam- 
eter, swing,  relative  centrifugal  force  (rcf),  and 
revolutions  per  minute. 

S7.5.2  Procedure.  Balance  the  corked  cen- 
trifuge tubes  with  their  respective  trunnion  caps 
in  pairs  by  weight  on  a  scale,  according  to  the 
centrifuge  manufacturer's  instructions,  and  place 
them  on  opposite  sides  of  the  centrifuge  head. 
Use  a  dummy  assembly  when  one  sample  is  tested. 


TABLE  VI 

ROTATION  SPEEDS  FOR  CENTRIFUGES 

OF  VARIOUS  DIAMETERS 


Did  meter  of  swing, 
inches' 


Rpm.  at  CiOO  rcf     Rpm  at  700  rcf 


19 
20 
21 
22 


1490 
1450 
1420 
1390 


1610 
1570 
1530 
1500 


■Measured   in   inches  between  tips  of  opposite  tubes 
when   in  rotating  position. 

Then  whirl  them  for  10  minutes,  at  a  rate  suf- 
ficient to  produce  a  rcf  between  600  and  700  at 
the  tips  of  the  whirling  tubes.  Repeat  until  the 
volume  of  sediment  in  each  tube  remains  con- 
stant for  three  consecutive  readings. 

S7.5.3  Calculation.  Read  the  volume  of  the 
solid  sediment  at  the  bottom  of  the  centrifuge 
tube  and  report,  the  percent  sediment  by  volume. 
Wliere  replicate  determinations  are  specified,  re- 
port the  average  value. 

S7.6  Standard  styrene-butadiene  rubber  (SBR) 
brake  cups.  SBR  brake  cups  for  testing  motor 
vehicle  brake  fluids  shall  be  manufactured  using 
the  following  formulation: 

FORIMULATION  OF  RUBBER  COMPOUND 


Ingredient 

Parts  by 
Weight 

SBR  type  1503^ 

100 

Oil  furnace  black  (NBS  378) 

40 

Zinc  oxide  (NBS  370) 

5 

Sulfur  (NBS  371) 

0.25 

Stearic  Acid  (NBS  372) 

1 

n-tertiary  butyl  -  2  -  benzothiazole 

sulfenamide  (NBS  384) 

1 

Symmetrical  -  dibetanaphthyl  -  p  - 

phenylenediamine 

1.5 

Dicimiyl  peroxide  (40  percent  on 

precipitated  CaCOa)" 

4.5 

TOTAL 

153.25 

NOTE:  The  ingredients  labeled   (NBS 

_)  must  have 

properties  identical  with  those  supplied  by  the 
National  Bureau  of  Standards 
'Philprene  1503  has  been  found  suitable. 
•■Use  only  within  90  days  of  manufacture  and 
store  at  temperature  below  27°C  (80°P). 


PART  571;  S  116-23 


Effective:   March    1,    1972 

Compounding,  \^llcanization,  physical  properties,  on  a  flat  surface  for  at  least  12  hours  at  room 

size  of  the  finished  cui^s,  and  other  details  shall  temperature  in  order  to  allow  cups  to  reach  their 

be  as  specified  in  Appendix  B  of  SAE  Jl703b.  true  configuration  before  measurement. 

The  cups  shall  be  used  in   testing  brake  fluids  _,, ,  ,                   ,        » ^o                       ,           i 

.,,          -.1  •     /.          XI     J!          1  i      jr            J!    X  rS7.7  Isopropanol.      ALb    or    reagent    grade. 

either  withm  6  months  irom  date  oi  manufacture  ,.-,"•    _,  ^     .V,^„..^      .          ,     .^     ,r^-,       t^,-      • 

,          ,       J      ,                ,              i.         u  1        oMO,-i  ('^9    F.R.    303u3 — August    22,    19(4.      Effective: 

when  stored   at   room   temperature   below  30  C  1n/1/'-/L^^ 

(86°F)  or  within  36  months  from  date  of  manu-  l*J/l/^-l)J 

facture  when  stored  at  temperatures  below  minus 

15°C  (+5°F).    After  removal  of  cups  from  re-  36  F.R.   11987 

frigeration  they  shall  be  conditioned  base  down  June  24,  1971 


^ 


(Rev.  8/16/74)  PAET  571;  S  116-24 


Effective:    January    1,    1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  117 

Retreaded  Pneumatic  Tires — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.   1-8) 


Proposals  to  amend  §  571.21  of  Title  49,  "Fed- 
eral Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standards,"  to  add  a 
new  standard  on  retreaded  tires  for  use  on  pas- 
senger cars,  were  published  October  14,  1967  (32 
F.R.  14280),  and  March  5,  1970  (35  F.R.  4136). 
Prior  to  the  latter  notice,  on  April  10,  1969,  a 
technical  conference  was  held  at  which  a  discus- 
sion paper  was  offered  for  comments.  Based 
upon  this  prior  rulemaking  activity,  and  after 
considering  those  comments  received,  a  new  motor 
vehicle  safety  standard  is  hereby  issued  that  re- 
quires manufacturers  of  retreaded  tires  for  pas- 
senger cars  to  comply  with  specified  requirements. 

The  standard  requires  retreaded  pneumatic 
tires  for  passenger  cars  to  meet  requirements  for 
bead  unseating,  strength,  endurance,  and  high 
speed  performance  identical  to  those  specified  for 
new  pneumatic  passenger  car  tires  in  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109,  and  to  meet 
physical  dimension  and  labeling  requirements 
similar  to  the  requirements  of  Standard  No.  109. 
Many  comments  received  in  response  to  the  notice 
of  proposed  rulemaking  raised  objections  to 
these  requirements.  One  objection  was  that  the 
requirements  make  the  retreader  responsible  for 
the  performance  of  the  casing  as  well  as  for  his 
own  retreading  process.  The  casing  is,  however, 
one  of  the  raw  materials  used  in  the  retreading 
process.  As  such,  the  responsibility  for  the 
soundness  of  the  casing  can  lie  only  with  the 
retreader,  as  it  is  he  who  will  determine  that  the 
casing  is  suitable  for  retreading  purposes. 

Some  comments  objected  to  the  requirements 
because  they  believed  them  to  be  inappropriate 
for  the  retreaded  tires.  Their  position  was  that 
Standard  No.  109,  in  specifying  requirements  for 
new  tires,  took  into  account  that  new  tires  are 
designed  to  be  used  for  more  than  one  tread  life. 


Consequently,  it  is  argued,  it  is  unreasonable  to 
subject  a  retreaded  tire,  whose  casing  has  al- 
ready undergone  use  through  at  least  one  tread 
life,  to  the  same  performance  criteria  as  a  new 
tire.  The  purpose  of  Standard  No.  109,  however, 
is  to  provide  the  public  with  passenger  car  tires 
that  will  perform  safely  under  modern  driving 
conditions.  These  conditions  are  the  same 
whether  a  new  tire  or  a  retreaded  tire  is  involved, 
and  call  for  the  same  performance  requirements, 
as  far  as  is  practicable.  In  agreement  with  this 
result  is  the  position  of  certain  parties  who  rec- 
ommended that  requirements  for  new  and  re- 
treaded  tires  be  identical.  Their  position  was 
that  retreaded  tires  must  meet  the  same  minimum 
performance  requirements  as  new  tires  in  order 
to  prevent  them  from  being  considered  as  unsafe," 
or  as  less  safe,  than  new  tires. 

Many  comments  particularly  objected  to  the 
proposed  requirement  that  retreaded  tires  must 
meet  the  same  physical  dimension  requirements 
as  new  tires.  It  is  recognized  that  tires  may 
shrink  during  the  retreading  process.  A  dimen- 
sional requirement  for  retreaded  tires  is  neces- 
sary, however,  to  ensure  that  retreaded  tires 
labeled  a  certain  size  are  within  a  specified  maxi- 
mum tolerance  of  the  size.  Consequently,  as 
there  may  be  difficulty  in  requiring  retreaded 
tires  to  meet  the  same  physical  dimension  re- 
quirements as  new  tires,  the  standard  as  issued 
requires  that  the  section  width  and  the  overall 
width  of  retreaded  tires  not  exceed  by  more  than 
10  percent  the  figure  provided  as  the  section 
width  in  Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  109.  This 
is  a  slight  relaxation  of  the  proposed  require- 
ment, which  specified  a  7-percent  tolerance. 

Several  objections  were  also  raised  to  the  pro- 
posed requirements  for  tire  casings.    These  pro- 


PART  571;  S  117— PRE  1 


231-OSR   O  -  77  -  39 


Effective:  January    1,    1972 


posals  were  that  casings  used  in  retreaded  tires 
not  have  bead  wire  or  cord  fabric  exposed  either 
before  or  during  the  retreading  process,  that  they 
not  have  a  belt  or  ply  removed  during  retreading, 
and  that  casings  contain  the  labels  on  them  by 
the  original  tire  manufacturer  pursuant  to  Stand- 
ard No.  109.  Many  comments  objected  to  the 
prohibition  of  retreading  on  casings  having  ex- 
posed cord  fabric  either  before  or  during  pro- 
cessing. The  argument  was  presented  that  cord 
fabric  exposed  during  the  buffing  part  of  the 
retreading  process  can  be  and  often  is  repaired 
without  affecting  the  service  life  or  safety  of  the 
retreaded  tire.  As  an  alternative,  some  comments 
suggested  that  this  requirement  be  changed  to 
require  that  cord  fabric  not  be  "damaged."  Once 
cord  fabric  has  been  exposed,  however,  it  is  far 
more  likely  to  have  been  worn,  exposed  to  mois- 
ture, or  damaged  in  some  other  way.  Further- 
more, the  suggested  language  would  be  nearly 
imix)ssible  to  enforce,  as  any  determination  of 
"damage"  would  be  largely  subjective.  Requir- 
ing that  the  fabric  not  be  exposed,  however,  is  a 
far  less  subjective  test,  and  is  consequently  less 
subject  to  error.  The  proposed  requirement  has 
accordingly  been  retained. 

Objections  were  also  raised  to  the  requirement 
that  would  prohibit  the  removal  of  a  belt  from  a 
tire  casing  during  processing.  The  argument 
presented  was  that  belt  removal,  and  the  addition 
or  replacement  of  a  belt  as  well,  should  be  al- 
lowed if  the  finished  tire  can  meet  the  specified 
requirements.  The  agency  has  concluded,  how- 
ever, that  belt  removal,  addition,  and  replacement 
raise  questions  concerning  compatibility  of  ma- 
terials and  tire  performance  for  which  no  data 
is  presently  available.  Until  such  time  as  infor- 
mation is  available  on  the  effects  on  tire  perfonn- 
ance  of  belt  removal,  addition,  or  replacement, 
these  practices  will  be  prohibited  in  the  manu- 
facture of  retreaded  tires. 

The  proposed  rule  would  have  required  re- 
treaded  tires  to  be  labeled  with  the  same  informa- 
tion required  on  new  pneumatic  tires  by  Standard 
No.  109.  The  preamble  to  the  notice  indicated 
that  this  provision,  requiring  all  original  labeling 
to  be  on  the  casing  and  to  be  retained  through 
the  retreading  process,  would  be  accompanied  by 


changes  in  the  labeling  requirements  of  Standard 
No.  109  that  would  require  tlie  original  label  to  L 
be  placed  in  an  area  of  the  new  tire  sidewall 
where  it  would  not  be  subject  to  destruction 
either  during  use  or  during  I'etreading.  As  this 
amendment  has  not  been  made  to  Standard  No. 
109,  the  proposed  labeling  requirements  are  being 
modified.  They  require  that  each  casing  be  one 
that  has  been  labeled  pursuant  to  S4.3  of  Stand- 
ard No.  109,  but  that  the  completed  retreaded 
tire  need  only  retain  enough  of  the  original  label 
to  display  each  item  of  required  information  in 
at  least  one  location.  The  labeling  requirements 
also  provide  that  the  retreaded  tire  be  certified 
by  labeling  the  tire  with  the  symbol  DOT,  lo- 
cated on  the  tire  as  specified  in  Part  574,  "Tire 
Identification  and  Record  Keeping." 

The  notice  of  proposed  rule  making  would 
have  required  retreaders  to  submit  certain  infor- 
mation to  the  agency,  including  a  statement  that 
records  would  be  maintained  by  the  retreader  for 
a  period  of  at  least  3  years.  These  record  keep- 
ing requirements  involved  records  of  materials 
used  in  the  retreading  process,  records  of  process 
control,  and  records  of  performance  tests  and 
reported  defects  and  failures.  The  purpose  of  , 
these  proposed  requirements  would  have  been  to  ^ 
provide  information  to  assist  retreaders  in  ascer- 
taining which  tires  might  be  suspect  in  the  event 
of  a  finding  of  nonconformity  or  a  safety-related 
defect.  In  consideration  of  comments  received, 
the  standard  as  now  issued  does  not  contain 
record  keeping  requirements,  and  record  keeping 
by  retreaders  will  be  on  a  voluntary  basis,  con- 
sistently with  the  other  standards.  The  NHTSA 
strongly  recommends,  however,  that  retreaders 
retain  information  on  the  materials  and  processes 
that  they  use,  so  that  in  the  event  of  a  defect  or 
noncompliance  they  will  be  able  to  determine 
which  tires  are  involved. 

Similarly,  the  standard  does  not  require  re- 
treaders to  maintain  records  of  performance  tests 
or  of  reported  defects  and  failures.  Retreaders 
should  be  aware,  however,  that  they  are  required 
to  exercise  due  care  in  manufacturing  retreaded 
tires  to  comply  with  this  standard,  and  that  in- 
formation of  this  type  is  likely  to  be  an  important 
step  in  proving  due  care. 


PART  571;  S  117— PRE  2 


Effective:   January   1,    1972 

Effective  date :  January  1, 1972.  Issued  on  April  14, 1971. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  §  571.21  of  Douglas  W   Toms 

Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  is  amended  ^^^.j^^g  Administrator 
by  adding  a  new  motor  vehicle  safety  standard, 

No.  117,  "Ketreaded  Pneumatic  Tires:  Passenger  36  F.R.  7315 

Cars"  as  set  forth  below.  April    17,    1971 


PART  571;  S  117— PRE  3-4 


i 


Effective:   January    1,    1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.    117 

Retreaded  Pneumatic  Tires 
(Docket  No.    1-8) 


This  notice  is  issued  in  response  to  petitions 
for  reconsideration  received  concerning  Motor 
Veliicle  Safety  Standard  No.  117,  "Retreated 
Pneumatic  Tires,"  49  CFR  §571.21,  published 
April  17,  1971  (36  F.K.  7315). 

Timely  petitions  were  received  from  8  parties; 
Bandag  Incorporated,  National  Tire  Dealers  and 
Retreaders  Association  (by  the  firm  of  Sellers, 
Conner  &  Cuneo),  The  ]\Iississipin  Indejiendent 
Tire  Dealers  Association,  Alabama  Tire  Dealers 
and  Retreaders  Association,  and  The  Louisiana 
Independent  Tire  Dealers  Association,  Owens- 
Corning  Fiberglas  Corp.,  American  Retreaders 
Association,  the  Goodyear  Tire  and  Rubber  Com- 
pany, the  Rubber  Manufacturers  Association, 
and  the  B.F.  Goodrich  Tire  Company.  Certain 
other  petitions  were  received  more  than  thirty 
days  after  publication  of  the  standard,  and  while 
they  are  petitions  for  rulemaking  luider  the 
agency's  procedural  rules  (49  CFR  §  553.35) 
they  have  been  considered  in  the  issuance  of  this 
notice. 

1.  Availability  of  casings.  Paragraph  S5.2.3 
of  the  standard  requires  that  each  retreaded  tire 
be  manufactured  with  a  casing  that  has  been 
labeled  pursuant  to  S4.3  of  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  109.  Iji  effect,  only  casings  from 
tires  manufactured  on  or  after  August  1,  1968, 
have  been  required  to  have  this  information 
permanently  labeled  on  the  tire.  According  to 
many  petitions,  the  period  between  August  1, 
1968  and  January  1,  1972,  the  standard's  effective 
date,  has  been  too  short  to  allow  the  accmnula- 
tion  of  a  sufficient  supply  of  casings  that  bear  the 
reqiiired  labeling.  ^lany  petitioners  therefore 
requested  that  casings  labeled  pursuant  to  Stand- 
ard No.  109  not  be  required  until  1974  or  1975. 
These  requests  are  denied.  However,  in  order  to 
uiake  additional  casings  available  the  standard 


has  been  amended  to  allow,  between  January  1, 
1972  and  January  1,  1974,  the  use  of  some  casings 
labeled  with  specific  fractional  markings  that 
were  first  introduced  in  1965.  These  casings  are 
those  for  use  on  wheels  having  diameters  of  14 
or  15  inches,  marked  with  the  size  designations 
6.45,  6.85,  6.95,  7.35,  7.75,  8.15,  8.25,  8.45,  8.55, 
8.85,  8.90,  9.00,  or  915,  and  labeled  with  certain 
information  as  a  result  of  the  "Tire  Advertising 
and  Labeling  Guides"  which  were  adopted  by 
the  Federal  Trade  Commission  on  July  5,  1966. 
In  situations  where  these  casings  are  used,  the 
retreader  is  required  to  label  them  further,  in  a 
permanent  manner,  with  a  maximum  load  rating 
and  maximum  permissible  inflation  pressure  ob- 
tained from  a  table  incorporated  into  the  stand- 
ard. Casings  that  contain  the  specified  informa- 
tion, together  with  the  maximum  load  rating  and 
maximum  permissible  inflation  pressure  added 
by  retreaders,  will  be  labeled  with  most  of  the 
information  required  on  new  tires  by  Standard 
No.  109,  and  in  accordane  with  Section  201  of 
the  National  Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Act  (15  IT.S.C.  1421).  Manufacturers  who  use 
these  older  casings  should  be  aware,  however, 
that  retreaded  tires  uianufactured  with  them 
must  meet  the  same  perormance  requirements  as 
tires  manufactured  with  casings  that  have  been 
certified  tobe  in  compliance  with  Standard  No. 
109. 

2.  Application  of  the  DOT  certification  mark. 
Paragraph  S6  of  the  standard  requires  the  man- 
ufacturer to  certify  each  retreaded  tire  by  af- 
fixing to  the  tire  the  symbol  DOT,  as  provided 
in  section  574.5  of  the  Tire  Identification  and 
Recordkeeping  regulations.  The  Administration 
takes  the  position  that  affixing  the  DOT  before 
the  effective  date  of  the  standard  is  inconsistent 
with  the  intent  of  the  National  Traffic  and  Motor 


PART  571;  S  117— PRE  5 


Effective:   January    1,    1972 


Vehicle  Safety  Act,  as  it  is  only  with  respect  to 
tires  man\ifactured  after  the  effective  date  that 
certification  lias  legal  significance.  At  the  same 
time,  under  the  Act  all  retreaded  tires  manu- 
factured on  or  after  January  1,  1972,  must  con- 
tain the  DOT  mark.  Certain  petitioners  have  in- 
dicated that  it  would  be  impossible,  witliout  a 
substantial  disruption  of  business,  for  no  tire  to 
have  a  permanently  affixed  DOT  symbol  on  or 
before  December  31,  1971',  and  for  all  tires  manu- 
factured on  January  1,  1972,  and  thereafter  to 
ha\-e  such  a  symbol.  To  remedy  this  problem  the 
standard  is  being  amended  to  allow  the  use  of 
a  paper  label  containing  prescribed  language  to 
serve  as  a  valid  certification  from  January  1, 
1972,  through  February  29,  1972. 

3.  Refevtion  of  labeling.  Certain  petitions  re- 
quested that  paragraph  S6.2,  which  requires  cer- 
tain labeling  on  the  casing  to  be  retained,  be 
amended  because  the  labeling  information  some- 
times appears  in  an  area  on  the  tire  that  is  sub- 
ject to  buffing.  Consequently,  it  is  argued,  it  is 
imossible  to  retain  the  information  through  the 
retreading  process.  These  requests  are  denied. 
Tiie  required  labeling  is  essential  to  the  appro- 
priate use  of  the  tire  and  varies  from  casing  to 
casing.  It  has  been  determined  that  the  most 
satisfactory  way  to  ensure  that  correct  informa- 
tion of  this  type  appears  on  the  completed  tire 
is  for  the  casing  manufacturer's  labeling  to  be 
retained.  Casings  that  cannot  be  retreaded  with- 
out destruction  of  the  labeling  will  consequently 
be  unsatisfactory  for  use. 

4.  Casing  with  exposed  cord.  Many  peti- 
tioners objected  to  the  requirements  of  paragrai)h 
S5.2.1  that  prohibit  the  retreading  of  casings 
that  have  cord  fabric  e.xposed  before  or  during 
processing.  Tlie  argument  preented  is  that  such 
tires  can  be  retreaded  as  effectively  and  will 
provide  the  same  level  of  performance  as  tires 
manufactured  from  casings  on  which  cord  fabric 
is  not  exposed,  as  long  as  cords  that  are  exposed 
are  not  damaged.    These  requests  are  denied. 

The  NHTSA  recognizes  that  under  optimum 
conditions,  careful  buffing  that  barely  exposes, 
but  does  not  touch,  the  tire  cords  can  produce 
satisfactory  results.  In  jiractice,  however,  tire 
buffing  is  often  not  done  by  precision  methods  or 
highly  trained  personnel,  especially  in  the  case 


of  smaller  tire  retraders.    Any  buffing  that  dam-     i 
ages  or  removes  part  of  the  tire  cords  reduces 
tht  strength  of  the  carcass  at  that  point.    Thus, 
buffing  to  the  cord  materially  increases  the  pos- 
sibility of  producing  unsafe  tires. 

Furthermore,  exposing  tire  cords  in  the  re- 
treading process  can  cause  the  retreaded  tire  to 
be  unsafe  even  if  the  cord  is  not  damaged.  In 
the  manufacture  of  new  tires,  the  cords  that 
eventually  make  up  the  carcass  are  passed 
througli  complex  adhesive  solutions  of  resin  and 
latex,  before  being  dried  and  coated  with  rubber. 
Exposed  cords  in  bufTed  retread  carcasses  gen- 
erally do  not  receive  comparable  treatment  to 
bond  them  to  the  overlaid  rubber.  Also,  ex- 
posed carcass  cords  that  are  not  promptly  cov- 
ered can  absorb  moisture  from  the  air,  which 
substantially  weakens  them. 

Since  the  exposure  of  belts  in  belted  tires  does 
not  carry  with  it  the  danger  of  impairment  of 
carcass  strength  as  does  the  exposure  of  ply 
cords,  the  standard  is  amended  to  make  it  clear 
that  exposure  of  belt  material  during  processing 
is  allowed.  Belt  material  may  not,  however,  as 
specified  in  S5.2.1,  be  removed,  added,  or  replaced. 
The  petitions  in  this  regard  are  denied  for  the  ^ 
reasons  specified  in  the  preamble  to  the  standard 
published  April  17,  1971. 

.5.  Phijsiral  dimension  foJerances.  Several  pe- 
titions noted  that  altJiough  retreaded  tires  may 
shrink  during  the  retreading  process,  the  physical 
dimension  requirements  of  S5.1.2  allow  only  for 
a  10%  tolerance  over  the  maximum  width  to 
allow  for  service  growth.  An  amendment  to 
allow  some  shrinkage  was  requested.  It  has  been 
determined  that  a  minus  3%  de\iation  from  the 
specified  section  width  is  justified,  and  the  stand- 
ard is  amended  accordingly. 

Efeetive  date:  January  1,  1972. 

In  the  light  of  tlie  above.  Federal  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  117  in  §  571.21  of  Title 
49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  is  hereby 
amended.    .    .   . 

Issued  on  October  22,  1971. 

Douglas  W.   Toms 
Administrator 

36  F.R.  20877 
October   30,    1971 


PART  571;  S  117— PRE  6 


Effective:   January   1,    1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  117 

Retreaded   Pneumatic  Tires 
(Docket  1-8;  Notice  5) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  amend  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  117,  "Retreaded 
Pneumatic  Tires"  to  increase  the  number  of  al- 
lowable casings  that  may  be  retreaded,  to  allow 
ply  cord  to  be  exposed  in  a  limited,  specified 
manner  duririg  the  retreading  process,  and  to 
modify  the  labeling  requirements.  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  117  was  issued 
April  17,  1971  (36  F.R.  7315),  and  amended,  in 
response  to  petitions  for  reconsideration,  on 
October  30,  1971  (36  F.R.  20877).  Since  that 
time  certain  segments  of  the  industry  have  re- 
quested additional  changes  to  the  standard.  This 
amendment  is  based  on  those  requests. 

1.  One  major  objection  that  was  raised  con- 
cerns the  prohibition  against  exposing  cord  in  the 
ply  area  of  the  tire  during  processing.  The 
issuance  of  April  17,  1971,  prohibited  any  tire 
from  being  retreaded  on  which  cord  had  been 
exposed  either  before  or  during  the  retreading 
process.  The  standard  was  further  amended  in 
the  issuance  of  October  30,  to  allow  belt  material, 
but  not  ply  cords,  to  be  exposed  during  the  re- 
treading process. 

The  prohibition  against  retreading  a  casing 
that  has  exposed  cord  is  based  primarily  on  the 
fact  that  cord  that  has  been  exposed  may  have 
been  damaged,  thereby  weakening  the  casing  and 
increasing  the  chance  that  the  completed  tire  will 
be  unsafe.  This  is  especially  true  where  cord  is 
exposed  during  the  life  of  the  original  tire,  as 
exposure  of  cord  in  this  case  will  generally  have 
been  caused  by  excessive  wear.  However,  cord 
has  heretofore  been  exposed  during  the  buffing 
part  of  many  retreading  processes,  as  a  method 
of  determining  whether  a  sufficient  amount  of 
old  tread  rubber  has  been  removed  before  the 
application  of  the  new  tread.  The  NHTSA 
recognizes  the  importance  of  removing  a  sufficient 


amount  of  old  tread,  and  that,  as  stated  in  the 
October  30  notice,  "careful  buffing  that  barely 
exposes,  but  does  not  touch,  the  tire  cords  can 
produce  satisfactory  results."  The  Administra- 
tion retained  the  prohibition  against  buflmg  to 
the  cord,  except  for  belt  material,  on  the  basis 
of  the  finding  that  it  could  result  in  damage  to 
the  cord  and  create  unsafe  tires. 

After  reviewing  additional  information  and 
arguments  that  liave  been  presented  by  interested 
parties,  the  NHTSA  has  now  determined  that 
buffing  to  the  ply  cord  in  very  limited  circum- 
stances can  be  allowed  without  incurring  the 
risk  that  cords  will  be  damaged  during  buffing. 
The  amendment  issued  herewith  allows  buffing 
during  the  retreading  process  only  at  a  splice, 
that  is,  where  two  segments  of  the  same  ply  over- 
lap. Exposure  of  cord  at  this  point  will  not 
materially  aff'ect  casing  strength,  as  there  still 
will  be  one  layer  of  unexposed  cord  at  the  splice 
due  to  the  ply  overlap.  Exposure  of  ply  cord 
at  a  location  other  than  a  splice  remains 
prohibited. 

2.  The  standard  as  issued  April  17,  1971,  al- 
lowed only  casings  that  had  been  labeled  pursu- 
ant to  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109 
(49  CFR  §  571.109)  to  be  used  in  the  manufacture 
of  retreaded  tires.  The  categories  of  casings  that 
could  be  retreaded  under  the  standard  were  ex- 
panded in  the  amendment  of  October  30,  1971. 
Certain  other  additions,  namely,  the  inclusion 
of  certain  13-inch  and  15-inch  tire  sizes  and 
series  70  tires,  each  of  which  must  contain  certain 
labeling,  are  incorporated  by  this  amendment. 

3.  In  the  preamble  to  the  amendment  of 
October  30,  1971,  the  NHTSA  denied  requests  to 
amend  the  requirement  that  the  original  labeling 
on  casings  be  retained  on  the  completed  re- 
treaded  tire,  and  that  casings  without  retainable 


PART  571;  S  117— PRE  7 


Effective:   January    1,    1972 


labeling  be  discarded.  The  NHTSA's  position 
was  tiiat  retention  of  the  original  labeling  was 
the  most  satisfactory  way  to  ensure  that  each 
retreaded  tire  would  be  labeled  with  the  appro- 
priate safety  information,  and  it  was  recognized 
that  some  casings  would  have  to  be  rejected  be- 
cause of  this  reqtiirement.  Information  which 
the  agency  has  recently  received,  however,  in- 
dicates that  this  requirement  may  reduce  the 
number  of  retreadable  casings  to  a  degree  not 
anticipated.  The  shortage  of  casings  will  re- 
sult because  the  labeling  on  many  casings  lies  in 
an  area  where  it  would  be  removed  during  the 
retreading  process.  Although  the  problem  had 
been  described  in  comments  at  previous  stages 
of  rulemaking,  specific  data  as  to  the  number 
of  available  casings  was  presented  to  the  agency 
after  the  October  30  amendment. 

The  agency  has  concluded  after  review  of  this 
data  that  to  require  the  discarding  of  casings 
without  retainable  labeling  could  substantially 
impair  the  industry  due  to  a  shortage  of  casings. 
The  NHTSA  has  accordingly  decided  to  revoke 
these  reqiiirements  of  the  standard  and  to  pro- 
pose an  alternate  labeling  scheme.  A  notice  of 
proposed  rulemaking  to  that  effect  is  published 
in  this  issue  of  the  Federal  Register.  ]Much  of 
the  difficulty  experienced  by  retreaders  in  finding 
casings  that  bear  labeling  not  subject  to  destruc- 
tion results  from  the  fact  that  many  new  tires 
carry  their  required  information  in  locations 
such  that  it  is  removed  during  the  retreading 
process.     The   NHTSA   is  therefore   issuing  an 


additional  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  which 
v.ould  amend  Standard  No.  109  to  require  the 
labeling  in  question  to  be  placed  in  an  area  where 
it  will  not  be  subject  to  destruction  during  the 
retreading  process. 

This  amendment  to  Standard  No.  117  does  not 
change  the  requirement  that  only  certain  casings 
containing  original  labeling  information  be  used 
in  the  manufacture  of  retreaded  tires,  but 
specifies  that,  at  present,  this  labeling  need  not 
be  retained  on  the  completed  tire. 

In  light  of  the  above,  section  571.117  of  Title 
49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations  (Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  117)  is  hereby  amended.  .  .  . 

Effective  date:  January  1,  1972.  The  amend- 
ments issued  herein  relieve  restrictions  and  im- 
liose  no  additional  burdens  on  any  person.  Ac- 
cordingly, it  is  found,  for  good  cause  shown, 
that  an  effective  date  less  than  180  days,  and  less 
than  30  days,  from  the  day  of  issuance  is  in  the 
public  interest. 

This  notice  is  issued  pursuant  to  sections  103, 
112,  113,  114,  119,  and  201  of  the  National  Traffic 
and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  (15  U.S.C.  1392, 
1401,  1402,  1403,  1407,  1421)  and  the  delegation 
of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51. 

Issued  on  December  21,  1971. 

Douglas  AV.  Toms 
Administrator 

36   F.R.  24814 
December  23,   1971 


PART  571;  S  117— PRE  8 


Effective:   January    1,    1972 
Reissued:  March   33,    1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   117 

Retreaded  Pneumatic  Tires 
(Docket  No.   1-8;  Notice  7) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  reissue,  with 
certain  amendments,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  117,  "Retreaded  Pneumatic  Tires." 
Standard  No.  117  was  published  April  17,  1971 
(36  F.R.  7315).  In  response  to  petitions  for  re- 
consideration, the  standard  was  amended  October 
30,  1971  (36  F.R.  20877).  As  a  result  of  addi- 
tional evidence  which  was  presented  to  the 
agency  regarding  the  requirements  for  labeling 
of  retreaded  tires  and  other  issues,  the  standard 
was  amended  again  on  December  23,  1971  (36 
F.R.  24814).  On  the  same  day  a  notice  of  pro- 
posed rulemaking  was  also  published  proposing 
new  labeling  requirements  (36  F.R.  24825). 
This  notice  is  issued  both  in  response  to  two 
petitions  for  reconsideration  concerning  the 
amendment  of  December  23,  and  to  incorporate 
amendments  based  on  the  notice  of  proposed 
rulemaking  of  December  23. 

The  issues  raised  by  the  two  petitions,  one 
from  the  National  Tire  Dealers  and  Retreaders 
Association  and  the  other  from  the  Rubber 
Manufacturers  Association,  concern  the  avail- 
ability of  casings,  casing  labeling,  and  the  physi- 
cal dimension  requirements  of  the  standard. 
Requirements  for  labeling  retreaded  tires,  which 
are  related  to  the  requirements  for  casing  label- 
ing, are  dealt  with  below  in  the  discussion  of  the 
amendments  that  are  based  on  the  notice  of  pro- 
posed rulemaking. 

Availability  of  Casings.  The  petitions  re- 
quested that  additional  casing  sizes,  namely  5.20, 
6.40,  7.50,  8.00,  8.20,  8.50,  8.85,  9.50,  145,  155,  165. 
175,  185,  195,  and  205  be  added  to  the  list  of 
usable  casings.  The  request  that  sizes  5.20,  6.40, 
7.50,  8.00,  8.20,  8.50,  and  9.50  be  added  is  denied. 
One  purpose  of  Standard  No.  117  is  to  limit 
usable  casings  to  those  manufactured  within  a 
limited  period  before  the  effective  date  of  the 


standard.  While  these  sizes  were  in  fact  manu- 
factured during  the  period  1965-1967,  unlike 
sizes  presently  allowed  they  were  also  manufac- 
tured in  large  numbers  well  before  this  period. 
It  has  not  been  demonstrated  that  these  par- 
ticular casing  sizes  are  needed  in  order  to  ensure 
an  adequate  casing  supply,  and  consequently 
they  are  not  added  to  the  list  of  usable  casings. 
However,  the  remaining  requested  casing  sizes, 
8.85,  145,  155,  165,  175,  185,  195,  and  205  are 
permitted  to  be  used  by  this  amendment  as  it 
appears  that  they  were  not  in  widespread  use 
before  the  other  sizes  permitted  to  be  used  under 
the  standard.  In  addition,  the  NHTSA  has  de- 
termined that  some  additional  sizes,  mostly 
radial  sizes,  may  also  be  retreaded,  and  the  pro- 
posed Table  I  has  been  amended  accordingly  and 
made  part  of  the  standard. 

Casing  labeling.  As  amended  December  23, 
1971,  paragraph  S5.2.4  of  the  standard  required 
retreaded  tires  to  be  manufactured  using  casings 
that  were  either  labeled  in  accordance  with  S4.3 
of  Standard  No.  109,  or  until  January  1,  1974, 
of  certain  enumerated  sizes  manufactured  before 
the  effective  date  of  Standard  109.  They  were 
to  be  labeled  with:  (1)  the  generic  name  of  the 
cord  material  used  in  the  plies  of  the  tire,  (2) 
the  actual  number  of  plies,  (3)  the  size  of  the 
tire,  and  (4)  whether  the  tire  is  tubeless  or  tube 
type.  The  petitions  have  requested  that  casings 
not  be  required  to  contain  this  information. 

The  reason  for  requiring  the  casing,  whether 
manufactured  before  or  after  the  effective  date 
of  Standard  109,  to  contain  the  specified  infor- 
mation is  to  provide  information  that  retreaders 
can  retain  or  carry  over  for  the  purpose  of  label- 
ing retreaded  tires.  The  only  reliable  source  for 
much  of  this  information  is  the  casing. 


PART  571;  S  117— PRE  9 


Effective :  January   1,    1972 
Reissued:  March  23,   1972 


The  petitions  have  indicated,  however,  that 
not  all  of  the  information  appears  on  many  of 
the  pre-Standard  No.  109  casings,  or  appears  in 
such  a  way  that  it  cannot  practicably  be  used 
for  purposes  of  relabeling.  The  NHTSA  has 
accordingly  decided  to  modify  the  labeling  re- 
quirements for  pre-Standard  No.  109  casings, 
and  to  make  requirements  for  "DOT"  casings 
consistent  with  them.  As  amended  in  this  issu- 
ance, casings  need  only  be  labeled  with  (a)  the 
tire's  size  designation,  and  (b)  its  actual  number 
of  plies  or  ply  rating.  Information  obtained  by 
NHTSA  has  indicated  that  almost  all  casing 
sizes  allowed  to  be  used  by  the  standard  had  this 
information  permanently  labeled  onto  the  tire 
sidewall. 

The  standard  requires  the  casing  to  contain 
its  original  size  marking.  It  also  requires  that 
the  designated  size  of  the  retreaded  tire  be  no 
larger  (although  it  may  be  smaller)  than  the 
size  of  the  original  casing.  Size  is  the  chief 
criterion  for  consumers  in  the  purchase  of  tires. 
The  NHTSA  has  concluded  that  retreaded  tires' 
sizes  must  be  related  to  original  casing  markings 
in  order  to  provide  assurance  that  the  correct 
size  is  placed  on  the  retreaded  tire,  and  that 
retreaders  should  not  be  allowed  to  determine 
casing  size  or  the  size  of  retreaded  tires  by  any 
other  means.  Both  petitions  for  reconsideration 
requested  that  this  item  of  information  not  be 
required,  and  in  this  regard  they  are  denied. 

Casings  are  also  required  by  this  amendment 
to  be  labeled  with  either  the  tire's  actual  number 
of  plies,  or  its  ply  rating.  This  modifies  the 
proposed  requirement  that  the  "actual  number 
of  plies"  appear.  This  information  is  also  being 
required  by  today's  amendment  to  appear  on  the 
retreaded  tire.  Ply  rating  is  the  basic  criterion 
for  determining  the  tire's  maximum  permissible 
inflation  pressure  and  its  maximum  load.  It  is 
required  to  be  on  the  casing  because  it  cannot  be 
determined  with  assurance  except  from  the 
original  tire  marking.  Some  tires  manufactured 
before  the  effective  date  of  Standard  No.  109 
were  not  labeled  with  the  actual  number  of  plies, 
but  of  those  that  were  not,  almost  all  contained 
the  ply  rating.  Consequently,  requiring  either 
actual  number  of  plies  or  ply  rating  to  be  on 
casings  will  not  reduce  significantly  the  number 
of  otherwise  retreadable  casings,  and  insofar  as 


the  petitions  requested  complete  deletion  of  this 
requirement,  they  are  denied. 

The  standard  is  amended  as  requested  by  the 
petitions  to  eliminate  the  requirement  that  the 
generic  name  of  the  cord  material,  and  whether 
the  tire  is  tubeless  or  tube-type,  appear  on  the 
casing.  It  appears  that  industry  practice  before 
the  effective  date  of  Standard  No.  109  varied  in 
the  manner  that  information  of  this  type  was 
labeled  on  new  tires,  and  that  requiring  the  in- 
formation to  be  on  the  casing  would  unnecessar- 
ily restrict  the  types  of  usable  casings. 

Mention  was  made  in  the  petitions  of  the  pos- 
sibility of  information  appearing  on  new  tires 
being  rubbed  off  in  service,  making  casing  label- 
ing requirements  difficult  to  meet.  The  NHTSA 
is  of  the  opinion  that,  while  this  is  a  possible 
occurrence,  complete  obliteration  of  the  labeling 
is  unlikely.  More  important,  however,  is  the 
fact  that  casings  where  the  labeling  does  not 
appear  should  not,  from  a  safety  standpoint,  be 
retreaded.  The  NHTSA  has  concluded  that 
despite  any  consequent  reduction  in  the  number 
of  casings,  retreaders  should  not  be  left  to  their 
own  devices  in  determining  casing  size  and  ply  ^ 
rating  on  completed  tires,  but  that  such  infor- 
mation, for  the  safety  of  consumers,  must  be 
based  on  the  casing's  original  markings. 

Physical  dimension  requirements.  The  peti- 
tions have  asked  that  the  physical  dimension 
requirements  be  amended  to  allow  for  a  3  per- 
cent minus  deviation  from  the  minimum  size 
factor  specified  for  the  tire's  size  designation 
and  type.  The  standard  presently  allows  a  plus 
10  percent,  and  minus  3  percent  deviation  from 
the  maximum  section  width  only.  The  requests 
are  based  on  the  tendency  of  certain  retreaded 
tires  to  shrink  temporarily  as  a  result  of  the 
retreading  process. 

These  icquests  are  denied.  Data  obtained 
from  NHTSA  tests  indicate  that  the  present 
requirements  are  being  met,  and  that  further 
relief  is  unnecessary.  However,  as  a  res»ilt  of 
a  comment  received,  paragraph  S5.1.2  is  being 
rewritten  for  purposes  of  clarity. 


Labeling.  The  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking 
published  December  23,  1971  (36  F.R.  24825), 
specified  a  system  by  which  retreaded  tires  would 
be   required    to  be   labeled   with   certain   safety    M 

PART  571;  S  117— PRE  10 


Effective:   January   1,    1972 
Reissued:  March   23,    1972 


"Y'  information.  The  use  of  an  affixed  label  would 
be  allowed  for  a  limited  period  followino:  the 
standard's  effective  date,  but  after  that  period 
the  information  would  be  required  to  be  perma- 
nently molded  into  or  onto  the  tire  sidewall. 
The  final  rule  issued  today  adopts  this  system, 
with  certain  modifications  in  the  information  to 
be  provided,  resulting  from  the  amendments  to 
paragraph  S5.2.4.  The  information  is  the  same 
for  both  affixed  and  molded  labeling,  and  con- 
sists of  (a)  the  tire's  size  designation,  (b)  its 
maximum  permissible!,  inflation  pressure,  (c)  its 
maximum  load,  (d)  the  actual  number  of  plies, 
ply  rating,  or  both,  (e)  the  words  "tubeless"  or 
"tube  type"  as  applicable,  (f)  the  words  "bias/ 
belted"  if  the  tire  is  of  bias-belted  construction, 
and  (g)  the  word  "radial"  if  the  tire  is  of  radial 
construction. 

Size,  maximum  load,  and  maximum  permis- 
sible inflation  pressure  are  required  because  each 
is  necessary  for  proper  selection  and  use  of  pas- 
senger car  tires.  "While  the  standard  requires 
the  size  to  be  based  on  the  original  casing  size, 
the  values  for  maximum  load  and  inflation  pres- 
sure may,  where  necessary,  be  based  on  a  table 

JK  incorporated  into  the  standard.  The  values  in 
the  table  are  based  on  the  values  for  the  tire's 
size  designation  and  type  as  they  appear  in 
Standard  No.  109  (§  571.109),  and  are  determined 
according  to  the  tire's  size  and  ply  rating,  both 
of  which  are  required  to  be  on  the  casing. 

The  words  "bias/belted"  and  "radial"  are  re- 
quired, where  appropriate,  in  order  to  identify 
tires  of  different  types  of  construction.  There 
is  presently  a  large  body  of  opinion,  supported 
by  NHTSA,  that  mixing  tires  of  differing  con- 
struction types  on  the  same  vehicle  or  same  axle 
of  a  vehicle  is  not  in  the  best  interests  of  safety. 
In  the  case  of  the  requirement  that  the  words 
"biasA»elted"  appear,  while  not  proposed  in  the 
notice  of  December  23,  the  information  would 
have  been  available  if  the  proposed  language, 
"actual  number  of  plies  in  the  sidewall  and  the 
actual  number  of  plies  in  the  tread  area,  if  dif- 
ferent," had  been  retained.  The  NHTSA  does 
not  believe  labeling  the  words  "bias/belted"  will 
present  significant  problems  for  retreaders  as 
most  belted  tires  were  manufactured  after  the 
eflFective  date  of  Standard  No.  109,  and  are  con- 
sequently  identified   as  such.     Those  that   were 


not  usually  contained  some  similar  identification. 
Moreover,  it  appears  that  after  proper  buffing, 
belted  tires  exhibit  visible  differences  from  pure 
bias  construction. 

The  word  "radial"  is  also  being  required,  de- 
spite the  fact  that  as  proposed  it  would  not  have 
been  required  until  permanent  markings  were 
required.  At  the  time  of  the  proposal,  however, 
NHTSA  was  not  aware  that  radial  tires  were 
being  retreaded.  It  appears  now  that  they  are, 
and  in  the  interests  of  safety  the  term  "radial" 
is  required  to  be  added  to  all  retreaded  radial 
tires. 

The  words  "tubeless"  or  "tube  type"  are  also 
required  to  be  labeled  onto  completed  retreaded 
tires.  Almost  all  of  the  comments  considered 
this  information  to  be  safety  related.  Even 
though  not  required  to  appear  on  the  casing,  the 
information  will  be  available  to  retreaders,  as 
(1)  most  tubeless  casings  were  in  fact  so  marked, 
and  (2)  a  tube-type  tire,  in  most  cases,  can  be 
identified  by  the  lack  of  inner  lining  that  is 
present  on  tubeless  tires.  In  those  cases  where 
identification  is  not  possible,  the  casing  should 
not  be  retreaded,  as  this  information  would  like- 
wise be  unknown  at  time  of  sale. 

The  proposed  requirement  that  the  tire  be 
labeled  with  the  generic  name  of  its  cord  ma- 
terial is  not  retained.  The  comments  have 
argued,  and  NHTSA  agrees,  that  in  the  case  of 
retreaded  tires  this  information  is  not  substan- 
tially related  to  safety.  This,  combined  with 
the  fact  that  it  appears  only  on  certain  casings, 
where  it  must  if  it  is  to  be  relabeled,  has  con- 
vinced the  NHTSA  that  at  present  the  require- 
ment should  not  be  included  in  the  standard. 

Many  comments  opposed  the  requirement  that 
labeling  be  molded  into  or  onto  the  tire  sidewall 
until  such  a  time  as  new  tire  labeling  was  re- 
quired to  be  placed  in  a  position  where  it  would 
not  be  buffed  off  during  retreading,  and  could 
thus  be  retained  through  the  retreading  process. 
These  comments  argued  that  permanent  labeling 
of  this  type  proposed  was  unreasonably  difficult 
to  apply  to  retreaded  tires  because  tires  that 
would  require  different  labeling  are  retreaded 
in  the  same  matrix.  This  would  require  constant, 
time  consuming  changing  of  the  matrix,  and  a 
resultant  high  possibility  of  error. 


PAKT  571;  S  117— PRE  11 


Effective:  January    1,    1972 
Reissued:  March   23,    1972 


Tires,  however,  may  be  subject  to  many  ap- 
plications during  their  useful  life.  They  are 
transferred  from  wheel  to  wheel,  and  from 
vehicle  to  vehicle,  and  each  time  this  takes  place 
the  information  on  the  tire  sidewall  becomes 
important.  Permanent  labeling  is  therefore  re- 
quired if  the  information  is  to  perform  its  func- 
tion, as  it  can  be  readily  assumed  that  affixed 
labels  will  last  little  longer  than  the  first  time 
the  tire  is  mounted.  Affixed  labels,  as  indicated 
in  the  preamble  to  the  proposed  rule  of  December 
23,  are  to  be  permitted  only  because  methods  for 
permanent  labeling  are  not  immediately  avail- 
able to  retreaders,  and  not  as  a  viable  substitute 
for  permanent  labeling.  The  NHTSA  disagrees 
with  industry  claims  that  permanent  labeling 
presents  unreasonable  technical  problems.  Meth- 
ods for  permanent  labeling  developed  for  com- 
pliance with  the  Tire  Identification  and  Record- 
keeping Regulations  (49  CFR  Part  574)  can  be 
readily  adapted  to  meet  these  requirements.  In 
fact,  of  all  the  information  required  in  today's 
amendment,  only  the  "size''  and  "maximum  load 
rating"  will  vary  to  a  significant  amount  from 
casing  to  casing.  Each  of  the  other  items  of 
required  information  can  be  applied  uniformly 
to  large  groups  of  casings  and  need  not  be 
changed  from  tire  to  tire  if  proper  sorting  is 
done  before  retreading  occurs. 

In  light  of  the  above,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  117,  "Retreaded  Pneumatic  Tires," 


§  571.117  of  Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regula- 
tions, is  revised  .... 

Effective  date:  The  standard's  efl'ecti^-e  date 
of  January  1,  1972,  has  been  stayed  as  a  result 
of  court  litigation,  which  is  still  pending.  The 
NHTSA  does  not  expect  manufacturers  to  main- 
tain a  state  of  constant  preparation  so  as  to  be 
able  to  comply  with  the  standard  as  of  the  time 
the  stay,  should  the  court  so  decide,  is  lifted. 
It  has  determined,  therefore,  that  additional 
leadtime  will  be  necessary.  Accordingly,  the 
provisions  of  the  standard,  except  those  regard- 
ing labeling,  shall  become  effective  30  days  from 
the  day  the  stay  is  lifted.  The  labeling  require- 
ments requiring  the  use  of  affixed  labels  shall 
become  effective  90  days  from  that  date,  and 
those  for  permanent  labeling,  approximately  one 
year  from  that  date.  Notice  of  exact  dates  will 
be  published  in  the  Federal  Register  at  the  time 
the  stay  is  lifted. 

This  notice  is  issued  pursuant  to  the  authority 
of  sections  103,  112,  113,  114,  119  and  201  of  the 
National  Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act 
(15  U.S.C.  §§1392,  1401,  1403,  1407,  1421);  and 
the  delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51. 

Issued  on  March  17,  1972. 

Douglas  W.   Toms 
Administrator 

37  F.R.  5950 
March  23,  1972 


PART  571;  S  117— PRE  12 


Effactiva:  Jun*   1,   1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR   VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   117 


i 


Retreaded  Pneumatic  Tires 

(Docket   1-8;  Notice  9) 


This  notice  revokes  high  speed  and  endurance 
requirements  in  Motor  Vehice  Safety  Standard 
No.  117,  "Retreaded  Pneumatic  Tires,"  in  ac- 
cordance with  an  order  of  the  United  States 
Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Seventh  Circuit  in 
H  d:  H  Tire  Company  v.  Volpe,  No.  71-1935,  7th 
Cir.,  December  5,  1972.  It  also  specifies  effective 
dates  for  provisions  of  the  standard  subject  to  a 
stay  that  was  entered  by  the  court  on  December 
31,  1971,  and  removed  by  its  order. 

In  a  notice  published  March  23,  1972  (37  F.R. 
9590),  the  NHTSA  indicated  that  it  did  not  be- 
lieve retreaders  should  be  required  to  maintain 
a  state  of  constant  preparation,  so  as  to  be  able  to 
conform  to  the  standard  immediately  following 
the  lifting  of  the  stay  by  the  reviewing  court.  The 
NHTSA  took  this  position  although  the  stay 
had  been  imposed  only  24  hours  before  the  stand- 
ard was  to  become  effective,  and  retreaders  should 
have  by  that  time  taken  all  necessary  steps  to 
achieve  -compliance.  The  notice  accordingly  spec- 
ified that  those  requirements  of  the  standard 
dealing  with  matters  other  than  labeling  would 
become  effective  approximately  30  days  after  the 
stay  imposed  by  the  court  had  been  lifted.  Re- 
quirements dealing  with  affixed  labels  (S6.3.1) 
were  to  become  effective  in  90  days,  and  require- 
ments for  permanent  labeling  (S6.3.2)  in  one 
year. 

When  these  dates  we're  projected,  however,  the 
NHTSA  had  assumed  a  decision  would  be  ren- 
dered by  the  court  in  a  short  time.  That  assump- 
tion proved  incorrect,  and  the  NHTSA  has 
determined  that  more  leadtime  than  that  specified 
on  March  23,  1972,  should  be  allowed.  This 
leadtime  will  allow  retreaders  to  use  up  their 
already  acquired  inventory  of  casings,  and  to 
obtain  labels  to  co/iform  to  the  affixed  labeling 
requirements. 


This  notice  provides,  therefore,  that  provisions 
of  the  standard  except  those  dealing  with  per- 
manent labeling  are  effective  120  days  from  the 
day  of  publication.  The  permanent  labeling  re- 
quirements of  the  standard  are  effective  one  year 
from  the  day  of  publication.  The  NHTSA  is  of 
the  opinion  that  120  days  is  sufficient  under  the 
circumstances  for  retreaders  to  take  whatever 
remaining  steps  are  necessary  to  achieve  con- 
formity with  these  requirements. 

In  light  of  the  above.  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  117,  "Retreaded  Pneumatic  Tires", 
49  CFR  571.117,  is  amended.  .  .  . 

Effective  date:  .Time  1,  1973,  except  for  the 
provisions  of  paragraph  S6.3.2,  which  are  effec- 
tive on  February  1,  1974.  The  requirements  of 
this  standard  were  originally  issued  April  17, 
1971,  to  become  effective  January  1,  1972.  The 
standard  in  its  present  form  was  published 
March  23,  1972,  but  did  not  take  effect  due  to  a 
stay  imposed  on  December  31,  1971.  Accord- 
ingly, adequate  lead  time  has  already  been  pro- 
vided for  any  long-range  steps  necessary  for 
compliance.  The  public  was  notified  of  expected 
effective  dates  by  the  notice  of  March  23,  1972. 

It  is  therefore  found,  for  good  cause  shown, 
that  an  effective  date  less  than  180  days  from  the 
date  of  publication  of  this  notice  is  in  the  public 
interest. 

(Sec.  103,  112,  113,  114,  119,  201,  Pub.  L. 
89-563,  80  Stat.  718,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1402, 
1403,  1407,  1421;  delegation  of  authority  at  49 
CFR  1.51) 

Issued  on  January  24,  1973. 

Douglas  W.  Toms 
Administrator 

38  F.R.  2982 
January  31,  1973 


PART  571;  S  117— PRE  13-14 


( 


Effectiv*:  Fabruary   1,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   117 

Retreaded  Pneumatic  Tires 

(Docket  No.  71-23;  Notice  3) 
(Docket  No.   1-8;  Notice   10) 


This  notice  amends  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standards  Nos.  109  and  117  (49  CFR  571.109) 
to  reduce  the  minimum  size  of  permanent  safety 
labeling  to  0.078  inches.  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  109,  "New  Pneumatic  Tires,"  was 
amended  November  4,  1972  (37  F.R.  23536),  to 
specify  both  a  location  on  the  tire  sidewall  for 
safety  labeling  and  a  labeling  size  of  not  less 
than  %2  of  an  inch.  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  117,  "Retreaded  Pneumatic  Tires", 
was  amended  March  23,  1972  (37  F.R.  9590),  to 
specify  permanent  labeling  of  the  same  minimum 
size. 

The  Michelin  Tire  Company  has  protested 
that  the  %2  inch  minimum  size  is  inconsistent 
with  the  existing  practice  of  European  tire 
manufacturers  of  labeling  tires  in  letters  having 
a  size  of  0.078  inches  (2mm).  It  has  pointed 
out  that  as  a  consequence  of  the  amendment, 
European  tire  manufacturers  will  have  to  in- 
crease the  size  of  all  existing  labeling.  The 
NHTSA  has  concluded  that  the  difference  be- 
tween letters  0.078  inches  in  size  and  those  of 
0.093  inches  is  not  significant,  and  does  not  jus- 
tify the  resultant  expense  to  manufacturers  of 
modifying  tire  molds.  By  this  notice  the 
NHTSA  therefore  reduces  the  minimum  size  to 
0.078  inches  for  labeling  required  by  S4.3  of 
Standard  No.  109. 


Because  the  permanent  labeling  provisions  of 
Standard  No.  117  are  intended  to  be  ultimately 
met  with  new  tire  labeling,  the  size  requirements 
for  permanent  labeling  in  that  standard  are  also 
modified. 

In  light  of  the  above,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  109,  49  CFR  571.109,  and  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  117,  49  CFR 
571.117,  are  amended .... 

Effective  dates:  July  1,  1973,  for  the  amend- 
ment to  S4.3  of  49  CFR  571.109;  February  1, 
1974,  for  the  amendment  to  S6.3.2  of  49  CFR 
571.117.  These  amendments  relieve  an  unneces- 
sary restriction  without  a  significant  effect  on 
motor  vehicle  safety.  Consequently,  it  is  found 
for  good  cause  that  notice  and  public  procedure 
thereon  are  unnecessary,  and  that  an  effective 
date  less  than  180  days  from  the  day  of  issuance 
is  in  the  public  interest. 

(Sees.  103,  112,  113,  114,  119,  201,  Pub.  L. 
89-563,  80  Stat.  718,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1402, 
1403,  1407,  1421;  delegations  of  authority  at  49 
CFR  1.51.) 

Issued  on  March  8, 1973. 

James  E.  Wilson 
Acting  Administrator 

38  F.R.  6999 
March   15,  1973 


PART  571;  S  117— PRE  15-16 


^ 


Eff«cliv«:  June    1,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   117 

Retreaded  Pneumatic  Tires 
(Docket  No.  1-8;  Notice  11) 


This  notice  amends  paragraph  S6.2  of  Standard 
No.  117,  Retreaded  Pneumatic  Tires  (49  CFR 
571.117),  to  allow  the  temporary  certification 
label  permitted  by  that  paragraph  to  be  affixed 
to  the  sidewall  of  the  tire,  as  well  as  to  the 
tread.  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard 
No.  117  was  published  March  23,  1972  (37  F.R. 
5950)  and  amended  January  31,  1973  (38  F.R. 
2982).  Although  the  standard  relating  to  the 
placement  of  a  conformity  label  stated  that  the 
temporary  label  would  be  affixed  "to  the  tread 
of  the  tire,"  the  NHTSA  did  not  intend  to  be 
restrictive  of  the  label's  location,  and  the  limiting 
language  was  inadvertent. 

Effective  date :  June  1,  1973.  This  amendment 
is  corrective  in  nature  and  imposes  no  additional 


burden  on  any  person.  Accordingly,  it  is  found 
that  notice  and  public  procedure  thereon  are  un- 
necessary, and  that  good  cause  exists  for  an  effec- 
tive date  less  than  180  days  from  the  day  of 
publication. 

(Sees.  103,  112,  113,  114,  119,  201,  Pub.  L. 
89-563,  80  Stat.  718,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1402, 
1403,  1407,  1421;  delegation  of  authority  at  49 
CFR  1.51) 

Issued  on  April  12,  1973. 

James  E.  Wilson 
Acting  Administrator 

38  F.R.  9668 
April  19,  1973 


PART  571;  S  117— PRE  17-18 


231-088  O  -  77  -  40 


E(!«cllv«:   January   9,    1974 
February    1,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMfNT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   117 


Pneumatic  Tires 

(OMket  No.   1-8;  Notice   14) 


On  August  21,  1973  (38  F.R.  22493),  the 
NHTSA  proposed  to  amend  49  CFR  §571.117 
(Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  117,  "Re- 
treaded  Pneumatic  Tires")  to  revise  retreaded 
tire  physical  dimension  requirements,  to  facili- 
tate the  labeling  of  bias/belted  tires,  to  specify 
acceptable  methods  of  permanent  labeling,  and 
to  reduce  labeling  size.  Interested  persons  were 
given  the  opportunity  to  submit  comments  by 
September  24,  1973.  Only  three  comments  were 
submitted  within  the  comment  period,  none  of 
which  objected  to  the  substance  of  the  proposed 
amendments.  Accordingly,  the  proposed  revi- 
sion of  paragraphs  S5.1.2,  S6.3.1,  and  S6.3.2  of 
49  CFR  §  571.117  is  adopted  without  change  as 
set  forth  below. 

Effective  date:  The  amendments  to  S5.1.2  and 
S6.3.1  are  effective  January  9,  1974.    The  amend- 


ment to  S6.3.2  is  effective  February  1,  1974. 
These  amendments  facilitate  compliance  with 
the  standard,  relieve  restrictions,  and  do  not  re- 
duce the  level  of  safety  established  by  the  stand- 
ard. Accordingly,  good  cause  exists  and  is 
hereby  found  for  an  effective  date  less  than  30 
days  from  publication. 

(Sees.  103,  112,  113,  114,  119,  201  Pub.  L. 
89-563,  80  Stat.  718,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1402, 
1403,  1407,  1421;  delegations  of  authority  at  49 
CFR  1.51.) 

Issued  on  January  3, 1974. 

James  B.  Gregory 
Administrator 

39  F.R.  1443 
January  9,  1974 


PART  571;  S  117— PRE  19-20 


Effsctlva:  February   I,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR   VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   117 

Retreaded  Pneumatic  Tires 

(Docket  No.   1-8;  Notice  15) 


This  notice  and  an  accompanying  notice  of 
proposed  rulemaking  (39  F.R.  3571)  are  intended 
to  implement  the  decision  of  the  United  States 
Court  of  Appeals  for  the  District  of  Columbia 
in  the  National  Tire  Dealers'  and  Retreaders' 
Association,  hic.,  v.  Brinegar  (Case  No.  72-1753; 
decided  January  8,  1974).  Standard  No.  117 
was  published  in  its  present  form  on  March  23, 

1972  (37  F.R.  5950)   and  amended  January  31, 

1973  (38  F.R.  2982),  March  15,  1973  (38  F.R. 
6999),  April  19,  1973  (38  F.R.  9668),  May  3, 
1973  (38  F.R.  10940),  and  January  9,  1974  (39 
F.R.  1443). 

Standard  No.  117  would  have  required,  effec- 
tive February  1,  1974,  that  each  retreaded  tire 
be  permanently  labeled  with  each  of  the  follow- 
ing items  of  information :  the  tire's  size  designa- 
tion; the  tire's  maximum  permissible  inflation 
pressure,  either  as  it  appears  on  the  casing  or  as 
set  forth  in  Table  1  of  the  standard;  the  tire's 
maximum  load,  either  as  it  appears  on  the  casing 
or  as  set  forth  in  Table  1 ;  the  actual  number  of 
plies,  ply  rating,  or  both;  the  word  "tubeless", 
if  the  tire  is  a  tubeless  tire,  or  the  words  "tube- 
type"  if  the  tire  is  a  tube-type  tire;  the  words 
"bias-belted",  or  the  actual  number  of  plies  in 
the  sidewall  and  the  actual  number  of  plies  in 
the  tread  area,  if  the  tire  is  of  bias/belted  con- 
struction ;  and  the  word  "radial"  if  the  tire  is  of 
radial  construction.  The  Court's  opinion  vacates 
those  parts  of  the  permanent  labeling  require- 
ments dealing  with  tire  size,  maximum  inflation 
pressure,  ply  rating,  tubeless  or  tube-type,  and 
bias/belted  and  radial  construction.  It  states 
that  the  standard  should  contain  requirements 
for  permanent  labeling  of  the  maximum  permis- 
sible load,  the  actual  number  of  plies,  and  the 
composition  of  the  material  used  in  the  ply  of 


the  tire.  This  notice  clarifies  Standard  No.  117 
to  require  the  maximum  load  to  be  permanently 
labeled  onto  each  retreaded  tire.  As  that  re- 
quirement remains  unchanged  as  a  result  of  the 
Court's  ruling,  its  effective  date  of  February  1, 
1974,  is  retained.  Requirements  for  permanent 
labeling  of  the  actual  number  of  plies  and  the 
generic  name  of  the  cord  material  are  not  pres- 
ently contained  in  the  standard,  and  are  accord- 
ingly proposed  in  a  companion  notice  published 
on  page  3571  of  this  issue  of  the  Federal  Register. 
Under  the  language  of  Standard  No.  117,  the 
deletion  of  permanent  labeling  requirements  re- 
sults in  a  continuation  of  the  existing  require- 
ment for  affixed  labeling  in  paragraph  S6.3.1 
with  respect  to  the  items  of  information  deleted. 
Any  information  required  to  be  labeled  by  para- 
graph S6.3.1  that  is  not  permanently  labeled  onto 
the  tire  sidewall,  i.e.,  either  retained  from  the 
casing  or  relabeled  on  to  the  retreaded  tire,  must 
be  included  on  a  label,  not  easily  removable, 
affixed  to  the  tire  sidewall. 

In  light  of  the  above,  paragraph  S6.3.2  of  49 
CFR  571.117  (Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard 
No.  117)  is  revised.  .  .  . 

Effective  date:  February  1,  1974.  This  notice 
merely  restates  an  effective  date  established  Jan- 
uary 31,  1973  (38  F.R.  2982). 

(Sec.  103,  112,  113,  114,  119,  Pub.  L.  89-563, 
80  Stat.  718,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1402,  1403, 
1407,  1421;  delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR 
1.51.) 

Issued  on  January  24,  1974. 

James  B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

39  F.R.  3553 
January  28,  1974 


PART  571;  S  117— PRE  21-22 


I 


Effective:   May    12,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO   MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD   NO.    117 

Retreaded  Pneumatic  Tires 
(Docket  No.    1-8;   Notice    17) 


This  notice  amends  IMotor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  117,  Retreaded  Pneimiatk-  Tires, 
to  require  additional  permanent  labeling  for  re- 
treaded  tires.  A  notice  of  proposed  rulemakino- 
regarding  this  amendment  was  published  Jan- 
uary 28,  1974  (39  F.E.  3571). 

The  permanent  labeling  required  to  be  on  each 
retreaded  tire  by  this  notice  is  the  actual  number 
of  plies  in  the  tire's  sidewall  and  the  actual 
number  of  plies  in  its  tread  area  (if  diti'erent), 
and  the  generic  name  of  each  cord  material  used 
in  the  plies  (both  sidewall  and  tread  area)  of 
the  tire.  These  requirements  are  in  addition  to 
the  existing  requirement  that  each  retreaded  tire 
be  permanently  labeled  with  its  maximum  per- 
missible load. 

Under  the  rule  as  hereby  amended,  retreaders 
do  not  have  to  relabel  the  ply  and  cord  material 
information  if  it  is  retained  on  the  casing  side- 
wall  through  the  retreading  process.  If  the  in- 
formation is  removed  during  processing,  however, 
it  must  be  relabeled  so  that  it  will  be  perma- 
nently affixed  to  the  completed  tire.  If  the  in- 
formation does  not  appear  on  the  casing  before 
retreading  the  casing  may  not  be  retreaded  un- 
less the  retreader  can  otherwise  determine  the 
correct  information. 

The  requirements  for  the  permanent  labeling 
of  these  information  items  are  based  specifically 
on  section  201  of  the  National  Traffic  and  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Act  (15  U.S.C.  1421).  The 
NHTSA  did  not  include  them  in  earlier  versions 
of  the  standard,  as  it  had  concluded  that  their 
relationship  to  safety  was  not  sufficient  to  justify 
permanent  relabeling.  In  its  opinion  in  NTDRA 
V.  Brinegar  409  F.2d  31  (D.C.  Cir.,  1974),  how- 
ever, the  Court  of  Appeals  stated  that  under  the 
Safety   Act   the   NHTSA   was   unauthorized   to 


reach  this  conclusion,  since  Congress  had  deter- 
mined that  permanent  labeling  requirements  for 
actual  number  of  plies  and  cord  material  must 
be  included  in  tlie  standard.  The  proposal  of 
January  28,  1974,  was  issued  as  a  direct  result 
of  that  opinion. 

]Many  industry  comments  suggested  that  the 
NHTSA  implement  this  aspect  of  the  opinion 
by  requiring  the  information  to  ai)pear  on  com- 
pleted retreaded  tires  only  when  the  information 
was  retained  throiigh  the  retreading  process.  In 
cases  where  the  information  could  not  be  re- 
tained, one  comment,  from  the  National  Tire 
Dealers  and  Retreader's  Association  (NTDRA), 
suggested  the  use  of  affixed  paper  or  plastic 
labels  to  supply  the  information,  so  it  could  be 
available  to  the  purchaser  at  the  time  of  pur- 
chase. Most  of  the  comments,  however,  sug- 
gested that  when  the  information  could  not  be 
retained,  no  requirement  should  be  imposed. 
These  comments  argued  that  for  the  agency  to 
require  otherwise  would  jjresent  substantial  bur- 
dens on  retreaders  because  of  the  difficulties  in 
labeling  all  of  the  possible  combinations  of  ply 
and  cord  material.  Tlie  industry  comments  fur- 
ther pointed  out  that  the  permanent  labeling 
problem  will  eventually  disappear  because  of  the 
amendment  to  Standard  No.  109,  which  requires 
all  tires  manufactured  after  July  1,  1973,  to  con- 
tain required  labeling  between  the  tire's  maxi- 
mum section  width  and  bead.  This  labeling  can 
be  retained  through  the  retreading  process. 

After  careful  consideration  of  the  issues  pre- 
sented, the  NHTSA  lias  determined  that  it  must 
issue  the  requirements  in  the  form  described. 
The  agency  is  not  unmindful  that  this  will  pre- 
vent the  retreading  of  some  casings  otherwise 
usable,  and  will  require  relabeling  of  the  infor- 


PART  571;  S  117— PRE  23 


Effective:   May    12,    1975 


mation  on  others.  The  NHTSA  believes  that  to 
issue  the  requirements  in  the  form  suggested  by 
the  industry  comments  would  not  be  consistent 
with  the  requii-ements  of  Section  201  of  the 
Safety  Act  as  inter2)reted  by  the  Court  of  Ap- 
peals in  NTDRA  v.  Brine  gar.  To  follow  the 
industry  suggestions  would  leave  some  tires 
witliout  the  information  permanently  labeled. 
It  is  impossible  to  reconcile  this  result  wnth  the 
statutory  requirement  as  interpreted  by  the 
Court.  Nor  can  the  agency,  in  conformity  with 
the  statute,  establish  an  effective  date  so  far  in 
the  future  as  to  provide  sufficient  time  for  tires 
not  containing  necessai-y  labeling  to  enter  the 
retreading  process. 

Based  on  its  re\iew  of  the  record,  the  NHTSA 
does  not  find  the  requirement  unreasonable  or 
impracticable.  Since  the  opinion  in  NTDL'A  \. 
Bi'/negar,  methods  have  been  de\eloped  which 
allow  for  the  permanent  labeling  or  relabeling 
of  retreaded  tires  using  a  rubber  medallion 
which  is  cured  to  the  sidewall  of  the  tire  when 
the  tire  is  in  the  mold.  The  comments  indicate 
that  this  method  is  presently  being  used  to 
permanently  label  not  only  a  tire's  maximum 
permissible  load,  as  required,  but  its  size,  ply 
rating,  and  whether  it  is  tubeless  or  tube  tyi)e 
as  well.  The  technology  for  this  labeling  ap- 
proach has  been  fully  documented  in  retreading 
journals,  and  in  communications  to  the  docket. 
The  NHTSA  has  furnished  opinions  stating 
that  the  use  of  the  medallion  conforms  to  the 
standard's  permanent  labeling  requirements. 
The  docket  contains  clear  information  regarding 
the  cost  of  medallion  labeling.  Each  label  costs 
the  retreader  some  2.5  cents,  and  the  record 
demonstrates  that  the  cost  of  both  label  and 
application  should  not  exceed  10  cents  per  tire. 
This  differs  fi-om  representations  previously 
made  regarding  i)ennanent  laljeling  costs,  which 
had  Ijeen  rejiresented  at  $2.50  per  tire. 

An  additional  problem  raised  in  the  comments 
is  that  adding  the  two  information  items  greatly 
increases  the  labeling  burden  due  to  the  number 
of  possible  combinations  of  information.  The 
NHTSA  does  not  believe  the  record  supports 
this  contention.  According  to  NHTSA  esti- 
mates, the  variations  in  ply  and  cord  material 
are  relatively  few  in  bias  and  bias-belted  con- 


structions, with  only  six  possible  combinations 
of  ply  and  cord  material  in  the  case  of  bias  tires 
and  ten  possible  combinations  in  bias-belted  con- 
struction. Together,  these  constructions  would 
necessitate  a  maximum  of  1(5  labels.  While 
NHTSA  estimates  show  a  greater  niunber  of 
possible  combinations  in  the  case  of  radial  tires, 
the  I'ecord  in  this  rulemaking  suggests  that  few- 
radial  tires  are  as  yet  being  retreaded.  It  ap- 
pears most  radials  used  for  retreading  will  lune 
been  manufactured  after  July  1,  1973,  and  will 
have  casings  on  wliicli  no  relabeling  would  be 
needed. 

Furthermore,  one  conuuent,  which  claimed  an 
increase  from  67  to  2.000  possible  labels,  pre- 
sumed that  all  of  the  information  (size,  ply  rat- 
ing, maximum  permissible  iiaflation  pressures, 
tubeless  or  tube  type,  as  well  as  maximum  per- 
uiissible  load,  number  of  plies,  and  generic  name 
of  the  cord  materials)  is  placed  on  one  label. 
However,  there  is  nothing  to  prohibit  the  use  of 
an  additional  label  for  both  ply  and  cord  ma- 
terial information,  or  e\en  an  additional  label 
for  each.  Finally,  relabeling  is  necessary  only 
when  the  specified  information  is  not  retained 
through  the  retreading  process.  Estimates  fur- 
nished by  the  industry  and  placed  in  the  docket 
show  that  the  information  added  by  this  amend- 
ment is  not  in  a  retainable  position  in  only  1  out 
of  10  tires  otherwise  suitable  for  retreading. 
The  requirement  would  presently  affect  a  maxi- 
mum of  10%  of  retreaded  tires,  and  by  the  time 
of  its  effective  date  that  percentage  should  de- 
crease. 

Prior  to  this  amendment,  Standard  No.  117 
required  that  on  or  after  August  1,  1974,  the 
only  casings  that  could  be  used  for  retreading 
would  be  those  that  bore,  originall}'  molded  into 
or  onto  their  sidewalls,  the  symbol  DOT,  the  tire 
size,  and  the  actual  number  of  plies  or  ply  rat- 
ing. The  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  of 
January  28,  1974:,  proposed  to  delete  the  ply- 
rating  alternative,  making  it  necessary  to  use 
only  casings  that  show  the  actual  number  of 
plies.  It  also  i)roposed  to  add  a  requirement 
that  the  casings  to  be  used  would  be  only  those 
that  had  originally  been  labeled  with  the  generic 
names  of  their  cord  materials.  These  casing  re- 
quirements   were    proposed    on    the    assumption 


PAKT  571;  S  117— PRE  24 


EfFeclive:   May    12,    1975 


that  the  casing  should  already  contain  this  in- 
formation if  it  is  to  appear  on  the  completed 
retreaded  tire. 

Several  comments  objected  to  these  proposed 
requirements  on  the  basis  that  they  would  cause 
a  reduction  in  the  number  of  retreadable  casings 
in  certain  older  and  hard-to-find  sizes.  The 
NHTSA  finds  merit  in  these  arguments,  and  the 
proposed  requirements,  that  casings  used  for  re- 
treading must  be  only  those  that  are  originally 
labeled  with  their  actual  number  of  plies  and 
their  cord  materials,  are  not  adopted.  Retreaded 
tires  as  they  are  finally  produced  must  contain 
this  information.  But  unlike  "size"  and  "ply 
rating,"  which  are  crucial  for  safety  and  slioukl 
only  be  based  on  original  casing  labeling,  the 
XHTSA  has  decided  that  retreaders  should  be 
free  to  otherwise  obtain  information  on  the  num- 
ber of  plies  and  cord  materials  and  then  place  it 
permanently  on  the  tire. 

One  objection  raised  in  the  comments  with 
resi^ect  to  the  requirement  that  all  casings  bear 
the  symbol  DOT  erroneously  assumed  that  these 
requirements  are  part  of  the  proposal.  The  re- 
quirement that  on  or  after  August  1,  1974,  only 
DOT  casings  be  retreaded  was  issued  March  23, 
1972  (37  F.R.  5950),  because  of  the  agency's 
concern  over  the  continued  use  of  older  casings 


which  were  not  manufactured  to  meet  Standard 
No.  109.  It  was  based  on  industry  comments 
that  a  6-year  supply  of  casings  was  required  to 
meet  industry  needs.  August  1,  1974,  is  6  years 
from  the  date  that  all  new  tires  were  required 
to  be  labeled  with  the  sjiecified  safety  informa- 
tion which  is  the  source  of  both  affixed  and 
permanent  labeling  under  this  standard. 

The  existing  casing  requirements  therefore  re- 
main unchanged :  the  only  casings  that  may  be 
used  for  retreading  are  those  that  bear  original 
permanent  labeling  of  the  DOT  symbol,  size, 
and  the  actual  number  of  plies  or  ply  rating. 

In  light  of  the  above,  section  571.117  of  Title 
49,  Code  of  Fedei-al  Regulations  (^lotor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  Xo.  117),  is  amended  .... 

Effective  date :  May  12, 1975. 

(Sees.  103,  112,  113,  114,  119,  201;  Pub.  L. 
89-563;  80  Stat.  718  (15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1402, 
1403,  1407,  1421 ) ;  delegation  of  authority  at 
49  CFR  1.51.) 

Issued  on  November  6,  1974. 

James  B.  Gregory 
Administrator 

39  F.R.  39882 
November  12,  1974 


PART  571;  S  117— PRE  25-26 


c 


Effective:   June    1,    1973 
Reissued:  March  23,    1972 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   117 

RETREADED  PNEUMATIC  TIRES 
(Docket  No.   1-8;  Notice  7) 


51.  Scope.  This  standard  specifies  perform- 
ance, labeling,  and  certification  requirements  for 
retreaded  pneumatic  passenger  car  tires. 

52.  Purpose.  The  purpose  of  this  standard  is 
to  require  retreaded  pneumatic  passenger  car 
tires  to  meet  safety  criteria  similar  to  those  for 
new  pneumatic  passenger  car  tires. 

53.  Application.  This  standard  applies  to  re- 
treaded  pneumatic  tires  for  use  on  passenger 
cars  manufactured  after  1948. 

54.  Definitions. 

54.1  "Casing"  means  a  used  tire  to  which  ad- 
ditional tread  may  be  attached  for  the  purpose 
of  retreading. 

"Retreaded"  means  manufactured  by  a  process 
in  which  a  tread  is  attached  to  a  casing. 

54.2  All  terms  defined  in  §571.109  and 
§  571.110  are  used  as  defined  therein. 

55.  Requirements. 
S5.1    Retreaded  tires. 

55.1.1  Except  as  specified  in  S5.1.3,  each  re- 
treaded  tire,  when  mounted  on  a  test  rim  of  the 
width  specified  for  the  tire's  size  designation  in 
Appendix  A  of  §  571.109,  shall  comi^ly  with  the 
following  requirements  of  §  571.109 : 

(a)  84.1  (Size  and  construction). 

(b)  S4.2.1  (General). 

(c)  S4.2.2.3  (Tubeless  tire  resistance  to  bead 
unseating). 

(d)  S4.2.2.4  (Tire  strength). 

55.1.2  [Except  as  specified  in  S5.1.3,  each  re- 
treaded  tire,  when  mounted  on  a  test  rim  of  the 
width  specified  for  the  tire's  size  designation  in 
Appendix  A  of  §  571.109,  shall  comply  with  the 


requirements  of  S4.2.2.2  of  §  571.109,  except  that 
the  tire's  section  width  shall  not  be  more  than 
110  percent  of  the  section  width  specified,  and 
the  tire's  size  factor  shall  be  at  least  97  percent 
of  the  size  factor  specified,  in  Appendix  A  of 
§  571.109  for  the  tire's  size  designation.  (39  F.R. 
1443— January  9,  1974.     Effective  1/9/74)] 

55.1.3  [Each  retreaded  tire  shall  be  capable  of 
meeting  the  requirements  of  S5.1.1  and  S5.1.2 
when  mounted  on  any  rim  in  accordance  with 
those  sections.  (38  F.R.  2985— January  31, 1973. 
Effective:  6/1/73)] 

55.1.4  No  retreaded  tire  shall  have  a  size  des- 
ignation, recommended  maximum  load  rating, 
or  maximum  permissible  inflation  pressure  that 
is  greater  than  that  originally  specified  on  the 
casing  pursuant  to  S4.3  of  §  571.109,  or  specified 
for  the  casing  in  Table  I. 

S5.2  Casings. 

55.2.1  No  retreaded  tire  shall  be  manufactured 
with  a  casing — 

(a)  On  which  bead  wire  or  cord  fabric  is 
exposed  before  processing. 

(b)  On  which  any  cord  fabric  is  exposed  dur- 
ing processing,  except  that  cord  fabric  that  is 
located  at  a  splice,  i.e.,  where  two  or  more  seg- 
ments of  the  same  ply  overlap,  or  cord  fabric 
that  is  part  of  the  belt  material,  may  be  exposed 
but  shall  not  be  penetrated  or  removed  to  any 
extent  whatsoever. 

55.2.2  No  retreaded  tire  shall  be  manufactured 
with  a  casing — 

(a)  From  which  a  belt  or  ply,  or  part  thereof, 
is  removed  during  processing;  or 

(b)  On  whicli  a  belt  or  ply,  or  part  thereof, 
is  added  or  replaced  during  processing. 


(Rev.    1/3/74) 


PART  571;  S  117-1 


Effective:    June    1,    1973 
Reissued:   March   23,    1972 

55.2.3  [Each  retreaded  tire  shall  be  manufac- 
tured witli  a  casing  that  bears,  permanently 
molded  at  the  time  of  its  original  manufacture 
into  or  onto  the  tire  sidewall,  each  of  the  fol- 
lowing : 

(a)  The  symbol  DOT; 

(b)  The  size  of  the  tire;  and 

(c)  The  actual  number  of  plies  or  ply  rating. 
(39  F.R.  39882— November  12,  1974.  Effective: 
5/12/75)3 

55.2.4  [Reserved] 

S6.  Certification  and  labeling. 

56.1  Except  as  specified  in  S6.2,  each  manu- 
facturer of  a  retreaded  tire  shall  certify  that  his 
product  complies  with  this  standard,  pursuant 
to  section  114  of  the  National  Traffic  and  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966,  by  labeling  the  tire 
with  the  symbol  DOT  in  the  location  specified 
in  §  574.5  of  this  chapter. 

56.2  [From  June  1,  1973  to  July  31,  1973,  a 
manufacturer  may  certify  compliance  by  affixing 
to  the  tread  or  sidewall  of  the  tire,  in  such  a  man- 
ner that  it  is  not  easily  removable,  a  label  that 
states  in  letters  not  less  than  three  thirty-seconds 
of  an  inch  high:  38  F.R.  9668— April  19,  1973. 
Effective:  6/1/73)] 

This  retreaded  tire  was  manufactured  after 
June  1,  1973  and  conforms  to  all  applicable 
Federal  motor  vehicle  safety  standards. 

56.3  Labeling. 

S6.3.1  [Each  retreaded  pneumatic  tire  manu- 
factured on  or  after  June  1, 1973,  shall  be  labeled, 
in  at  least  one  location  on  the  tire  sidewall  in 
letters  and  numerals  not  less  than  0.078  inches 
high,  with  the  following  information:  (39  F.R. 
1443— Januaiy  9,  1974.     Effective:  1/9/74)] 

(a)  The  tire's  size  designation ; 

(b)  The  tire's  maximum  permissible  inflation 
pressure,  either  as  it  appears  on  the  casing  or  as 
set  forth  in  Table  I ; 


(c)  The  tire's  maximum  load,  either  as  it  ap- 
pears on  the  casing  or  as  set  forth  in  Table  I ; 

(d)  The  actual  number  of  plies,  ply  rating, 
or  both; 

(e)  The  word  "tubeless"  if  the  tire  is  a  tube- 
less  tire,  or  the  words  "tube  type"  if  the  tire  is 
a  tube-type  tire; 

(f)  [If  the  tire  is  of  bias/belted  construction, 
the  words  "bias/belted",  or  the  actual  number  of 
plies  in  the  sidewall  and  the  actual  number  of 
plies  in  the  tread  area.  (39  F.R.  1443 — Jan- 
uary 9,  1974.    Effective:  1/9/74)] 

(g)  The  word  "radial"  if  the  tire  is  of  radial 
constniction. 

[The  information  shall  either  be  retained  from 
the  casing  used  in  the  manufacture  of  the  tire, 
or  jnay  be  labeled  into  or  onto  the  tire  during 
the  retreading  process,  either  permanently 
(through  molding,  branding,  or  other  method 
that  will  produce  a  permanent  label)  or  by  the 
addition  of  a  label  that  is  not  easily  removable. 
(39  F.R.  1443— January  9,  1974.  Effective: 
1/9/74)] 

[S6.3.2  Each  retreaded  tire  manufactured  on 
or  after  May  12,  1975,  shall  bear  permanent 
labeling  (through  molding,  branding,  or  other 
method  that  will  produce  a  permanent  label,  or 
through  the  retention  of  original  casing  label- 
ing) in  at  least  one  location  on  the  tire  sidewall, 
in  letters  and  numbers  not  less  than  0.078  inches 
high,  consisting  of  the  following  information : 

(a)  The  tire's  maximum  permissible  load, 

(b)  The  actual  number  of  plies  in  tlie  tire 
sidewall,  and  the  actual  number  of  plies  in  the 
tire  tread  area,  if  different ;  and 

(c)  The  generic  name  of  each  cord  material 
used  in  the  plies  (both  sidewall  and  tread  area) 
of  the  tire.  (39  F.R.  39882— November  12,  1974. 
Effective:  5/12/75)] 


IRev.    11/6/74) 


PART  571;  S  117-2 


Table  I — PLIES 


Effective:    January    1 ,    1 972 
Reissued:   March   23,    1972 


2  Ply— 4  Ply  (4  Ply  Rating) 

Tire  Size  Maximum  Maximum 

Load  Inflation 

Pressure 


4  Ply  (6  Ply  Rating) 

Maximum  Maximum 

Load  Inflation 

Pressure 


4  Ply  (8  Ply  Rating) 

Maximum  Maximum 

Load  Inflation 

Pressure 


6. 00-13-. 

6.50-13.- 

7.00-13.. 

6.45-14. 

6.95-14.. 

7.35-14.. 

7.75-14.. 

8.25-14.. 

8.55-14.. 

8.85-14.. 

5.60-15. 

5.90-15.. 

6.85-15. 

7.35-15. 

7.75-15. 

8.85-15- 

8.25-15. 

8.45-15. 

8.55-15. 

8.85-15. 

9.00-15. 

9.15-15. 

8.90-15. 


1010 

32 

1080 

36 

1140 

40 

1150 

32 

1230 

36 

1300 

40 

1270 

32 

1360 

36 

1440 

40 

1120 

32 

1200 

36 

1270 

40 

1230 

32 

1310 

36 

1390 

40 

1360 

32 

1450 

36 

1540 

40 

1500 

32 

1600 

36 

1690 

40 

1620 

32 

1730 

36 

1830 

40 

1770 

32 

1890 

36 

2000 

40 

1860 

32 

1990 

36 

2100 

40 

970 

32 

1040 

36 

1105 

40 

1050 

32 

1130 

36 

1200 

40 

1230 

32 

1320 

36 

1390 

40 

1390 

32 

1480 

36 

1570 

40 

1490 

32 

1590 

36 

1690 

40 

1610 

32 

1720 

36 

1820 

40 

1620 

32 

1730 

36 

1830 

40 

1740 

32 

1860 

36 

1970 

40 

1770 

32 

1890 

36 

2000 

40 

1860 

32 

1980 

36 

2100 

40 

1900 

32 

2030 

36 

2150 

40 

1970 

32 

2100 

36 

2230 

40 

2210 

32 

2360 

36 

2500 

40 

PART  571;  S  117-3 


Effacllve:   January   1,    1972 

Reissued:  March  23,    1972 

Table  I— 

-PLIES — Continued 

2  Ply— 4  Ply  (4  Ply  Rating) 

4  Ply  (6  Ply  Rating) 

4  Ply  (8  Ply  Rating) 

Tire  Size 

Maximum 

Maximum 

Maximum 

Maximum 

Maximum 

Maximum 

Load 

Inflation 
Pressure 

Load 

Inflation 
Pressure 

Load 

Inflation 
Pressure 

A70-13 

1060 

32 

1130 

36 

1200 

40 

D70-13 

1320 

32 

1410 

36 

1490 

40 

D70-14 

1320 

32 

1410 

36 

1490 

40 

E70-14 

1400 

32 

1490 

36 

1580 

40 

F70-14 

1500 

32 

1610 

36 

1700 

40 

G70-14 

1620 

32 

1730 

36 

1830 

40 

H70-14 

1770 
1860 

32 
32 

1890 
1980 

36 
36 

2010 
2100 

40 

J70-14 

40 

L70-14 

1970 

32 

2100 

36 

2230 

40 

C70-15 

1230 

32 

1320 

36 

1390 

40 

D70-15 

1320 

32 

1410 

36 

1490 

40 

E70-15 

1400 

32 

1490 

36 

1580 

40 

F70-15 _ 

1500 

32 

1610 

36 

1700 

40 

G70-15 

1620 

32 

1730 

36 

1830 

40 

H70-15 

1770 

32 

1890 

36 

2010 

40 

J70-15 

1860 

32 

1980 

36 

2100 

40 

K70-15 

1900 

32 

2030 

36 

2160 

40 

L70-15 

1970 

32 

2100 

36 

2230 

40 

PART  571;  S  117^ 


Table  I— PLIES— Continued 


Effective:   January   1,    1972 
Reissued:  March   23,    1972 


2  Ply— 4  Ply  (4  Ply  Rating) 

Tire  Size  Maximum  Maximum 

Load  Inflation 

Pressure 


4  Ply  (6  Ply  Rating) 

Maximum  Maximum 

Load  Inflation 

Pressure 


4  Ply  (8  Ply  Rating) 

Maximum  Maximum 

Load  Inflation 

Pressure 


165-13 1050 

175-13 1150 

185-13 1270 

155R13 950 

155R14. 1010 

155R15... 1015 

165R13 1010 

165R14 1120 

165R15 1130 

175R14.-. 1230 

185R14 1360 

185/70R13 1090 

145-14* 866 

145-15 895 

195-15 1550 

205-15 1700 

♦Dash  Radial— Not  an  "R"  Radial 


32 

1130 

36 

1200 

40 

32 

1240 

36 

1350 

40 

32 

1390 

36 

1510 

40 

32 

1015 

36 

1075 

40 

32 

1080 

36 

1140 

40 

32 

1085 

36 

1150 

40 

32 

1080 

36 

1140 

40 

32 

1200 

36 

1270 

40 

32 

1200 

36 

1270 

40 

32 

1310 

36 

1390 

40 

32 

1450 

36 

1S40 

40 

32 

1140 

36 

1190 

40 

32 

905 

36 

935 

40 

32 

940 

36 

975 

40 

32 

1680 

36 

1820 

40 

32 

1840 

36 

2000 

40 

36  F.R.  7315 
April    17,    1971 


PART  571,-  S  117-5 


r 


C^ 


Effective:  February    1,    1971 


PREAMBLE  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   118 

Power-Operated  Window  Systems  for  Passenger  Cars  and  Multipurpose  Passenger  Vehicles 

(Docket  No.  69-1  la) 


In  May  1968  the  Director  of  the  National 
Highway  Safety  Bureau  issued  a  public  advis- 
ory, stating  that  numerous  cases  of  injury  and 
death  from  accidental  operation  of  power  win- 
dows had  been  reported  to  the  Bureau.  He 
warned  that  many  of  those  injuries  and  deaths 
had  occurred  because  power  windows  could  be 
closed  when  the  ignition  switch  was  off.  In  the 
advisory,  the  Director  cautioned  owners  of  ve- 
hicles with  power-operated  windows  to  have  the 
wiring  adjusted  to  prevent  closure  of  the  win- 
dows when  the  ignition  switch  is  off. 

It  has  been  determined  that  the  interests  of 
motor  vehicle  safety  require  the  imposition  of  a 
safety  standard  which  will  reduce,  if  not  elimi- 
nate, the  toll  of  deaths  and  injuries  resulting 
from  accidents  involving  power-operated  win- 
dows. 

A  notice  of  proposed  rule  making  relating  to 
power-operated  window  systems  in  passenger 
cars  and  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles  was 
published  in  the  Federal  Register  on  August  23, 
1969  (34  F.R.  13608).  Comments  were  requested 
concerning  two  objectives  of  the  proposal :  ( 1 ) 
To  minimize  the  likelihood  of  personal  injury 
or  death  occurring  when  a  person  is  caught  be- 
tween a  closing  window  and  the  frame,  channel 
or  seal,  and  (2)  to  insure  that  vehicle  occupants 
can  make  emergency  exits  from  vehicles  equipped 
with  power-operated  windows  in  the  event  of  a 
severe  accident. 

The  comments  received  have  been  given  careful 
consideration  in  the  formulation  of  the  safety 
standard  issued  today.  To  achieve  the  first  major 
objective  it  was  proposed  that  a  power-operated 
window,  once  opened,  not  close  when  the  igni- 
tion key  of  the  vehicle  is  not  in  the  "on"  or 
"^art"  position.    This  proposal  would  have  pro- 


hibited operation  of  windows  when  the  key  was 
in  the  "accessory"  position,  a  position  provided 
to  avoid  battery  discharge  and  possible  damage 
to  the  electrical  system.  The  proposal  would 
also  have  prohibited  activation  of  power  tailgate 
windows  from  the  exterior  of  the  vehicle.  Sev- 
eral commenters  objected  that  the  proposal  would 
in  these  respects  prohibit  widely  accepted  con- 
venience features  without  corresponding  safety 
benefits.  These  comments  have  been  determined 
to  have  merit,  and  the  standard  as  presently 
issued  has  been  modified  to  require  that  a  power- 
oi^erated  window  system  not  be  operative,  except 
by  muscular  force  or  by  operating  an  outside 
lock,  when  the  key  is  removed  from  the  ignition 
lock  or  is  in  an  off  position.  This  permits  opera- 
tion of  windows  with  the  key  in  the  "accessory" 
position,  as  well  as  by  a  key-locking  system  on 
the  exterior  of  the  vehicle. 

To  achieve  the  second  objective,  it  was  pro- 
lX)sed  that  a  control  be  required  that  would  open 
power-operated  windows  from  inside  the  pas- 
senger compartment  of  the  vehicle,  regardless  of 
the  key  position.  Allowance  of  such  a  control, 
however,  might  tend  to  defeat  the  first  major 
objective,  and  also  make  it  easier  for  thieves  to 
enter  a  locked  vehicle.  Further,  an  accident  se- 
vere enough  to  jam  a  vehicle  door  very  likely 
would  be  severe  enough  to  jam  the  window  in 
its  channel  or  to  interfere  with  the  power  source 
for  emergency  operation  of  the  window.  For 
these  reasons  this  proposal  has  not  been  adopted 
in  Standard  No.  118.  The  standard  does,  how- 
ever, permit  installation  of  master  control 
switches  for  overriding  control  of  power-operated 
windows  when  the  ignition  key  is  in  a  position 
other  than  off. 


PART  571;  S  118— PRE  1 


231-088   O  -  77  -  41 


Effective:   February   1,    1971 

Comments  indicated  an  assumption  that  power- 
operated  interior  partitions  were  covered,  as  they 
were  intended  to  be,  though  not  specifically  men- 
tioned in  the  preamble  of  the  proposal.  To 
insure  that  there  is  no  ambiguity  on  the  point. 
Standard  No.  118  includes  partitions  in  the  re- 
quirements. 

The  subject  matter  covered  by  this  rulemaking 
action  is  being  adopted  at  this  time  because  it 
has  been  detennined  that  it  is  feasible  and  that 
it  can  be  implemented  at  an  early  date.  The 
notice  of  proposed  rule  making  upon  which  this 
rulemaking  action  is  based  was  issued  in  con- 
junction with  an  advance  notice  of  proposed  rule 
making  (34  F.R.  13609,  Aug.  23,  1969)  on  power- 
operated  window  systems  that  dealt  with  the 
subject  of  mechanisms  that  would  interrupt,  stop, 
or  reverse  the  direction  of  the  window  when  a 
predetermined  force  is  exerted  on  an  object  be- 
tween  the  glazing  and  the   frame,  channel,  or 


seal  upon  which  it  closes,  and  other  fail-safe 
considerations.  The  advance  notice  involved 
engineering  and  economic  problems  of  a  substan- 
tial magnitude.  Those  problems  and  their  solu- 
tions are  undergoing  further  study  and  will  be 
given  consideration  for  rulemaking  based  on  the 
results  thereof. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  49  CFR 
571.21,  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standards, 
is  amended  by  adding  Standard  No.  118,  Power- 
Operated  Window  Systems .... 

Effective  date :  February  1, 1971. 

Issued  on  July  17, 1970. 

Douglas  W.  Toms, 

Director, 

National  Highway  Safety  Bureau 

35  F.R.   11797 
July  23,   1970 


r 


PART  571;  S  118— PRE  2 


^ 


Effective:   July   29,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   118 

Power-Operated   Window  Systems 
(Docket  No.  74-1;  Notice  3) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  amend  Stand- 
ard No.  118,  Poioer-Operated  Window  Systems, 
49  CFR  571.118,  to  permit  the  operation  of 
power  windows  under  certain  conditions  when 
the  ignition  is  not  in  the  "on"  position. 

On  September  23,  1974,  the  agency  published 
a  notice  (39  F.R.  34062)  proposing  to  allow  the 
operation  of  power  windows,  when  the  key  that 
controls  the  vehicle's  engine  is  in  the  off  position 
or  is  removed  from  tlie  lock,  only  in  circum- 
stances where  (1)  only  muscular  force  is  used, 
or  (2)  a  key-locking  system  on  the  vehicle's  ex- 
terior is  activated,  or  (3)  a  door  that  has  no 
frame  meeting  the  upper  edge  of  the  closed 
window  is  opened  a  specified  amount  and  a 
switch  separate  from  the  normal  power  window 
switch  is  activated. 

Nine  comments  were  submitted  to  the  docket, 
all  of  which  approved  of  the  basic  proposal  to 
allow  operation  of  the  power  windows  when  the 
vehicle  engine  is  not  running.  General  Motors, 
who  suggested  the  proposal  as  it  was  published, 
supported  its  adoption.  However,  most  of  the 
commenters  objected  to  the  proposed  provision 
that  a  separate  switch  be  required  to  operate  a 
window  when  the  door  is  open  to  a  degree  suf- 
ficient to  permit  a  ball  the  size  of  a  child's  head 
to  pass  between  the  top  edge  of  the  fully  closed 
window  and  the  vehicle's  roof  rail.  The  objec- 
tion was  based  on  a  contention  that  the  separate 
switch  provision  was  design  restrictive  and  not 
necessary  from  a  safety  standpoint.  According 
to  the  comments,  required  use  of  a  separate 
switch  for  activation  of  the  windows  when  the 
doors  are  opened  would  not  assure  a  higher  level 
of  safety  than  use  of  the  normal  power  activa- 
tion switch. 


The  NHTSA  finds  merit  in  commenters  argu- 
ments. It  is  the  considered  opinion  of  the  agency 
that  the  absence  of  a  separate  switch  requirement 
will  have  no  effect  on  the  safety  of  the  power- 
operated  window  system  since  no  switch  would 
be  capable  of  activation  unless  the  vehicle's  door 
were  opened  to  the  specified  distance.  For  this 
reason  the  proposed  separate  switch  requirement 
is  deleted.  Manufacturers  will  thus  be  free  to 
install  whatever  type  of  activation  system  they 
wish,  as  long  as  the  criteria  of  S3(c)  are  satis- 
fied. 

In  addition,  the  description  of  the  locations 
between  which  the  test  ball  must  fit  appears  to 
need  clarification.  It  is  the  agency's  intention 
that  the  ball  be  capable  of  passing  between  the 
upper  rear  corner  of  the  fully  closed  window 
and  the  vehicle's  roof  rail.  Therefore,  the  term 
"trailing  edge"  in  S3(c)  is  changed  to  "upper 
rear  corner." 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  S3,  of 
Standard  No.  118,  Potver-Operated  Window 
Systems  (49  CFR  571.118)  is  amended.  .  .  . 

Ejfective  date:  Because  this  amendment  re- 
lieves a  restriction  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. 

(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 :  July  23,  1975. 


James  B.  Gregory 
Administrator 

40  F.R.  31773 
July  29,  1975 


PART  571;  S  118— PRE  3^ 


(. 


Effective:  February  1,  1971 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   118 

Power-Operated  Window  Systems 
(Docket  No.  69-1  la) 


51.  Purpose  and  scope.  This  standard  speci- 
fies requirements  for  power-operated  window 
and  partition  systems  to  minimize  the  likelihood 
of  death  or  injury  from  their  accidental  opera- 
tion. 

52.  Application.  This  standard  applies  to 
passenger  cars  and  multipurjjose  passenger  ve- 
hicles. 

53.  Requirements.  fWlien  the  key  that  con- 
trols activation  of  the  vehicle's  engine  is  in  an 
off  position  or  is  removed  from  the  lock,  no 
power-operated  window  or  partition  shall  be 
movable  except — 

(a)  By  muscular  "force  unassisted  by  a  power 
source  within  the  vehicle ; 


(b)  Upon  activation  by  a  key-locking  system 
on  the  exterior  of  the  vehicle ;  or 

(c)  In  the  case  of  a  door  that  does  not  have 
a  frame  that  meets  the  upper  edge  of  the  win- 
dow in  its  closed  position,  by  activation  of  a 
switch  that  is  energized  only  when  the  door  is 
opened  wide  enough  to  permit  a  ball  8  inches 
in  diameter  to  pass  between  the  upper  rear  cor- 
ner of  the  window  in  its  fully  raised  position 
and  the  vehicle's  roof  rail.  (40  F.R.  31773— 
July  29,  1975.    Effective:  July  29,  1975.)] 


35  F.R.  11797 
July  23,  1970 


(Rev.   7/23/75) 


PAET  571;  S  118-1 


k 


Effective:    September    1,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.    119 

New  Pneumatic  Tires  for  Vehicles  Other  Than  Passenger  Cars 

(Docket  No.  71-18;   Notice  3) 


This  notice  establishes  a  new  Jlotor  vehicle 
safety  standard  No.  119  Neiv  pneumatic  tires  for 
vehicles  other  than  passenger  cars,  49  CFK 
571.119,  which  specifies  performance  and  label- 
ing requirements  for  new  pneumatic  tires  de- 
signed for  highway  use  on  multipurpose 
l^assenger  vehicles,  trucks,  buses,  trailers  and 
motorcjxles  manufactured  after  1948,  and  which 
requires  tread  wear  indicators  in  tires,  and  rim 
matching  information  concerning  those  tires. 

Xotices  of  proposed  rulemaking  on  this  sub- 
ject were  published  on  August  5,  1971  (36  F.R. 
14392),  and  July  8,  1972  (37  F.R.  13481). 

The  July  1972  notice  proposed  that,  instead  of 
including  the  voluminous  "tire  tables"  of  tire 
size  designations,  maximum  loads  and  inflation 
pressures,  and  dimensions  in  the  standard,  the 
manufacturers  continue  as  at  present  to  use  the 
industry  association  tire  and  rim  manuals  for 
the  purpose  of  product  standardization.  Since 
the  only  tire  characteristics  relevant  to  the  safety 
performance  tests  of  the  standard  are  general 
tire  type,  speed  restrictions,  maximum  load  rat- 
ing, load  range,  and  rim  diameter,  all  of  which 
are  readily  available  or  labeled  on  the  tire  itself, 
the  tables  are  not  necessary  for  the  performance 
requirements.  To  prevent  these  private  associa- 
tions from  having  ultimate  regulatory  power 
over  individual  manufacturers,  a  provision  was 
included  in  the  proposal  by  which  a  manufac- 
turer who  wished  to  differ  from  the  values  in 
the  association  tables  could  do  so  by  providing 
separate  information  to  the  XHTSA,  to  his  deal- 
ers, and  to  the  public  upon  request.  To  prevent 
the  under-rating  of  tires  of  an  established  size 
designation,  another  provision  would  proiiibit 
the  assignment  by  a  manufacturer  of  a  maximum 
load  rating  to  a  particular  tire  size  designation 


that  is  lower  than  the  load  rating  already  pub- 
lished elsewhere  for  that  tire  size  designation. 

Many  domestic  tire  manufacturers  objected  to 
lack  of  tire  tables  on  the  grounds  that  it  in  effect 
endorsed  non-standardization  of  tire  specifica- 
tions. They  and  some  representatives  of  the 
trucking  industry  speculated  that  there  might 
be  danger  of  mis-match  arising  from  the  pro- 
duction of  tires  whose  dimensions  deviate  sub- 
stantially from  the  published  dimensional 
specifications  for  tires  of  that  size  designation. 
Several  of  the  domestic  manufacturers  recom- 
mended inclusion  of  the  (American)  Tire  and 
Rim  Association  tables  in  the  standard  because 
of  the  experience  that  domestic  manufacturers 
have  with  road  conditions  in  the  United  States. 

Other  manufacturers,  however,  supported  the 
deletion  of  tire  tables  for  several  reasons.  They 
argued  that  a  single  standard  would  discourage 
innovation  in  tire  design  and  suggested  that  the 
complexities  of  selection  and  maintenance  of 
truck  tires  could  not  be  reduced  to  a  single  table 
of  values.  They  asserted  that  standardized  new- 
tire  dimensions  do  not  eliminate  the  need  to 
measure  tires  for  proper  dual  matching,  because 
tires  wear  differently  in  use  and  thereafter  rarely 
match  new  or  used  tires  of  the  same  size. 

Upon  consideration  of  all  relevant  informa- 
tion, the  XHTSA  has  concluded  that  the  posi- 
tion taken  in  the  proposal  is  sound,  and  it  is 
adopted  in  the  rule.  The  inclusion  in  the  Code 
of  Federal  Regulations  of  load-inflation  and  di- 
mension tables  for  e\ery  road  tire  sold  in  this 
country  (they  presently  are  included  in  Standard 
109  only  for  passenger  cars)  would  be  a  vastly 
cumbersome  process,  not  only  in  its  inception  but 
as  a  continuous  maintenance  task.  The  XHTSA 
finds  no  justification  at  this  time  for  undertaking 


PART  571;  S  119— PRE  1 


Effective:   September   1,    1974 


to  monitor  substantively  the  manufacturer  pro- 
cesses and  testing  that  lead  to  the  continual 
changes  in  the  standard  association  tables,  so  its 
function  in  this  regard  would  be  largely  clerical. 
The  point  is  not,  as  the  (U.S.)  Rubber  Manu- 
facturers Association  asserted,  primarily  one  of 
"administrative  convenience".  It  is  that  no 
justification  has  been  foimd  for  locking  both  the 
government  and  the  world  tire  industry  into  a 
restrictive  and  unwieldy  system  by  which  the 
Code  of  Federal  Regulations  is  formally 
amended  every  time  a  manufacturer  decides  to 
add  a  tire  size,  or  change  the  load  rating  or  di- 
mensional specifications  of  one  of  its  tires.  There 
are  many  reasons  to  avoid  over-regulation ; 
"administrative  convenience"  is  among  the  least 
of  them. 

This  agency  has  no  intent  to  dilute  the  stand- 
ardizing function  of  the  trade-association  table 
systems  that  presently  are  used  to  jDrovide  neces- 
sary tire  and  rim  information  to  dealers  and 
users.  These  systems  monitor  the  safety  aspects 
of  tire  dimension  and  load  rating  satisfactorily 
now  without  government  regulation,  and  the 
NHTSA  expects  that  they  will  continue  to  do  so. 
No  evidence  has  been  presented  of  under-  or 
over-sizing  of  tires  that  would  warrant  the  in- 
stitution of  a  massive  government  regulatory 
program  in  that  area.  If  such  a  practice  should 
arise  in  the  future  to  a  degree  that  constitutes 
a  public  hazard,  the  NHTSA  has  ample  author- 
ity to  deal  with  it  specifically,  as  a  safety-related 
defect,  and  prospectively,  under  its  rulemaking 
powers. 

The  argument  that  the  agency  should  include 
only  the  domestic  Tire  and  Rim  Association 
tables,  thereby  requiring  foreign  tire  manufac- 
turers to  build  tires  under  the  specifications,  and 
presumably  the  approval,  of  the  domestic  asso- 
ciation, is  found  to  be  without  merit.  The  word- 
ing and  the  legislative  history  of  the  National 
Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  show  a 
clear  Congressional  intent  to  give  evenhanded 
treatment  to  domestic  and  foreign  manufactur- 
ers of  motor  vehicles  and  equipment,  and  this 
has  always  been  the  policy  of  the  NHTSA.  This 
agency  has  no  evidence  that  foreign  associations 
or  manufacturers  lack  the  information  necessary 
to  produce  safe  tires  for  the  American  market. 


Finally,  the  argument  that  the  agency  could  ^ 
or  should  by  some  means  prevent  "proliferation"  r 
of  new  tire  sizes  is  without  substance.  No  con- 
crete justification  has  been  presented  for  at- 
tempting to  limit  the  introduction  of  new  tire 
sizes,  and  to  date  no  significant  safety  problems 
have  been  found  caused  by  the  addition  of  new 
tire  sizes.  The  NHTSA  assumes  that  the  com- 
petition and  consumer  demand  forces  of  the 
private  sector  will  operate  as  in  other  areas  of 
our  economy,  to  i^roduce  a  satisfactory  {product 
population. 

The  criteria  for  tire  failure  in  the  endurance 
and  high  speed  laboratory  tests  have  been  sub- 
stantially modified  from  those  of  the  proposal 
in  response  to  comments  to  this  docket  and 
Docket  71-10,  Notice  2  (37  F.R.  19381,  Septem- 
ber 20,  1972),  which  proposed  identical  changes 
in  the  passenger  car  tire  failure  criteria.  This 
regulation  adopts  the  same  failure  criteria  as 
were  adopted  in  final  form  for  passenger  car 
tire  tests  on  September  28,  1973  (38  F.R.  27050), 
and  relies  on  several  new  and  revised  definitions 
found  in  Standard  109.  The  preamble  to  the 
passenger  car  tire  amendment  fully  explains  the 
modifications  made,  and  it  is  only  noted  here  , 
that  the  changes  are  substantially  in  agreement  \ 
with  manufacturers'  requests  to  specify  the  tire 
failures  with  particularity.  A  pre-test  inspec- 
tion has  been  added  to  discover  failures  in  con- 
struction evident  without  dynamic  testing. 
Additionally  the  required  air  pressure  following 
the  test  run  has  been  raised  to  100  percent  of  the 
original  pressure. 

Several  comments  questioned  the  inclusion  of 
all  non-passenger  car  tires  in  one  standard, 
pointing  out  that  tire  design  differs  radically  to 
optimize  desirable  characteristics  for  each  vehicle 
type  and  application.  However,  this  standard 
does  not  attempt  to  measure  the  optimum  char- 
acteristics of  each  type  of  non-passenger  tire. 
This  standard  only  establishes  minimum  per- 
formance characteristics  which  any  type  of  tire 
must  satisfy  to  be  safely  used  on  public  high- 
ways. Passenger  car  tires  have  been  subjected 
to  such  a  standard  in  the  past  and  this  proposal 
extends  a  comparable  minimum  standard  to  all 
other  tire  types  designed  for  highway  use.  The 
requirements    recognize    the    design    differences 


PART  571 ;  S  119— PRE  2 


Effective:   September    1,    1974 


between  tire  types  by  establishing  different  test 
values  for  different  tire  types,  size,  construction, 
load  ranires,  and  speed  restrictions. 

Comments  to  tlie  docket  requested  physical 
tolerances  and  related  accommodations  for  test 
purposes.  These  arise  from  misunderstanding 
of  the  legal  nature  of  the  safety  standards,  which 
are  performance  levels  that  each  vehicle  or  item 
of  motor  vehicle  equipment  must  meet,  and  not 
instructions  for  manufacturer  testing.  The  tem- 
perature conditions  for  tire  testing  have  been 
reworded  to  reflect  the  legal  meaning  and  the 
NHTSA  testing  practices  relative  to  tire  stand- 
ards. The  proposed  standard  would  make  clear 
tliat  tlie  tire  must  be  capable  of  meeting  the 
requirements  when  tested  at  any  ambient  tem- 
perature up  to  100°  F.  The  legal  significance 
of  this  requirement  is  explained  in  a  general 
provision  of  Part  571,  §  571.4,  Explanation  of 
mage.  In  NHTSA  compliance  testing,  the  am- 
bient temperature  would  be  maintained  in  a 
range  between  90°  and  100°  F.,  and  any  test 
failure  under  those  conditions  would  be  consid- 
ered a  failure  to  meet  the  standard.  Manufac- 
turer testing  should  be  directed  at  proving  the 
tire's  capability  in  the  exercise  of  due  care,  by 
testing  under  conditions  at  least  as  adverse  as 
any  that  could  be  establislied  in  accordance  wuth 
these  procedures. 

The  trucking  industry  questioned  the  advis- 
ability of  labeling  maximum  inflation  and  load 
rating  on  the  tire  because  it  appeared  to  prohibit 
the  adjustment  of  pressures  to  road  conditions. 
The  purpose  of  the  labeling  is  to  establish  test 
values  for  the  tire  and  to  warn  the  user  of  the 
tire's  maximum  capabilities  .  The  label  does  not 
prohibit  adjustment  of  pressure  to  suit  road  con- 
ditions or  prevent  a  manufacturer  from  recom- 
mending other  inflation-load  combinations  on  the 
tire  or  in  accompanying  literature  to  suit  specific 
circumstances. 

European  manufacturers  objected  to  the  re- 
quirement that  load  rating  be  indicated  by  a 
"load  range"  index  not  in  world-wide  use.  The 
primary  purpose  of  the  load  range  index  is  to 
indicate  categories  of  strength  within  the  size 
designations,  for  user  information  and  test  pur- 
poses. It  should  be  understood  that  a  manu- 
facturer may  use  whatever  additional  systems 
he    chooses    to    indicate    his    assessment    of    tire 


strength.  Information  such  as  metric  equiv- 
alents and  ply  ratings,  for  example,  may  be 
added  to  sidewall  labeling  as  long  as  the  required 
information  appears  in  the  required  format  on 
tlie  tire. 

Several  manufacturers  suggested  that  labeling 
appear  on  only  one  side  of  a  tire  when  both  sides 
of  the  tire,  as  mounted,  will  be  available  for 
inspection.  Accordingly,  motorcycle  tires  must 
now  be  labeled  on  one  side  only,  but  the  inac- 
cessibility of  both  sidewalls  on  truck  and  bus 
tires  for  visual  inspection  precludes  one-sidewall 
labeling  of  tliese  categories. 

Despite  this  inaccessibility,  however,  the  iden- 
tification code  appears  on  one  sidewall  only,  be- 
cause placing  the  ID  slug  in  the  upper  half  of  a 
hot  process  mold  is  a  difficult  and  dangerous 
operation.  In  response  to  another  labeling  re- 
quest, the  DOT  symbol  must  not  be  placed  on 
the  tire  before  the  effective  date  of  the  standard. 

Several  manufacturers  argued  for  greater  de- 
sign freedom  in  the  placement  of  treadwear  in- 
dicators because  the  proposed  locations  could 
generate  useless,  arbitrary  information  when  ap- 
plied to  "lug"  tread  designs.  In  response,  tread 
"groove",  "width",  and  "depth"  have  been  de- 
fined so  that  the  treadwear  indicators  are  placed 
to  indicate  wear  in  that  portion  of  the  tread 
which  contacts  the  ground. 

Several  comments  on  the  endurance  require- 
ment requested  lower  test  loads  and  speed  to 
approximate  actual  driving  conditions  on  flat 
surfaces.  The  NHTSA  does  not  utilize  the  lab- 
oratory test  wheel  to  simply  approximate  road 
conditions  but  rather  to  apply  strictly  controlled 
amounts  of  stress  to  moving  tires  over  long 
periods  in  order  to  measure  a  minimum  level  of 
performance.  Industry  testing  established  these 
values  and  they  have  been  independently  verified 
in  NHTSA's  Safety  Systems  Laboratory  as  an 
accurate  gauge  of  tire  endurance.  Another 
manufacturer  expressed  confusion  about  the  ap- 
propriate endurance  test  standards  for  mining 
and  logging  tires.  These  tires  are  generally 
speed-restricted  tires  and  should  be  tested  in 
accordance  with  the  values  established  in  Table 
III  for  all  other  speed-restricted  tires. 

In  response  to  another  comment,  it  should  be 
noted  that  test  accuracy  also  requires  a  stand- 


PART  571;  S  119— PRE  3 


Effective:    September    1,    1974 


ardized  test  wheel  diameter,  because  the  wheel's 
curvature  directly  affects  a  tire's  ability  to  ab- 
sorb strain. 

Several  manufacturers  requested  elimination 
of  the  pressure  reading  following  the  47-hour 
run  so  that  they  could  run  the  tire  to  destruction 
in  accordance  with  industry  test  practices  with- 
out stopi^ing  to  make  the  measurement.  This 
request  can  not  be  granted  because  the  new  pro- 
cedures for  evaluating  tire  failure  necessitate 
stopping  after  the  run  to  inspect  the  tire,  in 
addition  to  stopping  to  take  a  pressure  reading. 

Comments  raised  the  validity  of  the  strength 
test  when  applied  to  tires  incorporating  recent 
innovations  in  tire  design.  It  appears  that  re- 
cent changes  in  the  construction  of  passenger 
car  tires,  especially  the  addition  of  belts  under 
the  tread,  have  tended  to  make  tlie  strength  test 
specified  in  Standard  109  obsolete  (38  F.R.  1055, 
January  8,  1973).  However,  the  construction  of 
non-passenger  tires  permits  accurate  measure- 
ment of  tire  strength  without  the  "bottoming 
out"  problem  noted  in  the  comments,  if  the 
proper  plunger  size  and  breaking  energy  value 
are  used.  A  differential  in  breaking  energy 
value  between  tubed  and  tubeless  tires  accom- 
modates the  smaller  dimensions  of  the  newer 
tubeless  configurations  that  replace  tube  tires 
of  the  same  load  range.  The  "light  truck"  cate- 
gory accommodates  the  different  design  and  con- 
struction materials  which  manufacturers  use  in 
these  tires  designated  for  this  specialized  service. 
The  NHTSA  does  not  agree  that  lower  breaking 
energy  values  should  apply  to  tires  under  7 
inches  in  section  width  as  suggested  in  one  com- 
ment, because  these  tires  are  no  smaller  than 
typical  passenger  car  tires  subjected  to  similar 
testing  and  similar  conditions  on  the  highway. 
In  response  to  another  comment,  the  NHTSA 
has  concluded  that  differences  in  the  construc- 
tion of  steel-belted  tires  are  not  sufficient  to 
justify  lower  energy  values  in  the  plunger  test 
similar  to  those  extended  to  rayon  tires. 

Objections  to  the  high  speed  performance  re- 
quirements questioned  the  testing  of  all  light 
tires  (load  ranges  A,  B,  C,  and  D)  under  the 
same  high-speed  conditions.     The  NHTSA  has 


eliminated  sjDeed-restricted  tires  from  the  re-  f^ 
quirements  but  will  maintain  high-speed  require- 
ments for  all  motorcycle,  trailer,  and  truck  tires. 
While  it  is  true  that  these  tires  are  specially 
constructed  for  their  purpose  and  often  are 
mounted  on  vehicles  marked  with  speed  restric- 
tions, there  is  no  assurance  that  these  tires  will 
be  properly  utilized.  The  difficulty  lies  with 
drivers  who  ignore  rental  trailer  speed  limits, 
subject  boat  or  mobile  home  trailer  tires  to  higher 
than  recommended  speeds,  attempt  to  improve 
the  performance  of  their  low  speed  motorcycles, 
or  drive  trucks  equipped  with  light  truck  tires 
at  high  speed  on  the  highway.  This  probability 
of  abuse  creates  a  safety  {problem  which  can  be 
met  by  requiring  these  tires  to  withstand  such 
high  speed  abuse.  Load  range  D  tires  over  15 
inches  in  section  width  are  presently  subject  to 
the  high  speed  test  but  may  be  reclassified  on 
the  basis  of  future  test  experience. 

Comments  to  the  docket  objected  to  the  pro- 
posed effective  date  and  requested  up  to  18 
months  leadtime  following  issuance  of  the  stand- 
ard on  the  grounds  that  the  large  variety  of 
tires  to  be  certified  requires  substantial  enlarge- 
ment of  test  facilities.  This  standard  has  been  I 
in  various  proposal  stages  for  4  years,  however, 
which  has  i:)rovided  the  tire  industry  ample  op- 
portunity to  make  plans  for  the  acquisition  and 
installation  of  test  facilities  and  therefore  lead- 
time  of  9  months  is  considered  adequate. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  a  new 
Standard  119,  A^ew  piieimmfic  fires  for  vehicles 
other  than  passenger  cars,  is  added  to  Part  571 
of  Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Eegulations,  to 
read  as  set  forth  below. 

Effective  date:  September  1,  1974. 

(Sees.  103,  112,  113,  114,  119,  201,  Pub.  L. 
89-563,  80  Stat.  718,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1402, 
1403,  1407,  1421 ;  delegation  of  authority  at  49 
CFR  1.51.) 

Issued  on  November  5,  1973. 

James  B.  Gregory 
Administrator 

38  F.R.  31299 
November  13,  1973 


PART  571;  S  119— PRE  4 


Effective:   March    1,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR   VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   119 

New  Pneumatic  Tires  for  Vehicles  Other  than  Passenger  Cars 

(Docket  71-18;   Notice   5) 


This  notice  amends  Standard  119,  Neio  'pneu- 
matic tildes  for  vehicles  other  than  passenger  cars, 
49  CFR  571.119,  by  changing  the  effective  date 
from  September  1,  1974,  to  March  1,  1975. 

A  major  concern  of  manufacturers  comment- 
ing on  Standard  119  as  it  was  published  in  final 
form  on  November  13,  1973,  (38  F.R.  31299), 
with  a  September  1,  1974,  effective  date,  was  the 
limited  leadtime  in  which  to  modify  tire  molds 
and  certify  the  conformity  of  tires.  Correct  use 
of  the  DOT  symbol,  lettering  height,  and  clari- 
fication of  treadwear  indicator  language  required 
attention  before  the  changeover  process  could 
begin. 

Manufacturers  requested  up  to  11  months'  ad- 
ditional leadtime  in  view  of  these  difficulties. 
Amendments  have  been  proposed  that  would  re- 
solve these  specific  problems.  Because  tlie  range 
of  non-passenger  car  tires  is  so  great,  however, 
the  National  Higliway  Traffic  Safety  Adminis- 
tration has  determined  that  even  with  these 
changes  an  additional  6  months'  leadtime  is 
justified  to  accomplish  full  certification. 


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  553.35,  Petitions  for  reconsid- 
eration. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Standard 
119  (49  CFR  §  571.119)  is  amended  by  changing 
the  effective  date  of  September  1,  1974,  to  March 
1,  1975. 

Because  this  amendment  creates  no  additional 
burden,  and  because  changeover  scheduling  must 
begin  immediately,  it  is  found  for  good  cause 
shown  that  notice  and  public  procedure  thereon 
are  impracticable  and  unnecessary. 

(Sees.  103,  119,  201,  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80  Stat. 
718,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407,  1421;  delegation  of 
authority  at  49  CFR  1.51.) 

Issued  on  January  29,  1974. 

James  B.   Gregory 
.  Administrator 

39  F.R.  4087 
February  1,  1974 


PART  571;  S  119— PRE  5-6 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR   VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   119 


New  Pneumatic  Tires  for  Vehicles  Other  than  Passenger  Cars 

(Docket  71-18;  Notice  6) 


This  notice  responds  to  petitions  for  reconsid- 
eration on  Standard  119,  Neio  pneumatic  tires 
for  vehicles  other  than  passenger  cars.  49  CFR 
571.119,  published  November  13,  1973  (38  F.R. 
31299).  In  response  to  comments  by  twelve  tire 
manufacturers  and  trade  associations,  the  defini- 
tions, labeling,  and  performance  provisions  of 
the  standard  are  amended  in  several  respects. 

Justification  for  Issuance  of  Standard  119 
The  Rubber  Manufacturers  Association 
(RMA),  supported  by  most  domestic  tire  manu- 
facturers, petitioned  for  withdrawal  of  Standard 
119  on  the  grounds  that  promulgation  of  the 
standard  did  not  satisfy  the  criteria  for  the  es- 
tablishment of  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standards 
set  out  in  §  103  of  the  National  Traffic  and  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966.  Section  103(f)  of 
the  Act  requires  that  the  formulation  of  a  stand- 
ard include  consideration  of  its  appropriateness 
for  particular  items  of  motor  vehicle  equipment, 
relevant  safety  data,  and  the  extent  to  which  it 
will  contribute  to  carrying  out  the  purposes  of 
the  Act.  As  formulated  a  standard  must  be 
practicable,  meet  the  need  for  motor  vehicle 
safety,  and  be  stated  in  objective  terms. 

In  petitioning  for  withdrawal  of  Standard  119 
for  failure  to  "meet  the  need  for  motor  vehicle 
safety,"  the  RMA  and  those  tire  manufacturers 
who  support  its  position  effectively  assert  that 
no  tire  safety  hazard  exists  which  can  be  met  by 
Standard  119.  The  National  Highway  Traffic 
Safety  Administration  (NHTSA)  does  not  agree. 
Congress  recognized  a  tire  safety  problem. 
The  Senate  held  hearings  on  and  considered  a 
bill  devoted  totally  to  tire  safety  (S1643).  The 
House  included  a  separate  title  in  H.R.  13228  to 
emphasize  tire  safety  as  a  particularly  important 
area  for  the  issuance  of  safety  standards. 


In  a  number  of  bills  which  ha^e  been  in 
troduced  in  both  Houses  as  well  as  in  a  liill 
which  has  passed  the  Senate  (S.2669)  the 
necessity  for  standards  for  tires  was  consid- 
ered as  an  indejiendent  problem  and  without 
reference  to  its  relationship  to  the  total 
traffic  safety  problem.  S.2669  is  confined 
only  to  the  improvement  of  tires  for  passen- 
ger cars  and  station  wagons.  The  committee 
decided  that  although  tires  are  a  highly  im- 
portant part  of  the  total  trafic  safety  prob- 
lem they  are,  nevertheless,  an  integral  part 
of  it  and  should  be  dealt  with  in  the  context 
of  the  problem  and  not  in  a  piecemeal 
fashion.  .  .  . 

However  the  committee  did  feel  that  it  was 
necessary  to  emphasize  this  aspect  of  the 
safety  problem  and  to  establish  certain  spe- 
cific requirements  which  should  be  contained 
in  the  Secretary's  standards  on  tires,  (em- 
phasis supplied)  H.R.  Rep.  No.  1776,  89th 
Cong.,  2d  Sess.  32  (1966). 

On  the  House  floor.  Representative  Springer 
detailed  the  eflFect  of  the  legislation  on  motor 
vehicle  equipment. 

Obviously,  the  most  important  piece  of 
equipment  which  comes  to  mind  is  the  tire. 
The  other  body  treated  this  subject  in  sepa- 
rate legislation,  but  it  seems  to  me,  and  it 
did  to  our  committee,  that  tire  standards 
must  be  part  and  parcel  of  any  legislation 
which  seeks  to  impose  standards  of  safety 
for  the  cars  on  the  highway.  Consequently, 
a  portion  of  the  bill  was  devoted  specifically 
to  this  subject.  It  requires  minimum  stand- 
ards for  all  tires,  and  then  sees  to  it  that  the 
buyer  will  have  all  the  information  he  needs 
to  make  a  decision  as  to  the  tire  he  needs. 


PART  571 ;  S  119— PRE  7 


Effective;   March    1,    1975 


112   Cong.   Rec.   18,780   (daily  ed.  Aug.   17, 
1966) 

Congress  showed  particular  interest  in  passen- 
ger car  tires,  but  did  not  limit  the  legislation  to 
them,  as  suggested  by  Firestone  in  its  petition 
for  reconsideration.  As  the  House  report  notes, 
Title  II  represents  a  broadening  of  the  tire 
safety  issue  from  passenger  cars  and  station 
wagons.  The  language  of  Title  II  refers  to  tires 
of  "each  motor  vehicle"  and  to  a  uniform  tire 
quality  grading  system  "for  motor  vehicles." 
Section  204  is  devoted  to  regrooved  tires  wliicli 
are  commonly  utilized  on  non-passenger  cars. 

The  NHTSA  has  concluded  tliat  tlie  tire  safety 
problems  recognized  by  Congress  can  best  be  met 
by  Standard  119.  The  standard  requires  label- 
ing and  tire-rim  matching  information  to  aid 
proper  application  of  the  tire,  and  minimum 
performance  levels  to  ensure  adequate  designed- 
in  safety  for  normal  use  and  predictable  abuse 
on  the  road.  The  standard  is  directed  at  misuse 
of  tires  as  well  as  their  correct  use. 

It  is  true  that  Bureau  of  Motor  Carrier  Safety 
statistics  indicate  that  professional  maintenance, 
cost  consciousness,  and  frequent  state  inspections 
result  in  a  lower  than  normal  number  of  tire 
failures  on  interstate  haulers.  These  figures, 
however,  are  not  representative  of  tire  conditions 
throughout  the  multipurpose  passenger  vehicle 
(MPV),  truck,  bus,  motorcycle,  and  trailer  cate- 
gories. Congress  mandated  minimum  tire  safety 
standards  although  it  was  aware  that  tire  failure 
statistics  were  difficult  to  isolate,  realizing  that 
tire  design,  while  not  a  major  cause  of  failures 
in  well-maintained  tires,  could  offer  a  margin  of 
safety  where  tires  are  misused.  Hearings  on 
S.1634  Before  tlie  Senate  Commerce  Committee 
on  Tire  Safety.  89th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  ser.  89-37 
at  41  (1965) ;  Hearings  on  S.3005  Before  Senate 
Commerce  Committee  on  Traffic  Safety,  89th 
Cong.,  2nd  Sess.,  ser.  89-49  at  158,  159  (1966). 
In  its  formulation  of  the  standard,  the  NHTSA 
considered  data  which  showed  that  worn  and 
misapplied  tires  create  a  significant  safety  haz- 
ard. Standard  119  ensures  that  the  informa- 
tion required  by  Congress  to  be  on  tires,  along 
with  additional  tire-rim  matching  information 
and  treadwear  indicators,  are  available  to  the 
unknowledgeable    individual    who    must    select. 


maintain,  and  replace  non-passenger  tires  pe-  ^ 
riodically.  The  RMA  itself  argued  for  the  in-  ^ 
elusion  of  load-rating  information  in  this  stand- 
ard as  an  effective  means  to  eliminate  the 
dangers  of  proliferation  and  misapplication  of 
tire  sizes.  In  the  area  of  tire  design,  the  mini- 
mum performance  levels  in  Standard  119  ensure 
a  margin  of  safety  for  persons  who  may  mis- 
apply or  abuse  tires  despite  the  label  information 
and  treadwear  warnings. 

The  NHTSA  experience  with  performance 
standards  for  passenger  car  tires  also  supports 
Standard  119  rulemaking.  Since  the  beginning 
of  certification  testing  by  tlie  manufacturers  and 
compliance  testing  by  the  NHTSA,  tlie  percent- 
age of  test  failures  has  dropped  from  approxi- 
mately 5.6%  to  less  than  1%.  At  the  same  time 
88  recalls  of  1,436,118  tires  have  removed  from 
tlie  road  substantial  numbers  of  tires  which  could 
not  be  shown  in  tlie  exercise  of  due  care  to  be 
able  to  meet  tlie  minimum  requirements.  Stand- 
ard 119  lias  similar  performance  tests,  calculated 
to  produce  close  surveillance  of  test  failure  per- 
centages and  recalls  when  a  faulty  tire  design  is 
identified.  The  performance  test  levels  vary  ac- 
cording to  tire  type  to  ensure  that  the  standard  /' 
is  reasonable,  practicable,  and  appropriate  for  ^ 
the  particular  tire  design  in  its  intended  service 
application. 

The  NHTSA  has  found  that  Standard  119  will 
weed  out  faulty  tire  design  and  promote  safety. 
The  test  values  of  Standard  119  were  originally 
proposed  by  industry  and  checked  by  the  NHTSA 
at  its  Safety  Systems  Laboratory.  The  RMA 
conducted  a  similar  series  of  tests  at  that  time 
and  later  endorsed  the  requirements  as  modified 
in  minor  respects : 

The  laboratory  tests  and  values  in  the  pro- 
posed FMVSS  119  as  amended  by  our  com- 
ments would  set  standards  of  performance 
that  would  enable  the  industry  to  design 
tires  that  would  ensure  safe  operation  on  the 
highways.  Comment  #4  to  Docket  1-5, 
Notice  7  (p  6). 

By  reference  to  H  &  H  Tire  Company  v. 
United  States  Department  of  Transportation^ 
471  F2d  350  (7th  Cir  1972),  the  RMA  and  Fire- 
stone  raised   the  issue  of  Standard   119's  prac- 


PART  571;  S  119— PRE  8 


Effective:   March    1,    1975 


ticability.  This  requirement,  at  §  103(a)  of  the 
Act,  was  interpreted  in  HdH  to  mean  that  the 
NHTSA  must  determine  the  technological  and 
economic  consequences  of  the  standard  on  the 
regulated  industry.  In  that  case  the  Court  de- 
termined that  the  retread  tire  industry  could  be 
destroyed  by  the  expense  of  major  product  rede- 
sign or  the  loss  of  business  which  could  result 
from  passing  on  these  costs  in  higher  prices  to 
the  typical  retread  consumer.  The  Court  also 
pointed  out  that  the  retread  consumer  might  use 
older  worn  tires  longer  than  previously  and 
thereby  in  effect  increase  the  tire  hazard  problem 
in  response  to  Standard  117. 

In  contrast,  the  NHTSA  has  determined  that 
compliance  with  Standard  119  does  not  require 
significant  or  impracticable  technological  change. 
Tests  run  at  the  Safety  Systems  Laboratory  in- 
dicate that  a  sampling  of  production-run  tires 
can  meet  the  required  performance  levels,  as  they 
are  now  constructed.  An  analysis  of  benefits  and 
costs  demonstrates  that  the  costs  of  additional 
testing  are  less  than  the  estimated  savings  in 
property  and  lives.  Finally,  the  consiuner  of  new 
tires  is  less  likely  than  the  retread  consumer  to 
shift  his  tire  purchase  habits  and  has  less  oppor- 
tunity to  do  so.  The  NHTSA  has  carefully  de- 
termined the  technological  and  economic  impact 
of  Standard  119  on  the  new  tire  industry  and 
found  it  to  be  practicable. 

The  NHTSA  totally  disagrees  with  the  RMA 
and  Firestone  in  their  final  argument  that  safety- 
related  defect  notification  offers  adequate  protec- 
tion to  consumers  without  the  addition  of  a  safety 
standard.  Firestone  inaccurately  equates  the  ef- 
fect of  a  standard  with  that  of  a  notification 
campaign,  claiming  that  in  either  case  a  manu- 
facturer must  recall  tires  containing  defects  or 
face  civil  penalties.  Issuance  of  a  standard  im- 
poses significantly  greater  responsibility  on  a 
manufacturer  to  assure  himself  in  the  exercise 
of  due  care  that  his  product  is  safe  before  it  is 
sold  and  subsequent  use  reveals  a  safety-related 
defect. 

Technical  Consideration  of  Standard  119 

The  Application  section  (S3.)  raised  several 
questions  about  the  standard's  relationship  to 
Standard  109-type  tires,  experimental  tires,  and 
low  speed  and  off-road  vehicle  tires.    The  stand- 


ard applies  to  new  tires  designed  for  highway 
use  on  non-passenger-car  motor  vehicles.  The 
present  language  makes  clear  that  tires  which  do 
not  meet  these  criteria  are  not  subject  to  the 
standard,  including  those  tires  subject  to  Stand- 
ard 109.  The  tire  manufacturer  himself  must 
determine  whether  his  tires,  restricted  or  not  to 
speeds  under  35  mi/h,  or  used  on  slow-moving 
vehicles  on  or  oft'  the  highway,  were  designed  by 
Jiim  for  highway  use.  As  an  example,  Dunlop 
cited  moto-cross  tires  which  use  the  public  high- 
way "during  the  course  of  competitions."  With- 
out evidence  to  the  contrary,  however,  the 
NHTSA  assumes  that  these  tires  are  used  to  get 
to  and  from  the  competition  over  the  public 
highways.  In  answer  to  a  related  request  for 
interpretation  by  Bridgestone,  it  is  the  designed 
and  intended  use  of  the  tire  (as  realistically 
anticipated  by  the  manufacturer)  that  matters, 
not  a  simple  marking  such  as  "Not  For  Highway 
Use"  on  the  tire  sidewall.  In  the  case  of  "experi- 
mental" or  "survey"  tires  the  tires  are  designed 
for  highway  test  purposes  and  are  subject  to  the 
standard. 

The  definition  of  light  truck  tire  has  been  re- 
vised in  response  to  comments  from  the  RMA 
and  the  Japan  Automobile  Tire  Manufacturers 
Association.  They  cited  a  number  of  light  truck 
tires  which  may  or  may  not  share  a  common  size 
designation  or  dimensions  with  passenger  tires, 
but  still  require  special  test  values  because  of 
their  heavy-service  construction. 

Standard  119  does  not  include  the  voluminous 
"tire  tables"  of  tire  size  designation,  maximum 
loads  and  inflation  pressures,  and  dimensions  re- 
quested by  the  domestic  tire  industry.  An  ex- 
planation of  this  approach  accompanied  issuance 
of  the  rule  (38  F.R.  31299,  November  13,  1973). 
AVhile  the  RMA  and  Goodyear  have  restated 
their  earlier  position  that  product  standardiza- 
tion can  only  be  assured  by  Government  publi- 
cation of  industry  association  tables,  they  did 
not  respond  to  the  extensive  justification  made 
with  the  rule.  The  NHTSA  concludes  that  its 
determination  is  sound. 

Nearly  all  tire  manufacturers  commented  on 
Standard  119's  labeling  provisions  and  the 
amount  of  leadtime  necessary  to  implement  them. 
To  resolve  the  most  pressing  problems,  the 
NHTSA  has  already  issued  notices  that  postpone 


PART  571;  S  119— PRE  9 


Effective:  March    1,    1975 


the  effective  date  of  the  standard  6  months  and 
propose  a  lettering  size  and  depth,  use  of  the 
DOT  symbol  prior  to  the  standard's  effective 
date,  and  clarification  of  the  treadwear  indicator 
requirement.  (39  F.R.  4087,  February  1,  1974, 
39  F.R.  3967,  January  31,  1974).  All  other  pe- 
titions which  concern  the  labeling  provisions  are 
treated  in  this  response. 

The  RMA  and  the  European  Tyre  and  Rim 
Technical  Organization  (ETRTO)  requested 
changes  in  paragraph  S6.5(d)  ("Tire  marking"), 
several  of  which  are  adopted  in  this  amendment. 
The  word  "corresponding"'  is  inserted  before 
"inflation  pressure"  to  accommodate  tires  whose 
maximum  load  rating  is  not  at  maximum  infla- 
tion. Punctuation  is  removed  from  the  legend 
that  appears  on  the  tire  to  simplify  stamping. 
The  example  is  revised  to  make  clear  that  "TIRE 
RATED  FOR  SINGLE  AND  DUAL  LOAD" 
and  "TIRE  RATED  ONLY  FOR  SINGLE 
LOAD"  do  not  appear  on  the  tire  sidewall. 
ETRTO  suggested  that  a  title  ajspear  on  the  tire 
to  qualify  the  information  provided,  but  the 
NHTSA  has  concluded  that  the  information 
alone  is  more  helpful  to  the  unknowledgeable 
user,  and  that  a  knowledgeable  user  would  refer 
to  the  tire  tables  for  exact  information  before 
changing  tire  inflation  pressure. 

Paragraph  S6.5(e)  on  speed  restricted  tires 
has  been  clarified  to  limit  the  requirement  to 
tires  restricted  to  55  mi/h  or  less.  S6.5(f)  re- 
mains unchanged,  because  the  National  Traffic 
and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966  requires 
that  the  actual  number  of  plies  and  ply  compo- 
sition appear  on  the  tire  sidewall.  The  words 
"tube  type"  appear  on  tires  under  S6.5(g)  be- 
cause many  consumers  are  unaware  of  the  sig- 
nificant distinctions  between  tube  type  and 
tubeless  tires.  Dunlop's  request  that  treadwear 
indicators  be  required  on  tires  that  are  regrooved 
is  beyond  the  authority  under  which  Standard 
119,  applying  only  to  new  tires,  was  issued. 

Paragraph  S6.5(j)  calls  for  a  single  letter  to 
appear  on  the  tire  to  indicate  categories  of 
strength  within  the  size  designation,  for  user 
information  and  test  purposes.  As  the  ETRTO 
pointed  out,  a  requirement  for  any  additional 
wording  such  as  "load  range"  could  confuse  in- 
ternational standardization  efl'orts.    Manufactur- 


ers   are,    of    course,    entitled    to    add    labeling 
information  as  long  as  the  required  information   m^ 
appears  in  the  required  format  on  the  tire.  ^ 

The  maximum  load  rating  provision  in  S6.6 
requires  tires  of  a  particular  size  to  have  a  maxi- 
mum load  rating  at  least  as  great  as  the  lowest 
rating  published  for  that  size.  In  this  way  the 
publications  do  not  mislead  a  consumer  who  as- 
sumes that  a  particular  tire  size  must  have  only 
the  load  ratings  listed.  The  RMA  advocated 
that  more  particular  load  rating  information  be 
supplied  to  aid  in  actual  tire  selection.  Refer- 
ence to  any  factors  other  than  tire  size,  however, 
would  detract  from  the  desired  concept  that,  for 
one  tire  size,  there  is  one  lowest  maximum  load 
rating,  and  that  load  rating  is  published. 

Two  substantial  requests  were  raised  with  re- 
gard to  the  endurance  requirement.  Uniroyal 
petitioned  for  a  reduction  in  the  duration  of  the 
three  test  phases  to  4  hours  each.  The  NHTSA 
is  considering  that  submission  but  must  deny  ac- 
tion on  it  at  this  time  because  an  independent 
evaluation  of  the  procedures  has  not  yet  been 
conducted,  and  because  there  has  not  been  notice 
or  opportunity  to  comment  on  the  proposal  by 
all  interested  persons. 

The    RMA   petitioned    for   34-hour  endurance  f^ 
testing  of  all  tires  subject  to  the  high  speed  test 
(S6.3)   on  the  grounds  that  the  47-hour  speed/ 
endurance  test  would  be  redundant.  The  NHTSA 
agrees  and  has  revised  Table  III  accordingly. 

The  ETRTO  proposed  new  test  values  for 
some  motorcycle  tires,  but  the  request  was  un- 
clear as  to  the  meaning  of  the  62  mi/h  criterion 
and  the  unsui^ported  request  cannot  be  granted. 
If,  in  the  future,  the  ETRTO  petitions  for  rule- 
making to  revise  the  table,  an  explanation  of  the 
criterion  and  a  justification  for  the  test  values 
would  permit  an  informed  decision. 

Comments  to  the  strength  test  questioned 
plunger  size  and  energy  values,  the  computation 
procedures,  and  the  appropriateness  of  the  test 
to  mobile  home,  special  trailer,  wide  base,  and 
radial  tires. 

The  RMA  argued  that  the  limited  service  of 
mosc  mobile  home  and  special  trailer  tires  could 
not  justify  the  increased  cost  necessary  to  up- 
grade the  strengtli  of  the  tires  to  meet  the  re- 
quirement.   The  NHTSA  has  consistently  treated 


PART  571;  S  119— PRE  10 


Effective:   March    1,    1975 


mobile  homes  and  other  trailers  as  full-fledged 
motor  vehicles  and  applied  applicable  standards 
rigorouslj'  to  reduce  the  number  of  crashes  in 
which  mobile  homes  are  involved,  as  indicated 
by  BMCS  statistics.  The  RMA  request  is  denied 
to  ensure  that  equally-rated  tires  on  towed  and 
towing  vehicles  will,  in  fact,  meet  equal  minimum 
strength  requirements. 

The  RMA  and  ETRTO  generally  advocated 
larger  phuigers  or  reduced  energy  values  for 
tires  and  the  ETRTO  petitioned  for  the  exclu- 
sion of  radial  tires  from  the  strength  test.  The 
NHTSA  has  determined  that  the  established 
values  and  plunger  sizes,  drawn  from  industry 
experience,  adequately  measure  tire  strength. 
Any  future  petitions  for  rulemaking  to  change 
these  values  should  be  accompanied  by  detailed 
supporting  data,  as  was  submitted  by  Uniroyal 
in  its  petition  for  reconsideration. 

Comments  again  requested  that  a  plunger 
which  contacts  the  rim  be  considered  to  have 
established  an  energy  value  which  meets  the 
strength  requirement.  The  NHTSA  reiterates 
its  position  that  the  standard's  present  energy 
values  measure  the  strength  of  a  well-constructed 
non-i:>assenger  car  tire  before  the  tire  breaks  or 
the  plunger  contacts  the  rim.  Specific  test  values 
may  be  revised  based  on  future  test  experience, 
but  revision  of  the  calculation  procedures  used 
for  all  tires  is  not  justified.  The  request  for 
three  plunger  applications  in  the  case  of  12-in. 
or  smaller  diameter  tires  has  been  granted. 

Michelin  and  the  ETRTO  have  inquired  as  to 
the  NHTSA's  position  with  regard  to  tubeless 
tires  above  load  range  J.  Such  tires,  when 
marketed  in  the  United  States,  are  subject  to  this 
standard,  and  the  NHTSA  would  like  the  benefit 
of  detailed  description  of,  and  test  experience 
with,  these  tires  before  it  establishes  test  require- 
ments. It  is  requested  that  support  for  ETRTO 
or  Michelin  values  be  submitted  to  the  NHTSA 
Tire  Division. 

The  high  speed  performance  requirement  was 
adopted  to  test  different  tire  characteristics  from 
those  tested  under  the  endurance  performance 
requirement.  The  test  is  run  only  on  non-speed- 
restricted  tires  in  the  lighter  load  ranges  because, 


for  tires  of  heavier  construction,  the  endurance 
test  alone  develops  temperatures  which  evaluate 
all  the  characteristics  satisfactorily.  The  RMA 
and  several  manufacturers  have  pointed  out  that 
the  endurance  test  can  serve  this  purpose  for 
large  tires  even  in  the  lighter  ranges,  and  the 
NHTSA,  therefore,  restricts  the  high  speed  re- 
quirements to  motorcycle  tires  and  to  non-speed- 
restricted  tires  of  14.5-in  nominal  rim  diameter 
or  less  marked  Load  Range  A,  B,  C,  or  D.  Light 
truck  tires  and  other  tires  which  are  l-l.o-iu  and 
smaller  remain  subject  to  the  high  speed  require- 
ments because  the  NHTSA  has  determined  that 
the  high  speed  test  measures  different  values  than 
the  endurance  test  in  these  smaller  sizes. 

The  definition  of  tire  failure  is  closely  related 
to  the  endurance  and  high  speed  performance 
tests.  The  RMA  and  several  tire  manufacturers 
requested  re-definitions  of  se\"eral  terras  and  re- 
vision of  the  tii'e  cooling  procedures  related  to 
tire  failure.  The  NHTSA  has  established  Docket 
71-10,  New  ■pneumatic  tires,  revised  performance 
requirements,  to  treat  the  re-definition  of  tire 
failure,  and  will  respond  to  these  issues  in  a 
notice  to  that  docket. 

Interested  persons  should  remember  that,  in 
addition  to  the  amendments  set  forth  below,  the 
NHTSA  has  already  amended  the  effective  date 
of  the  Standard  to  March  1,  1975,  and  has  pro- 
posed amendments  to  the  lettering,  DOT  certifi- 
cation, and  treadwear  jjrovisions  which  will  be 
acted  on  when  comments  have  been  considered. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  amendments 
are  made  to  Parts  571  and  574  of  Title  49,  Code 
of  Federal  Regulations. .  . . 

Effective  date :  March  1, 1975. 

(Sees.  103,  112,  113,  114,  119,  201,  Pub.  L.  89- 
563,  80  Stat.  718,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1402,  1403, 
1407,  1421;  delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR 
1.51.) 

Issued  on  February  7,  1974. 

James  B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

39  F.R.  5190 
February  11,  1974 


PART  571;  S  119— PRE  11-12 


231-088   O  -  77  -  42 


L 


(i 


Effective:   March    1,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   119 
New  Pneumatic  Tires  for  Vehicles  Other  Than  Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.  71-18;   Notice   7) 


This  notice  amends  Standard  No.  119,  New 
pneumatic  tires  f(yr  vehicles  other  than  passenger 
cars,  49  CFR  571.119,  to  specify  lettering  sizes 
and  modified  treadwear  indicator  requirements 
for  tires.  In  addition,  it  amends  Part  574,  Tire 
Identification,  49  CFR  574,  to  permit  the  labeling 
of  certain  tires  with  the  symbol  DOT  prior  to 
the  effective  date  of  the  standard.  This  notice 
also  responds  to  petitions  for  reconsideration  of 
Standard  119's  effective  date  by  maintaining  the 
present  date  of  March  1,  1975. 

To  avoid  a  costly  production  shutdown  on  the 
effective  date  to  engrave  tire  molds  with  the 
DOT  compliance  symbol  required  by  the  stand- 
ard, the  National  Highway  Traffic  Safety  Ad- 
ministration (NHTSA)  proposed  a  modification 
of  the  Part  574  prohibition  on  the  symbol's  use 
prior  to  the  effective  date  (39  F.R.  3967,  Jan- 
uary 31,  1974).  The  Rubber  Manufacturers 
Association  and  five  tire  manufacturers  agreed 
that  the  DOT  should  be  engraved  on  tire  molds 
prior  to  the  effective  date,  but  objected  to  the 
expense  of  covering  the  DOT  with  a  label  stating 
that  "no  Federal  motor  vehicle  safety  standard 
applies  to  this  tire,"  when  the  DOT  appears  on 
tires  which  (presumably)  satisfy  Standard  119 
requirements.  Firestone  pointed  out  that  the 
large  label  size  could  obscure  other  label  infor- 
mation. Goodrich  noted  that,  as  proposed,  the 
DOT  could  be  molded  on  tires  which  met  no 
standard  and  could  mislead  a  user  if  the  label 
fell  off. 

The  NHTSA  will  not  permit  the  appearance 
of  the  DOT  compliance  symbol  on  any  item  of 
motor  vehicle  equipment  to  which  no  standard 
is  applicable.  The  terms  "applicability"  and 
"applies"  have  only  one  meaning  for  Federal 
motor  vehicle  safety  standards:  that  the  vehicle 


or  equipment  concerned  is  subject  to  a  safety 
standard.  To  permit  use  of  the  DOT  symbol  on 
vehicles  or  items  of  motor  vehicle  equipment  to 
which  no  standard  applies  would  confuse  the 
meaning  of  the  symbol  and  the  concept  of  com- 
pliance. 

In  response  to  Firestone  and  Goodrich,  tlie 
NHTSA  has  modified  the  lettering  size  on  the 
label  and  limited  use  of  the  DOT  symbol  to  tires 
for  which  a  standard  has  been  issued.  With  the 
small  lettering  size,  the  rubber  labels  used  on 
retread  tires  can  be  applied  over  the  DOT  symbol 
in  fulfillment  of  the  requirement.  Another 
method  which  manufacturers  did  not  mention 
but  which  would  be  permissible  is  the  removal 
of  the  DOT  at  the  same  time  imperfections  are 
buffed  oft'  the  tire. 

All  comments  on  the  proposal  objected  to  the 
specific  location  requirements  for  treadwear  in- 
dicators based  on  the  concept  of  even  tread  wear 
across  the  tread  width.  Goodyear  demonstrated 
in  a  meeting  with  the  NHTSA  Tire  Division  on 
February  13,  1974,  and  detailed  in  its  submission 
to  the  Docket,  the  difficulty  in  equating  ideal  tire 
wear  with  actual  road  experience.  They  recom- 
mended the  simpler  concept  that  a  tire  has  worn 
out  when  any  major  tread  groove  has  only  %2  iri 
tread  remaining.  The  NHTSA  has  concluded 
that  treadwear  indicators  must  be  placed  at  the 
discretion  of  the  manufacturer  to  give  a  person 
inspecting  the  tire  visual  indication  of  M-hether 
the  tire  has  worn  to  a  certain  tread  depth.  Ac- 
cordingly, the  lateral  location  requirements  for 
treadwear  indicators  have  been  deleted  from  the 
standard. 

There  was  no  discussion  of  the  lettering  size 
and  depth  proposal,  and  these  projjosals  are 
adopted  as  proposed. 


PART  571;  S  119— PRE  13 


Effective:  March    1,    1975 


The  comments  requested  reconsideration  of  the 
standard's  March  1,  1975,  effective  date  (pub- 
lished February  1,  1974,  39  F.R.  4087),  asserting 
the  need  for  18  months  of  lead  time  following 
publication  of  this  notice  to  engrave  tire  molds 
as  required  by  the  standard.  The  NHTSA  has 
found  that  11  months  is  sufficient  leadtime  to 
accomplish  these  changes,  and  accordingly  these 
petitions  are  denied. 

To  correct  an  inadvertent  omission  in  the 
amendment  of  Standard  No.  119  in  response  to 
petitions  for  reconsideration  (39  F.R.  5190,  Feb- 
ruary 11,  1974),  superscripts  are  added  to  Table 
III  entries  for  "All  other.  A,  B,  C,  D  range 
tires". 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Parts  571 
and  574  of  Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations, 
are  amended.  . . . 


Effective  date:  Standard  No.  119  amendments: 
March  1,  1975.  Part  574  amendment:  April  3, 
1974.  Because  the  Part  574  amendment  creates 
no  additional  burden,  and  because  modification 
of  tire  molds  must  begin  immediately,  it  is  found 
for  good  cause  shown  that  an  effective  date  less 
than  180  days  after  issuance  is  in  the  public 
interest. 

(Sees.  103,  112,  119,  201,  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80 
Stat.  718;  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1407,  1421;  dele- 
gation of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51.) 

Issued  on  March  28,  1974. 

James  B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

39  F.R.  12104 
Aprils,  1974 


(^ 


t 


PART  571;  S  119— PRE  14 


a 


Effective:   March    1,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.    119 

New  Pneumatic  Tires  for  Vehicles  Other  Than   Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.  74-25;   Notice  2) 


This  notice  amends  the  definition  of  "test  rim" 
in  49  CFR  571.109  (Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Stand- 
ard No.  109)  and  modifies  related  provisions  of 
that  section  and  §  571.110  (Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  110).  A  conforming  amendment 
is  made  to  similar  ])ro\isions  in  §  571.119  (Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  119).  The  notice 
of  proposed  rulemaking  on  which  this  amend- 
ment is  based  was  published  on  July  10,  1974 
(39  F.R.  25329). 

The  definition  of  "test  rim"  has  previous  to 
this  amendment  referenced  the  1967  and  earlier 
editions  of  publications  of  various  foreign  and 
domestic  tire  and  rim  associations  as  the  source 
for  determining  rim  specifications  and  appro- 
priate tire/rim  matching  information  for  testing 
tires  to  the  requirements  of  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  109,  and  for  equipping  p;issenger 
oars  pursuant  to  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard 
No.  110.  The  Rubber  Manufacturers'  Associa- 
tion {petitioned  that  this  reference  be  changed 
because  the  publications  have  become  outdated 
in  terms  of  the  rim  information  they  provide. 
This  amendment,  which  adopts  the  proposed  rule 
of  July  10,  1974,  in  essentially  the  form  pro- 
posed, deletes  the  references  to  the  1967  and 
earlier  publications  and  substitutes  for  them  the 
publications  of  the  various  associations  current 
at  the  time  of  tire  manufacture. 

Under  the  amendment,  a  "test  rim"  will  be  any 
rim  listed  for  use  with  a  tire  size  designation  in 
any  of  the  current  publications  of  tlie  various 
foreign  and  domestic  tire  and  rim  associations. 
The  listing  will  apply  to  all  tires  that  fit  the 
description  (by  tire  size  designation,  use  cate- 
gory, etc.)  unless  the  publication  itself  or  a  sepa- 
rately published  manufacturer's  document  states 
otherwise.     A   manufacturer   wishing  to  except 


any  tire  manufactured  by  him  froni  any  listing 
would  be  expected  to  request  the  association  to 
publish  the  exception  in  its  publication.  If  it 
does  not,  the  manufacturer  must  himself  publish 
the  exception  in  his  own  listing,  which  he  must, 
distribute  to  his  dealers,  this  agency,  and  to  any 
member  of  the  i)ublic  on  request.  The  language 
of  the  proposal  is  clarified,  and  a  conforming 
amendment  made  to  Standard  No.  119  to  show 
that  an  exception  must  be  published  in  each 
association  publication  listing  the  tire  and  rim 
combination.  The  amendment  further  specifies 
that  a  "listing"  of  a  rim  must  contain  dimen- 
sional specifications,  including  diagrams,  for  the 
rim.  This  is  necessary  to  piT)vide  for  uniformity 
of  rim  dimensions  and  reflects  the  present  prac- 
tice of  association  publications  of  publishing 
such  dimensional  specifications.  However,  di- 
mensional specifications  or  a  diagram  of  a  rim 
need  not  be  included  in  manufacturers'  separate 
listings  if  the  specifications  and  diagram  for  the 
rim  appear  in  each  association  publication  where 
it  is  listed. 

By  referencing  the  current  publications,  the 
amendment  ends  the  need  for  Appendix  "A"  of 
Standard  No.  110,  which  lists  tire/ rim  combina- 
tions approved  for, use  subsequent  to  the  1967  and 
earlier  associations  publications.  The  associa- 
tions and  vai'ious  manufacturers  should  ascertain 
that  all  tire/rim  combinations  presently  listed  in 
that  Appendix  are  incorporated  into  at  least  one 
of  their  respective  publications  before  the  effec- 
ti\-e  date,  of  this  amendment.  Moreover,  the 
addition  of  new  tire/rim  combinations  subsequent 
to  the  effective  date  becomes  the  sole  responsi- 
bility of  the  industry-.  Appendix  "A"  of  Stand- 
ard No.  109,  listing  tire  size  designations,  is  not 
affected  by  this  amendment. 


PART  571;  S  119— PRE  15 


Effective:   March    1,    1975 


An  effect,  of  tlie  amended  definition  of  test  rim 
is  to  clarify  this  agency's  jKisition  that  each  tire 
must  be  able  to  i>ass  each  performance  require- 
ment (except  that  for  pliysical  dimensions)  of 
Standard  No.  109  with  any  rim  witli  which  it  is 
listed,  regardless  of  rim  width,  unless  that  tire 
is  specifically  excepted  from  each  listing  where 
it  appears.  The  requirements  for  physical  di- 
mensions must  be  met  only  on  a  test  rim  of  the 
width  sjiecified  for  the  tire  size  designation  in 
Standard  No.  109.  A  tire  failing  the  require- 
ments on  any  test  rim  would  be  considered  as 
having  failed  the  requirements  on  all  test.  rims. 
This  continues  existing  NHTSA  enforcement 
policy. 

One  of  the  two  comments  received  regarding 
the  proposal  objected  to  this  aspect  of  the  amend- 
ment, .arguing  that  some  maniifiicturers  have 
traditionally  certified  conformity  on  the  basis  of 
test  results  using  only  the  test,  rims  of  the  speci- 
fied test  rim  width  and  that  no  safety  problems 
had  been  encountered.  The  NHTSA  believes, 
however,  that,  the  interest  of  safety  demands  tliat 
manufacturers  ensure  that  tires  certified  as  con- 
forming to  Standard  No.  109  will  conform  to  the 
standard's  requirements  on  any  rim  which  the 
manufacturer  lists  for  use  with  the  tire  and  with 
which  the  tire  may  consequently  be  used  in  serv- 
ice. This  position  has  been  reflected  in  the  guide- 
lines for  the  additions  of  new  tire/rim  combina- 
tions   to    the   Appendix   of   Standard    No.    110, 


whicli  have  required  that  the  manufacturer  dem- 
onstrate conformity  to  Standard  No.  109  on  each 
newly  requested  rim.  If  a  manufacturer  doubts 
the  ability  of  his  tires  to  conform  to  the  standard 
on  certain  recommended  rims,  he  has  the  option 
of  excepting  his  tii-es  from  being  used  with  those 
rims.  No  other  objections  to  the  proposed  rule 
were  received. 

In  light  of  the  above,  amendments  are  made 
to  49  CFR  §§  571.109,  571.110,  and  571.119  .... 

Kffectire  date:  August  5,  1975  for  Standards 
No.  109  and  110;  March  1,  1975,  for  Standard 
No.  119.  The  amendment  to  Standard  No.  119 
is  of  a  clarifying  nature,  and  should  be  made 
effective  with  the  existing  effective  date  of  that 
standard.  The  amendment  does  not  require  sub- 
stantial leadtime  for  conformity,  and  it  is  found 
for  good  cause  shown  tliat  an  effective  date  less 
than  180  days  from  t)nblication  is  in  the  public 
interest. 

(Sees.  103,  119,  201.  202,  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80 
St,at..  718;  15  U.S.C.  §§1392,  1407,  1421,  1422; 
delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51.) 


Issued  on  January  31, 1975. 


James  B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

40  F.R.  5529 
February  6,  1975 


PART  571;  S  119— PRE  16 


Effective:   March    1.    1975 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.    119 
New  Pneumatic  Tires  for  Vehicles  Other  than  Passenger  Cars 


51.  Scope.  This  standard  establishes  per- 
formance and  marking  requirements  for  tires 
for  use  on  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles, 
trucks,  buses,  trailers,  and  motorcycles. 

52.  Purpose.  The  purpose  of  this  standard  is 
to  provide  safe  operational  performance  levels 
for  tires  used  on  motor  vehicles  other  than  pas- 
senger cars,  and  to  place  sutRcient  information 
on  the  tires  to  permit  their  proper  selection  and 

ise. 

53.  Application.  [This  standard  applies  to 
new  pneumatic  tires  designed  for  highway  use 
on  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles,  trucks,  buses, 
trailers  and  motorcycles  manufactured  after 
1948.  (39  F.R.  5190— February  11,  1974.  Effec- 
tive: 3/1/75)] 

54.  Definitions.  All  terms  defined  in  the  Act 
and  the  rules  and  standards  issued  under  its 
authority  are  used  as  defined  therein. 

["Light  truck  tire"  means  a  tire  designated  by 
its  manufacturer  as  primarily  intended  for  use 
on  lightweight  trucks  or  multipurpose  passenger 
vehicles.  (39  F.R.  5190— February  11,  1974. 
Effective:  3/1/75)] 

"Model  rim  assembly"'  means  a  test  device  that 
(a)  includes  a  rim  wliich  conforms  to  the  pub- 
lished dimensions  of  a  commercially  available 
rim,  (b)  includes  an  air  valve  assembly  when 
used  for  testing  tubeless  tires  or  an  innertube 
and  flap  (as  required)  when  used  for  testing 
tube-type  tires,  and  (c)  undergoes  no  permanent 
rim  deformation  and  allows  no  loss  of  air 
through  the  portion  that  it  comprises  of  the 
tire-rim  pressure  chamber  when  a  tire  is  properly 
mounted  on  the  assembly  and  subjected  to  the 
requirements  of  this  standard. 

55.  Tire  and  rim   matching   information. 

S5.1  [Each  manufacturer  of  tires  sliall  ensure 
that  a  listing  of  the  rims  tliat  may  be  used  witii 
each  tire  that  he  produces  is  provided  to  tlie 
public.     For  purposes  of  this  section,  each  rim 


listing  shall  iuchide  dimensional  specifications 
and  a  diagram  of  the  rim.  IIowe\-er,  a  listing 
compiled  in  accordance  with  iraragrapli  (a)  of 
tills  section  need  not  include  dimensional  speci- 
fications or  a  diagram  of  a  rim  if  the  rim's  di- 
mensional specifications  and  diagram  are  con- 
tained in  each  listing  published  in  accordance 
with  imnigraph  (b).  The  listing  shall  be  in  one 
of  the  following  forms: 

(a)  Listed  by  manufacturer  name  or  brand 
name  in  a  document  furnished  to  dealers  of  the 
manufacturer's  tildes,  to  any  person  upon  request, 
and  in  duplicate  to:  Tire  Division.  Xational 
Highway  Traffic  Safety  Administration,  400 
Seventh  Street,  S.W.,  AVashington,  D.C.  20590; 
or 

(b)  Contained  in  publications,  current  at  the 
date  of  the  manufacture  of  tire  or  any  later  date, 
of  at  least  one  of  the  following  organizations: 

The  Tire  and  Rim  Association. 

The    European    Tyre    and    Rim    Technical 
Organisation. 

Japanese  Industrial  Standards. 

Deutsche  Industrie  Norm. 

The   Society   of   Motor   Manufacturers  and 
Traders,  Ltd. 

British  Standards  Institution. 

Scandinavian  Tire  and  Rim  Organisation. 
(40    F.R.    5529— February    6,    1975.      Effective: 
3/1/75)] 

S5.2  Information  contained  in  a  publication 
specified  in  S5.1(b)  which  lists  general  cate- 
gories of  tires  and  rims  by  size  designation,  type 
of  construction,  and/or  intended  use,  shall  be 
considered  to  be  manufacturer's  information 
pursuant  to  S5.1  for  the  listed  tires,  unlees  the 
publication  itself  or  specific  information  pro- 
vided according  to  So. 1(a)  indicates  otherwise. 

S6.  Requirements.  [Each  tire  shall  be  capable 
of  meeting  any  of  the  applicable  requirements 
set  forth  below,  when  mounted  on  a  model  rim 


(Rev.    1/31/75) 


PART  571;  S  119-1 


Effactlvt:  March    1,    \975 


assembly  corresponding  to  any  rim  designated 
by  the  tire  manufacturer  for  use  with  the  tire  in 
accordance  with  S5.  However,  a  particular  tire 
need  not  meet  further  requirements  after  having 
been  subjected  to  and  met  the  endurance  test 
(S6.1),  strength  test  (S6.2),  or  high  speed  per- 
formance test  (S6.3).  (39  F.R.  5190— February 
11,1974.    Effective:  3/1/75)] 

56.1  Endurance. 

56.1.1  Prior  to  testing  in  accordance  with  the 
procedures  of  S7.2,  a  tire  shall  exhibit  no  visual 
e\ddence  of  tread,  sidewall,  ply,  cord,  innerliner, 
or  bead  separation,  chunking,  broken  cords, 
cracking,  or  open  splices. 

56.1.2  When  tested  in  accordance  with  the 
procedures  of  S7.2 : 

(a)  There  shall  be  no  visual  evidence  of  tread, 
sidewall,  ply,  cord,  innerliner,  or  bead  separa- 
tion, chunking,  broken  cords,  cracking,  or  open 
splices. 

(b)  The  tire  pressure  at  the  end  of  the  teet 
shall  be  not  less  than  the  initial  pressure  speci- 
fied in  S7.2  (a). 

56.2  Strength.  When  tested  in  accordance 
with  the  procedures  of  S7.3  a  tire's  average 
breaking  energy  value  shall  be  not  less  than  the 
value  specified  in  Table  II  for  that  tire's  size 
and  load  range. 


56.3  High  speed  performance.  [When  tested 
in  accordance  with  the  procedures  of  S7.4,  a  tire 
shall  meet  the  requirements  set  forth  in  S6.1.1 
and  S6.1.2(a)  and  (b).  However,  this  require- 
ment applies  only  to  motorcycle  tires  and  to  non- 
speed-restricted  tires  of  14.5-in  nominal  rim 
diameter  or  less  marked  load  range  A,  B,  C,  or 
D.  (39  F.R.  5190— February  11,  1974.  Effec- 
tive: 3/1/75)] 

56.4  Treadwear  indicators.  [Except  as  speci- 
fied below,  each  tire  shall  have  at  least  six  tread- 
wear  indicators  spaced  approximately  equally 
around  the  circumference  of  the  tire  that  enable 
a  person  inspecting  the  tire  to  determine  visually 

Table  I — Strength  Test  Plunger  Diameter 

Tire  type :  Plunger  Diameter 

(inches) 

Light   truck   % 

Motorcycle     %q 

Tires  for  12-inch  or  smaller  rims, 

except   motorcycle   % 

Tires  other  than  the  above  types : 

Tubele.ss : 

17.5-inch  or  smaller  rims % 

Larger  than  17.5-inch  rims  : 

Load  range  F  or  less 1% 

Load  range  over  F I14 

Tube  type : 

Load  range  F  or  less 1% 

Load  range  over  F 1% 


Table  II — Minimum  Static  Breaking  Energy  (Inch-Pounds) 


Plunger                           k/     r     .. 
^.      \                           %6  Inch 
diameter 

% 

Inch 

iVi  Inch 

1%  Inch 

Tire                        Motorcycle 

All   12-inch 

-Light   truck 

Tube 

Tubeless 

Tube 

Tubeless 

characteristic 

or  smaller 
rim  size 

-17.5  inch  or 
smaller  Rim 
Tubeless 

type 

type 

Load  range 

A                                         150 

600 

2000 









B                                         3(X) 

1200 

2600 







- 

C                                         400 

1800 

3200 

6800 

5100 





D 

2400 

4550 

7900 

6500 





E 

3000 

5100 

12500 

8600 





F 

3600 

5700 

15800 

12500 





G 



6300 



20200 

15000 

H 



6800 



23000 

18500 

J 









25000 

19500 

L 









27000 



M 









28500 



N 









30000 



For  rayon  cord   tires,   applicable  energy   values  are  60  percent  of  those  in  table. 
(R.y.  3/28/74)  PART  571;  S  119-2 


Effective:   March    1,    1975 


Table  III — Endurance  Test  Schedule 


Description 


Ix)ad  range    Test  wlieel 
speed 
(rpm) 


Test  load  :  Percent  of 
maxiinum  load  rating 

1  li  HI 

7  hrs.     16  hrs.     24  hrs. 


Total  test 

revolutions 

(thousands) 


Speed-Restricted  service 

55  m.p.h. All   

50  ra.p.h. )  C,   D   

)  E,  F,  G,  H, 

J,    L    

35    m.p.h.    All 

Motorcycle   All 

All   others   - )  A,  B,  C,  D,  .. 

)  E    

)  F    

)  G    


125 
150 

100 
75 
250 
250 
200 
200 
175 
)      H,  J,   L,  N  _-     150 


66 

84 

101 

75 

97 

114 

60 

84 

101 

66 

84 

101 

■100 

=108 

117 

'75 

"■97 

114 

70 

88 

106 

66 

84 

101 

66 

84 

101 

60 

84 

101 

352.5 

423.0 

282.0 
211.5 
510,0 
510.0 
564.0 
564.0 
493.5 
423.0 


'4  hours  for  tire  sizes  subject  to  high  speed  requirements   (S6.3) 
'6  hours  for  tire  sizes  subject  to  high  speed  requirements   (S6.3) 


whether  the  tire  has  worn  to  a  tread  depth  of 
one-sixteenth  of  an  inch.  Tires  with  12-inch  or 
smaller  rim  diameter  shall  have  at  least  three 
such  treadwear  indicators.  Motorcycle  tires 
shall  have  at  least  three  sucli  indicators  which 
permit  visual  determination  that  the  tire  has 
worn  to  a  tread  depth  of  one-thirty-second  of  an 
inch.  (39  F.R.  12104:— April  3,  1974.  Ertective: 
3/1/75)3 

S6.5  Tire  marking.  [Except  as  specified  below, 
each  tire  shall  be  marked  on  each  sidewall  with 
the  information  specified  in  paragraphs  (a) 
through  (j)  of  this  section.  The  markings  shall 
be  placed  between  the  maximum  section  width 
(exclusive  of  sidewall  decoration  or  curb  ribs) 
and  the  bead  on  at  least  one  sidewall.  The  mark- 
ing shall  be  in  letters  and  numerals  not  less  than 
0.078  inches  high  and  raised  above  or  sunk  below 
the  tire  surface  not  less  than  0.015  inches,  except 
that  the  marking  depth  shall  be  not  less  than 
0.010  inches  in  the  case  of  motorcycle  tires.  The 
tire  identification  and  the  DOT  symbol  labeling 
shall  comply  with  Part  574  of  tliis  chai)ter. 
Markings  may  appear  on  only  one  sidewall  and 
the  entire  sidewall  area  may  be  used  in  the  case 
of  motorcycle  tires  and  recreational,  boat  bag- 
gage, and  special  trailer  tires.  (39  F.R.  12104 — 
April  3,  1974.    Effective:  3/1/75)] 

(a)  The  symbol  DOT,  which  shall  constitute 
a    certification    that    the    tire    conforms    to    ap- 


plicable Federal  motor  vehicle  safety  standards. 
This  symbol  may  be  marked  on  only  one  side- 
wall. 

(b)  The  tire  identification  number  required 
by  Part  574  of  this  chapter.  This  number  may 
be  marked  on  only  one  sidewall. 

(c)  The  tire  size  designation  as  listed  in  the 
documents  and  publications  designated  in  S5.1. 

[(d)  The  maximum  load  rating  and  corre- 
sponding inflation  pressure  of  the  tire,  shown  as 
follows : 

(mark  on  tires  rated  for  single  and  dual  load) 

Max  load  single lbs  at psi  cold 

Max  load  dual lbs  at psi  cold 

(Mark  on  tires  rated  only  for  single  load) 
Max  load lbs  at psi  cold 

(e)  The  speed  restriction  of  the  tire,  if  55 
mi/h  or  less,  shown  as  follows : 

Max  speed mph 

(39  F.R.  5190— February  11,  1974.  Effective: 
3/1/75)] 

(f)  The  actual  number  of  plies  and  the  com- 
position of  the  ply  cord  material  in  the  sidewall, 
and,  if  different,  in  the  tread  area. 

(g)  The  words  "tubeless"  or  "tube  type"  as 
applicable. 

(h)  The  word  "regroovable"  if  the  tire  is  de- 
signed for  regrooving. 

(i)  The  word  "radial"  if  a  radial  tire. 

(j)   The  letter  designating  the  tire  load  range. 


(Rev.   3/28/74) 


PART  571;  S  119-3 


ElhcHva:  March  1,  1975 


S6.6  Maximum  load  rating.  If  the  maximum 
load  rating  for  a  particular  tire  size  is  shown  in 
one  or  more  of  the  publications  described  in 
S5.1(b),  each  tire  of  that  size  designation  shall 
have  a  maximum  load  rating  that  is  not  less 
than  the  published  maximum  load  rating,  or  if 
there  are  differing  published  ratings  for  the 
same  tire  size  designation,  not  less  than  the  low- 
est published  maximum  load  rating  for  the  size 
designation. 

S7.  Test  procedures. 

57.1  General  conditions. 

57.1.1  The  tests  are  performed  using  an  ap- 
propriate new  tube,  tube  valve  and  flap  assembly 
(as  required)  that  allows  no  loss  of  air  for  test- 
ing of  tube-type  tires  under  S7.2,  S7.3,  and  S7.4, 
and  tubeless  tires  under  S7.3. 

57.1.2  The  tire  must  be  capable  of  meeting 
the  requirements  of  S7.2  and  S7.4  when  condi- 
tioned at  any  ambient  temperature  up  to  100°  F. 
for  3  hours  before  the  test  is  conducted,  and 
with  an  ambient  temperature  maintained  at  any 
level  up  to  100°  F.  during  all  phases  of  testing. 
The  tire  must  be  capable  of  meeting  the  require- 
ments of  S7.3  when  conditioned  at  any  ambient 
temperature  up  to  70°  F.  for  3  hours  before  the 
t«st  is  conducted. 

57.2  Endurance.  (a)  ,  Mount  the  tire  on  a 
model  rim  assembly  and  inflate  it  to  the  inflation 
pressure  corresponding  to  tlie  maximum  load 
rating  marked  on  the  tire.  Use  single  maximum 
load  value  when  the  tire  is  marked  with  both 
single  and  dual  maximum  load. 

(b)  After  conditioning  the  tire-rim  assembly 
in  accordance  with  S7.1.2,  adjust  the  tire  pres- 
sure to  that  specified  in  (a)  immediately  before 
mounting  the  tire  rim  assembly. 

(c)  Mount  the  tire-rim  assembly  on  an  axle 
and  press  it  against  a  flat- faced  steel  test  wheel 
that  is  67.23  inches  in  diameter  and  at  least  as 
wide  as  the  tread  of  the  tire. 

(d)  Apply  the  test  load  and  rotate  the  test 
wheel  as  indicated  in  Table  III  for  the  type  of 
tire  tested  conducting  each  successive  phase  of 
the  test  without  interruption. 

(e)  Immediately  after  running  the  tire  the 
required  time,  measure  the  tire  inflation  pressure. 


Remove  the  tire  from  the  model  rim  assembly,    IT 
and  inspect  the  tire.  '^ 

S7.3  Strength,  (a)  [Mount  the  tire  on  a  model 
rim  assembly  and  inflate  it  to  the  pressure  cor- 
responding to  the  maximum  load,  or  maximum 
dual  load  where  there  is  both  a  single  and  dual 
load  marked  on  the  tire.  If  the  tire  is  tubeless, 
a  tube  may  be  inserted  to  prevent  loss  of  air 
during  the  test  in  the  event  of  puncture.  (39 
F.R.  5190— February  11,  1974.  Effective:  3/1/ 
75): 

(b)  After  conditioning  the  tire-rim  assembly 
in  accordance  with  S7.1.2,  adjust  the  tire  pres- 
sure to  that  specified  in  (a). 

(c)  Force  a  cylindrical  steel  plunger,  with  a 
hemispherical  end  and  of  the  diameter  specified 
in  Table  I  for  the  tire  size,  perpendicularly  into 
a  raised  tread  element  as  near  as  possible  to  the 
centerline  of  the  tread,  at  a  rate  of  2  inches  per 
minute,  until  the  tire  breaks  or  the  plunger  is 
stopped  by  the  rim. 

(d)  Record    the    force    and    the    distance    of 
penetration  just  before  the  tire  breaks,  or  if  it 
fails  to  break,  just  before  the  plunger  is  stopped     j^ 
by  the  rim.  ^^ 

(e)  [Repeat  the  plunger  application  at  72° 
intervals  around  the  circumference  of  the  tire, 
until  five  measurements  are  made.  However,  in 
the  case  of  tires  of  12-in  rim  diameter  or  less, 
repeat  the  plunger  application  at  120°  intervals 
around  the  circumference  of  the  tire,  until  three 
measurements  are  made.  (39  F.R.  5190 — Feb- 
ruary 11,  1974.    Effective:  3/1/75)] 

(f)  Compute  the  breaking  energy  for  each 
test  point  by  the  following  formula : 


W  = 


FP 


where 

W  =  Breaking  energy 
F  =  Force  in  pounds,  and 
P  =  Penetration  in  inches. 

(g)  [Determine  tlie  average  breaking  energy 
value  for  the  tire  by  computing  tlie  average  of 
the  values  obtained  in  accordance  with  (f).  (39 
F.R.  5190— February  11,  1974.  Effective:  3/1/ 
75)1 


f<«v.   2/7/741 


PART  571;  S  119-4 


EfFecHve:  March    1,    1975 


S7.4   High  speed  performance. 

(a)  Perform  steps  (a)  through  (c)  of  S7.2. 

(b)  Apply  a  force  of  88  percent  of  the  maxi- 
mum load  rating  marked  on  the  tire  (use  single 
maximum  load  value  when  the  tire  is  marked 
with  both  single  and  dual  maximum  loads),  and 
rotate  the  test  wheel  at  250  rpm  for  2  hours. 

(c)  Remove  the  load,  allow  the  tire  to  cool  to 
100°  F.,  and  then  adjust  the  pressure  to  that 
marked  on  the  tire  for  single  tire  use. 


(d)  Reapply  the  same  load,  and  without  in- 
terruption or  readjustment  of  inflation  pressure, 
rotate  the  test  wheel  at  375  rpm  for  30  minutes, 
then  at  400  rpm  for  30  minutes,  and  then  at 
425  rpm  for  30  minutes. 

(e)  Immediately  after  running  the  tire  the 
required  time,  measure  the  tire  inflation  pressure. 
Remove  the  tire  from  the  model  rim  assembly, 
and  inspect  the  tire. 

38  F.R.  31299 
November    13,    1973 


) 


) 


(Rev.    2/7/74) 


PART  571;  S  119-5 


Effective:   January    1,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   121 

Air  Brake  Systems — Trucks,  Buses  and  Trailers 

(Docket  Nos.  70-16,  70-17;  Notice  No.   2) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  amend  §  571.21 
of  Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  by 
adding  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  121, 
Air  Brake  Systems — Trucks,  Buses  and  Trailers. 
Notices  of  proposed  rulemaking  on  this  subject 
were  published  on  June  25,  1970  (35  F.R.  10368) 
and  June  26,  1970  (35  F.R.  10456).  The  com- 
ments received  in  response  to  the  notices  and 
information  obtained  at  a  technical  conference 
held  on  October  20,  1970  (35  F.R.  14736,  Septem- 
ber 22,  1970)  have  been  considered  in  the  devel- 
opment of  the  final  rule.  The  trailer  require- 
ments are  joined  with  the  truck  and  bus 
requirements  in  a  single  air  brake  systems 
standard. 

The  standard  as  adopted  specifies  requirements 
for  the  safe  performance  of  air  brake  systems 
under  normal  and  emergency  conditions.  It 
should  be  noted  that  the  term  "air  brake  system" 
as  defined  in  the  standard  applies  to  the  brake 
configuration  commonly  referred  to  as  "air  over 
hydraulic,"  in  which  failure  of  either  medium 
can  result  in  complete  loss  of  braking  ability. 

The  standard  establishes  a  set  of  requirements 
to  govern  the  braking  behavior  of  a  vehicle  dur- 
ing application  of  the  service  brakes.  Principal 
among  these  are  stopping  performance  require- 
ments that  include  a  minimum  stopping  distance 
requirement  for  trucks  and  buses  and  lateral 
stability  and  w^heel  lockup  requirements  for  all 
vehicles.  To  more  accurately  reflect  the  friction 
characteristics  of  a  surface  with  a  skid  number 
of  75,  the  stopping  distances  for  trucks  and  buses 
on  a  dry  surface  have  been  increased  over  those 
proposed  in  the  notice.  The  required  distance 
from  60  m.p.h.  is  now  245  feet  rather  than  216 
feet  and  the  distance  from  20  m.p.h.  is  33  feet 
rather  than  29  feet.  The  stopping  distance  on  a 
wet  surface  at  20  m.p.h.,  54  feet,  has  been  re- 


tained. Several  comments  indicated  that  there 
are  no  test  facilities  on  which  the  60  m.p.h.  stop 
on  a  wet  surface  can  be  safely  conducted.  As  a 
measure  of  brake  efficiency,  moreover,  the  20 
m.p.h.  stop  on  a  wet  surface  satisfactorily  indi- 
cates the  vehicle's  behavior  at  higher  speeds,  and 
the  standard  therefore  specifies  only  the  20 
m.p.h.  stopping  distance  test. 

The  requirement  that  the  vehicle  stay  within 
a  12-fbot-wide  lane  has  been  adopted  as  pro- 
posed. The  proposed  requirement  that  no  wheel 
lock  except  momentarily  has  been  modified  to 
permit  lockup  to  occur  on  the  leading  nonsteer- 
able  axle  on  vehicles  having  more  than  two  non- 
steerable  axles.  A  review  of  available  informa- 
tion indicates  that  satisfactory  control  of  the 
vehicle  can  be  maintained  if  lockup  is  avoided 
on  two  nonsteerable  axles.  The  rule  also  permits 
lockup  at  speeds  under  10  m.p.h.  Such  low  speed 
lockup  is  not  considered  hazardous  and  allows 
greater  flexibility  in  brake  system  designs. 

Some  comments  stated  that  the  requirement 
for  a  controlled  stop  without  lockup  favored  one 
variety  of  stability-controlling  device — the  anti- 
lock  device — over  other  systems  such  as  load 
proportioning  devices.  Several  comments  seemed 
to  assume  that  the  proposal  required  antilock 
devices.  The  requirement  that  the  vehicle  stop 
without  locking  its  wheels  reflects  the  Adminis- 
tration's judgment  that  a  vehicle  with  locked 
wheels,  whatever  its  equipment,  is  unstable  and 
uncontrollable  in  an  emergency  situation.  The 
Administration  recognizes  the  likelihood  that 
manufacturers  of  some  types  of  vehicles  may 
have  to  incorporate  proportioning  or  antilock 
devices  into  their  systems  in  order  to  meet  the 
Stopping  distance  requirement.  However,  the 
manner  in  which  lockup  is  prevented  is  not 
specified  in  the  standard,  and  if  a  proportioning 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  1 


Effective:   January    1,    J973 


device  or  any  other  device  can  produce  the  de- 
sired result,  it  may  be  incorporated  into  the 
veliicle's  braking  system. 

Although  an  antilock  device  is  not  required, 
if  it  is  used  on  a  vehicle  it  must  conform  to  sev- 
eral requirements.  A  warning  signal  must  be 
provided  to  warn  of  total  system  failure,  a  failed 
de\'ice  must  not  interfere  with  the  operation  of 
the  service  brake,  and  electrical  elements  in  the 
system  must  be  powered  through  the  vehicle's 
stop  lamp  circuit.  Of  these  requirements,  the 
first  was  the  subject  of  comments  that  indicated 
some  uncertainty  as  to  the  nature  of  a  total  sys- 
tem failure.  The  reason  for  the  requirement  is 
that  a  driver  ought  to  be  warned  in  the  event 
that  a  system  on  which  he  has  come  to  rely  has 
stopped  working  altogether.  Monitoring  of  each 
device  separately  would  be  difficult  and  costly, 
while  monitoring  of  the  shared  elements  of  the 
system,  such  as  the  electrical  circuitry,  would  be 
relatively  simple.  Although  electrical  problems 
would  be  the  most  likely  cause  of  total  failure, 
other  components  may  also  produce  such  failure 
and  the  language  of  the  requirement  has  not 
been  limited  to  a  specific  type  of  failure.  A 
requirement  that  electrical  power  for  antiskid 
devices  on  trailers  must  be  provided  through  the 
stop  lamiD  circuit  has  been  added  to  insure  the 
functioning  of  antilock  systems  in  vehicle  com- 
binations in  which  the  towed  vehicle  has  an  anti- 
lock  system. 

The  requirements  for  actuation  and  release 
times,  for  brake  retardation  force,  and  for  brake 
power  have  been  modified  somewhat  in  the  light 
of  infonnation  provided  by  the  comments.  The 
notice  proposed  timing  curves  for  brake  actuation 
and  release,  but  subsequent  review  has  indicated 
that  adhesion  to  a  timing  curve  is  less  significant 
than  the  basic  ability  to  apply  and  release  the 
brakes  quickly.  The  curves  have  therefore  been 
omitted  in  favor  of  a  single  application  time  of 
0.25  second  and  a  single  release  time  of  0.50 
second.  These  values  are  somewhat  less  stringent 
than  those  proposed  in  the  notice,  and  reflect 
the  judgment  that  a  system  that  can  meet  the 
stopping  distance  requirements  without  lockup 
has  less  need  for  the  rapid  times  originally  pro- 
posed. Vehicles  intended  to  tow  other  vehicles 
equipped  with  air  brakes  must  still  meet  the 
actuation  and  release  times  with  a  50-cubic-inch 


test  reservoir  attached  to  the  service  line  outlet,  g 
but  the  requirements  for  pressurization  of  the  ^ 
test  reser\T)ir  itself  have  been  deleted. 

The  brake  retardation  force  requirement  was 
the  subject  of  numerous  comments,  some  to  the 
effect  that  the  retardation  force  was  too  high  to 
permit  safe  operation  of  vehicle  combinations  in 
which  new  and  old  vehicles  are  mixed,  and  others 
to  the  effect  that  the  forces  were  too  high  to  be 
achieved  with  reliability  by  available  friction 
materials.  The  Administration  has  determined 
that  compatibility  problems  are  substantially 
lessened  if  the  vehicle  has  the  ability  to  stop 
without  lockup  and  that  the  retention  of  a  rela- 
tively high  retardation  force  requirement  will 
not  lead  to  significant  compatibility  problems. 
It  has  been  determined,  however,  that  the  stop- 
ping distance  requirements  can  be  met  by  brakes 
having  a  somewhat  lower  retardation  force  ca- 
pacity than  proposed,  and  a  lower  force  require- 
ment is  therefore  adopted. 

Comments  regarding  the  proposed  brake  power 
requirements  stated  that  the  fade  characteristics 
required  of  the  linings  might  exceed  the  limits 
of  existing  technology  and  might  not  be  com- 
patible with  the  retardation  force  requirements,  k 
In  the  light  of  these  comments  and  other  infor-  "* 
mation  it  has  been  determined  that  the  brake 
power  requirements  should  be  reduced.  Accord- 
ingly the  standard  as  adopted  requires  10  de- 
celerations at  a  rate  of  9  feet  per  second  per 
second  at  intervals  of  72  seconds  with  the  air 
pressure  at  90  p.s.i.  or  less,  and  a  final  decelera- 
tion at  14  f.p.s.p.s.  from  20  m.p.h.  with  a  service 
line  air  pressure  of  108  p.s.i.  or  less.  In  the 
light  of  the  diminished  power  requirements,  the 
recovery  requirements  have  been  retained  with  a 
minor  adjustment  from  45  p.s.i.  to  40  p.s.i.  in  the 
minimum  air  pressure  required. 

A  series  of  alterations  have  been  made  in  the 
equipment  requirements  in  response  to  comments 
and  as  a  result  of  reevaluation  by  the  Adminis- 
tration. First  among  these  is  the  alteration  of 
the  stop  lamp  switch  requirement  to  permit  use 
of  a  pneumatic  switch.  The  requirements  for 
compressor  capacity  have  been  modified  to  re- 
quire it  to  increase  air  pressure  in  the  reservoirs 
from  85  p.s.i.  to  100  p.s.i.  in  not  more  than  25 
seconds,  in  place  of  the  proposed  requirement  of 
0-85  p.s.i.  in  2  minutes.    The  mandatory  require- 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  2 


Effective:  January   1,    1973 


^  ment  for  a  supply  reservoir  has  been  removed, 
f  and  the  overall  reservoir  capacity  for  trucks  and 
buses  has  been  reduced  to  12  times  the  combined 
brake  chamber  capacity.  The  drain  valve  re- 
quirement has  been  simplified,  the  tolerance  on 
the  air  pressure  gauge  has  been  broadened  to 
±7  percent  of  the  compressor  cut-out  pressure, 
and  the  low  air  pressure  warning  requirement 
has  been  modified  to  permit  visible,  nonaudible 
signals  within  the  driver's  forward  field  of  view. 
The  notice  proposed  that  each  truck  and  bus 
have  a  split  service  brake  system.  It  has  been 
determined  that  the  additional  cost  and  greater 
complexity  of  a  split  system  on  vehicles  equipped 
with  air  brakes  are  not  accompanied  by  safety 
benefits  great  enough  to  justify  requiring  a  split 
system.  Accordingly,  the  requirement  has  been 
deleted.  The  remaining  system  with  emergency 
capabilities  is  the  parking  brake  system,  and  it 
has  been  determined  that  a  parking  brake  system 
complying  with  the  applicable  requirements  of 
the  standard  will  provide  a  safe  means  of  stop- 
ping the  vehicle  in  the  event  of  service  brake 
failure. 
Two  aspects  of  the  parking  brake  system  were 
I  the  subject  of  considerable  comment.  A  number 
of  comments  stated  that  no  maximum  static  re- 
tardation force  should  be  specified,  and  several 
comments  stated  that  the  parking  brakes  should 
not  apply  automatically.  The  standard  as 
adopted  retains  both  the  maximum  retardation 
and  the  automatic  application  requirements. 
Each  has  a  role  in  the  safe  operation  of  the 
parking  brake  system.  If  no  maximum  retarda- 
tion force  were  specified,  there  would  be  consid- 
erable risk  of  lockup  during  emergency  braking. 
The  requirement  as  adopted,  however,  raises  the 
upper  limit  on  the  quotient 

static  retardation  force 
GAWE 

from  0.33  to  0.40. 

Comments  stated  that  automatic  application 
of  the  brakes  while  the  vehicle  is  in  motion  could 
induce  hazardous  instability,  due  bo  wheel  lockup 
or  to  the  unexpected  nature  of  the  braking.  It 
has  been  determined  that  adequate  safeguards 
exist  in  the  standard  to  avoid  such  problems. 
The  required  low  pressure  warning  signal  must 
operate  at  a  pressure  well  above  the  automatic 


application  pressure  so  that  the  driver  will  have 
sufficient  warning  of  incipient  brake  application. 
In  addition,  the  limit  on  retardation  force  will 
act  to  prevent  lockup  under  all  but  the  most 
severe  conditions.  With  respect  to  trailers,  the 
automatic  functioning  of  the  parking  brake  sys- 
tem is  further  insured  by  the  deletion  of  the 
proposed  requirement  for  a  check  valve  or  similar 
device  to  protect  the  trailer's  air  pressure. 

The  parking  brake  controls  have  been  consid- 
erably simplified  by  uniting  in  one  control  the 
manual  on-off  operation  and  the  release-after- 
automatic-application  function. 

Many  comments  revealed  a  misunderstanding 
about  the  Administration's  purpose  in  specifying 
test  conditions.  It  should  be  understood  that  the 
standards  are  not  instructions  for,  or  descrip- 
tions of,  manufacturer  tests.  For  example,  the 
condition  that  states  that  "(t)he  wind  velocity  is 
zero,"  simply  means  that  the  vehicle  must  meet 
the  applicable  tests  if  (among  other  things)  the 
air  is  still,  that  is,  if  the  wind  neither  helps  nor 
hinders  the  vehicle's  performance.  One  way  in 
which  the  manufacturer  could  check  his  vehicle's 
conformity  with  reference  to  the  zero  wind  con- 
dition is  to  run  the  bralcing  test  with  a  resultant 
tailwind.  With  reference  to  another  condition, 
such  as  the  surface  with  a  skid  number  of  75,  the 
test  could  be  run  on  a  surface  having  a  skid 
number  lower  than  75.  Manufacturers  are  re- 
quired to  exercise  due  care  to  insure  that  their 
vehicles  will  meet  the  standard  if  tested  by  the 
Administration  under  the  specified  conditions, 
but  they  are  at  their  own  discretion  in  devising 
an  appropriate  testing  program  for  that  purpose. 

A  few  changes  have  been  made  in  the  test 
conditions.  The  notice  had  proposed,  in  addition 
to  the  zero  wind  condition,  that  the  vehicle  stay 
in  the  roadway  with  a  wind  of  30  m.p.h.  from 
any  direction.  On  review,  the  30-m.p.h.  speed 
has  been  determined  to  be  excessive  and  to  un- 
duly increase  the  problems  of  testing.  In  addi- 
tion, most  stability  problems  are  controlled  by 
preventing  wheel  lockup,  as  required  by  the 
Standard,  and  the  crosswind  condition  has  there- 
fore been  deleted.  In  place  of  the  "lightly 
loaded  vehicle  weight,"  a  weight  condition  based 
on  the  vehicle's  unloaded  weight  is  used. 

Effective  date.  Because  of  the  development 
work  and  preparation  for  production  that  this 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  3 


Effective:   January    1,    1973 

standard  will  require,  it  is  found  that  an  effective 
date  later  than  1  year  from  the  date  of  issuance 
is  in  the  public  interest.  Accordingly,  the  stand- 
ard is  effective  January  1, 1973. 

In  consideration  of  the  above,  §  571.21  of  Title 
49  of  the  Code  of  Federal  Regulations  is  amended 
by  adding  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No. 
121  as  set  forth  below.  This  standard  is  issued 
under  the  authority  of  sections  103  and  119  of 
the  National  Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Act,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407,  and  the  delegation  of 
authority  by  the  Secretary  of  Transportation  to 


the  National  Highway  Traffic  Safety  Adminis- 
trator, 49  CFR  1.51. 

Issued  on  February  19, 1971. 

Douglas  W.  Toms, 

Acting  Administrator,  National 
Highway  Traffic  Safety  Ad- 
ministration 

36  F.R.  3817 
February    27,    1971 


e 


i 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  4 


I 


iffccHv*:   Sapitmbar   1,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  121 

Air  Brake  Systems — Trucks,  Buses,  and  Trailers 

(Dockets  No.  70-16  and  70-17;  Notice  3) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  respond  to 
petitions  requesting  reconsideration  of  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  121,  Air  Brake 
Systems,  §  571.121  of  Title  49,  Code  of  Federal 
Regulations.  After  issuance  of  the  standard  on 
February  19,  1971  (36  F.R.  3817,  February  27, 
1971),  petitions  for  reconsideration  were  filed 
pursuant  to  49  CFR  535.35  by  a  number  of  ve- 
hicle and  equipment  manufacturers.  This  notice 
grants  some  of  the  requests  by  amending  the 
standard,  and  denies  other  requests. 

1.  Service  brake  system.  The  service  brake 
system  requirements  have  been  reorganized  for 
reasons  of  clarity  and  have  been  amended  with 
respect  to  the  order  of  testing  and  the  number  of 
tests  to  be  conducted.  The  dynamometer  tests 
have  been  separated  from  the  road  tests  and 
placed  in  section  S5.4.  The  road  test  section  has 
been  amended  to  specify  the  order  in  which  the 
stopping  tests  are  to  be  run.  The  section  is 
further  amended  to  provide  that  a  truck  or  bus 
will  be  stopped  six  times  for  each  combination  of 
loading,  speed  and  road  conditions  and  that  it 
will  be  considered  to  meet  the  requirement  if  one 
stop  is  made  in  the  required  distance  with  the 
required  stability  and  freedom  from  wheel  lock- 
up. This  amendment  has  been  adopted  to  ease 
the  problems  arising  from  a  test  driver's  un- 
familiarity  with  a  vehicle's  behavior.  To  ac- 
comodate antilock  systems  that  permit  some 
wheels  to  lock  for  longer  periods  than  others,  the 
reference  to  "momentary"  lockup  in  S5.3.1  and 
S5.3.2  has  been  amended  to  refer  to  "controlled" 
lockup. 

S5.3.2,  Stopping  Capability,  Trailers,  has  been 
amended  in  minor  respects,  to  make  it  clear  that 
the  90  p.s.i.  pressure  level  is  system-wide  and  not 
confined  to  the  brake  control  lines,  and  to  provide 
that  the  trailer  is  to  stop  the  combination  of 


vehicles  without  benefit  of  the  towing  vehicle's 
brakes. 

The  brake  power  requirements  of  S5.4.2  and 
the  dynamometer  test  conditions  of  S6.2  are  each 
amended  to  refer  to  the  drum  "or  disc"  to  avoid 
the  possibility  that  the  sections  would  be  miscon- 
strued as  requiring  drum  brakes.  The  brake  re- 
covery requirements  of  S5.4.3  are  amended  by 
lowering  the  minimum  air  pressure  requirement 
to  20  p.s.i.  from  40  p.s.i.  This  amendment  is 
based  on  a  reassessment  of  the  problems  asso- 
ciated with  over-recovery  that  has  led  the 
NHTSA  to  conclude  that  20  p.s.i.  is  a  reasonable 
level. 

The  requirements  concerning  antilock  system 
failure  and  the  provision  of  power  for  antilock 
systems  on  trailers  have  been  separated  from  the 
other  service  brake  requirements  and  placed  in 
S5.5. 

2.  Service  brake  retardation  force.  The  stand- 
ard as  adopted  in  February  1971  required  the 
brakes  on  each  axle  to  produce  specified  retarda- 
tion forces  at  each  of  several  brake  chamber  air 
pressures.  As  indicated  in  the  issuance  of  the 
standard,  the  primary  goal  of  the  retardation 
force  requirement  was  to  insure  brake  compat- 
ibility between  vehicles  used  in  combination.  On 
review  of  petitions  requesting  exemption  of  ve- 
hicles that  do  not  tow  other  vehicles  from  the 
retardation  force  requirements,  the  NHTSA  has 
det«rmined  that  for  these  vehicles  the  require- 
ments are  not  necessary.  Accordingly,  S5.4.1  is 
amended  to  apply  only  to  vehicles  that  are  in- 
tended to  tow  or  to  be  towed  by  another  vehicle 
equipped  with  air  brakes. 

In  response  to  petitions  objecting  to  axle  by 
axle  force  calculations,  the  retardation  force  re- 
quirements are  further  amended  to  provide  that 
the  retardation  force  for  all  axles  shall  bo  added 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  5 


231-088   O  -  77  - 


Effactlva:   Seplembar   1,    1974 


together  and  divided  by  the  sum  of  gross  axle 
ratings  to  arrive  at  the  values  shown  in  Table 
III.  The  effect  of  the  amendment  is  to  allow 
greater  flexibility  in  the  allocation  of  braking 
force  between  axles. 

The  overall  braking  force  required  of  the  ve- 
hicle's brakes,  however,  remains  the  same  as 
before.  The  NHTSA  has  considered  and  re- 
jected the  requests  for  different  retardation 
values  and  for  substitution  of  SAE  J992a  for 
the  dynamometer  tests  of  S5.4.1.  The  present 
retardation  force  requirements  in  Table  III  are 
considered  to  be  a  reasonable  accommodation  be- 
tween the  need  for  compatibility  with  existing 
vehicles  and  the  need  to  establish  a  uniform 
pattern  of  brake  response  over  the  range  of 
operating  pressures.  The  dynamometer  pro- 
cedures of  S5.4.1.1,  which  permit  measurement 
of  brake  forces  on  an  indi-ddual  vehicle,  are 
more  suited  to  the  regulatory  purpose  of  this 
standard  than  are  the  procedures  of  SAE 
.1992a,  which  provides  for  road  testing  of  ve- 
hicles in  combination.  The  agency  recognizes 
that  the  availability  of  dynamometers  of  suf- 
ficient capacity  is  a  concern  to  many  petitioners, 
but  available  evidence  indicates  that  dynamom- 
eter access  will  not  be  a  major  long-term 
problem.  The  petitions  to  delete  dynamometer 
testing  are  therefore  denied. 

3.  Parking  brake  system.  The  parking  brake 
system  required  by  S5.4  of  the  standard  had 
several  features  that  were  widely  objected  to  by 
the  petitioners.  In  particular,  petitioners  ob- 
jected to  the  requirement  for  automatic  applica- 
tion of  the  parking  brakes  in  the  event  of  pres- 
sure loss.  Although  the  standard  specified  a 
maximum  retardation  force  level  of  0.40  to  re- 
duce the  possibility  of  lockup  during  automatic 
application,  many  petitioners  stated  that  auto- 
matic application  of  the  brakes  would  surprise 
the  driver  and  adversely  affect  his  handling  of 
the  vehicle. 

The  NHTSA  remains  convinced  that  auto- 
matic application  of  the  parking  brake  is  a 
satisfactory  means  of  providing  braking  in  the 
event  of  service  brake  failure.  The  low  pressure 
warning  signal  required  by  S5.1.5  is  considered 
adequate  to  warn  a  driver  of  impending  applica- 
tion of  the  parking  brake  to  avoid  most  of  the 
effects  of  surprise.    However,  review  of  the  peti- 


tions has  persuaded  the  agency  that  automatic    ^ 
npplication   of   the   parking  brake  need  not  be  W^ 
mandatory.       Accordingly,     the     standard     is 
amended  to  provide  for  an  alternative  parking 
brake  system   that  is  manually,  and  not   auto- 
matically, applied. 

To  accommodate  the  new  alternative,  the 
parking  brake  requirements  have  been  reorga- 
nized into  two  main  sections:  S5.6,  which 
specifies  requirements  for  parking  brakes  gen- 
erally, and  S5.7,  which  sets  out  the  emergency 
braking  capabilities  for  automatic  systems 
(S5.7.1)  and  manual  systems  (S5.7.2)  on  trucks 
and  buses.  A  third  section  (S5.8)  deals  with 
the  emergency  braking  of  trailers. 

The  general  requirements  of  S5.6  are  derived 
from  S5.4  of  the  original  standard,  with  some 
additions  and  amendments.  The  braking  force 
generated  by  the  parking  brakes  is  measured,  at 
the  manufacturer's  option,  either  by  a  static 
draw  bar  test,  which  must  produce  a  force  level 
of  0.28,  or  by  a  holding  test  on  a  20%  grade. 
The  tests  are  to  be  conducted  in  both  forward 
and  rearward  directions.  As  provided  in  the 
original  standard,  the  parking  brakes  must  be 
applied  by  an  energy  source  that  is  independent  / 
of  the  air  pressure  in  the  service  brake  system.  ^ 

Additional  changes  have  been  made  in  S5.6 
with  respect  to  the  requirements  for  the  parking 
brake  control.  The  standard  as  published  in 
February  1971  specified  the  shape  and  color  of 
the  parking  brake  control,  as  well  as  its  location, 
and  provided  that  manual  operation  and  release 
after  automatic  application  should  be  accom- 
plished by  movement  of  a  single  control.  After 
review  of  the  petitions,  it  has  been  decided  to 
allow  greater  flexibility  in  the  design  and  op- 
eration of  the  control.  Efforts  are  now  under- 
way within  the  industry  to  standardize  controls, 
and  it  may  be  that  a  consensus  will  be  reached 
upon  which  a  more  standardized  control  can  be 
based.  In  the  meantime,  the  standard's  specifica- 
tions have  been  reduced  to  requiring  the  control 
tc  be  separate  from  the  service  brake  control, 
operable  from  the  normal  driving  position,  and 
identifiable  as  to  its  method  of  operation.  The 
shape,  color,  and  number  of  controls,  and  the 
method  of  operation,  are  left  to  the  judgment  of 
the  manufacturer. 


PART  571 ;  S  121— PRE  6 


Efhctlva:   S«plamb*r   I,    1974 


k  The  major  difference  between  the  emergency 
braking  performance  required  of  a  vehicle  with 
a  manual  system  and  the  performance  required 
of  a  vehicle  with  an  automatic  system  is  that  a 
vehicle  with  a  manual  parking  brake  is  required 
by  S5.7.2.3  to  meet  a  stopping  distance  test  with 
an  air  pressure  failure  in  the  service  brake  sys- 
tem. Although  a  manufacturer  may  elect  to  use 
the  parking  brakes  to  provide  this  emergency 
stopping  capacity,  he  may  use  other  components 
to  supplement  the  parking  brakes  or  he  may  use 
a  system  entirely  independent  of  the  parking 
brakes. 

A  vehicle  with  an  automatic  parking  brake 
may,  at  the  manufacturer's  option,  either  meet 
the  stopping  distance  test  of  S5.7.2.3,  or  have  a 
maximum  static  retardation  force  not  greater 
than  0.40,  measured  in  accordance  with  S5.6.1. 
Several  petitioners  requested  deletion  of  the 
maximum  retardation  force  levels  for  automatic 
brakes.  Although  the  agency  remains  concerned 
about  the  effects  on  a  vehicle's  stability  of  auto- 
matic brake  application,  it  has  determined  that 
a  vehicle  capabable  of  meeting  specified  stopping 
V  distance  requirements  when  the  brakes  are  auto- 
1  matically  applied  should  not  be  held  to  the  maxi- 
mum force  level  requirement. 

With  respect  to  both  automatic  and  manual 
brakes,  provision  is  made  for  control  of  the 
parking  brakes  of  the  towed  vehicle.  It  was 
noted  by  some  petitioners  that  automatic  applica- 
tion of  a  towing  vehicle's  brakes,  without  simul- 
taneous application  of  a  towed  vehicle's  brakes, 
could  lead  to  unstable  braking  and  possibly  to 
jackknifing.  To  lessen  the  risk  of  such  in- 
stability, the  automatic  brake  requirements  are 
amended  to  require  the  venting  of  the  towed 
vehicle's  supply  line  so  that  its  brakes  will  apply 
upon  application  of  the  towing  vehicle's  brakes. 

4.  Other  provisions  amended.  In  S4  the 
definition  of  "antilock  system"  has  been  amended 
to  refer  to  "rotational  wheel  slip"  to  distinguish 
the  phenomenon  controlled  by  the  antilock  sys- 
tems from  other  types  of  wheel  slip.  The  defini- 
tions of  "gross  axle  weight  rating,"  "gross  ve- 
hicle weight  rating,"  and  "unloaded  vehicle 
weight"  have  been  omitted,  since  they  have  been 
incorporated  in  the  general  definitions  section  of 
Part  571,  49  CFR  571.3(b). 


The  equipment  requirements  have  been 
amended  in  a  number  of  minor  respects.  S5.1.1 
has  been  amended  to  include  supply  reservoir 
capacities.  The  reservoir  capacity  required  has 
not  been  changed,  but  the  requirement  is  clari- 
fied by  striking  the  words  "greater  than"  in 
S5.1.2.1  and  in  S5.2.1.1.  The  requirement  for  a 
towing  vehicle  protection  valve  (S5.1.3)  has  been 
amended  by  the  use  of  the  broader  term  "system" 
in  place  of  "valve." 

The  pressure  gauge  requirement  (S5.1.4)  has 
been  amended  to  require  a  gauge  in  each  service 
brake  system,  rather  than  to  require  a  gauge  di- 
rectly on  the  service  reservoir.  The  warning 
signal  requirement  (S5.1.6)  is  amended  in  re- 
sponse to  petitions  to  provide  that  warning 
must  be  by  means  other  than  the  pressure  gauge 
indicator.  The  antilock  warning  signal  require- 
ment (S5.1.6),  has  been  amended  to  limit  the 
warning  to  the  event  of  electrical  failure,  pend- 
ing investigation  of  other  types  of  failure  for 
which  a  warning  may  be  practicable. 

5.  Petitions  denied.  Several  requests  for 
amendment  of  the  equipment  requirements  have 
been  denied.  A  request  that  the  ser\dce  reservoirs 
be  connected  in  series  has  been  rejected  as  un- 
necessary and  design  restrictive.  Requests  for 
reduction  in  minimum  reservoir  capacity  are  also 
denied.  The  present  requirement  of  12  times  the 
combined  volume  of  service  brake  chambers  has 
been  applied  by  the  SAE  to  intracity  buses  and 
school  buses  for  some  time  and  is  considered  a 
reasonable  requirement  for  other  vehicles,  par- 
ticularly in  the  light  of  additional  demands  made 
on  air  capacity  by  antilock  systems. 

Several  petitions  requested  amendment  of  the 
vehicle  weights  specified  in  S5.3  for  the  service 
brake  tests.  Requests  were  made  for  additional 
weight  on  the  vehicle  in  its  unloaded  condition 
to  allow  for  the  weight  of  the  completed  body 
and  for  safety  equipment  such  as  roll  bars  used 
during  testing.  Since  the  vehicles  tested  by  the 
NHTSA  will  be  completed  vehicles,  however,  it 
is  not  appropriate  to  specify  an  additional 
weight.  If  an  incomplete  vehicle  manufacturer 
wishes  to  ascertain  the  performance  of  this  ve- 
hicle in  one  or  more  of  its  completed  variations, 
he  may  do  so  by  placing  weights  on  the  incom- 
plete vehicle,  by  actually  mounting  a  body  on 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  7 


Effactlva:   S«pl«mb*r   1,    1974 


it,  or  by  any  other  means  that  are  reasonably 
calculated  to  evaluate  the  braking  performance 
of  the  completed  vehicle.  With  respect  to  safety 
equipment,  the  NHTSA  regards  the  problem  of 
weight  associated  with  safety  devices  as  easily 
surmountable.  Each  of  the  petitons  requesting 
changes  in  the  weights  specified  in  S5.3  is  ac- 
cordingly denied. 

A  number  of  petitions  requested  increases  in 
the  stopping  distance  required  by  S5.3.1.  The 
distances  specified  are  considered  reasonable  and 
well  within  the  state  of  the  art.  Greater  dis- 
tances would  increase  the  disparity  between 
trucks  and  cars  and  be  contrary  to  the  interests 
of  safety.  The  petitions  are  denied.  Similarly, 
the  petitions  for  an  increase  in  the  skid  number 
of  the  dry  surface  from  75  to  80  are  denied.  The 
75  number  is  representative  of  road  surfaces, 
and  has  been  a  part  of  the  consumer  information 
requirements  long  enough  that  the  availability 
of  skid  pads  should  not  be  a  probelm.  Similarly, 
the  requests  that  30  skid  number  tests  be  nm  on 
dry  pavement  or  that  they  be  abandoned  are 
denied.  Braking  in  wet  weather  is  an  evident 
problem  with  vehicles  of  all  types,  and  the 
NHTSA  regards  the  wet-track  test  as  an  essential 
part  of  the  standard. 

The  stopping  capability  requirement  for 
trailers  (S5.3.2)  was  the  subject  of  petitons  re- 
questing deletion  of  the  90-p.s.i.  pressui-e  level 
requirement  and  objecting  to  the  uncertainty  in- 
volved in  determining  whether  the  tractor  or  the 
trailer  is  responsible  if  the  trailer  leaves  the 
12-foot-wide  lane.  The  NHTSA  regards  a  uni- 
form service  line  pressure  specification  as  an 
appropriate  means  of  insuring  uniformity  in 
trailer  response,  even  though  some  tractors  may 
be  designed  to  modulate  air  pressure  in  the  lines. 
Since  only  the  trailer  is  to  be  braked,  the  cause 
of  deviation  from  the  lane  will  be  the  trailer's 
brakes,  not  the  tractor's.  The  petitions  are 
denied. 

The  actuation  and  release  requirements  of 
S5.3.3  and  S5.3.4  were  subject  to  a  variety  of  ob- 
jections. One  petitioner  requested  deletion  of 
both  requirements,  while  others  requested  elimi- 
nation of  the  50-cubic-inch  test  reservoir  for 
trailers  that  tow  other  trailers.  On  review,  the 
NHTSA  has  decided  to  deny  the  petitions. 
Although   the   stopping  distance  test  of  S5.3.1 


necessarily  limits  the  actuation  time  that  a  manu-  ^ 
facturer  can  allow,  the  additional  constraint  v 
placed  on  timing  by  S5.3.3  has  the  important 
effect  of  producing  full  braking  at  a  very  early 
point  during  the  braking  maneuver  where  the 
speed  is  greatest  and  the  effects  of  a  reduction  in 
speed  most  significant  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
forces  involved  in  a  crash.  The  brake  release 
time  has  an  important  bearing  on  the  maneuver- 
ability and  directional  stability  of  vehicles  in 
emergency  situations.  It  can  sometimes  be  as 
important  for  the  brakes  to  come  off  quickly  and 
evenly  as  for  them  to  be  applied  quickly. 

The  50-cubic-inch  test  reservoir  has  been  em- 
ployed for  some  time  in  the  SAE  brake  testing. 
It  has  therefore  been  retained.  Other  sugges- 
tions in  the  petitions  for  service  reservoir  timing 
and  for  additional  test  component  specifications 
are  not  adopted  at  this  time  but  may  be  appro- 
priate subjects  for  future  amendment. 

With  respect  to  the  loading  conditions  speci- 
fied in  S6.1.1,  a  number  of  petitioners  stated  that 
the  front-rear  brake  balance  needed  to  achieve 
conforming  performance  on  a  truck-tractor 
loaded  to  GVWR  in  its  bob-tail  configuration 
would  not  be  the  best  balance  for  that  tractor  y 
when  towing  a  trailer.  This  appears  to  be  a  - 
valid  objection,  but  the  most  obvious  alterna- 
tive— testing  with  a  trailer  in  tow — involves 
complexities  that  have  not  been  fully  discussed 
in  the  petitions.  A  notice  is  therefore  being 
prepared  to  propose  that  a  truck  tractor  be  tested 
with  a  trailer  during  the  stopping  distance  tests. 

Effective  date:  September  1,  1974.  Review  of 
the  numerous  petitions  for  extension  of  the  effec- 
tive date  from  January  1,  1973,  has  led  to  the 
conclusion  that  an  effective  date  of  September  1, 
1974,  would  permit  a  longer  period  of  fleet  test- 
ing to  evaluate  the  durability  of  the  new  systems 
and  that  the  resulting  production  systems  are 
likely  to  be  substantially  improved  by  the  addi- 
tional time  allowed.  An  effective  date  later  than 
one  year  from  the  date  of  issuance  is  therefore 
found,  for  good  cause  shown,  to  be  in  the  public 
interest. 

In  consideration  of  the  above.  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  121,  Air  Brake  Systems,  in 
S  571.21  of  Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations, 
is  amended  to  read  as  set  forth  below.  This 
amendment  is  issued  imder  the  authority  of  sec- 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  8 


Effective:  Saptombar   I,   1974 


tions   103  and   119  of  the  National  Traffic  and  Issued  on  February  16,  1972. 

Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407,  Douglas  W.  Toms 

and  the  delegation  of  authority  by  the  Secretary  Administrator 

of    Transportation    to    the    National    Highway  37  F  R    3905 

Traffic  Safety  Administrator,  49  CFR   1.51.  February  24,  1972 


) 


) 


PART  571;  8  121— PRE  9-10 


( 


i 


EfFectiva:   September   1,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   121 

Air  Brake  Systems — Trucks,  Buses  and  Trailers 
(Docket  No.  70-17;  Notice  No.  4) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  respond  to 
petitions  filed  pursuant  to  49  CFK  §  553.35,  seek- 
ing reconsideration  of  the  amendments  to  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  121,  Air  Brake 
Systems,  published  February  24,  1972  (37  F.R. 
3905).  The  petitions  are  granted  in  part  and 
denied  in  part. 

I.  Amendments 

S5.1.6  Internationa]  Harvester  stated  that  the 
operation  of  the  antilock  warning  system  should 
be  the  same  as  that  of  the  low  pressure  warning 
signal  imder  S5.1.5.  S5.1.6  presently  requires 
an  audible  warning  of  at  least  10  seconds  dura- 
tion regardless  of  whether  the  visible  signal  re- 
quired by  the  section  is  within  the  driver's 
forward  field  of  view.  The  change  requested  by 
International  Harvester  would  require  an  audible 
warning  only  if  the  visual  warning  is  out  of  the 
driver's  forward  field  of  view.  On  reconsidera- 
tion, the  NHTSA  has  concluded  that  the  system 
requested  by  International  Harvester  will  give 
the  driver  adequate  warning  of  antilock  system 
failure.  S5.1.&  is  therefore  being  amended  to 
parallel  S5.1.5. 

S5.1.5  and  S5.1.6  In  a  letter  designated  as  a 
request  for  clarification  or  interpretation,  General 
Motors  suggested  that  because  diesel  systems  do 
not  have  an  "on"  position,  they  might  be  consid- 
ered exempt  from  the  requirement  that  the  anti- 
lock  warning  signal  must  operate  when  the  igni- 
tion is  in  the  "on"  position.  Although  the 
NHTSA  does  not  consider  it  likely  that  the  re- 
quirement will  be  understood  as  exempting 
diesels,  the  agency  has  concluded  that  amending 
the  standard  to  refer  to  the  "run"  position  as 
suggested  by  GM  would  avoid  any  possibility  of 
misinterpretation.  S5.1.5  and  S5.1.6  are  amended 
accordingly. 


55.2.1.1  Midland-Ross  requested  that  a  pres- 
sure should  be  specified  at  which  the  protected 
reservoir  should  be  capable  of  releasing  the  park- 
ing brakes.  On  reconsideration,  it  seems  appro- 
priate to  specify  a  pressure  that  corresponds  to 
the  lower  end  of  the  range  of  pressures  main- 
tained by  current  compressors.  The  section  is 
therefore  amended  to  specify  a  pressure  of  90 
p.s.i.  The  related  question  of  when  the  brake  is 
considered  to  be  released,  also  raised  by  Midland- 
Ross,  does  not  require  amendment.  The  NHTSA 
considers  a  brake  to  be  released  at  the  point 
where  it  no  longer  exerts  any  torque. 

85.2.1.2  In  response  to  a  question  in  the 
Midland-Ross  petition  and  a  related  request  for 
interpretation  by  Wagner  Electric  Corporation, 
this  section  is  amended  by  adding  the  word 
"service"  before  "reservoir",  so  that  the  section, 
as  amended,  requires  the  total  service  reservoir 
volume  to  be  at  least  eight  times  the  combined 
volume  of  all  service  brake  chambers  at  maximum 
travel  of  the  pistons  or  diaphragms.  The  amend- 
ment reflects  the  basic  intent  of  S5.2.1.2,  which 
is  to  have  a  specified  volume  of  air  available  to 
the  service  brakes. 

S5.4  Several  petitioners  stated  that  S5.4  ap- 
peared to  exempt  some  vehicles  from  the  dy- 
namometer requirements.  This  impression  is 
erroneous,  in  that  all  vehicles  are  required  to 
conform  to  S5.4.  The  source  of  the  confusion 
appears  to  be  the  sentence  in  S5.4  which  states 
that  "[a]  brake  assembly  that  has  undergone  a 
road  test  pursuant  to  S5.3  need  not  conform  to 
the  requirements  of  this  section".  The  intent  of 
the  standard  is  to  conduct  the  dynamometer  tests 
on  new  brake  assemblies,  and  the  quoted  sentence 
was  intended  to  make  it  clear  that  a  single  brake 
assembly  would  not  have  to  pass  the  road  test 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  11 


Efhdlv*:  Saptambar  1,   1974 


and  the  dynamometer  test  in  succession.  The 
sentence  is  being  amended  to  clarify  its  meaning. 
S5.7.1.4  This  section  is  amended  in  response 
to  a  request  by  Wagner  Electric,  to  require 
manual  application  whenever  the  system  pressure 
prevents  automatic  application. 

II.  Provisions  Twt  amended 

With  respect  to  the  remaining  petitions,  no 
changes  are  being  made  in  the  standard.  In 
some  cases  this  is  because  the  petitioner  has  mis- 
interpreted the  applicable  provisions  to  his  dis- 
advantage and  needs  no  amendment  to  obtain  the 
relief  he  wants.  In  other  cases,  the  agency  has 
concluded  that  the  requested  amendments  do  not 
serve  the  need  for  motor  vehicle  safety.  In  one 
or  two  cases,  the  change  requested  may  prove 
desirable  but  cannot  be  fully  evaluated  without 
further  information.  The  following  discussion 
deals  with  the  petitioned  requirements  in  numeri- 
cal order. 

S3.  Clark  Equipment  Company  requested  the 
addition  of  trailer  converter  dollies  to  the  list  of 
affected  vehicles.  The  addition  is  not  necessary, 
in  that  a  converter  dolly  is  a  "trailer"  within  the 
meaning  of  that  term  in  49  CFE  571.3(b). 

S5.1  Clark  Equipment  Company  requested  an 
amendment  to  exclude  vacuum  brake  systems 
from  the  equipment  requirements  of  S5.1.  De- 
spite the  reference  to  a  vacuum  assist  in  S4,  the 
standard  does  not  apply  to  vacuum  brakes  and 
therefore  does  not  require  vacuum  systems  to 
have  the  equipment  described  in  S5.1. 

S5.1.2.2  It  was  suggested  by  Midland-Ross 
that  the  requirement  that  the  reservoir  must  be 
capable  of  "withstanding"  the  specified  pressure 
was  not  sufficiently  precise.  It  may  be  that  ex- 
perience will  show  a  need  for  quantification  of 
this  requirement,  but  the  agency  does  not  con- 
sider it  to  be  necessary  at  this  time.  A  reservoir 
will  be  considered  to  withstand  the  test  pressure 
if  it  shows  no  pressure  loss  during  the  test 
interval. 

S5.1.3  It  was  suggested  by  Midland-Ross  that 
the  requirements  for  the  towing  vehicle  protec- 
tion system  should  be  amended  to  indicate  the 
degree  of  protection  required  and  the  operating 
modes  protected.  The  agency's  response  is  much 
the  same  as  its  response  on  S5.1.2.2 :  the  sugges- 
tion may  prove  to  have  merit,  if  systems  appear 


which  cause  problems  in  service.    At  this  point,     ^ 
however,   the  agency  will  retain  the  broad  re-     * 
quirement  that   a   towing  vehicle  must  have  a 
system  to  protect  it  from  the  loss  of  air  pressure 
in  the  towed  vehicle,  without  regard  to  the  sys- 
tem's design  or  method  of  operation. 

55.1.5  Midland-Ross  requested  an  increased 
pressure  level  at  which  the  low  pressure  warning 
signal  actuates,  so  that  it  would  be  above  the 
protection  valve  trip  pressure  used  in  new  trail- 
ers. The  requested  change  is  not  necessary,  in 
that  the  standard  does  not  now  prevent  the 
manufacturer  from  setting  the  signal  actuation 
level  at  a  pressure  above  60  p.s.i.  If  Midland- 
Ross  wishes  to  set  its  level  at  80  p.s.i.,  it  may 
do  so. 

55.1.6  Clark  Equipment  Company  requested 
that  the  antilock  warning  signal  requirements  be 
expanded  to  apply  to  the  failure  of  a  towed 
vehicle's  antilock  system.  The  NHTSA  is  re- 
ceptive to  further  discussion  of  this  issue.  How- 
ever, it  has  decided  not  to  adopt  the  request  at 
this  time.  Trailers  are  not  required  to  have 
provision  for  antilock  warning  systems,  and  re- 
quiring towing  vehicles  to  accommodate  systems 
that  are  not  likely  to  exist  would  be  unjustified.     St 

S5.3.1  Two  petitioners  requested  amendments 
of  the  stopping  distance  requirements.  The 
Carlisle  Corporation  requested  a  longer  stopping 
distance,  and  Midland-Ross  requested  that  the 
reference  to  "controlled  lockup"  be  amended  to 
specify  a  system  that  would  provide  for  resump- 
tion of  wheel  rotation  at  some  point  before  the 
speed  falls  to  10  m.p.h.  Both  requests  are  denied. 
The  distances  specified  are  considered  to  be  ap- 
propriate and  within  the  current  state  of  the  art. 
The  requested  change  with  respect  to  wheel 
lockup  would  permit  systems  in  which  all  wheels 
could  be  completely  locked  for  substantial  periods, 
a  situation  that  S5.3.1  was  designed  to  avoid. 

S5.3.3  Midland-Ross  requested  that  Figure  1, 
referenced  by  this  section,  should  be  amended  by 
specifying  a  pressure  of  100  p.s.i.  in  both  reser- 
voirs, by  omitting  the  tractor  protection  valve 
from  the  test  rig,  and  by  employing  a  service 
brake  control  valve  rather  than  a  brake  pedal. 
Because  S5.3.3  specifies  a  pressure  of  100  p.s.i., 
it  should  be  clear  that  each  reservoir  would  be  at 
that  pressure,  and  no  amendment  is  necessary. 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  12 


Effsclivc:  Saplembar   1,    1974 


A  protection  valve  is  used  because  such  valves 
are  in  widespread  use,  even  though  they  are  not 
required  by  the  standard.  The  service  brake 
pedal  specified  in  Figure  1  is  a  service  brake  foot 
control  valve.  No  change  of  label  appears 
necessary. 

55.4.1  International  Harvester  requested  the 
deletion  of  this  section  as  unnecessary.  As  stated 
before,  the  purpose  of  the  section  is  to  promote 
compatibility  between  the  brakes  of  vehicles  used 
in  combination.  The  agency  is  of  the  opinion 
that  it  serves  the  stated  function  and  has  there- 
fore retained  it. 

55.4.2  Wagner  Electric  and  the  Carlisle  Cor- 
poration each  objected  to  certain  aspects  of  this 
section.  Wagner  Electric  requested  the  reinstate- 
ment of  the  phrase  "at  least"  before  the  decelera- 
tion of  9  f.p.s.p.s.,  and  requested  the  use  of  the 
phrase  "a  minimum"  in  S5.4.2.1,  on  the  groimds 
that  it  is  impossible  to  achieve  a  deceleration  rate 
of  exactly  9  f.p.s.p.s.  In  response,  it  should  be 
pointed  out  that  it  is  not  necessary  for  a  manu- 
facturer to  conduct  his  tests  at  exactly  the  speci- 
fied rate,  but  only  to  test  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
assure  himself  that  if  the  brakes  were  to  be  tested 
at  that  rate  they  would  meet  the  requirements. 
It  is  to  his  advantage  to  test  under  less  favorable 
conditions  than  those  specified  in  the  standard. 
The  insertion  of  the  language  requested  by  Wag- 
ner would,  if  anything,  make  the  test  more  severe 
for  the  manufacturers,  in  that  the  government 
could  run  tests  with  average  decelerations  in  ex- 
cess of  9  f.p.s.p.s.  making  the  "worst  case"  situa- 
tion much  more  diflScult  to  ascertain. 

The  Carlisle  Corporation  objected  to  proce- 
dural disparities  between  the  retardation  force 
tests  of  S5.4.1  and  the  brake  power  tests  of 
S5.4.2.  The  basic  procedural  difference  between 
the  sections  is  that  the  measurement  period  under 
35.4.1  begins  when  the  specified  air  pressure  is 
reached  whereas  the  period  under  S5.4.2  begins 
with  the  onset  of  deceleration.  Although  it  may 
be  that  different  instrumentation  will  be  required 
in  the  two  tests,  they  are  not  for  that  reason 
inconsistent  or  incompatible.  The  NHTSA  con- 
siders each  procedure  to  be  appropriate  for  the 
aspect  of  performance  that  it  measures. 

55.4.3  The  Carlisle  Corporation  requested  a 
further  reduction  in  the  lower  limit  of  the  re- 


covery force,  from  the  current  level  of  20  p.s.i. 
to  10  p.s.i.  The  NHTSA  considers  a  brake  sys- 
tem that  produces  a  deceleration  of  12  f.p.s.p.s. 
with  a  pressure  of  only  10  p.s.i.  to  be  too  sensi- 
tive and  therefore  denies  the  petition. 

S5.5.2  Clark  Equipment  Company  objected  to 
the  use  of  the  stop  lamp  circuit  to  power  the 
antilock  system.  The  basis  for  the  requirement 
is  the  need  for  compatibility  between  trucks  and 
trailers  made  by  different  manufacturers.  The 
stop  lamp  circuit  is  the  most  suitable  electrical 
connection  between  trucks  and  trailers  because 
it  is  always  energized  when  the  brakes  are  ap- 
plied. It  was  therefore  chosen  as  the  source  of 
power.  The  agency  is  of  the  opinion  that  the 
stop  lamp  circuit  has  adequate  power  for  single 
trailer  applications.  For  multiple  trailers,  it  may 
be  necessary  to  employ  complementary  systems 
as  permitted  by  S5.5.2.  The  petition  is  therefore 
denied. 

55.6.1  In  response  to  n  request  for  interpreta- 
tion by  International  Harvester,  the  intent  of 
this  section  is  to  require  parking  brakes  on  each 
axle  other  than  steerable  front  axles. 

55.6.2  Midland-Ross  suggested  the  amendment 
of  this  section  to  specify  that  a  sliding  bogie  on 
a  semitrailer  shall  be  placed  in  its  most  favorable 
position.  As  presently  worded,  the  section  is 
silent  with  respect  to  bogies  so  that  the  NHTSA 
will  be  obliged  to  test  in  a  manner  that  favors 
the  manufacturer.  However,  if  there  are  indica- 
tions that  the  position  of  the  bogie  makes  a 
substantial  difference  in  the  braking  performance 
of  the  vehicle,  the  agency  will  consider  rule- 
making to  specify  that  the  trailer  must  meet  the 
requirements  with  the  bogie  in  any  position. 

S5.7.1.1  Wagner  Electric  requested  an  amend- 
ment to  provide  for  brake  application  when  the 
pressure  in  "any"  service  reservoir  is  less  than 
the  automatic  application  pressure  level.  The 
section  now  requires  application  when  "all"  serv- 
ice reservoirs  are  below  that  level.  The  NHTSA 
does  not  consider  the  requested  amendment  neces- 
sary to  permit  the  type  of  system  that  Wagner 
envisions.  It  is  permissible  under  the  present 
wording  for  a  manufacturer  to  have  a  system 
that  applies  the  brakes  upon  a  low  pressure  sig- 
nal from  a  single  reservoir.  To  require  operation 
in  such  a  case,  as  AVagner  requests,  would  elimi- 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  13 


EffacHva:  Saplember   1,   1974 


nate  systems  that  are  capable  of  fully  applying 
the  service  brakes  despite  low  pressure  in  one 
reservoir. 

S5.7.2.2  The  Clark  Equipment  Company  re- 
quested deletion  of  "brake  fluid  housing"  from 
the  list  of  items  whose  failure  must  not  affect  the 
parking  brake  system.  The  purpose  of  the  sec- 
tion is  to  make  it  clear  that  the  sharing  of  com- 
ponents by  the  service  and  emergency  braking 
systems  should  not  be  construed  as  permitting 
malfunction  of  the  parking  brake  system  despite 
the  provisions  of  S5.6.3.    The  petition  is  denied. 

S5.8  The  Clark  Equipment  Company  requested 
the  deletion  of  the  phrase  "or  S5.6.2"  from  this 
section,  on  the  groimds  that  it  converts  the  re- 
quirement into  a  parking  brake  requirement  that 
may  be  weaker  than  the  emergency  braking  per- 
formance currently  required  under  the  regula- 
tions of  the  Bureau  of  Motor  Carrier  Safety. 
However,  despite  the  use  of  .20  rather  than  the 
value  of  .28  specified  in  S5.6.1,  the  trailer  under 
S5.6.2  is  loaded  to  its  GVWR  and  the  supporting 
dolly  is  imbraked  so  that  the  braking  perform- 
ance required  by  the  two  sections  is  nearly  iden- 
tical. The  NHTSA  has  therefore  decided  to 
retain  the  option  of  S5.6.2  under  S5.8. 

S6.1.1  Midland-Ross  requested  that  the  loading 
of  a  trailer  be  based  on  the  sum  of  its  GAWR's 
rather  than  on  its  GVWR.  A  GVWR  designa- 
tion for  trailers  is  required  by  Part  567,  and  the 
agency  considers  it  appropriate  to  specify  GVWR 
as  the  test  condition  under  this  section. 

S6.1.7  International  Harvester  again  ques- 
tioned the  appropriateness  of  using  a  skid  number 
of  75  for  road  tests.    This  issue  has  been  raised 


a  number  of  times  in  the  course  of  the  various 
braking  standard  rulemakings.  Although  the 
NHTSA  is  not  prepared  at  this  time  to  state 
that  a  number  higher  than  75  ought  to  be  se- 
lected, the  agency  intends  to  collect  additional 
data  concerning  road  surfaces  with  a  view  to 
possible  future  changes. 

S6.1.9  Midland-Ross  stated  that  parking  brake 
tests  for  semitrailers  should  be  conducted  with 
the  trailer  front  end  supported  by  the  trailer 
landing  gear.  The  use  of  the  parking  brakes  as 
part  of  the  emergency  braking  system  and  the 
unknown  effect  of  the  friction  in  the  landing 
gear  system  weigh  against  the  adoption  of  this 
requirement.    The  petition  is  denied. 

S6.2.1  The  Carlisle  Corporation  requested 
that  a  5%  tolerance  be  specified  in  the  dyna- 
mometer loading.  The  request  is  denied,  for  the 
reasons  given  in  the  preceding  discussion  of 
Wagner  Electric'sj)etition  on  S5.4.2. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  121,  49  CFR  §  571.121 
is  amended  .... 

Effective  date :  September  1, 1974. 

This  rule  is  issued  under  the  authority  of  sec- 
tions 103  and  119  of  the  National  Traffic  and 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407, 
and  the  delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51. 

Issued  on  June  21, 1972. 

Douglas  W.  Toms 
Administrator 

37F.R.  12495 
June  24,  1972 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  14 


Effective:   September    1,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   121 

Air  Brake  Systems 
(Docket  No.  73-13;  Notice  3) 


This  notice  amends  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  121,  Air  brake  systems^  by  modify- 
ing the  emergency  stopping  distance  require- 
ments for  truck-tractors,  the  parking  brake  re- 
quirements for  trailer  converter  dollies,  and  the 
recovery  requirements  for  antilock  equipped 
brakes,  and  by  establishing  a  new  test  condition 
for  loaded  truck-tractors,  special  test  conditions 
for  certain  drive  and  axle  configurations,  and  a 
new  burnish  condition  for  road  tests. 

The  amendments  adopted  by  this  notice  repre- 
sent a  partial  adoption  of  the  changes  proposed 
in  Docket  No.  73-13,  Notice  1  (38  F.R.  14963; 
June  7,  1973).  The  comments  to  the  proposal 
were  divided  as  to  the  merits  of  most  of  the 
changes  proposed.  Running  throughout  the 
comments,  however,  was  an  overriding  concern 
with  lead  time.  Although  a  manufacturer  might 
favor  a  change,  such  as  the  proposed  change  in 
the  burnish  condition,  he  may  find  himself  un- 
able to  adjust  to  it  within  the  time  remaining 
before  the  standard  becomes  effective  on  Septem- 
ber 1,  1974.  The  NHTSA,  for  its  part,  does  not 
consider  the  proposed  changes  significant  enough 
to  warrant  postponing  the  effective  date  of  the 
standard.  The  agency  has  therefore  adopted  two 
provisions  for  which  lead  time  appears  to  be  a 
problem — the  new  burnish  condition  and  the  new 
truck-tractor  test  condition — as  options  for  the 
period  between  September  1,  1974,  and  Septem- 
ber 1,  1976.  Of  the  remaining  changes  proposed 
in  Docket  73-13,  some  are  adopted  effective 
September  1,  1974,  others  are  not  being  adopted 
and  will  not  be  further  considered  for  adoption, 
and  others  remain  as  candidates  for  adoption. 
If  the  latter  are  adopted,  they  will  become  effec- 
tive at  some  date  beyond  September  1,  1974. 
The  treatment  accorded  each  of  the  proposed 
changes  is  set  out  in  order  below. 


S4.  Definitions  were  proposed  for  "isolated 
reservoir"  and  "service  reservoir".  Insofar  as 
the  principal  use  of  these  definitions  was  to  be 
in  proposed  amendments  which  are  not  being 
adopted  at  this  time,  there  is  little  purpose  in 
adding  them  to  S4  at  this  time.  They  are  there- 
fore not  adopted. 

S5. 1.2.5  This  new  section  was  to  have  been 
added  to  prevent  the  diversion  of  air  from  the 
service  reservoirs  into  other  reservoirs  when  the 
service  reservoir  pressure  is  below  60  psi.  In 
addition  to  questions  of  lead  time,  several  com- 
ments stated  that  the  equipment  served  by 
auxiliary  reservoirs,  such  as  windshield  wipers, 
often  plays  a  role  in  safety  as  significant  as  that 
of  the  brake  system.  In  consideration  of  these 
factors,  the  section  is  not  being  adopted  at  this 
time,  and  if  subsequently  adopted  will  take  into 
account  both  lead  time  and  the  effects  on  other 
safety  systems. 

S5.1.3  The  amendment  proposed  to  the  towing 
vehicle  protection  system  requirements  was  to 
have  accompanied  the  amended  emergency  brak- 
ing requirements  of  S5.7,  and  would  have  desig- 
nated the  protection  system  as  the  system 
enabling  the  vehicle  to  meet  the  emergency  stop- 
ping requirements  of  S5.7.2.2  and  S5.7.2.3.  The 
agency  has  decided  to  defer  action  on  the  amend- 
ments to  S5.7,  as  discussed  below,  and  accord- 
ingly takes  no  final  action  on  S5.1.3  at  this  time. 

S5.1.6  An  amendment  was  proposed  to  the 
antilock  failure  signal  requirements  in  response 
to  a  petition  by  Berg  Manufacturing  Company. 
Berg  has  subsequently  withdrawn  its  petition, 
and  in  the  absence  of  compelling  reasons  to  adopt 
the  proposed  change,  the  NHTSA  has  decided 
not  to  amend  S5.1.6. 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  15 


Effective:   September    1,    1974 

S5.2.1.1  The  requirement  for  the  reservoir 
used  to  release  the  parking  brakes  was  to  be 
amended  to  specify  two  brake  releases,  rather 
tlian  one,  and  to  specify  the  initial  pressure  from 
whicli  these  releases  were  to  be  accomplished. 
The  agency  continues  to  regard  these  changes 
favorably,  but  has  decided  to  defer  final  action 
until  the  issuance  of  amendments  concerning  the 
parking  and  emergency  systems,  as  discussed 
under  sections  S5.6  and  S5.7. 

S5.3.1  and  S5.3.2.  Rather  than  amend  the 
general  language  of  these  sections  concerning  the 
circumstances  under  which  lockup  is  permitted 
during  a  stop,  the  agency  has  decided  to  leave 
the  sections  essentially  unaltered.  In  response 
to  requests  to  clarify  the  treatment  accorded 
liftable  axles,  the  section  is  amended  to  permit, 
in  effect,  liftable  axles  without  antilock  on  ve- 
hicles with  more  than  two  nonsteerable  axles. 
Liftable  axles  on  vehicles  with  two  nonsteerable 
axles  would  continue  to  be  subject  to  the  no- 
lockup  requirement  except  for  controlled  lockup 
allowed  by  an  antilock  system. 

The  principal  change  proposed  for  S5.3.1  and 
S5.3.2  had  been  a  change  in  the  description  of 
permissible  lockup  from  "controlled  lockup  al- 
lowed by  an  antilock  system"  to  "lockup  of 
wheels  controlled  by  an  antilock  system  that  does 
not  permit  more  than  half  the  wheels  on  any 
controlled  axle  to  lock  more  than  momentarily." 
The  intent  of  the  proposed  revision  was  to  fore- 
stall systems  whose  "control"  over  the  lockup  of 
wheels,  although  nominally  within  the  meaning 
of  the  language,  might  be  so  marginal  as  to  per- 
mit more  than  half  the  wheels  on  a  tandem  axle 
to  lock  throughout  the  duration  of  a  stop.  The 
proposed  amendment,  however,  was  read  by  some 
manufacturers  as  expressly  permitting  systems 
in  which  half  the  wheels  on  each  axle  would  not 
be  sensed  or  monitored  by  the  antilock  controller 
or  cycled  by  the  antilock  system.  Such  was  not 
the  intent  of  tlie  proposal.  It  appears,  on  fur- 
ther review,  that  such  systems  are  not  currently 
in  prospect.  The  agency  has  concluded  that  the 
better  cour.se  is  not  to  amend  the  "controlled 
lockup"  language  at  this  time,  but  to  observe 
developments  in  the  industry,  with  a  view  toward 
amending  the  requirements  if  subsequent  events 
indicate  a  safety  need. 


S5.3.4  The  notice  had  proposed  increasing  the  m- 
release  time  for  trailers  from  0.50  second  to  0.60  » 
second.  In  the  face  of  several  objections  to  the 
proposal  on  the  grounds  that  it  ran  counter  to 
the  need  for  coordination  of  braking  between 
vehicles  in  combination,  and  on  the  basis  of  in- 
formation indicating  that  the  timing  problem  is 
solvable  for  trailers,  the  proposal  is  being  with- 
drawn. 

S5.4.1  The  notice  had  proposed  deleting  the 
retardation  force  requirement,  leaving  it  ap- 
plicable only  to  towed  vehicles.  The  change  had 
been  proposed  as  a  result  of  the  proposed  amend- 
ment to  the  tractor  test  conditions  whereby  the 
tractor  would  be  tested  with  a  trailer.  In  the 
light  of  the  comments,  and  of  the  continuance 
of  the  current  tractor  test  conditions  as  an  op- 
tion, the  NHTSA  has  decided  not  to  adopt  the 
proposed  change. 

S5.4.3  The  notice  proposed  to  delete  the  mini- 
mum recovery  pressure  requirement  for  brakes 
equipped  with  antilock  systems,  leaving  the  20 
psi  minimum  force  level  for  other  brakes.  Upon 
further  consideration,  the  agency  has  concluded 
that  a  minimum  recovery  force  requirement 
should  be  retained  for  antilock  equipped  brakes,  4 
but  at  a  level  below  20  psi.  The  agency  has  ^ 
determined  that  12  psi  is  a  minimum  level  that 
permits  a  greater  variety  of  brake  linings  while 
retaining  a  residual  protection  against  over- 
sensitive brakes  in  the  event  of  antilock  failure. 
Accordingly,  the  agency  adopts  12  psi  as  the 
minimum  recovery  force  for  antilocked  brakes. 

S5.6  The  parking  brake  requirements  of  S5.6 
had  been  one  of  the  principal  areas  affected  by 
the  proposal.  In  addition  to  changes  in  the 
parking  brake  application  requirements  and  de- 
letion of  the  optional  static  pull  test  for  parking 
brake  holding  ability,  the  notice  had  proposed 
new  requirements  for  parking  brake  stopping 
capability.  This  latter  proposal  received  almost 
unanimous  criticism.  Although  the  agency  has 
not  concluded  that  the  proposal  is  without  merit, 
the  issues  raised  by  the  comments  and  the  evident 
lead  time  problems  associated  with  the  proposal 
have  led  the  agency  to  conclude  that  no  further 
action  should  be  taken  without  additional  notice 
and  opportunity  for  comment  and  that  the  ef- 
fective date  for  any  such  requirement  should  lie 
beyond  September  1,  1974. 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  16 


Effactiv*:   September   1,    1974 


I  Of  the  remaining  changes  to  S5.6  proposed  by 

_'  the  notice,  only  the  exemption  of  converter 
dollies  from  the  parking  brake  requirements  is 
being  adopted  at  this  time.  The  proposed  dele- 
tion of  the  optional  static  pull  test  of  S5.6.2  has 
not  been  carried  out,  and  the  options  of  S5.6.1 
and  S5.6.2  will  be  retained.  The  proposed  park- 
ing brake  application  requirements  of  S5.6.6  and 
S5.6.7,  which  had  reflected  amendments  proposed 
to  the  emergency  braking  requirements  of  S5.7 
are  not  being  adopted  at  this  time,  pending  fur- 
ther rulemaking  on  S5.7. 

S5.7  The  notice  had  proposed  substantial  re- 
visions to  the  emergency  braking  requirements 
of  S5.7,  principally  in  response  to  a  petition  by 
ATA  and  to  an  earlier  petition  by  Ford.  The 
majority  of  the  changes  proposed  in  response  to 
the  ATA  petition  continue  to  be  viewed  favor- 
ably by  the  NHTSA.  However,  review  of  the 
comments  suggests  both  that  further  refinements 
are  necessary  and  that  the  proposed  changes  will 
require  additional  time  for  implementation.  The 
agency  is  therefore  deferring  final  rulemaking 
action  on  the  aspects  of  S5.7  addressed  by  the 
ATA  to  a  later  date  and  will  issue  such  changes 
I  as  it  may  decide  upon  with  an  effective  date 
beyond  September  1,  1974. 

Amendtnents  to  the  emergency  stopping  dis- 
tance requirements,  presently  contained  in 
S5.7.2.3  of  the  standard,  were  proposed  by  two 
successive  notices.  In  Docket  73^,  Notice  1  (38 
F.R.  6831),  the  agency  proposed  a  favorable  re- 
sponse to  a  petition  by  Ford  concerning  the 
emergency  stopping  distances  for  short-wheelbase 
two-axle  truck-tractors  in  the  unloaded  condi- 
tion. When  tested  in  this  weight  condition, 
truck-tractors  are  driven  without  a  trailer — a 
condition  in  which  they  are  seldom  operated  over 
the  road.  The  effect  of  the  proposed  amendment 
would  have  been  to  permit  a  limited  number  of 
truck-tractors  equipped  with  modulated  emer- 
gency braking  systems  to  stop  in  a  somewhat 
longer  distance  than  that  permitted  other  ve- 
hicles with  modulated  emergency  braking. 

Comments  to  Docket  73-i  indicated  that  there 
were  other  vehicles  whose  braking  systems  were 
complicated  by  the  shorter  emergency  stopping 
distance.  In  response  to  these  comments,  the 
agency  proposed  in  Docket  No.  73-13,  Notice  1, 
to  apply  the  longer  stopping  distances  to  other 


vehicles  in  the  unloaded  condition  provided  they 
were  capable  of  stopping  within  the  shorter  dis- 
tance with  the  assistance  of  the  parking  brakes. 
The  comments  to  Docket  No.  73-13  objected  to 
the  use  of  the  parking  brake  in  this  fashion,  and 
some  asserted  that  if  the  longer  distance  were 
appropriate  for  some  vehicles  it  should  be  ap- 
propriate for  all.  Upon  review  of  the  comments, 
the  agency  has  decided  against  a  general  length- 
ening of  emergency  stopping  distances.  Upon 
weighing  the  rarity  of  truck-tractor  operation 
without  a  trailer  against  the  potential  costs  of 
modifying  truck-tractors  to  meet  the  shorter 
stopping  distance  in  that  configuration,  however, 
the  agency  has  concluded  that  the  longer  stop- 
ping distances  specified  in  Column  4  of  Table  II 
should  be  applicable  to  truck-tractors,  regardless 
of  weight  distribution  or  number  of  axles,  but 
that  other  vehicles  should  continue  to  meet  the 
emergency  stopping  distances  of  Column  3  of 
Table  II.  Section  S5.7.2.3  is  amended  accord- 
ingly. 

S5.8  The  notice  had  proposed  to  transfer  the 
emergency  braking  capability  requirement  for 
trailers  from  S5.8  to  S5.6.7.  Until  such  time  as 
the  agency  decides  to  adopt  S5.6.7,  S5.8  will  be 
retained.  To  provide  emergency  capability  for 
converter  dollies,  in  the  absence  of  mandatory 
parking  brakes  for  them,  the  NHTSA  has 
amended  the  section  to  provide  for  application 
of  the  dolly's  service  brakes  in  the  event  of  com- 
plete air  pressure  loss  in  the  control  lines.  This 
system  is  presently  installed  in  virtually  all 
dollies,  as  a  result  of  regulations  issued  by  the 
Bureau  of  Motor  Carrier  Safety  (49  CFR  393.43) 
and  is  considered  to  be  a  practicable  substitute 
for  the  parking  brakes  in  emergency  situations. 

S6.1  A  number  of  revisions  to  the  test  condi- 
tions of  S6.1  were  proposed.  These  revisions 
are  adopted  in  substance,  with  some  changes  in 
structure  and  in  section  numbering.  The  new 
truck-tractor  test  condition,  whose  insertion  as 
S6.1.2  had  caused  confusion  as  to  the  fate  of  the 
old  S6.1.2,  has  been  adopted  as  S6.1.10,  thereby 
leaving  the  current  sections  S6.1.2  to  86.1.9  with 
their  present  numbering. 

S6.1.8  The  road  test  burnish  procedures  pro- 
posed in  the  notice  are  being  adopted  as  an  op- 
tional procedure  for  the  period  September  1. 
1974,  to  September  1,  1976.    After  September  1, 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  17 


Effective:   September    1,    1974 


1976,  tlie  new  burnish  procedure  will  replace  the 
older  procedure  as  the  only  burnish  prescribed 
for  road  tests.  This  two-step  arrangement  ap- 
pears necessary  to  permit  manufacturers  whose 
testing  to  date  has  been  conducted  with  the  cur- 
rent burnish  procedure,  and  who  need  additional 
time,  to  phase  in  the  new  procedure. 

S6.1.10  A  similar  phase-in  has  been  found 
necessary  for  the  new  tractor  test  conditions. 
Several  manufacturers  had  stated  that  their 
evaluation  programs  had  been  conducted  without 
trailers  and  that  retesting  would  be  necessary  in 
order  to  certify  their  vehicles  under  the  new 
conditions.  The  new  conditions  are  therefore 
adopted  as  an  option  for  the  period  September  1, 
1974,  to  September  1,  1976.  During  this  period 
a  manufacturer  may  choose  to  test  his  vehicles 
under  either  loading  condition,  and  such  tests  as 
the  NHTSA  conducts  will  be  in  the  loading 
condition  chosen  by  the  manufacturer  for  the 
vehicle  under  test. 

56. 1.10.1  The  control  trailer  to  be  used  under 
S6.1.10  is  specified  as  conforming  to  Standard 
No.  121. 

56.1.10.2  The  center  of  gravity  of  the  loaded 
trailer  is  specified  as  being  at  a  height  of  66±3 
inches  above  the  ground.  There  was  a  variety 
of  opinion  in  the  comments  as  to  how  high  the 
center  of  gravity  should  be,  but  upon  reviewing 
the  comments  the  agency  has  concluded  that  the 
66±3  inch  range  originally  proposed  is  reason- 
ably representative  of  loading  conditions.  Axle 
load  shift  due  to  the  rake  angle  of  the  trailer  bed 
does  not  appear  to  be  a  problem  in  that  each 
axle  of  the  trailer  is  loaded  to  its  GAWR  when 
the  trailer  is  connected  to  the  tractor. 

56.1.10.3  and  S6.1.10.4  In  response  to  com- 
ments suggesting  that  the  lengths  and  weight 
ratings  of  the  trailers  specified  in  the  proposal 
were  not  those  in  most  general  use,  the  agency 
has  increased  the  length  of  the  trailer  specified 
in  S6.1.10.3,  reduced  the  length  of  the  trailer 
specified  in  S6.1.10.4,  and  lowered  the  gross  axle 
weight  rating  for  each  trailer. 

S6.1.10.5  The  loading  condition  of  the  trailer 
for  tests  of  the  tractor's  brakes  is  substantially 
the  same  as  that  proposed  in  the  notice.  The 
tractor's  fifth  wheel  does  not  have  to  be  adjust- 
able, as  some  comments  inferred,  but  if  it  hap- 


pens to  be  adjustable  it  must  be  adjusted  to 
produce  the  specified  weight  distribution.  The 
axle  loads  are  to  be  measured  at  the  tire-ground 
interfaces,  in  response  to  comments  that  the  for- 
mer reference  to  the  "force  transmitted  to  the 
tractor  axles  through  the  kingpin"  was  not  clear 
as  to  the  method  of  measurement. 

S6. 1.10.6  and  S6. 1.10.7  These  sections  are  de- 
signed to  establish  performance  specifications  for 
the  trailers  to  be  used  for  truck-tractor  testing. 
They  are  not  intended  as  performance  require- 
ments for  trailers,  but  only  as  test  equipment 
specifications  for  the  tractor  tests.  The  trailer 
loading  condition  specified  is  somewhat  different 
from  that  used  in  testing  the  performance  of  the 
tractor,  because  the  tests  are  aimed  at  isolating 
the  performance  of  the  trailer  brakes.  The  lo- 
cation of  the  fifth  wheel  is  specified  as  the  posi- 
tion determined  under  S6.1.10.5,  but  the  trailer 
is  loaded  so  that  its  axle  is  at  its  gross  axle 
weight  rating  and  its  kingpin  is  at  unloaded 
weight. 

The  actuation  and  release  times  specified  for 
the  trailer  in  the  evaluation  tests  were  questioned 
by  several  comments.  It  may  be  necessary,  in 
some  cases,  for  a  special  valve  to  be  installed  on 
the  tractor  if  the  tractor's  system  is  too  slow  to 
actuate  the  trailer's  brakes  in  the  time  specified. 
The  purpose  of  the  timing  specification  is  simply 
to  remove  the  tractor's  performance  as  a  factor 
in  the  trailer  brake  evaluation.  When  the  trailer 
is  used  in  tests  of  a  tractor  pursuant  to  S5.3.1  it 
will,  of  course,  be  connected  to  the  tractor's  nor- 
mal control  system. 

In  addition  to  specifying  the  same  loading  in 
S6.1.10.7  as  in  S6.1.10.6,  the  ratio  applied  to 
determine  the  trailer's  stopping  distance  under 
S6.1.10.7  has  also  been  revised  to  conform  to  that 
used  in  S6. 1.10.6.  To  accommodate  tractors  that 
are  not  capable  of  60-mph  speeds,  each  section 
now  specifies  that  the  trailer  is  tested  at  the 
speed  at  which  the  tractor  for  which  it  will  be 
used  is  tested. 

S6.1.n  and  S6.1.12  These  sections  relate  to 
special  drive  conditions  and  the  position  of  lift- 
able  axles,  and  are  adoi:)ted  as  proposed. 

S6.1.13  This  new  section  was  proposed  to  es- 
tablish performance  requirements  for  the  trailer 
timing  test   rig  specified   in   Figure   1.     In   the 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  18 


EfF«ctiv*:   September    1,    1974 

light  of  objections  in  the  comments  to  the  per-  Effective  date:  September  1,  1974. 

formance  levels  specified,  the  agency  is  deferring  „ 

final  rulemaking  at  this  time  and  will  issue  such  (Sec  103,  119,  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80  Stat.  718, 

changes  us  it  may  decide  upon  with  an  effective  1^  U.S.C.  1392,  1407;  delegation  of  authority  at 

date  beyond  September  1, 1974.  49  CFR  1.51.) 

The  tables  and  figures  proposed  for  adoption  igg^^^j  ^^  December  20, 1973. 
or  amendment  by  the  notice  are  adopted  as  pro- 
posed, except  for  the  omission  of  the  parking  James  B    Gregory 
brake  dynamic  test  from  Table  I.  Administrator 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard   No.   121,  Air  brake  sya-  39  F.R.  804 
terns  (49  CFR  571.121),  is  amended  ....  January  3,  1974 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  19-20 


1 


Effective:   September    1,    1974 
March    1,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   121 

Air  Brake  Systems 
(Docket  No.  74-10;   Notice  2) 


This  notice  amends  Standard  No.  121,  Air 
brake  systeTns,  49  CFR  571.121,  in  response  to 
several  petitions  for  reconsideration  of  amend- 
ments to  the  standard  published  January  3,  1974 
(39  F.R.  804),  and  after  consideration  of  com- 
ments on  a  proposal  published  March  1,  1974 
(39  F.R.  7966).  A  notice  of  proposed  rulemak- 
ing has  been  issued  separately  to  propose  modi- 
fication of  the  standard  as  it  applies  to  trailers. 

Reconsideration  of  Ameiidments — 73-13;  Notice  3 
The  amendments  under  reconsideration  concern 
emergency  stopping  distance  requirements  for 
truck  tractors,  parking  brake  requirements  for 
trailer  converter  dollies,  recovery  requirements 
for  antilock-equipped  brakes,  a  new  test  condition 
for  loaded  truck-tractors,  special  test  conditions 
for  certain  drive  and  axle  configuration,  and  a 
new  burnish  condition  for  road  tests.  Several 
manufacturers  commented  on  issues  which  lie 
beyond  the  scope  of  those  amendments  and  are 
therefore  inappropriate  for  treatment  in  this  re- 
sponse. Wagner  Electric  and  Midland-Ross' 
petitions  to  amend  S5.1.2.1  and  S5.2.1.2  (Midland 
also  petitioned  on  S5.1.2.2  and  85.2.1.3)  and 
Wagner's  petition  to  modify  Table  III  retarda- 
tion vahies  will  therefore  be  considered  as  peti- 
tions for  new  rulemaking  to  be  answered  in  a 
separate  notice. 

The  American  Trucking  Association  (ATA) 
requested  reconsideration  of  NHTSA's  decision 
to  permit  either  automatic  or  modulated  emer- 
gency brake  systems  as  options  while  further 
consideration  of  the  modulated  system  takes 
place.  As  stated  in  Notice  3,  the  NHTSA  has 
concluded  that  some  aspects  of  the  system  may 
need  refinement  and  that  all  vehicle  manufactur- 
ers cannot  in  any  case  make  all  their  vehicles 
conform  to  modulated  brake  system  requirements 


by  the  standard's  effective  date.  Accordingly, 
while  the  majority  of  the  changes  proposed  in 
response  to  the  ATA  petition  continue  to  be 
viewed  favorably,  for  the  present  ATA's  petition 
is  denied. 

Wagner  Electric  and  General  Motors  objected 
to  the  retention  of  brake  retardation  force  re- 
quirements for  towing  vehicles  as  redundant  in 
view  of  the  stopping  distance  requirements  which 
also  apply  to  them.  The  NHTSA  proposed  de- 
letion of  these  dynamometer  requirements  pre- 
viously and,  having  considered  the  latest  sub- 
missions and  information,  hereby  amends  S5.4.1 
to  delete  towing  vehicles  from  the  standard's 
requirements.  The  NHTSA  has  tentatively  con- 
cluded that  the  stopping  distance  requirements 
can  establish  satisfactory  brake  balance  between 
towed  and  towing  vehicles,  and  that  the  cost  of 
dynamometer  testing  is  not  justified  by  corre- 
sponding safety  benefits.  It  should  be  noted  that 
the  dynamometer  test  may  be  reinstituted  if  ex- 
perience demonstrates  its  need. 

Fruehauf,  in  a  late  submission  to  this  docket 
and  in  other  docket  comments,  has  emphasized 
the  importance  to  lateral  stability  of  a  slower 
release  time  for  trailers.  A  0.60-sec  maximum 
release  time  proposed  in  Notice  1  was  not  acted 
on  in  Notice  3  in  the  belief  that  it  ran  counter  to 
the  need  for  coordination  of  braking  between 
vehicles  in  combination,  but  further  study  has 
persuaded  this  agency  that  a  slightly  slower  re- 
lease time  for  trailers  is  not  detrimental  to  safe 
operation  of  combination  vehicles.  S5.3.4  has 
been  amended  accordingly. 

General  Motors  and  the  Motor  Vehicle  Manu- 
facturers Association  (MVMA)  petitioned  for 
deletion  of  the  12  lb/in=  minimum  pressure  re- 
quirement for  brakes  controlled  by  an  antilock 


231-088   O  -  77  -  44 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  21 


EfFective:   September    1,    1974 
March    1,    1975 


system.  The  purpose  of  the  minimum  pressure 
is  to  eliminate  oversensitive  brakes  because  of 
the  difficulty  in  modulating  them.  The  lower 
value  was  established  for  antilock-controlled 
brakes  on  the  assumption  that  a  functioning 
antilock  would  normally  compensate  for  over- 
sensitivity.  A  residual  value  was  retained  in  the 
event  of  antilock  failure,  not  to  compensate  for 
driver  surprise,  as  assumed  by  the  MVMA,  but 
rather  to  aid  the  driver  in  his  efforts  to  carefully 
modulate  a  sensitive  brake.  The  NHTSA  has 
seen  no  evidence  to  sujiport  the  assertions  made 
by  MVMA  that  this  requirement  could  down- 
grade stopping  performance.  Except  for  Gen- 
eral Motors'  request  to  clarify  antilock  "control" 
in  this  section,  the  petitions  to  amend  S5.4.3  are 
accordingly  denied,  S5.4.3  is  modified  to  substi- 
tute "subject  to  the  control  of"  in  place  of  "con- 
trolled" to  make  clear  that  the  antilock  need  not 
be  activated. 

General  Motors  and  the  MVMA  objected  to 
the  test  condition  where  a  vehicle  "is  loaded  to 
its  gross  vehicle  weight  rating,  distributed  pro- 
portionately to  its  gross  axle  weight  ratings", 
arguing  that  this  distribution  formula  could  lead 
to  overload  of  one  or  more  axles.  The  General 
Motors  illustration  indicates  a  misunderstanding 
of  the  section's  wording.  The  phrase  "is  loaded 
to  its  gross  vehicle  weight  rating"  describes  a 
weight  condition,  that  of  the  fully  loaded  vehicle, 
and  the  provision  requires  that  this  weight  be 
distributed  in  proportion  to  the  gross  axle  weight 
ratings.  General  Motors  and  the  MVMA  appar- 
ently interpreted  the  phrase  to  describe  only  that 
portion  of  the  gross  vehicle  weight  rating  which 
"is  loaded"  on  an  unloaded  truck  to  bring  its 
weight  up  to  GVWR.  The  condition  states  that 
what  is  distributed  proportionately  is  the  gross 
vehicle  weight  rating  {i.e.  the  weight  of  the 
loaded  vehicle),  and  not  just  that  portion  of  the 
rating  that  constitutes  the  "load."  There  is  no 
mathematical  possibility  of  overloading  an  axle 
under  this  condition,  since  the  GVWR  must  be 
no  more  than  the  sum  of  the  GAWR's. 

Ford  stated  with  respect  to  S6.1.10.5  that  "on 
some  vehicles,  it  may  not  be  possible  to  adjust 
the  fifth  wheel  to  a  position  in  which  the  tractor 
can  be  loaded  to  GVWR  without  exceeding  the 
GAWR  of  one  axle."  It  may  be  that  Ford's 
problem  arises  from  the  same  misunderstanding 


described  above  with  respect  to  GM  and  MVMA. 
To  the  extent,  however,  that  the  Ford  petition 
implies  that  a  manufacturer  can  establish  a 
GVWR  for  a  truck  tractor  which  can  not  be 
attained  without  axle  overload,  the  petition  is 
based  on  a  misconception  of  GVWR  and  is  there- 
fore denied. 

Wagner  Electric  requested  that  the  loadings 
in  S6.1.10.6  be  made  uniform  with  S6.1.10.5  and 
S6. 1.10.7.  These  loadings  are  not  intended  to  be 
uniform,  however,  because  the  first  condition 
specifies  loading  for  purposes  of  truck-tractor 
testing,  while  the  latter  two  conditions  only  es- 
tablish test  equipment  specifications  for  the 
"control  trailer  test  device"  which  is  used  in 
testing  the  truck-tractor.  S6.1.10.6  and  S6.1.10.7 
loadings  differ  so  that  the  service  brake  and 
emergency  brake  capabilities  of  the  control  trailer 
are  separately  designed  to  place  greater  demands 
on  the  truck  tractor's  service  braking  system  than 
its  emergency  braking  system.  The  calculations 
are  based  on  an  evaluation  of  the  capacity  of  the 
brakes  that  are  expected  to  be  placed  on  produc- 
tion trailers  in  accordance  with  the  dynamometer 
test  requirements.  L 

For  the  benefit  of  manufacturers  who  mistak- 
enly consider  these  test  conditions  to  be  minimum 
performance  requirements,  it  should  be  empha- 
sized that  the  S6.1.10.6  and  S6.1.10.7  values  are 
conditions,  i.e.,  characteristics  of  the  control 
trailer  test  device  which  must  be  duplicated  as 
closely  as  possible  for  testing.  As  with  any  other 
test  device  characteristic,  to  the  degree  that  the 
control  trailer  can  not  produce  exactly  the  right 
stopping  distance,  the  certifying  manufacturer 
should  ascertain  conformity  of  his  vehicles  under 
slightly  more  adverse  conditions  than  those 
specified,  in  this  case  by  slightly  reducing  the 
trailer  brakes'  capacity  (to  stop  in  the  specified 
distance). 

General  Motors  objected  that  the  lighter  con- 
trol trailer  capacities  (18,000  and  32,000  pounds 
in  place  of  20,000  and  40,000  pounds)  specified 
in  the  amendment  would  lower  control  trailer 
performance  and  thereby  increase  the  perform- 
ance required  of  truck  tractors.  The  change  was 
made  to  specify  commonly  used  trailers,  to  aid 
manufacturers  in  meeting  the  September  1,  1974, 
effective  date.  The  NHTSA  continues  to  con- 
sider the  increased  availability  of  test  devices  to        L 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  22 


Effectiva:   September    1,    1974 
March    1,    1975 


A  be  more  significant  to  promulgation  of  a  fully 
satisfactory  final  rule  than  the  small  quantitative 
change  noted  by  General  Motors,  and  their  peti- 
tion is  therefore  denied. 

General  Motors  and  the  MVMA  requested 
specification  of  test  load  density  to  resolve  diffi- 
culties in  establishment  of  the  "worst  case"  center 
of  gravit)'  height  when  testing  trucks.  Specifi- 
cation of  a  test  load  density,  however,  is  unneces- 
sary. The  manufacturer  of  a  truck  or  incomplete 
vehicle  should  establish  the  limits  of  placement 
of  the  load  center  of  gravity  as  a  part  of  his 
design  considerations,  to  be  specified  in  the  Part 
568  document  for  an  incomplete  vehicle  or  in  his 
instructions  to  users  in  the  case  of  a  completed 
one.  This  establishes  an  envelope  within  which 
the  vehicle  is  certified  to  comply  with  Standard 
121  under  full  load.  Once  that  envelojie  is  estab- 
lished, the  appropriate  load  densities  to  test  the 
vehicle's  conformity  can  be  derived  from  it. 

Several  petitions  were  received  with  regard  to 
brake  burnish  procedures.  The  MVAIA  and 
Ford  requested  reinclusion  of  language  found  in 
the  proposal  that  specified  an  acceleration  pro- 
i  cedure  for  vehicles  unable  to  reach  the  specified 
^  speed  in  one  mile.  General  Motors  submitted 
minor  changes  of  an  editorial  nature  and  new- 
language  to  specify  an  increased  deceleration  rate 
for  vehicles  unable  to  reach  the  specified  speed 
in  one  mile.  The  NHTSA  has  concluded  that 
language  which  appeared  in  the  proposal  and 
reflects  current  SAE  procedure  should  be  adopted. 
The  General  Motors  increased  deceleration 
method  represents  a  new  procedure  which  has  not 
been  evaluated  by  the  NHTSA  or  projwsed  in 
any  previous  rulemaking.  The  suggestion  of  50 
snubs  before  allowing  a  cooling  period  is  also  a 
new  General  Motors  proposal  which  the  NHTSA 
has  not  had  the  opportunity  to  evaluate.  With 
the  exception  of  one  recommendation.  General 
Motors'  editorial  suggestions  are  adopted  to  be 
consistent  witli  the  titles  in  Table  IV.  The  word 
"maximum"  was  deleted  from  S6.1.8.1  at  the  re- 
quest of  several  manufacturers  because  it  was 
inappropriate  to  the  specification  of  temperature 
range. 

Ford  requested  the  addition  of  a  burnish  pro- 
cedure for  parking  brakes  which  do  not  utilize 
the    service   brake   components.      Language    has 


been  added  to  specify  a  burnish  procedure  for 
these  brakes  in  accordance  witli  the  manufactur- 
er's recommendations. 

Two  other  issues  were  raised  with  regard  to 
the  road  test  conditions.  To  answer  Wagner 
Electric's  petition  for  clarification  of  S6.1.10.7, 
the  "valve  controlling  the  trailer  brakes"  may  or 
may  not  be  part  of  the  normal  commercial  system 
of  the  tractor  depending  on  whether  or  not  the 
normal  system  can  provide  the  timing  specified. 
The  purpose  of  standardizing  timing  specifica- 
tions is  simply  to  remove  the  tractor's  perform- 
ance as  a  factor  in  the  test  trailer  brake  evalua- 
tion. 'WHien  tlie  trailer  is  used  in  tests  of  a 
tractor  pursuant  to  S5.3.1,  it  will,  of  course,  be 
connected  to  the  tractor's  normal  control  system. 

General  Motors  questioned  the  safety  benefit 
of  wheel  lockup  requirements  for  liftable  axles 
on  buses  equipped  with  two  non-steerable  axles 
if  other  axles  other  than  the  liftable  axle  can 
themselves  meet  the  stopping  distance  require- 
ments. The  agency  considers  the  controlled  per- 
formance of  the  liftable  axle  to  be  of  considerable 
benefit  for  added  stability  under  braking  condi- 
tions other  than  straight  ahead  braking  required 
by  the  standard,  and  on  this  basis  it  denies  the 
GM  petition. 

In  other  areas  of  the  standard.  General  Motors 
petitioned  for  longer  emergency  stopping  dis- 
tances for  all  vehicles,  reasoning  that  an  excep- 
tion to  the  values  for  truck-tractors  in  an 
unloaded  condition  (based  on  rarity  of  opera- 
tion) could  be  as  easily  justified  for  the  rare 
emergency  stop  situation  of  any  vehicle.  The 
rationale  ignores  the  fact  that  the  emergency 
values  were  established  in  the  first  place  with  the 
rarity  of  such  occurrences  in  mind,  and  that  the 
exception  is  posited  on  the  combined  rarity  of 
unladen  truck-tractor  operation  involved  in  an 
emergency  situation.  The  problem  of  testing 
chassis-cabs  can  be  met  by  specifying  conformity 
to  S5.7.2.3  with  a  specified  weight  on  the  rear 
axle  representing  the  vehicle  body  weight.  Gen- 
eral Motors'  petition  to  apply  column  4  values 
to  all  vehicle  emergency  stopping  distance  re- 
quirements is  therefore  denied. 

Wagner  Electric  petitioned  to  modify  the 
wording  of  S5.8  concerning  emergency  applica- 
tion of  trailer  converter  dolly  serxice  brakes  so 


PART  571:  S  121— PEE  23 


Effective:  September   1,    1974 
March    1,    1975 

that  the  wording  would  be  identical  to  Bureau 
of  Motor  Carrier  Safety  regulations  (49  CFR 
393.43).  Wagner's  i)roposed  wording,  however, 
applies  to  towing  vehicle  performance,  where  the 
triggering  signal  is  a  low,  fixed  air  pressure,  and 
the  wording  would  not  be  api>ropriate  for  trailer 
performance,  where  the  triggering  signal  is  a 
venting  of  the  supply  line  to  the  atmosphere. 
The  S5.8  language  is  actually  compatible  with 
§  393.43(b),  in  that  BMCS  calls  for  towing  ve- 
hicles to  have  an  automatic  means  of  activating 
the  emergency  features  of  the  trailer  air  brakes, 
and  S5.8  calls  for  compatible  a\itomatic  features 
on  the  trailers.  AVagner's  petition  is  therefore 
denied. 

General  Motors  asked  whether  the  S5.4  require- 
ment that  brake  assemblies  meet  tests  in  sequence 
actually  exempts  some  brakes  from  all  three  tests 
if  they  are  elsewhere  exempted  from  the  first. 
Paragraph  S5.4  does  not  exempt  any  brake  as- 
semblies from  any  requirement.  The  brakes  on 
a  vehicle  which  does  not  have  to  comply  with 
S5.4.1  must  comply  with  S5.4.2  and  S5.4.3. 

Several  comments  requested  correction  of  the 
omission  of  the  words  "in  the  service  brake 
system"  from  S5. 7.2.3  as  published  in  Notice  3. 
The  omission  was  inadvertent  and  has  been 
corrected. 

Greneral  Motors  requested  an  indication  that 
stopping  sequence  steps  2  and  3  in  Table  I  apply 
only  to  truck-tractors.  The  steps  have  been 
changed  to  indicate  that  these  steps  apply  only 
to  truck-tractor  testing  by  means  of  a  control 
trailer.  As  for  the  objection  that  S6.1.10.7  im- 
plies the  emergency  system  of  a  truck-tractor 
must  control  the  trailer  spring  brakes,  S6. 1.10.7 
has  been  clarified  by  the  addition  of  a  qualifying 
phrase.  S6.1.10.6  and  S6.1.10.7  have  been  further 
clarified  by  adding  headings  to  indicate  that  they 
are  test  equipment  specifications. 

In  a  separate  submission  to  Docket  73-13, 
Wagner  Electric  requested  clarification  of  the 
trailer  test  rig  timing  issue,  which  had  been  re- 
served in  Notice  3  as  a  candidate  for  adoption 
at  some  later  date.  Midland- Ross  also  raised  the 
issue  with  regard  to  a  requested  modification  of 
Figure  1.  The  petitions  pointed  out  that  an 
NHTSA  test  showing  a  failure  would  be  incon- 
clusive  if    it    were   compared    to   manufacturer 


testing  conducted  on  a  faster  rig,  and  showing  ^ 
conformity.  The  remedy  is  to  specify  "legal 
baseline"  actuation  and  release  times,  so  the 
manufacturer  will  know  the  precise  conditions 
under  which  his  equipment  must  meet  the  re- 
quirements, and  both  government  and  industry 
testing  can  be  conducted  so  as  to  produce  conclu- 
sive results.  The  NHTSA  therefore  establishes 
the  actuation  and  release  values  proposed  in 
Notice  1  with  minor  modification.  They  will  not 
become  effective  until  September  1,  1975,  to 
maintain  the  validity  of  testing  already  con- 
ducted. The  values  are  set  at  two-significant- 
figure  accuracy  in  agreement  with  Wagner  that 
the  values  should  match  the  actual  trailer  per- 
formance values.  Because  the  actuation  time  is 
lowered  to  0.06  seconds,  the  NHTSA  may  find  it 
necessary  to  improve  its  test  rig's  speed  by  re- 
moving the  tractor  protection  valve.  Therefore, 
the  valve  has  been  made  optional.  The  perform- 
ance of  the  test  device  had  been  modified  from 
the  original  proposal  so  that  initiating  signal 
points  are  the  same  as  for  the  actual  performance 
tests,  and  so  that  initial  release  pressure  agrees 
with  the  95-psi  requirement  of  the  performance 
tests.  JH 

Other  issues  raised  by  Wagner  and  Midland- 
Ross  in  petitions  to  Notice  3  will  be  answered  in 
a  later  notice. 

March  7,  197If  Proposals 

The  NHTSA  proposed  modification  of  the 
standard's  effective  date,  brake  actuation  times, 
and  road  and  dynamometer  tests  as  they  apply 
to  the  service  brake  system  and  emergency  stop- 
ping performance  of  all  vehicles  subject  to  the 
standard  except  trailers  (39  F.R.  7966,  March  1, 
1974).  The  proposals  would  have  affected  ve- 
hicle types  separately  to  reflect  the  particular 
problems  faced  by  fire  fighting  vehicles,  "special 
permit"  vehicles,  on/off-highway  vehicles,  and 
standard  highway  trucks  and  buses.  Manufac- 
turer concern  centered  on  the  availability  of 
components  to  meet  the  standard  by  September  1, 
1974,  and  the  reliability  of  the  antilock  systems 
which  will  be  utilized  by  most  manufacturers  to 
meet  the  requirements.  Having  carefully  con- 
sidered the  comments  submitted  in  response  to 
this  proposal,  the  NHTSA  hereby  delays  the 
standard's  effective  date  for  trucks  and  buses  to 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  24 


Effective:   Seplember    1,    1974 
Mprch    1,    1975 


*  March  1,  1975,  and  establishes  interim  require- 
ments for  particular  categories  of  vehicles  essen- 
tially as  they  were  proposed. 

The  limited  delay  of  effective  date  does  not 
satisfy  the  requests  of  Ford  and  General  ^Motors, 
who  argued  for  a  complete  delay  of  the  standard 
for  one  year,  followed  by  limited  implementation 
of  the  standard.  Other  comments,  including 
those  of  Chrysler  and  Rockwell  International, 
asked  for  significant  delays  of  one  year  or  more 
based  primarily  on  component  shortages  which 
will  be  discussed  separately  with  regard  to  the 
specific  problems  of  separate  vehicle  types. 

Ford  argued  that  the  stopping  distance  re- 
quirements mandated  high-torque  front  brakes 
that  could  degrade  suspension  and  steering  char- 
acteristics of  some  vehicles  to  an  unsafe  level. 
Their  submission  to  the  docket  and  materials 
submitted  in  conjunction  with  a  presentation  to 
the  NHTSA  on  March  28,  1974,  included  evi- 
dence of  erratic  handling  and  suspension  distor- 
tion in  high-  and  low-speed  spike  stops  on  the 
proving  ground  by  short  wheelbase  trucks.  The 
American  Trucking  Association  joined  Ford  in 

\      questioning    vehicle   handling   under   the    stand- 
J     ard's  requirements. 

Review  of  the  Ford  submission  indicates  that 
unmanageable  suspension  problems  of  this  nature 
are  generally  encountered  in  short-wheelbase 
trucks  with  suspensions  that  have  not  been  ade- 
quately modified  for  Standard  121  brakes.  Other 
manufacturers  have  indicated  in  some  cases  that 
their  solution  to  such  severe  instability  has  been 
a  major  redesign  of  the  front  axle  and  suspension 
system,  or  a  decision  to  withdraw  vehicles  with 
especially  short  wheelbases  from  their  product 
line.  The  NHTSA  concludes  that  sufficient  lead- 
time  has  been  made  available  to  all  manufactur- 
ers to  correct  the  steering  and  suspension  prob- 
lems of  reasonably-designed  short-wheelbase 
vehicles,  and  that  vehicles  with  wheelbases  that 
are  so  short,  and  centers  of  gravity  that  are  so 
high,  that  they  cannot  stop  safely  in  the  stop- 
ping distances  specified  should  not  be  on  the 
highway. 

General  Motors  and  other  truck  manufacturers 

argued  for  delay  of  the  standard's  effective  date 

for  one  year  to  permit  additional  field  testing  of 

the  reliability  of  current  antilock  devices.     The 

\      likely  effect  of  such  a  delay,  however,  would  be 


further  delay  in  the  availability  of  production 
antilock  components.  One  air  brake  equipment 
supplier  believes  "continued  development  will 
eventually  improve  their  (antilock  systems)  over- 
all performance  but  most  of  these  changes  for 
refinement  in  electronics,  improved  pneumatic/ 
electronic  response,  durability,  sensor  standardi- 
zation and  design  standards  require  the  normal 
evolution  of  field  experience  under  real  life  con- 
ditions, using  mass  produced  parts  for  a  genuine 
field  history." 

The  reliability  of  antilock  systems  can  pres- 
ently be  judged  on  the  basis  of  the  performance 
of  systems  that  are  already  in  fleet  test  programs 
(and  to  a  lesser  extent  by  evaluation  of  antilock 
systems  used  for  many  years  in  passenger  cars). 
One  truck  manufacturer  has  reported  average 
miles  between  failures  on  fleet  testing  to  be 
89,000  miles  (176,000  miles  in  operations  within 
the  continental  United  States).  A  manufacturer 
of  antilock  equipment  reported  in  February  1974 
that  over  8,000  of  its  air  brake  skid  control  sys- 
tems are  in  field  use,  with  excellent  reliability 
experienced.  Neither  this  manufacturer  nor  any 
other  has  reported  any  highway  accident  which 
was  attributed  to  a  malfunction  of  the  antilock 
system. 

General  Motors  included  in  its  list  of  antilock 
failures  incorrect  test  procedures,  missing  fuses, 
and  warning  light  malfunctions.  While  these 
are  not  insignificant  concerns,  they  are  an  indi- 
cation that  unfamiliarity  v.'ith  the  new  system 
accounts  for  some  of  the  malfunctions  experi- 
enced in  test  programs.  In  addition,  other  mal- 
functions reported  by  General  Motors  are  believed 
to  be  the  result  of  systems  being  "added  on" 
instead  of  being  designed  into  the  vehicles. 

General  Motors  and  Ford  reported  accidents 
in  their  proving  ground  tests,  which  they  believe 
illustrate  what  might  happen  if  an  antilock  sys- 
tem malfunctions  in  service.  The  NHTSA  ?.as 
studied  the  accident  information  which  was  sub- 
mitted and  has  concluded  that  these  accidents 
occurred  as  a  result  of  rear  wheel  lockup  during 
panic-type,  full  brake  application  and  would  also 
have  occurred  if  the  vehicles  were  not  equipped 
with  antilock  systems.  The  NHTSA  concludes 
that  the  reliability  of  antilock  systems  is  such 
that  their  introduction  will  contribute  to  motor 
vehicle  safety. 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  25 


Effective:   September    1,    1974 
Mprch    1,    1975 


Both  the  Ford  and  General  Motors  recom- 
mendations, as  well  as  the  other  petitions  which 
requested  delays  substantially  greater  than  those 
proposed  by  the  NHTSA,  are  excessively  broad 
in  that  they  would  postpone  all  the  safety  bene- 
fits of  the  standard,  because  of  specific  problems 
in  limited  areas.  The  NHTSA  proposal,  by 
comparison,  proposes  only  those  modifications 
which  are  essential  to  implement  the  standard 
as  rapidly  and  fully  as  possible. 

Because  there  was  only  a  short  interval  be- 
tween the  latest  proposal  and  the  effective  date 
of  the  standard  in  which  to  implement  any  modi- 
fication of  the  standard,  the  proposal  included  a 
blanket  4-month  delay  of  the  standard's  effective 
date  for  all  affected  vehicles.  International 
Harvester,  the  largest  manufacturer  of  air-braked 
vehicles  that  commented  on  the  proposal,  indi- 
cated agreement  with  the  4-month  delay  and 
stated  their  intention  to  build  vehicles  which 
comply  with  the  standard  after  that  date.  Gen- 
eral Motors  noted  the  possibility  that  axles  and 
the  larger  foundation  brakes  necessary  to  meet 
the  standard  would  be  available.  The  major 
supplier  of  axles  to  the  truck  and  bus  industry 
has  estimated  that,  with  no  margin  for  error, 
some  axles  could  be  ready  for  January  1,  1975. 
The  NHTSA  has  evaluated  the  current  industrial 
shortage  and  leadtime  problems  precij^itated  by 
factors  beyond  manufacturer  control  and  has 
concluded  that  a  March  1,  1975,  effective  date  as 
it  applies  to  powered  vehicles  is  necessary  to 
allow  the  orderly  implementation  of  Standard 
No.  121.  The  NHTSA  cannot  agree  with  Blue 
Bird  Body  Company  that  smaller  manufactui'ers 
should  automatically  be  granted  a  year  to  meet 
the  standard  following  the  availability  of  produc- 
tion components  for  Standard  No.  121. 

The  NHTSA  has  also  determined  that  the  pro- 
posed requirement  that  the  test  reservoir  pressure 
reach  60  psi  in  0.25  sec  cannot  be  implemented 
prior  to  this  effective  date,  and  the  proposal  is 
therefore  withdrawn.  The  modification  of  sys- 
tems to  achieve  this  requirement  could  negate  the 
compliance  test  data  which  has  been  accumulated 
by  many  manufacturers. 

Most  comments  which  requested  a  longer  delay 
of  the  effective  date  or  more  specific  relief  were 
addressed  to  the  problems  of  specific  vehicle 
types.     There  were  no  specific  comments,  how- 

PAKT  571;  S 


ever,  on  the  proposed   1-year  delay  in  the  ap-      ▼ 
plicability    of    the    standard    to    fire    fighting 
vehicles.     Accordingly,  the  standard  is  amended 
to    apply    to    fire    fighting    vehicles    only    after 
September  1,  1975. 

The  comments  on  "special  permit"  vehicles 
(defined  in  the  proposal  having  a  108-inch  over- 
all width  or  a  24,000-pound  gross  axle  weight 
rating  (GAWR),  centered  on  the  inadequacy  of 
the  definition  when  applied  to  "heavy  hauler" 
trailers.  Trailers  are  dealt  with  in  a  separate 
notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  published  in  to- 
day's Federal  Register.  The  few  comments  ad- 
dressed to  "special  permit"  trucks  favored  the 
September  1,  1976,  effective  date,  but  suggested 
more  time  might  be  necessary  to  acquire  the 
necessary  components  because  of  their  low  prior- 
ity in  suppliers'  engineering  jirograms.  At  this 
time  the  NHTSA  amends  the  standard  to  grant 
these  vehicles  a  September  1,  1976,  effective  date. 
Any  supply  problems  beyond  that  will  be  consid- 
ered at  a  later  time  as  they  arise. 

On/Ofl-Highioay  Vehicles:  Comments  on  the 
proposal  to  substitute  dynamometer  requirements  , 
for  stopping  distance  requirements  until  Septem-  « 
ber  1,  1975,  for  trucks  that  have  a  front  steerable 
axle  with  a  GAWR  of  16,000  pounds  or  more, 
or  a  front  steerable  drive  axle,  fell  into  two 
groups.  Comments  either  argued  that  the  delay 
was  insufficient,  particularly  with  regard  to  front 
steerable  drive  axles,  or  they  objected  to  par- 
ticular aspects  of  the  relaxed  interim  require- 
ments. 

The  NHTSA  has  decided  to  maintain  the 
September  1,  1975,  date  for  the  full  stopping 
distance  requirements.  An  evaluation  of  all 
available  information  in  this  area  indicate  that 
air  brake  components  will  be  available  to  meet 
the  required  level  of  performance  for  vehicles  in 
this  category. 

Manufacturers  raised  objections  to  the  pro- 
posed interim  requirements  as  they  were  ex- 
pressed in  S5.3.1.2  and  S5.7.2.3.1.  Wagner 
Electric,  General  Motors,  AVhite,  and  Diamond 
Reo  requested  clarification  that  the  S5.3.1.2  re- 
quirement would  apply  to  "straight"  trucks  as 
well  as  towing  vehicles.  The  language  of  S5.3.1.2 
makes  clear  that  any  trucks  in  the  described 
category  need  not  meet  certain  stopping  distance       / 

121— PRE  26 


Effective:   September    1,    1974 
March    1,    1975 


requirements    if    their    bnikes    conform    to    the 
formula  in  S5.4.1. 

Wagner,  Mack,  and  Abex  questioned  the  pro- 
posed requirement  that  the  dynamometer  values 
be  applied  to  each  axle  system  separately,  instead 
of  being  summed  for  the  entire  vehicle  braking 
system.  The  axle-by-axle  dynamometer  approach 
was  specifically  included  in  the  proposal  to  ensure 
that  brakes  would  be  provided  on  the  front  axle 
and  not  to  minimize  braking  on  the  rear  axle. 
Therefore  this  section  is  modified  to  require  a 
certain  level  of  performance  for  the  front  axle 
and  a  sum  total  of  performance  overall.  If  a 
specific  value  were  not  required  for  the  front 
axle,  manufacturers  would  be  tempted  to  make 
minor  modifications  of  present  front  axle  systems 
and  thereby  avoid  the  opportunity  to  gain  ex- 
perience with  the  newer,  stronger  foundation 
brakes  and  axles. 

The  language  "the  brakes  on  each  wheel"  in 
S5.3.1.2  confused  Abex  with  regard  to  the  dyna- 
mometer test  requirements.  To  clarify  the  re- 
quirement while  in  no  way  changing  it,  the 
wording  is  amended  to  "its  brakes." 

In  answer  to  Wagner's  request  for  a  definition 
of  "axle  system",  the  term  is  used  in  the  same 
sense  as  it  is  used  in  the  definition  of  GAWR 
found  at  49  CFR  §  571.3.  "Axle  system"  is  used 
instead  of  "axle"  to  avoid  confusion  in  situations 
where  a  suspension  system  does  not  employ  an 
axle.  The  term  has  not  created  difficulty  in  the 
GAWR  definition. 

The  S5.7.3.2.1  requirement  for  dynamometer 
testing  in  place  of  emergency  stopping  perform- 
ance testing  parallels  the  S5.3.1.2  requirement. 
General  Motors  has  pointed  out,  however,  that 
dynamometer  testing  of  spring  brakes  often 
found  in  emergency  brake  systems  is  imprac- 
ticable. AVagner  also  points  out  that  the  re- 
quirement can  be  viewed  as  redundant  in  view 
of  S5.3.1.2.  In  view  of  these  objections,  the 
NHTSA  concludes  that  retention  of  the  emer- 
gency stopping  requirement  (except  for  the 
stopping  distance)  would  be  preferable  to  a 
dynamometer  requirement.  For  the  interim 
period,  therefore,  tlie  vehicle  will  be  required  to 
come  to  a  stop  within  the  12  foot  lane  using  its 
emergency  braking  system. 


Highway  Trucks  and  Buses:  For  powei-ed  ve- 
hicles that  do  not  fall  in  the  categories  treated 
above,  the  proposal  would  have  lengthened  stop- 
ping distance  requirements  5  percent  to  com- 
pensate for  the  variations  expected  in  early 
production  components  that  affect  stopping  per- 
formance. Most  manufacturers  argued  that  the 
5  percent  longer  distances  would  be  required  for 
the  indefinite  future,  because  production  varia- 
tions would  continue  to  alfect  performance  sig- 
nificantly. The  NHTSA  established  the  stopping 
distances  on  the  basis  of  the  ability  of  available 
equipment,  and  expects  that  experience  in  the 
production  of  these  components  will  lead  to  pre- 
dictable quality  and  the  assurance  that  a  vehicle 
will  in  fact  perform  as  well  as  it  is  designed  to. 

AVhite  Motor  Company  suggested  a  clarifica- 
tion of  S5.3.1.?.  and  S5.7.2.3.2  to  make  clear 
that  the  test  procedures  for  the  proposed  Table 
V  stops  are  identical  to  those  in  S5.3.1  for  the 
Table  III  stops.  The  change  has  been  made 
without  in  any  way  changing  the  requirements. 

Other  Issues:  Two  proposals  which  affected 
most  trucks  and  buses  were  the  brake  actuation 
time  of  0.3.5  sec  and  the  option  of  a  manual  pres- 
sure reduction  valve  to  limit  air  pressure  to  the 
front  axle.  Nearly  all  manufacturers  supported 
the  0.35-sec  actuation  time  for  trucks  and  buses 
and  requested  that  it  also  be  extended  to  trailers. 
The  NHTSA  amends  the  standard  as  proposed 
for  truck  and  bus  brake  actuation.  Trailer 
brake  actuation  requirements  will  not  be  changed, 
however,  in  light  of  the  innninence  of  the  effec- 
tive date  and  the  consequent  need  for  stability  in 
the  standard. 

The  manual  pressure  reduction  valve  proposal 
was  not  supijorted  as  expected.  Even  Ford  and 
General  Motors,  who  questioned  the  safety  of 
high-torque  front  brakes,  did  not  agree  that  the 
valve  would  have  a  positive  safety  benefit.  In 
view  of  the  sharp  disagreement  in  the  comments 
over  the  usefulness  of  the  valve  in  the  hands  of 
different  drivers,  the  proposal  is  withdrawn. 

In  the  course  of  their  comments  on  the  pro- 
posal, several  manufacturers  and  supi)liers  indi- 
cated uneasiness  about  the  policy  of  tlie  NHTSA 
with  regard  to  isolated  failures  of  components 
that  have  been  certified  as  complying  with  Stand- 
ard No.  121.     Some  comments  expressed  a  belief 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  27 


EffecHve:   September   1,    1974 
March    1,    1975 

that  the  NHTSA  was  adopting  or  announcing  a 
new  policy  regarding  compliance,  with  reference 
to  a  panel  discussion  at  the  February  25,  1974, 
meeting  of  the  SAE  in  Detroit.  The  remarks 
in  question,  by  an  NHTSA  Assistant  Chief 
Counsel,  were  to  the  effect  that  the  agency  ex- 
pects that  each  manufacturer  will  design  his  ve- 
hicles and  his  test  program  so  as  to  constitute 
due  care  that  each  of  his  vehicles  complies  with 
the  standard.  That  is  not  a  new  policy,  however, 
but  merely  a  statement  of  the  requirements  of 
the  National  Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Act,  which  has  been  followed  continuously  by 
this  agency.  The  NHTSA  has  avoided  a  rigid 
position  that  each  failure  necessarily  constitutes 
a  violation  of  the  Act,  just  as  it  has  the  position 
that  some  percentage  of  failures  is  automatically 
"allowable."  What  constitutes  due  care  in  a 
particular  case  depends  on  all  relevant  facts,  in- 
cluding such  things  as  the  time  to  elapse  before 
a  new  effective  date,  the  availability  of  test 
equipment,  the  limitations  of  current  technology, 


and    above   all    the   diligence   evidenced   by   the 
manufacturer. 

All  interested  persons  should  note  that,  al- 
though a  proposal  was  necessary  with  regard  to 
changes  for  trailer  manufacture,  the  NHTSA 
does  not  intend  to  make  any  other  amendments 
of  Standard  121  before  its  effective  date. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  Standard 
No.  121  (49  CFR  571.121)  is  amended 

Effective  Date:  September  1,  1974,  for  trailers; 
March  1,  1975,  for  trucks  and  buses. 

(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  14,  1974. 

James  B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

39  F.R.  17550 
May  17,  1974 


a 


Q 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  28 


; 


Efftctlvi:   January    1,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   121 

Air  Brake  Systems 

(Docket  No.  74-10;   Notice  4) 


This  notice  amends  Standard  No.  121,  Air 
brake  systems,  49  CFR  571.121,  to  delay  the 
effective  date  of  the  standard  as  it  applies  to  air 
brake-equipped  trailers  until  January  1,  1975. 

The  January  1,  1975,  effective  date  was  pro- 
posed in  a  notice  published  May  17,  1974  (39 
F.R.  17563)  which  invited  comments  on  the  pro- 
posal until  June  17,  1974.  On  the  basis  of  urgent 
requests  by  manufacturers  and  the  Truck  Trailer 
Manufacturers  Association,  a  new  comment  clos- 
ing date  of  June  4,  1974,  was  established  for  the 
effective  date  issue  (39  F.R.  18664,  May  29,  1974). 
The  separate  issue  of  a  new  "heavy  hauler  trailer" 
category  is  still  subject  to  the  June  17  date  for 
comments,  and  further  action  will  be  decided  on 
after  that  date. 

Only  three  commenters,  out  of  the  fifty  who 
responded,  opposed  the  4-month  postponement. 
These  three  were  suppliers  to  the  trailer  indus- 
try who  claimed  that  they  were  ready  to  provide 
the   needed   components   by   September   1,   1974, 


and  stated  that  a  delay  in  the  effective  day  would 
entail  additional  costs  to  them.  The  NHTSA 
finds,  however,  that  the  September  1,  1974,  date 
does  not  provide  sufficient  time  for  an  orderly 
transition  to  production  of  the  trailers  with  the 
new  components,  and  that  a  delay  until  January 
1,  1975,  is  therefore  in  the  interest  of  motor  ve- 
hicle safety. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  the  effective 
date  of  Standard  No.  121  (49  CFR  571.121)  is 
changed  from  September  1,  1974,  to  January  1, 
1975,  as  it  applies  to  trailers. 

(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  6,  1974. 

Robert  L.  Carter 
Acting  Administrator 

39  F.R.  20380 
June  10,  1974 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  29-30 


( 


Effective:    January    1,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   121 

Air  Brake  Systems 
(Docket  No.  74-10;   Notice   5) 


This  notice  amends  Standard  No.  121,  Ah' 
brake  systems,  49  CFR  571.121,  to  delay  the  ef- 
fective date  for  a  categorj'  of  specialized  trailers 
whose  configuration  makes  compliance  witli  tlie 
standard  particularly  difficult  until  September  1, 
1976.  A  new  definition  is  added  to  the  standard 
to  define  the  specialized  "heavy  hauler  trailer" 
category. 

The  definition  and  eft'ective  date  were  proposed 
in  a  notice  published  May  17,  1974  (39  F.R. 
17563).     The  proposed  definition  read: 

"Heavy  hauler  trailer"  means  a  trailer  with 

one  or  moi-e  of  the  following  characteristics : 

(1)  Its  brake  lines  are  designed  to  adapt 
to  separation  or  extension  of  the  vehicle 
frame;  or 

(2)  Its  body  consists  of  a  platform  whose 
primary  cargo-carrying  surface  is  not  more 
than  40  inches  above  the  ground  in  an  un- 
loaded condition. 

None  of  the  comments  directly  addressed  to 
specialized  trailers  objected  to  the  1976  date. 

Wagner  Electric  suggested  that  the  definition 
could  be  misconstrued  to  include  trailers  with 
bodies  that  consist  of  a  cargo-carrying  surface 
and  sides  and  a  header.  It  does  appear  that  the 
definition  can  be  more  specifically  stated,  per- 
mitting only  a  header  for  safety  purposes,  and 
sides  of  a  temporary  nature.  The  definition  has 
been  modified  accordingly. 

Some  comments  recommended  broadening  the 
reach  of  the  definition  to  liiglier  trailers.  Nabors 
suggested  a  specific  exemption  for  pole  trailers. 
Kornylak  requested  exemption  of  its  Stradolift 
vehicle,  and  Bankhead  requested  exemption  of 
auto-hauling  trailers. 

The  suggestions  to  expand  the  definition  to 
specific  trailer  types  would  broaden  the  exemp- 


tion beyond  what  is  necessary  to  implement  the 
standard.  The  definition  presently  reflects  the 
necessary  design  characteristics  of  specialized 
trailers  which,  as  a  whole,  require  more  develop- 
ment before  they  can  comply  with  the  standard. 
Hauling  automobiles,  for  examjile,  does  not  re- 
quire 15-inch  wheels.  A  pole  trailer  which  is 
not  extendable  does  not  require  longer  brake 
actuation  and  release  times  than  the  standard 
highway  van. 

Other  comments  recommended  raising  the  40- 
inch  bed  limit  to  accommodate  more  vehicles. 
The  NHTSA  has  concluded  that  trailers  with 
beds  higher  than  40  inches  (including  trailers 
whose  beds  are  below  40  inches  over  the  wheels 
but  higher  than  40  inches  over  the  fifth  wheel) 
can  accommodate  the  new  larger  brake  packages 
available  at  this  time. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Standard 
No.  121  (49  CFR  §571.121)  is  amended  by  a 
modification  of  the  paragraph  on  the  applicabil- 
ity of  the  standard  and  by  the  addition  of  a  new 
definition.  .  .  . 

Effective  date:  January  1,  1975.  It  is  found 
that  this  amendment  causes  no  additional  burden 
to  manufacturers  and,  because  the  general  effec- 
tive date  of  the  standard  for  all  trailers  is 
January  1,  1975,  this  delay  of  effective  date  for 
certain  trailers  must  be  effective  sooner  than  180 
days  of  issuance  and  no  later  than  January  1, 
1975. 

(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  July  30,  1974. 

James   B.    Gregory 
Administrator 
39  F.R.  28161 
August  5,  1974 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  31-32 


i 


Effective:   March    1,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   121 

Air  Brake  Systems 
(Docket  No.  74-10;  Notice  6) 


This  notice  responds  to  six  petitions  for  re- 
consideration of  recent  amendments  to  Standard 
No.  121,  Air  brake  systems,  49  CFR  571.121, 
which  established  a  March  1,  1975,  effective  date 
for  trucks  and  buses,  and  optional  interim  re- 
quirements until  September  1,  1975,  for  trucks 
with  certain  heavy  or  front  steerable  drive  axles. 
In  addition,  this  notice  also  responds  to  several 
questions  on  the  burnish  procedure  recently 
raised  by  International  Harvester. 

The  NHTSA  established  the  March  1,  1975, 
effective  date  for  trucks  and  buses  after  compre- 
hensive consideration  of  numerous  petitions  from 
manufacturers  and  users  of  air  brake-equipped 
vehicles  (39  F.R.  17550,  May  17,  1974).  Manu- 
facturer concerns  centered  on  the  availability 
and  reliability  of  components  involved  in  the 
new  brake  systems,  particularly  antilock  devices, 
and  on  leadtime  necessary  to  modify  vehicles  to 
accept  these  components. 

Ford  Motor  Company  is  the  only  manufac- 
turer of  air  brake-equipped  trucks  which  peti- 
tioned for  reconsideration  of  the  March  1,  1975, 
implementation  date  for  the  standard's  basic 
provisions.  After  the  time  for  petitions  for  re- 
consideration had  closed,  Chrysler  Corporation 
reported  on  an  accident  which  occurred  during 
certification  testing  of  a  vehicle  equipped  with 
antilock  devices,  and  urged  the  delay  of  Stand- 
ard No.  121  for  an  indefinite  period.  The  Amer- 
ican Institute  of  Merchant  Shipping  also 
requested  an  indefinite  delay  in  the  standard's 
implementation. 

Ford  petitioned  for  a  further  6-month  delay 
in  the  standard  as  it  applies  to  truck-tractors, 
and  a  one  and  one-half  year  delay  as  the  stand- 
ard applies  to  other  trucks  and  buses.  Ford 
asserts  that  the  suspension  and  brake  modifica- 


tions necessary  to  meet  the  dry-stopping  distance 
requirements  will  compromise  vehicle  handling 
and  stability,  increase  the  danger  of  load  shifts, 
and  force  the  introduction  of  antilock  devices 
before  Ford  considers  them  reliable.  The  re- 
quested extension  would  be  used  to  evaluate  the 
effect  of  the  new  componentry  on  overall  safety. 

The  issues  in  the  Ford  petition  have  been  care- 
fully considered  by  the  NHTSA  in  the  process 
of  rulemaking  and,  with  the  exception  of  load 
shifting,  were  addressed  in  the  preamble  to  the 
amendments  which  established  the  March  1, 
1975,  date.  The  NHTSA  has  reviewed  each  of 
Ford's  concerns,  and  concludes  that  implementa- 
tion of  the  standard  as  scheduled  for  trucks  and 
buses  is  reasonable,  practicable,  and  meets  the 
need  for  motor  vehicle  safety. 

With  regard  to  the  handling  and  stability 
problems  experienced  by  some  short- wheel -based 
vehicles  in  meeting  the  stopping  distance  re- 
quirements, the  NHTSA  maintains  its  determi- 
nation that  adequate  time  has  been  made 
available  to  make  the  major  redesign  necessary 
in  some  vehicles,  or  to  make  the  decision  to  dis- 
continue the  production  of  models  which  are 
simply  too  short  to  meet  the  requirements  despite 
design  changes.  International  Harvester,  in  its 
comments  on  the  rulemaking,  indicated  that  it 
had  been  ready  to  meet  the  proposed  January  1, 
1975,  effective  date  and  would  actually  suffer 
economic  losses  in  waiting  for  the  March  1,  1975, 
implementation. 

The  availability  and  reliability  of  antilock 
systems  which  will  be  used  by  many  manufac- 
turers in  meeting  the  requirements  was  ques- 
tioned by  Ford  in  its  petition.  In  response  to 
Ford's  assertion  that  a  manufacturer's  report  on 
field   experience   with   8,000   antilock  units  does 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  33 


Effective:   March    1,    1975 


not  appear  in  the  record,  a  letter  from  Kelsey- 
Hayes  (February  1,  1974)  containing  this  infor- 
mation was  placed  in  the  NHTSA  Docket 
Section  before  March  1,  1974.  The  NHTSA 
continues  to  monitor  antilock  production  and 
testing  and  cannot  agree  that  the  evidence  indi- 
cates antilocks  will  decrease  the  safety  of  the 
new  trucks  in  highway  operation.  Since  May, 
the  NHTSA  engineering  staff  has  visited  six  of 
the  seven  major  antilock  manufacturers  to  dis- 
cuss antilock  reliability  and  availability.  At 
least  half  of  these  manufacturers  pointed  out 
that  their  plants  were  prepared  for  full  produc- 
tion to  meet  the  September  1,  1974,  date,  and 
that  they  had  had  to  delay  production  schedules 
because  of  the  six-month  delay.  Low  volume 
production  is  presently  available  to  vehicle 
manufacturers  for  their  testing  and  evaluation. 

Concerning  antilock  reliability,  a  substantial 
amount  of  proprietary  information  was  reviewed 
as  well  as  the  publicly-known  information  that 
no  highway  accident  has  been  attributed  to  the 
failure  of  antilock  devices.  Kelsey-Hayes 
pointed  out  that  it  is  selling  approximately  250 
axle  units  each  month  for  retrofit.  Following 
these  visits,  the  NHTSA  sent  the  seven  major 
antilock  manufacturers  requests  for  reliability 
data  under  its  investigatory  authority,  which 
will  become  part  of  the  record  although  it  may 
be  of  a  proprietary  nature  which  would  justify 
not  making  it  public.  This  data  will  show  mil- 
lions of  axle  miles  of  antilock  operation  with  a 
malfunction  rate  comparable  to  other  equipment 
presently  in  highway  service,  and  no  highway 
accidents  attributable  to  the  device. 

Chrysler  Corporation  reported  on  a  proving- 
ground  accident  on  May  16,  1974,  in  which  an 
antilock-equipped  truck  rolled  over  after  its  rear 
wheels  locked  and  caused  skidding  during  a  stop 
from  60  mph.  The  manufacturer  of  the  antilock 
system  reported  that  the  device  functioned  as  it 
was  designed  to  but  in  response  to  a  false  signal. 
The  important  point,  however,  as  noted  in  the 
May  rulemaking,  is  that  the  accident  occurred 
as  a  result  of  rear-wheel  lockup  during  a  panic- 
type,  full  brake  application  that  would  also  have 
occurred  if  the  vehicle  had  not  been  equipped 
with  antilock.  In  other  words,  a  panic  stop 
always  involves  the  risk  of  uncontrolled  skid  due 


to  lockup,  and  the  presence  of  the  antilock  only 
imi^roves  the  chances  of  a  safe  stop  in  the  vast 
majority  of  instances  in  which  it  functions 
properly. 

Ford  requested  an  interpretation  of  S5.5.1  of 
the  standard  that  would  permit  use  of  a  pressure 
limiting  valve  to  the  front  axle  that  operates 
when  it  senses  electrical  failure  of  the  antilock 
system.  The  NHTSA  has  advised  Ford  (and 
Bendix  Corporation)  that  S5.5.1  does  not  pro- 
hibit use  of  such  a  valve  designed  to  oiserate  in 
the  event  of  electrical  failure. 

Ford  also  raised  the  problem  of  load  shift 
under  heavy  braking.  The  NHTSA  has  consid- 
ered the  effects  of  the  standard  and  notes  that, 
under  normal  circumstances,  stops  will  continue 
to  be  made  at  the  same  deceleration  as  in  the 
past,  consistent  with  driver  comfort  and  load 
stability.  Only  in  emergency  situations  will  the 
full  torque  of  the  new  brakes  be  utilized  and  in 
this  event,  the  NHTSA  concludes  that  the 
shorter  stopping  distances  outweigh  the  possible 
safety  problem  of  load  shift. 

The  Ford  petition  pointed  out  that  any  failure 
of  component  manufacturers  to  supply  the  new 
121  comjionents  would  make  comijliance  with 
the  standard  impossible.  As  of  this  date  the 
NHTSA  finds  that  supplier  production  is  on 
schedule  and  will  provide  components  on  time. 
As  recently  as  July  26,  1974,  Rockwell  Interna- 
tional assured  the  NHTSA  that  its  production 
is  on  schedule. 

For  these  reasons  the  Ford  petition  and 
Chrysler  request  are  denied.  The  NHTSA 
would  like  to  establish  the  issuance  of  this  notice 
as  the  final  form  of  Standard  No.  121  with  re- 
gard to  its  effective  date  and  the  stopping  dis- 
tance requirements,  for  purposes  of  review  under 
§  105(a)(1)  of  the  National  Traffic  and  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966  (15  U.S.C.  §1394). 
Thus,  while  several  areas  treated  later  in  this 
notice  will  be  subject  to  further  reconsideration, 
the  effective  dates  and  stopping  distance  require- 
ments will  be  final  as  to  any  person  who  will  be 
adversely  affected  by  them. 

While  International  Harvester  supported  the 
March  1,  1975,  date  for  standard  highway  trucks 
and  buses  (it  would  have  preferred  a  January  1, 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  34 


EfFective:   March    1,    1975 


1975,  date),  they  did  petition  for  reconsideration 
of  the  NHTSA  decision  to  apply  the  full  stop- 
ping distances  to  vehicles  equipped  with  front 
steerable  drive  axles  after  September  1,  1975. 
Wliite  Motor  Company  and  Diamond  Reo 
Trucks,  Inc.,  also  petitioned  for  1  year's  delay  in 
implementation  of  the  full  requirements  for 
these  axles. 

The  majority  of  front  steerable  drive  axles  are 
found  on  vehicles  wliicli  use  the  road  regularly 
at  highway  speeds  and  which  i-equire  the  same 
stopping  capability  as  lighter  vehicles.  In  most 
cases,  their  non-planetary  construction  permits 
an  uncomplicated  adaptation  to  the  standard's 
torque  requirements.  Furthermore,  one  vehicle 
manufacturer  indicates  that  it  has  successfully 
redesigned  steerable  drive  axles  in  the  18,000- 
to  23,000-pound  GAWR  range  to  meet  Standard 
No.  121.  White,  International  Harvester,  and 
Diamond  Reo  state  that  the  lighter  axles  in  this 
category  are  unavailable,  but  not  technically  un- 
feasible. The  unavailability  stems  from  supplier 
decisions  to  concenti-ate  on  the  more  common 
non-driving  axles  found  on  standard  highway 
vehicles  in  great  numbers.  An  August  8,  1974. 
letter  from  Rockwell  Standard  to  Docket  74-10 
supports  the  conclusion  that  the  axles  can  be 
nianufactured,  but  will  not  be  available  until 
September  1,  1976.  Accordingly,  the  NHTSA 
has  reconsidered  the  present  etfective  date  of 
September  1,  1975,  for  full  requirements  ap- 
plicable to  front  steerable  drive  axles  and  delays 
for  one  year  the  full  requirements  for  those  axle 
sizes  which  are  not  available  until  Sejitember  1, 
1976. 

Diamond  Reo  and  "Wliite  also  requested  recon- 
sideration of  the  implementation  of  full  require- 
ments for  vehicles  equipped  with  a  front  steerable 
non-driving  axle  with  a  GAWR  of  16,000  pounds 
or  more,  which  are  subject  to  interim  dynamom- 
eter requirements  from  March  1,  1975,  to  Sep- 
tember 1,  1975.  The  manufacturers  base  their 
requests  for  a  1-year  delay  on  diffiodties  in  se- 
curing a  proven  brake  assembly  capable  of  han- 
dling the  higher  torque  levels.  B.  F.  Goodrich 
recently  dropped  development  of  its  heavy  air- 
over-hydraulic  disc  brake  system,  to  which  at 
least  one  truck  manufacturer,  White  Trucks,  was 
committed.     White  states   that  disc  brakes   are 


necessary  for  heavy  front  axlee  and  has  encoun- 
tered severe  axle-to-axle  imbalance  problems  in 
its  attempts  to  use  other  disc  brake  assemblies 
at  this  date.  A  major  axle  supplier  has  notified 
the  NHTSA  that  the  axle  itself  can  be  ready  by 
September  1975. 

The  NHTSA  has  evaluated  the  foundation 
brake  assemblies  available  to  this  vehicle  group 
and  concludes  that  a  year's  field  testing  and  ex- 
perience is  necessary  and  desirable  to  assure  that 
the  new  components  will  perform  as  designed 
when  placed  in  highway  service.  For  this  reason 
the  full  requirements  of  Standard  No.  121  will 
become  effective  for  vehicles  with  a  front  steer- 
able axle  of  16,000  pounds  GAWR  or  more  on 
September  1,  1976. 

With  regard  to  this  vehicle  group.  Interna- 
tional Harvester  claimed  that  the  requirement 
that  the  brakes  be  "fully  applied"  was  unfairly 
introduced  into  the  interim  requirements  and 
interferes  with  braking  action.  Apparently  full 
pressure  applications  may  cause  erratic  behavior 
in  some  large  vehicles  with  very  light  bodies, 
during  dry  stops  in  the  unloaded  condition. 

Full  application  is  required  to  ensure  that  ve- 
hicles provide  the  lateral  tractive  capability  of 
an  unlocked  wheel  during  panic  braking.  This 
interim  requirement  was  proposed  in  March  1974 
as  relief  from  full  requirements  which  have  been 
in  effect  since  February  1971.  The  NHTSA 
does  not  consider  it  unfair  to  propose  and  make 
final  an  optional  stopping  requirement  which 
represents  relief  from  more  stringent  require- 
ments. More  important,  the  NHTSA  considers 
it  crucial  to  maintain  complete  directional  sta- 
bility in  a  panic  stop,  loaded  or  unloaded,  if  the 
vehicle  is  unable  to  meet  the  stopping  distance 
requirements  in  that  condition.  Accordingly, 
the  International  Harvester  petition  is  denied. 

Diamond  Reo  also  requested  that  the  interim 
stopping  distances  for  standard  liighway  vehicles 
be  adopted  as  the  full  i-equirements.  Their  ve- 
hicles meet  the  shorter  distances  but  not  by  a 
sufficient  margin  to  absolutely  assure  them  that 
every  one  of  their  vehicles  will  pass.  The  fact 
that  the  vehicles  are  capable  of  stopping  well 
within  the  shorter  distances  persuades  the 
NHTSA  that  this  safety  level  can  and  should 


PART  571 ;  S  121— PRE  35 


Effective:   March    1,    1975 


be  maintained.  Manufacturers  are  required  by 
the  Safety  Act  to  "exercise  due  care"  in  certify- 
ing that  vehicles  comply  with  the  applicable 
standards  (15  U.S.C.  §  1397(b)  (2) ).  In  view 
of  the  statutory  language,  Diamond  Reo's  re- 
quest for  reconsideration  is  denied. 

In  a  related  matter,  the  NHTSA  has  been 
asked  by  the  Federal  Register  to  redesignate  the 
present  Table  V  as  Table  Ila,  which  is  accom- 
plished in  this  notice. 

Manufacturers  raised  several  matters  which 
were  not  addressed  by  Notice  2  and  are  not, 
therefore,  properly  raised  as  petitions  for  recon- 
sideration. The  NHTSA  finds  it  desirable,  how- 
ever, to  respond  to  them  in  this  notice,  in  view 
of  the  standard's  imminent  effective  date. 

Most  important  was  a  question  by  Interna- 
tional Harvester  in  a  July  27,  1974,  visit  by 
NHTSA  engineers  to  their  plant.  They  indi- 
cated that  some  121  vehicles  may  have  difficulty 
in  achieving  the  required  burnish  temperatures 
because  of  the  use  of  the  automatic  pressure  lim- 
iting valve  that  tailors  the  torque  at  the  front 
axle.  The  burnish  conditions  of  Standard  No. 
121  essentially  standardize  the  preparation  of 
new  truck,  bus,  and  trailer  brakes  for  testing 
under  the  standard. 

In  the  absence  of  a  specification  for  these 
valves,  it  appears  that  manufacturers  have  in- 
stituted various  practices  to  assure  uniformly 
good  burnishes.  It  is  apparent  that  different 
vehicles  respond  to  the  burnish  procedure  with 
distinctive  problems  and  require  solutions  tail- 
ored to  their  particular  brake  packages. 

From  a  regulatory  standpoint,  however,  an 
optional  procedure  complicates  enforcement  of  a 
standard,  particularly  where  a  manufacturer  has 
tested  one  way  and  the  NHTSA  tests  the  other. 
Test  results  with  the  limiting  valve,  for  example, 
may  not  be  easily  comparable  with  test  results 
in  which  the  valve  was  bypassed.  Both  the 
manufacturer  and  the  NHTSA  need  a  specifica- 
tion that  permits  flexibility  in  achieving  a  uni- 
form burnish  in  different  vehicles,  but  does  not 
permit  two  burnish  options. 

To  end  this  confusion,  the  NHTSA  further 
specifies  the  burnish  procedure  to  require  that  a 
limiting  valve  be  in  use  except  in  the  event  the 
temperature  of  the  hottest  brake  on  a  rear  axle 


exceeds  the  temperature  of  the  hottest  brake  on 
the  front  axle  by  125°  F.  In  this  way  the  manu- 
facturer and  the  NHTSA  will  follow  the  same 
test  procedure.  It  should  be  emphasized  that 
this  specification  in  no  way  invalidates  the  test- 
ing undertaken  to  date.  Such  data  can  be  the 
basis  of  certification. 

In  answer  to  another  International  Harvester 
question,  brake  adjustments  can  be  made  during 
the  burnishing  to  control  brake  temperatures. 
It  should  be  noted  that  NHTSA  is  considering 
a  limit  on  adjustments  to  three,  to  be  made  only 
during  the  first  250  snubs.  Finally,  the  NHTSA 
has  indicated  to  Kelsey-Hayes  that  it  would  add 
"after-stop"  to  the  burnish  procedures  to  de- 
scribe the  specified  temperatures  more  precisely. 
The  NHTSA  intends  to  measure  the  tempera- 
tures within  30  seconds  of  brake  release,  but  will 
not  reject  manufacturer  readings  taken  at  any 
time  if  they  are  reasonably  related  to  the  tem- 
peratures actually  generated  by  the  snubs.  This 
latitude  is  necessary  to  avoid  invalidation  of 
manufacturer  testing  up  to  this  time. 

International  Harvester  asked  that  the  park- 
ing brake  requirements  of  S5.6.2  be  modified  to 
require  20  percent  grade  holding  ability  "to  the 
limit  of  traction".  The  NHTSA  has  determined 
that  the  present  grade  holding  capability  is  de- 
sirable, and  it  has  already  provided  an  alterna- 
tive requirement  in  the  standard  that  brakes  with 
a  specified  static  retardation  force  be  provided 
on  all  axles.  The  NHTSA  concludes  that  the 
option  makes  a  reduction  of  the  grade-holding 
requirements  unnecessary. 

Diamond  Reo  requested  that  air  reservoir 
volume  on  trucks  and  buses  be  reduced  from 
present  requirements.  The  NHTSA  has  already 
reduced  the  volume  from  16  times  the  combined 
service  brake  chamber  volumes  to  12  times  that 
volume,  and  concludes  that  a  further  reduction 
is  not  in  the  interests  of  motor  vehicle  safety. 
The  Diamond  Reo  request  concerning  the  anti- 
lock  electrical  circuit  has  already  been  answered 
by  a  letter  denial  of  June  28,  1974. 

Wagner  Electric  requested  a  minor  revision 
of  Figure  1,  Trailer  Test  Rig,  which  the  NHTSA 
makes  in  the  interests  of  consistency  of  terminol- 
ogy. The  word  "control"  is  substituted  for 
"pedal". 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  36 


Effective:   March    1,    1975 


Finally,  the  NHTSA  has  been  receiving  some 
indications  that  manufacturers  may  arbitrarily 
specify  a  higher  GAWR  than  normal  simply  to 
avoid  requirements  of  the  standard.  The 
NHTSA  therefore  takes  this  opportunity  to  ex- 
plain the  manufacturer's  responsibility  to  spec- 
ify the  GAWR  of  axle  systems  on  his  products. 

The  NHTSA  defines  gross  axle  weight  rating 
as  follows: 

"Gross  axle  weight  rating"  or  "GAWR" 
means  the  value  specified  by  the  manufacturer 
as  the  load-carrying  capacity  of  a  single  axle 
system,  as  measured  at  the  tire-ground  inter- 
faces. 

Because  the  GAWR  is  measured  at  the  tire- 
ground  interfaces,  it  means  that  the  tires,  wheels, 
brakes,  and  suspension  components  are  included 
in  the  determination.  It  is  obvious  that  the 
GAWR  of  the  whole  system  cannot  exceed  the 
rating  of  any  one  component,  such  as  tires.  Both 
the  NHTSA  in  its  compliance  tests  and  defects 
investigations,  and  the  Bureau  of  Motor  Carrier 
Safety  on  the  road,  will  judge  the  vehicle  on  the 


basis  of  the  values  assigned.  Therefore  it  is  in 
the  interest  of  the  manufacturer  to  assign  values 
which  accurately  reflect  the  load-bearing  ability 
of  the  vehicle  and  its  tires  and  suspension. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  Standard 
No.  121  (49  CFR  571.121)  is  amended.  .  .  . 

Ejfective  date:  March  1,  1975.  Because  the 
Standard's  effective  date  for  trucks  and  buses 
occurs  sooner  than  180  days  and  because  these 
amendments  create  no  additional  burden,  it  is 
found  for  good  cause  shown  that  an  earlier  ef- 
fective date  than  180  days  from  the  date  of 
publication  is  in  the  i^ublic  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  November  6,  1974. 

James  B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

39  F.R.  39880 
November  12,  1974 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  37-38 


231-088  O  -  77  -  45 


Effective:   January    1,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.    121 

Air  Brake  Systems 
(Docket  No.  74-10;  Notice   11) 


This  notice  amends  Standard  No.  121,  Air 
brake  systems^  49  CFR  571.212,  to  establish  a  new 
test  category  (and  an  effective  date)  for  highly 
specialized  tractor-trailer  vehicle  combinations, 
and  to  specify  modified  brake  retardation  force 
requirements  for  trailers  until  September  1,  1976. 

The  National  Highway  Traffic  Safety  Admin- 
istration (NHTSA)  proposed  these  actions, 
along  with  other  actions  that  deal  with  special- 
ized trucks,  in  a  notice  published  November  14, 
1974  (39  F.E.  40168).  The  NHTSA  is  acting  as 
soon  as  possible  on  the  retardation  force  and  in- 
tegral tractor-trailer  issues  because  they  directly 
affect  the  manufactui'e  of  trailers,  which  will  be 
subject  to  the  standard's  requirements  on  Jan- 
uary 1,  1975.  The  issue  of  exemption  for  over- 
size and  specialized  trucks  (which  have  a  March 
1,  1975,  eflfective  date)  will  be  addressed  in  the 
near  future  by  a  separate  notice. 

The  NHTSA  takes  note  of  its  recent  proposal 
and  request  for  comments  on  a  postponement  of 
this  standard  (39  F.E.  43639,  December  17,  1974). 
The  NHTSA  is  proceding  with  this  rulemaking 
action  independently  of  that  proposal  to  maintain 
as  much  continuity  as  possible  in  the  regulation 
as  presently  issued. 

The  manufacturers  and  users  of  auto  trans- 
porter combination  vehicles  and  the  Truck 
Trailer  Manufacturers  Association  supported  the 
proposal  to  exempt  "integral  tractor-trailers" 
from  applicability  of  the  standard  until  Septem- 
ber 1,  1976,  because  of  their  particular  testing 
difficulties.  It  has  been  suggested  that  the  term 
"integral  tractor-trailer"  should  be  replaced  by 
a  more  descriptive  designation  of  the  combination 
vehicles  in  question.  The  NHTSA  agrees  and 
modifies  the  definition  to  refer  to  the  transporta- 
tion of  motor  vehicles,  and  to  change  the  defined 


term  to  "auto  transporters."  The  comments  re- 
quested deletion  of  a  requirement  in  the  defini- 
tion which  limited  these  vehicles  to  those 
designed  "by  a  single  manufacturer,  or  person 
who  alters  a  certified  vehicle."  The  comments 
expressed  concern  that  the  plirase  would  eliminate 
the  manufacture  of  tractor  and  trailer  portions 
separately.  Some  manufacturers  also  believed 
that  the  reference  to  "certified  vehicles"  meant 
that  any  incomplete  truck  tractor  equipped  with 
121-type  equipment  would  have  to  be  certified 
upon  completion  by  the  manufacturer  of  auto 
transporters. 

The  cited  requirement  does  not  exclude  manu- 
facture by  separate  individuals  of  the  two  por- 
tions of  the  combination,  although  the  preamble 
inadvertently  referred  to  "trucks  and  trailers 
manufactured  by  a  single  manufacturer  for  use 
in  combination."  It  is  possible  that  one  or  more 
persons  other  than  a  vehicle  manufacturer  or 
alterer  may  be  responsible  for  the  integral  de- 
sign. The  NHTSA  therefore  deletes  the  phrase 
in  question  to  permit  continued  flexibility  in  the 
design  of  these  vehicles. 

The  reference  to  alteration  of  a  "certified  ve- 
hicle" confused  some  businesses  which  modify 
stock  truck-tractors  for  use  in  auto  transporters. 
They  believed  that  a  completed  vehcile  that  had 
been  certified  to  meet  Standard  No.  121,  or  an 
incomplete  vehicle  with  documents  referring  to 
Standard  No.  121,  could  not  qualify  for  an  ex- 
emption as  a  portion  of  an  auto  transporter.  In 
actuality,  a  complete  and  certified  vehicle,  or  an 
incomplete  vehicle,  can  be  modified  to  become  a 
portion  of  an  auto  transporter,  which  would 
thereby  qualify  for  exemption  whatever  its  pre- 
vious status. 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  39 


Effective:   January    1,    1975 


Bankhead  Transportation  requested  clarifica- 
tion with  regard  to  manufacture  of  new  auto 
transporter  trailers  to  be  fitted  to  existing  truck 
tractors  that  are  modified  to  accept  the  new 
trailer,  These  trailers  constitute  a  portion  of  an 
auto  transporter  and  as  such  are  exempt  until 
September  1,  1976.  The  NHTSA  has  modified 
the  language  of  S5.3  in  one  respect  from  that 
proposed,  to  make  clear  that  a  transporter  trailer 
manufactured  without  an  equivalent  transporter 
tractor  would  be  tested  sepai-ately  under  the  re- 
quirements of  S5.3.2  after  September  1,  1976. 

The  NHTSA  also  proposed  that  the  retarda- 
tion force  requirements  of  the  standard,  which 
apply  to  trailers  (and,  of  an  optional  basis,  to  a 
small  category  of  large  trucks  until  September  1, 
1967),  be  somewhat  reduced  because  of  the  degree 
of  variability  being  exj^erienced  in  brake  lining 
performance.  The  NHTSA  requested  comments 
on  lower  values  and  on  whether  such  new  values 
should  be  permanent,  or  only  temporary  while 
further  information  is  developed  on  vai'iability. 

With  the  exception  of  General  Motors  Cor- 
poration and  Automotive  Research  Associates, 
Incorporated  (which  suggested  changes  in  dyna- 
mometer procedures  instead  of  values),  the  com- 
mentors  supported  the  reduction  of  retardation 
force  values  for  trailers.  General  Motors  argued 
that  brake  force  reductions  of  the  trailer  should 
not  be  undertaken  without  similar  reductions  in 
stopping  distance  requirements  for  trucks,  and  is 
particular  towing  vehicles. 

The  NHTSA,  in  an  amendment  published  May 
17,  1974  (39  F.R.  17750).  has  already  acknowl- 
edged the  variability  of  production  brake  assem- 
blies on  trucks  and  buses  by  establishing  longer 
stopping  distances  for  an  interim  period  until 
September  1.  1975.  The  NHTSA  recently  denied 
a  petition  by  Diamond  Reo  to  make  these  longer 
distances  the  permanent  values  of  the  standard 
(39  F.R.  39880).  A  Paccar  Corporation  petition 
presently  under  consideration  on  the  subject  of 
stopping  distances  also  raises  the  issue  of  relaxed 
stopping  requirements.  The  NHTSA  concludes 
that  its  decision  on  that  petition  will  be  respon- 
sive to  the  points  raised  by  General  Motors. 

Several  comments  on  the  proposed  lower  re- 
tardation forces  included  data  that  further  sub- 
stantiate the  determination   that   variability   of 


brake  linings  is  not  sufficiently  small  to  permit 
100  percent  compliance  of  every  brake  assembly 
at  the  present  values.  Wagner  Electric  Corpora- 
tion, which  originally  petitioned  for  use  of  the 
values  proposed  by  the  NHTSA,  has  submitted 
new  data  which  support  a  slightly  lower  minima 
force  level  to  support  the  desired  mean  perform- 
ance of  approximately  60  pounds.  Data  supplied 
by  Raybestos  Manhattan  demonstrate  a  varia- 
bility to  the  3-sigma  limit  of  slightly  more  than 
20  percent  calculated  by  the  NHTSA  on  earlier 
testing.  Molded  Materials  Company  disagreed 
that  compatibility  of  combination  vehciles  re- 
quired 60  percent  mean  retardation  values,  but 
supported  the  proposed  lower  minimum  force 
levels  as  a  means  to  achieve  compatibility.  Abex 
Corporation  supported  the  lower  values  so  that 
actual  production  experience  could  be  accumulated 
as  a  basis  for  future  changes. 

The  NHTSA  concludes  on  the  basis  or  sub- 
mitted data  that  values  slightly  lower  than  those 
proposed  will  better  accommodate  the  demon- 
strated variability  of  brake  lining  material. 
Therefore,  values  of  0.06,  0.13,  0.20,  0.27,  0.34, 
0.41,  and  0.47  will  replace  the  present  values  for 
trailers. 

Manufacturers  and  users  of  brake  lining 
differed  on  whether  the  new  values  should  per- 
manently replace  the  previous  values.  The 
NHTSA  did  not  receive  conclusive  information 
indicating  that  the  variability  in  performance 
will  remain  in  production  units.  The  NHTSA 
concludes,  therefore,  that  interim  values  will 
permit  the  accumulation  of  significant  field  ex- 
perience on  vehicle  compatibility  and  lining 
variability,  and  that  a  judgment  will  be  made  on 
the  basis  of  that  data  in  the  future. 

Only  Kelsey-Hayes  commented  on  the  proposal 
to  apply  these  new  retardation  force  values  to 
trucks  with  heavy  (or  driving)  front  axles  dur- 
ing their  interim  requirements.  As  a  manufac- 
turer of  front  axle  brake  assemblies  for  this 
vehicle  category,  Kelsey-Hayes  pointed  out  that 
the  revision  was  not  supported  for  truck  front 
axle  brake  assemblies  and  would  require  an  vm- 
justified  retooling  for  a  period  of  no  more  than 
18  months.  The  NHTSA  agrees  that  the  data 
underlying  the  proposal  supports  a  modification 
for  trailer  brake  assemblies  only.     Accordingly, 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  40 


Effective:   January   I,    1975 


the  NHTSA  does  not  reduce  the  optional  interim 
retardation  force  requirements  for  trucks  speci- 
fied in  S5.1.3.2. 

In  a  separate  matter,  Rockwell  International 
Corporation  asked  whether  the  discussion  of  100 
percent  compliance  with  Standard  No.  121's  re- 
tardation force  requirements  was  a  modification 
of  earlier  NHTSA  discussion  on  the  "due  care" 
responsibility  of  each  manufacturer  to  ensure 
that  each  of  his  products  meets  the  requirements 
of  the  standard  (39  F.R.  17750,  May  17,  1974). 
The  requirement  to  exercise  "due  care"  that  each 
vehicle  comply  with  Standard  No.  121  is  a  statu- 
tory requirement  (15  U.S.C.  1397),  and  the 
above-cited  discussion  remains  the  NHTSA 
position. 


In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  Standard 
No.  121   (49  C.F.R.  571.  121)  is  amended.  .  .  . 

Effective  date:  January  1,  1975.  Because  of 
the  imminent  effective  date  of  the  standard  for 
trailers  (January  1,  1975),  the  National  High- 
way Traffic  Safety  Administration  finds,  for  good 
cause  shown,  that  an  effective  date  sooner  than 
30  days  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 
C.F.R.  1.51) 

Issued  on  December  31,  1974. 

James  B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

40  F.R.  1246 
January  7,  1975 


PART  571 ;  S  121— PRE  41^2 


Effective:   September    1,    1976 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   121 

(Docket  No.   74-10;   Notice   12) 
Air  Brake  Systems 


This  notice  amends  Standard  No.  121,  Air 
brake  systems,  49  C.F.R.  571.121,  to  delete  as  of 
September  1,  1976,  the  emergency  brake  option 
that  for  trucks  and  buses  permits  automatic  ap- 
plication of  the  parking  brakes  in  place  of  a 
modulated  emergency  brake  system.  A  notice 
of  proposed  rulemaking  to  be  issued  shortly  pro- 
poses modification  of  the  air  brake  system  park- 
ing brake  requirements  and  the  trailer  emergency 
braking  requirements. 

Based  on  a  December  1972  petition  from  the 
American  Trucking  Associations  (ATA),  the 
NHTSA  proposed  elimination  of  the  automatic 
parking  brake  for  use  as  an  emergency  braking 
capability  (38  F.R.  14963,  June  7,  1973).  In 
response  to  comments  on  that  proposal  which 
stated  that  leadtime  was  insufficient  to  implement 
the  proposal  by  September  1.  1974,  the  NHTSA 
indicated  it  would  defer  final  action  to  a  later 
date  and  issue  any  changes  with  an  effective  date 
beyond  September  1,  1974  (39  F.R.  804,  January 
3,  1974).  The  NHTSA  again  indicated  in  May 
1974  that  "the  majority  of  the  changes  proposed 
in  response  to  the  ATA  petition  continue  to  be 
viewed  favorably."  (39  F.R.  17550,  May  17, 
1974) .  The  NHTSA  has  now  completed  its  con- 
sideration of  the  modulated  braking  provision 
and  hereby  amends  the  standard  as  proposed  in 
June  1973,  with  an  effective  date  of  September  1, 
1976,  to  permit  adequate  time  for  engineering 
necessary  changes.  It  appears,  in  fact,  that  the 
majority  of  new  brake  systems  are  designed  to 
meet  generally  the  modulated  emergency  brake 
requirements. 

The  fundamental  change  is  elimination  of  the 
option  that  permits  automatic  application  of  the 
parking  brakes  in  place  of  a  modulated  emer- 
gency brake  system.     The  NHTSA  agrees  with 


the  ATA  that  a  driver  should  not  be  forced  to 
use  two  different  methods  of  applying  the  emer- 
gency brakes,  depending  on  what  vehcile  he  is 
driving  at  the  time. 

In  the  parikng  brake  system  proposal  to  be 
published  shortly,  it  is  proposed  that  the  parking 
brake  provisions  found  as  options  in  the  present 
S5.7  be  made  mandatory  in  a  revised  S5.6  park- 
ing brake  section.  Thus  the  present  S5.7  require- 
ment that  a  vehicle  with  a  modulated  brake 
capability  also  have  a  parking  brake  capable  of 
manual  application  at  any  service  reservoir  pres- 
sure level  would  be  found  in  the  parking  brake 
section.  Also  the  requirement  that  the  parking 
brake  be  capable  of  application  in  the  event  of  a 
failure  of  specific  components  common  to  the 
service  brake  and  emergency  braking  systems 
would  be  moved  to  the  revised  parking  brake 
section.  Finally  the  requirement  that  a  parking 
brake  be  releasable  only  if  it  can  be  reapplied 
would  be  found  in  the  new  parking  brake 
provisions. 

Several  other  requirements  proposed  in  Jime 
1973  for  the  modulated  emergency  brake  system 
are  found  in  this  amendment.  The  modulated 
emergency  brake  must  be  applied,  released,  and 
be  capable  of  modulation,  by  means  of  the  service 
brake  control.  The  NHTSA  has  concluded  that 
the  driver  is  most  likely  to  maintain  the  best  con- 
trol of  his  vehicle  when  he  can  modulate  any 
braking  available  to  him  througd  a  single  control. 
The  emergency  system  must  be  capable  of  two 
full  applications  and  releases  in  the  event  the 
service  brake  system  fails.  This  ensures  that  a 
disabled  vehicle  can  be  safely  moved  off  the 
roadway. 

As  proposed  in  J\me  1973  and  made  final  in 
this  notice,   the   emergency   brake   system   of   a 


PART  571 ;  S  121— PRE  43 


Effective:   September    I,    1976 

towing  vehicle  must  oi:)erate  in  the  event  the 
trailer  air  control  line  or  tiie  trailer  supply  and 
control  lines  fail.  These  requirements  ensure 
that  a  loaded  combination  \ehicle  can  stop  in 
specified  distances  with  a  failed  control  line,  and 
that  a  loaded  straight  truck  (capable  of  towing) 
or  "bobtail"  tractor-trailer  is  capable  of  stopping 
in  the  event  a  trailer  breaks  away.  Additionally, 
the  service  brake  control  of  a  towing  vehicle  must 
be  capable  of  modulating  the  brakes  on  a  towed 
vehicle  following  a  failure  on  the  towing  vehicle. 
Also,  the  emergency  stopi)ing  distance  require- 
ment presently  in  the  standard  becomes  the  only 
permissible  test  of  a  truck  or  bus  emergency  brak- 
ing system. 

A  new  test  condition  has  been  added  to  specify 
when  to  vent  the  control  and  supply  lines  to 
atmosphere  for  test  purposes. 


As  noted  above,  the  majority  of  these  changes 
appear  to  be  incorporated  in  large  measure  in  the 
design  of  the  new  brake  systems.  The  NHTSA 
concludes  that  truck  and  bus  manufacturers  are 
capable  of  meeting  these  modulated  brake  re- 
quirements by  September  1,  1976. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  Standard 
No.  121  (49  C.F.R.  571.121)  is  amended 

Effective  date:  September  1,  1976. 

(Sec.  103,  119  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80  Stat.  718  (15 
U.S.C.  1392,  1407),  delegation  of  authority  at  49 
C.F.R.  1.51  and  49  C.F.R.  501.8). 

Issued  on  January  10,  1975. 

James  B.  Gregory 
Administrator 

40  F.R.  2989 
January  17,  1975 


PART  571 ;  S  121— PRE  44 


Effective:   March    1,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   121 

Air  Brake  Systems 
(Docket  No.  74-10;  Notice   14) 


This  notice  amends  Standard  No.  121,  Air 
brake  systems,  49  C.F.R.  571.121,  to  exempt  a 
small  category  of  oversize  and  construction  ve- 
hicles from  the  applicability  of  the  standard. 
The  exemption  criteria  were  proposed  in  a  Jan- 
uary 28,  1975,  notice  (40  F.R.  4153),  which  ex- 
panded the  criteria  for  this  specialized  vehicle 
category  in  response  to  comments  on  an  earlier 
exemption  proposal  (39  F.R.  40168,  November  14, 
1974). 

In  making  the  proposal,  the  NHTSA  tenta- 
tively determined  that  the  specialized  configura- 
tion of  this  small  category  makes  compliance 
with  the  standard  so  difficult  and  expensive  that 
an  exemption  from  the  standard  would  be  justi- 
fied. It  was  noted  that  the  vehicle  function  in 
these  cases  generally  results  in  restricted  opera- 
tion on  the  highway  (e.g.,  at  low  speed,  in  permit 
operation,  or  during  daylight  hours)  and  that  as 
a  result,  vehicle  exposure  on  the  highway  is 
limited. 

The  NHTSA  proposed  a  series  of  criteria  in- 
tended to  comprehensively  identify  vehicles  with 
these  characteristics.  Permanent  exemption  would 
be  granted  to  any  vehicle  that  has  (1)  an  overall 
vehicle  width  of  108  inches  or  more,  (2)  a  speed 
attainable  in  two  miles  of  not  more  than  33  mph, 
(3)  a  speed  attainable  in  two  miles  of  not  more 
than  45  mph,  all-wheel  drive,  and  no  cargo-  or 
passenger-carrying  capacity,  (4)  an  axle  that  has 
a  GAWR  of  29,000  pounds  or  more,  (5)  two  or 
more  front  steerable  axles  with  a  GAWR  of 
16,000  pounds  or  more  for  each  axle;  or  (6)  a 
steerable  drive  axle  driven  through  gear  reduc- 
tion contained  within  the  wheel. 

Three  of  the  numbered  criteria  ((3),  (5),  and 
(6))  were  intended  to  describe  the  lighter  and 
more  maneuverable  vehicles  whose  drive  axle  con- 


figuration or  high  center  of  gravity  make  con- 
formity with  the  standard  expensive  and  difficult. 
An  example  of  this  vehicle  type  is  the  large, 
carrier-mounted  mobile  crane.  Based  on  sub- 
mitted comments,  it  appears  that  these  criteria 
should  be  combined  as  a  single  compound  cri- 
terion in  order  to  avoid  inequities  in  the  applica- 
bility of  the  standard.  Specifically,  either  of  the 
criteria  numbered  (5)  or  (6)  could,  of  itself, 
permit  heavy  or  cargo-carrying  vehicles  on  the 
highway  at  unlimited  speed  without  121-type 
brakes  while  far  smaller  vehicles  would  be  sub- 
ject to  the  regulation.  To  accomplish  the  re- 
arrangement, the  exception  criteria  numbered 
(3),  (5),  and  (6)  are  combined  in  a  new  category 
(d)  to  require  for  this  exception  that  an  expected 
vehicle  have  a  speed  attainable  in  two  miles  of 
not  more  than  45  mph,  no  cargo-  or  passenger- 
carrying  capacity,  and  either  (1)  all-wheel  drive, 
(2)  a  steerable  drive  axle  driven  through  gear 
reduction  contained  within  the  wheel,  or  (3)  two 
or  more  front  steerable  axles. 

It  is  recognized  that  total  withdrawal  of  the 
16,000-pound  tandem  steerable  axle  exemption 
would  make  those  vehicles  with  an  unlimited 
highway  speed  unavailable  until  the  axles  are 
developed  or  the  vehicle  speed  is  reduced  to  45 
mph.  Therefore  the  NHTSA  will  make  final  its 
proposed  16,000-pound  exemption,  but  only  for 
the  interim  period  until  September  1,  1976. 

With  regard  to  the  45-mph  maximum  speed 
criterion,  FMC  Corporation  suggested  that  the 
speed  be  raised  somewhat  to  ensure  that  vehicles 
excepted  on  this  criterion  can  use  the  interstate 
highway  system.  The  NHTSA  does  not  agree 
that  it  should  encourage  use  on  the  interstate 
system  of  large,  high-center-of-gravity  vehicles 
that  are  not  subject  to  a  minimum  braking  stand- 
ard.    Accordingly,  FMC's  request  is  denied. 


PART  571 ;  S  121— PRE  45 


Effective:   March    1,    1975 


Little  comment  was  received  on  the  other  cri- 
teria. Ford  Motor  Company  suggested  a  24,000- 
pound  figure  in  place  of  the  29,000-pound  pro- 
posal. For  reasons  cited  in  the  January  proposal 
in  response  to  an  identical  request  by  Mack  this 
request  is  denied. 

To  the  degree  that  tliis  amendment  does  not 
grant  the  requests  for  exemption  raised  by 
Marmon  Transmotive  in  its  December  23,  1974, 
letter  to  the  Administrator,  that  petition  is 
denied. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Standard 
No.  121   (49  C.F.R.  571.121)  is  amended.  .  .  . 

E-ffective  date:  March  1,  1975.  Because  these 
amendments  relieve  a  restriction  and  because  of 


the  imminence  of  the  standard's  effective  date,  it 
is  found  for  good  cause  shown  that  an  effective 
date  sooner  than  30  days  from  the  date  of  their 
publication  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  C.F.R.  1.51.) 

Issued  on  February  28,  1975. 

James  B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

40  F.R.  8953 
March  4,   1975 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  46 


Effective:   March   21,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   121 

Air  Brake  Systems 
(Docket  No.  74-10;   Notice   15) 


This  notice  amends  Standard  No.  121,  Air 
brake  synfems,  49  C.F.R.  §  571.121,  in  response  to 
petitions  for  reconsideration  of  requirements 
established  for  trucks  and  buses,  by  revision  of 
the  retardation  force  requirements  applicable  to 
on/off  highway  vehicles  until  Sejitember  1,  1975, 
or  September  1,  1976. 

The  National  Highway  Traffic  Safety  Admin- 
istration (NHTSA)  established  the  final  form 
of  Standard  No.  121  for  puri)oses  of  judicial  re- 
view in  November  1974  (39  F.R.  39880,  Novem- 
ber 21,  1974)  (Notice  6).  Notice  6  established 
interim  stopping  distance  requirements  for  stand- 
ard highway  vehicles,  and  i-etardation  force  re- 
quirements for  some  on/off  highway  vehicles. 
Petitions  for  reconsideration  of  the  decision  were 
received  from  White  Motor  Corporation,  Mack 
Trucks,  International  Harvester,  PACCAR  Cor- 
poration, Diamond  Reo.  and  Breeze  Corporations. 
General  Motors  effectively  requested  reconsidera- 
tion in  its  response  to  a  separate  No^■ember 
notice  (39  F.R.  40168,  November  14,  1974)  (No- 
tice 7)  by  supporting  reduced  trailer  require- 
ments only  with  corresponding  reduction  of  truck 
stopping  distance  requirements. 

General  Motors,  in  its  response  to  Notice  7, 
indicated  that  similar  121  vehicles  can  register 
as  much  as  a  20-percent  difference  in  stopping 
distances  as  a  result  of  uncontrolled  variability 
in  brake  component  performance.  International 
Harvester,  which  until  recently  had  supported 
5-percent  longer  stopping  distances  on  an  interim 
basis,  now  points  to  certain  variables,  including 
brake  linings,  in  requesting  longer  distances  on 
a  permanent  basis.  Diamond  Reo  reported  the 
same  experience  in  its  comments  to  Notice  2  of 
Docket  No.  74-10.  PACCAR  requested  that  S5.3 
(stopping   distance)    be   "temporarily   repealed" 


and  that  longer  stoping  distances  be  considered 
for  the  future.  The  NHTSA  concludes  that 
PACCAR's  request  is  essentially  a  petition  for 
rulemaking  to  increase  the  stopping  distances  on 
a  permanent  basis. 

These  positions  raise  issues  which  can  arise 
whenever  a  standard  is  first  implemented:  (1) 
that  production  variables  are  so  gi-eat  that  in- 
ordinate compilance  margins  are  required  and 
(2)  that  the  brake  packages  necessary  to  achieve 
these  compliance  margins  are  so  aggressive  that 
the  handling  qualities  and  durability  of  affected 
vehicles  are  significantly  degraded.  The  NHTSA 
is,  of  course,  interested  in  receiving  on  a  con- 
tinuing basis  any  new  technical  information  (par- 
ticularly test  data  on  production  vehicles)  that 
bears  on  these  important  safety  issues.  Based  on 
the  information  submitted  to  date,  however, 
NHTSA  is  not  prepared  to  grant  the  outstanding 
petitions  at  this  time. 

PACCAR  also  requested  that  the  stopping 
distance  requirements  be  delayed  until  the  per- 
formance of  antilock  systems  and  certain  test 
procedures,  conditions,  and  the  control  trailer 
test  device  are  specified  in  areas  considered  de- 
ficient by  PACCAR.  While  these  issues  might 
appropriately  be  considered  for  future  rulemak- 
ing, the  NHTSA  does  not  agi-ee  that  change  of 
these  important  elements  of  the  standard  should 
delay  orderly  inn^lementation  of  the  standard. 
Accordingly,  the  PACCAR  request  in  these  areas 
is  denied. 

The  second  area  of  the  standard  in  which  man- 
ufacturers seek  reconsideration  is  limited  relaxa- 
tion of  requirements  for  \'ehicles  with  front 
steerable  drive  axles  (S5.3.1.2).  Based  on  un- 
availability of  this  axle  design,  vehicles  manu- 
factured before  September  1,  1975,  with  a  front 


PART  571 :  S  121— PRE  47 


Effeellve:   March   21,    1975 


steerable  drive  axle  of  any  size  may  meet  retarda- 
tion force  requirements  in  place  of  stopping  dis- 
tance requirements.  Because  of  unavailability  of 
the  lighter  front  driving  axles  for  a  greater 
period,  vehicles  manufactured  before  September 
1,  1976,  with  a  front  steerable  drive  axle  with  a 
gross  axle  weight  rating  (GAWR)  of  less  than 
18,000  pounds  may  meet  retardation  force  re- 
quirements in  place  of  stopi)ing  distance  require- 
ments. 

Diamond  Reo,  International  Harvester,  and 
Mack  Trucks,  Inc.,  now  request  that  the  heavier 
axles  also  be  permitted  relaxed  requirements  un- 
til September  1,  1976.  White  Motor  Company 
in  its  response  to  Notice  10  of  Docket  No.  74^10 
requested  the  relaxed  requirements  imtil  Septem- 
ber 1,  1977.  The  NHTSA  indicated  in  Notice  6 
that  this  axle  type  is  available  and  has  been 
offered  by  Oshkosh  Truck  Company  to  the  other 
manufacturers  of  this  vehicle  class.  While  Dia- 
mond Reo  does  not  indicate  it  considered  the 
Oshkosh  axle,  the  other  manufacturers  indicate 
that  redesign  of  their  limited  vehicle  output  in 
this  area  to  accept  the  Oshkosh  axle  would  be 
unjustified  because  of  cost.  Oshkosh,  on  the 
other  hand,  has  offered  to  provide,  at  cost,  tech- 
nical assistance  in  the  installation  of  Oshkosh 
axles  to  non-Oshkosh  pilot  test  vehicles,  and 
consultation  and  review  of  test  data  obtained 
from  truck-manufacturer-conducted  tests. 

The  NHTSA  concludes,  based  on  all  informa- 
tion available,  that  the  axle  is  available  at  this 
time  and  that  sufficient  leadtime  has  been  made 
available  for  the  location  and  testing  of  an  axle 
of  this  type.  The  manufacturers  who  request 
further  delay  do  not  claim  that  the  installation 
is  technologically  unfeasible  or  otherwise  imprac- 
ticable. Although  they  cite  adverse  economic  con- 
sequence for  the  limited  numbers  of  vehicles  they 
produce  in  this  category,  this  argument  does  not 
consider  the  major  economic  consequences  for  the 
Oshkosh  Company,  who  state  that  72  percent  of 
their  vehicle  production  would  be  adversely  af- 
fected by  any  further  delay.  The  petitions  of 
White,  International  Harvester,  Diamond  Reo, 
and  Mack  are  accordingly  denied. 

Due  to  unavailability  until  September  1,  1976, 
front  steerable  non-driving  axles  with  a  GAWR 
in  excess  of  16,000  pounds  are  permitted  the  same 


relaxed  requirements  as  the  driving  axles  just 
discussed.  White  Motor  Corporation,  in  its  com- 
ments to  Notice  10  of  Docket  No.  74—10,  requested 
the  relaxed  requirements  be  extended  to  Septem- 
ber 1,  1977,  because  of  the  long  leadtime  asso- 
ciated with  manufacture  of  these  vehicles.  The 
NHTSA  will  monitor  the  availability  of  these 
axles  to  ensure  their  readiness  for  September  1, 
1976,  and  will  consider  a  later  effective  date  for 
them  if  they  are  not  available  as  presently  sched- 
uled. At  this  time,  however,  it  appears  that  the 
axles  will  be  ready  sufficiently  in  advance  of  Sep- 
tember 1,  1976,  to  permit  satisfaction  of  the  full 
requirements  on  that  date.  Accordingly  White's 
petition  is  denied. 

As  earlier  noted,  both  the  vehicles  equipped 
with  certain  driving  or  non-driivng  front  steer- 
able axles  are  permitted  to  meet  retardation  force 
requirements  in  place  of  distance  requirements 
for  an  interim  period.  A  reduction  of  these  re- 
tardation force  requirements  was  the  subject  of  a 
proposal  in  Notice  7,  which  was  acted  on  for 
trailers  in  Notice  11  (40  F.R.  1246,  January  7, 
1975).  It  was  concluded  that  no  argument  had 
been  made  for  a  temporary  reduction  of  retarda- 
tion forces  on  the  front  axle  of  heavy  trucks, 
most  of  which  are  integral  trucks  which  ex- 
perience high  levels  of  dynamic  load  shift  during 
braking.  Comments  by  PACCAR  to  Notice  6, 
however,  emphasized  that  retardation  force  re- 
quirements at  the  rear  axle  could  be  reduced  be- 
cause the  load  shift  off  the  rear  axle  effectively 
results  in  over-torque  of  that  axle. 

The  NHTSA's  intent  in  substituting  retarda- 
tion force  requirements  for  stopping  distance  is 
to  ensure  the  best  braking  that  is  presently  avail- 
able, and  it  appears  that  rear  brake  retardation 
requirements  may,  in  some  cases,  inhibit  the  tai- 
loring of  brake  systems  on  different  vehciles  to 
achieve  this  goal.  The  most  satisfactory  means 
to  reduce  rear  axle  requirements  while  maintain- 
ing front  axle  requirements  is  to  eliminate  re- 
quirements for  the  vehicle  as  a  whole,  to  permit 
the  manufacturer  latitude  in  selecting  retardation 
force  requireemnts  at  the  rear  axle.  The  present 
requirements  for  front  axle  retardation  forces 
remain  in  the  standard,  and  by  this  notice,  the 
NHTSA  deletes  the  requirement  for  retardation 
force  values  for  the  vehicle  as  a  whole. 


PART  571 ;  S  121— PRE  48 


Effective:  March  21,    1975 


PACCAR  requested  complete  withdrawal  of 
the  retardation  force  requirements,  as  well  as  the 
brake  power  and  fade  requirements  as  they  affect 
all  trucks.  The  NHTSA,  of  course,  considers 
these  characteristics  of  a  brake  system  funda- 
mental, and  does  not  agree  that  the  requirements 
are  impracticable  or  should  be  withdrawn. 
PACCAR's  request  is  therefore  denied. 

With  regard  to  the  vehicles  that  may  meet  re- 
tardation force  I'equirements  in  place  of  stopping 
distances.  International  Harvester  requested  con- 
firmation that  S6.3.1.2  is  an  option  that  the  man- 
ufacturer may  choose  to  ignore  in  the  loaded  or 
unloaded  condition  if  the  vehcile  in  question  meets 
the  stopping  distance  requirements  in  that  condi- 
tion. This  agency  stated  in  the  preamble  to 
Notice  6  that  "the  NHTSA  considers  it  crucial 
panic  stop,  loaded  or  unloaded,  if  the  vehicle  is 
to  maintain  complete  directional  stability  in  a 
unable  to  meet  the  stopping  distance  require- 
ments in  that  condition."  International  Har- 
vester's understanding  of  this  language  is  correct. 

PACCAR  requested  deletion  of  brake  actua- 
tion requirements  as  redundant  in  view  of  stop- 
ping distance  requirements.  The  NHTSA  has 
considered  elimination  of  the  requirements  pre- 
viously, and  concluded  at  that  time  that  the  re- 
quirement should  be  maintained  (37  F.R.  3905, 
February  24,  1972).  At  this  time  the  actuation 
requirements  ensure  fast  braking  on  the  vehicles 
under  S5.3.1.2  which  need  not  meet  stopping  dis- 
tance requirements.  The  NHTSA  will  consider 
this  PACCAR  request  for  future  rulemaking  but 
does  not  act  on  the  petition  for  amendment  at 
this  time. 


Finally,  PACCAR  requested  specification  of 
antilock  performance  characteristics.  The  stand- 
ard does  not  require  antilock  systems,  and  the 
NHTSA  has  concluded  that  specification  for  man- 
ufacturers who  utilize  these  devices  would  be 
design  restrictive,  without  a  corresponding  safety 
benefit.  No  manufacturer  other  than  PACCAR 
indicates  that  a  safety  need  exists  to  specify  the 
cycling  of  antilocks,  and  the  NHTSA  is  unable 
to  determine  from  the  PACCAR  petition  what 
evidence  exists  that  antilock  specification  would 
improve  vehicle  handling.  PACCAR's  petition 
is  accordingly  denied. 

In  areas  unrelated  to  the  petitions  for  recon- 
sideration, the  NHTSA  corrects  an  error  in 
S6.1.8.1  and  adds  a  clarifying  word  to  S5.7.1.2, 
without  in  any  way  changing  the  requirements 
of  those  paragraphs. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Standard 
No.  121  (49  C.F.R.  §  571.121)  is  amended.  .  .  . 

Effective  date:  March  21,  1975.  Because  of 
Standard  No.  12rs  March  1,  1975,  effective  date 
and  because  this  order  relieves  a  restriction,  it  is 
found  for  good  cause  shown  that  an  effective  date 
sooner  than  30  days  from  the  date  of  publication 
of  that  order  is  in  the  public  interest. 

(Sec.  103,  119,  89-563,  80  Stat.  718  (15  U.S.C. 
1392,  1407)  ;  delegation  of  authority  at  49  C.F.R. 
1.51). 

Issued  on  March  14,  1975. 

James   B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

40  F.R.  12797 
March  21,  1975 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  49-50 


Effective:   June    16,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   121 

Air  Brake  Systems 
(Docket  No.  74-10;   Notice   16) 


This  notice  responds  to  three  petitions  for  re- 
consideration of  the  National  Highway  Traffic 
Safety  Administration's  December  31,  1974,  deci- 
sion to  implement  Standard  No.  121,  Air  brake 
systems,  as  scheduled  on  January  1,  1975,  for 
trailers  and  on  March  1,  197.5,  for  trucks  and 
buses.  The  petition  of  American  Fire  Apparatus 
Company  for  reconsideration  of  the  September  1, 
1975,  effective  date  for  fire  fighting  apparatus  is 
granted  for  a  period  of  six  months.  The  petitions 
of  the  Milk  Industry  Foundation  and  of  Repre- 
sentative James  H.  Quillen  for  delay  of  the  stand- 
ard as  a  whole  are  denied.  The  petition  of  White 
Motor  Corporation  has  already  been  responded 
to  by  Notice  15  of  Docket  No.  74-10  (40  F.R. 
12797,  March  21,  1975). 

The  Milk  Industry  Foundation  (the  Founda- 
tion) requested  delay  of  the  standard  as  it  applies 
to  trucks  and  buses  until  March  1,  1976,  to  permit 
further  testing  of  the  new  braking  systems  (and 
redesign  as  necessary)  and  to  conduct  an  analysis 
of  the  economic  impact  of  the  standard.  The 
Foundation  believes  that  insufficient  time  has  been 
allowed  for  vehicle  testing. 

The  NHTSA  has  evaluated  the  readiness  of 
manufacturers  to  meet  the  standard  throughout 
the  four  years  since  issuance.  The  original  Jan- 
uary 1,  1973,  effective  date  was  delayed  until 
September  1,  1974.  In  early  1974,  the  vehicle  and 
component  test  programs  involved  in  implemen- 
tation were  again  evaluated,  and  the  NHTSA  pro- 
posed delay  of  the  effective  date  to  January  1, 1975 
(39  F.R.  7966,  March  1,  1974)  (39  F.R.  17563, 
May  17,  1974).  Based  on  submitted  comments, 
it  was  determined  that  a  March  1,  1975,  effective 
date  for  trucks  and  buses,  and  a  January  1,  1975, 
date  for  trailers  would  permit  adequate  time  to 
complete  preparations  for  the  standard's  imple- 


mentation (39  F.R.  17750,  May  17, 1974)  (39  F.R. 
20380,  June  10,  1974).  These  delays  were  under- 
taken although  one  manufacturer  expressed 
readiness  to  meet  the  September  1974  date,  and 
International  Harvester,  the  largest  manufacturer 
of  air-braked  vehicles,  expressed  readiness  to 
meet  the  January  1,  1975,  effective  date.  This 
decision  was  reevaluated  in  November  1974  and 
foinid  to  remain  valid,  although  a  few  larger 
veliicle  types  were  permitted  a  later  date  (39  F.R. 
39880.  November  12,  1974). 

The  Foundation  also  requested  that  the  stand- 
ard be  delayed  until  its  economic  impact  is  eval- 
uated. Tlie  NHTSA  conducted  an  evaluation  of 
economic  impact  shortly  before  implementation 
of  the  standard  (39  F.R.  43639,  December  17, 
1974)  and,  based  on  several  hundred  comments, 
concluded  that  the  standard  should  be  imple- 
mented (40  F.R.  1248,  January  7,  1975).  The 
NHTSA  disagrees  witli  the  Foundation  that  the 
evaluation  should  ha^e  been  conducted  in  accord- 
ance with  Executive  Order  11821  (on  inflation 
impact  studies)  when  the  final  criteria  and  pro- 
cedures for  implementation  of  the  Order  were 
not  yet  established.  The  NHTSA  has  committed 
itself  to  continue  monitoring  the  effectiveness  of 
its  standard  in  accordance  with  its  statutory 
mandate,  with  a  view  to  identifying  any  modifica- 
tions that  would  lower  costs  while  achieving  com- 
parable levels  of  safety. 

As  indicated  by  the  submissions  of  the  Milk 
Industry  Foundation,  there  has  evidently  been 
much  confusion  among  user  groups  such  as  the 
dairy  industry  o\-er  the  effect  of  the  braking 
standards  on  their  operations.  In  order  to  meet 
the  requirements  that  a  vehicle  stop  in  a  specified 
distance  when  tested  by  the  government,  chassis 
manufacturers  ha\e  in  some  cases  specified  center 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  51 


Effective:   June    16,    1975 


of  gravity  lieights  for  conformity  purposes  that 
are  lower  than  the  loaded  center  of  gravity  of 
trucks  that  these  operators  are  accustomed  to 
using.  The  body  builders  who  complete  and 
certify  the  trucks  have  passed  these  center  of 
gravity  specifications  on  to  the  user  groups.  This 
has  given  rise  to  fears  on  the  part  of  the  dairy 
industry  and  others  that  they  must  reduce  the 
loads  carried  on  their  trucks. 

Actually,  this  is  neither  the  legal  effect  nor 
the  intended  policy  effect  of  the  standard.  The 
standard  does  not  regulate  the  manner  in  which 
trucks  are  loaded  or  used  on  the  road,  and  users 
are  free  to  use  their  own  judgment  in  loading 
their  trucks,  as  they  have  been  in  the  past.  The 
standard  is  designed  so  that  a  properly-designed 
\ehicle  which  satisfies  its  performance  require- 
ments under  the  conditions  stipulated  for  com- 
pliance testing  will  perform  safely  under  all 
reasonable  conditions  or  real  world  use.  Trucks 
equipped  with  the  stronger  and  better-modulated 
brakes  required  by  the  standard,  when  loaded 
similarly  to  those  in  the  past,  should  in  fact  be 
much  safer  both  for  their  occupants  and  for  the 
rest  of  the  driving  public  than  comparable  ve- 
hicles were  before.  If  the  NHTSA  should  dis- 
cover vehicles  being  produced  that  do  not  perform 
safely  when  loaded  in  a  normal  manner  and  can 
establish  that  this  condition  is  attributable  to 
deficiencies  in  vehicle  manufacture  or  design,  it 
can  proceed  against  their  manufacturers  under 
its  safety-related  defect  jurisdiction. 

Representative  Quillen  requested  consideration 
of  a  significant  postponement  of  the  standard, 
believing  that  a  delay  would  increase  truck  sales. 
An  examination  of  the  truck  market  indicates  that 
several  months'  inventory  of  trucks  manufactured 
without  the  new  systems  remained  unsold  on 
March  1, 1975,  suggesting  that  the  economic  down- 
turn, rather  than  the  new  systems,  accounts  for 
many  lost  sales.  The  American  Trucking  Asso- 
ciations statistics  on  general  freight  tonnage  in- 
dicat«  a  steady  decline  in  highway  tonnage  from 
the  high  figure  reached  in  November  1973.  It 
does  appear  that  some  of  the  slowdown  is  at- 


tributable to  "pre-buying"'  of  trucks  to  avoid 
Standard  No.  121,  but  this  effect  would  occur 
whatever  the  date  of  implementation.  Accord- 
ingly the  petitions  of  the  Milk  Industry  Founda- 
tion and  Representative  Quillen  are  denied. 

American  Fire  Apparatus  Company  has  re- 
quested that  the  NHTSA  reconsider  its  decision 
to  implement  the  standard  as  scheduled,  so  far  as 
it  applies  to  fire  fighting  vehicles.  NHTSA  policy 
has  been  to  grant  fire  fighting  vehicles  a  mini- 
mum of  two  years  from  the  issuance  of  any 
standard  to  achieve  compliance  because  of  the 
unique  leadtime  problems  associated  with  the 
industry.  (49  CFR  §  571.8).  On  this  basis,  the 
NHTSA  granted  a  delay  of  the  effective  date 
from  September  1,  1974,  to  September  1,  1975, 
for  these  vehicles  at  the  request  of  American  Fire 
Apparatus  (39  F.R.  17750,  May  17,  1974).  At 
the  same  time  the  general  implementation  date 
was  extended  six  months.  The  NHTSA  agrees 
that  fire  fighting  apparatus  is  entitled  to  a  full 
year's  delay  because  of  its  long  leadtime  problems. 

By  this  notice,  the  NHTSA  denies  all  out- 
standing petitions  for  reconsideration  of  Stand- 
ard No.  121's  effective  dates,  with  the  exception 
of  the  date  for  fire  fighting  vehicles. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  Standard  No. 
121  (49  CFR  §571.121)  is  amended.  .  .  . 

Effective  date :  June  16,  1975.  Because  the  pre- 
viously established  effective  date  for  fire  fighting 
apparatus  was  less  than  180  days  after  the  date 
of  publication  of  this  amendment  in  the  Federal 
Register,  it  is  found  for  good  cause  shown  that 
an  effective  date  less  than  180  days  from  the  date 
of  publication  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  May  12,  1975. 

James  B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

40  F.R.  21031 
May  15,  1975 


PART  571;  S  121— PRE  52 


Effective:    January    1,    1975 
March    1,    1975 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.    121 

Air  Brake  Systems — Trucks,  Buses  and  Trailers 
(Docket  Nos.  70-16,  70-17;  Notice  No.   2) 


ST.  Scope.  This  standard  establishes  perform- 
ance and  equipment  requirements  for  bralcing 
systems  on  vehicles  equipped  with  air  brake 
systems. 

52.  Purpose.  The  purpose  of  this  standard  is 
to  insure  safe  braking  performance  under  normal 
and  emergency  conditions. 

53.  Application.  [This  standard  applies  to 
trucks,  buses,  and  trailers  equipped  with  air  brake 
systems.  However,  it  does  not  apply  to  a  fire 
fighting  vehicle  manufactured  before  March  1, 
1976,  or  a  hea\'y  hauler  trailer  manufactured  be- 
fore September  1,  1976,  or  to  any  vehicle  manu- 
factured before  September  1,  1976,  that  has  a 
gross  axle  weight  rating  (GAWR)  for  any  axle 
of  24,000  pounds  or  more,  two  or  more  front,  steer- 
able  axles  with  a  GAWR  of  16,000  pounds  or 
more  for  each  axle,  or  to  any  vehicle  which,  in 
combination  with  another  vehicle,  constitutes  a 
part  of  an  "auto  transporter"  as  defined  in  S4. 
In  addition,  the  standard  does  not  apply  to  any 
vehicle  that  meets  any  one  of  criteria  (a)  through 
fd).  as  follows:  (40  F.R.  210.31— May  1.5,  1975. 
Effective:  6/16/75)] 

(a)  [An  overall  vehicle  width  of  108  inches 
or  more; 

(b)  An  axle  that  has  a  GAWR  of  29,000 
pounds  or  more; 

(c)  A  speed  attainable  in  two  miles  of  not 
more  than  33  mph;  or 

(d)  (1)  A  speed  attainable  in  two  miles  of 
not  more  than  45  mph;  and 

(2)  No  cargo-  or  passenger-carrying  ca- 
pacity; and 

(3)  Either: 

(i)  All-wheel  drive; 
(ii)  A     steerable     drive     axle     driven 
through   gear  reduction  contained   within 


the  wheel;  or 


(iii)  Two  or  more  front  steerable  axles. 
(40     F.R.     8953— March     4,     1975.       Effective: 

3/1/75)] 

S4.   Definitions. 

"Air  brake  system"  means  a  system  that  uses 
air  as  a  medium  for  transmitting  pressure  or 
force  from  the  driver  control  to  the  service  brake, 
but  does  not  include  a  system  that  uses  com- 
pressed air  or  vacuum  only  to  assist  the  driver  in 
applying  muscular  force  to  hydraulic  or  me- 
chanical components. 

["Antilock  system"  means  a  portion  of  a  serv- 
ice brake  system  that  automatically  controls  the 
degree  of  rotational  wheel  slip  at  one  or  more 
road  wheels  of  the  vehicle  during  braking. 
(37  F.R.  3905— February  24,  1972.  Effective: 
9/1/74)] 

["Auto  transporter"  means  a  truck  and  a 
trailer  designed  for  use  in  combination  to  trans- 
port motor  vehicles,  in  that  the  towing  vehicle 
is  designed  to  carry  cargo  at  a  location  other 
than  the  fifth  wheel  and  to  load  this  cargo  only 
by  means  of  the  towed  vehicle.  (40  F.R.  1426 — 
January  7,  1975.    Effective:  1/1/75)] 

["Heavy  hauler  trailer"  means  a  trailer  with 
one  or  more  of  the  following  characteristics: 

(1)  Its  brake  lines  are  designed  to  adapt  to 
separation  or  extension  of  the  vehicle  frame; 
or 

(2)  Its  body  consists  only  of  a  platform 
whose  primary  cargo-carrying  surface  is  not 
more  than  40  inches  above  the  ground  in  an 
unloaded  condition,  except  that  it  may  include 
sides  that  are  designed  to  be  easily  removable 
and  a  permanent  "front -end  structure"  as  that 
term  is  used  in  §  393.106  of  this  title.  (39 
F.R.  28161— August  5,  1974.  Effective:  1/1/ 
75)] 


(Rev.   5/12/75) 


PART  .571;  S  121-1 


231-083    O  -  77  -  46 


Effective:   January    1,    1975 
March    1,  1975 


"Skid  number"  means  the  frictional  resistance 
of  a  pavement  measured  in  accordance  witli 
American  Society  for  Testing  and  Materials 
Method  E-27'i-65T  at  40  m.p.h.,  omitting  water 
delivery  as  specified  in  paragraph  7.1  of  that 
metliod. 

[•'Speed  attainable  in  two  miles"  means  the 
speed  attainable  by  accelerating  at  maximum 
rate  from  a  standing  start  for  two  miles  on  a 
level  surface.  (40  F.R.  8953— March  14,  1975. 
Effective:  3/1/75)] 

S5.  Requirements.  [Each  vehicle  shall  meet 
the  following  requirements  under  the  conditions 
specified  in  S6.  (37  F.R.  3905— February  24, 
1972.    Effective:  9/1/74)] 

S5.1    Required     equipment — trucks     and     buses. 

Each   truck   and    bus   shall   have   the   following 
equipment : 

55.1.1  Air  Compressor.  [An  air  compressor  of 
sufficient  capacity  to  increase  air  pressure  in  the 
supply  and  service  reservoirs  from  85  pounds  per 
square  inch  (p.s.i.)  to  100  p.s.i.  when  the  engine 
vs  operating  at  the  vehicle  manufacturer's  maxi- 
mum recommended  ipm  within  a  time,  in  seconds, 
determined  by  the  quotient 

actual  reservoir  capacity   X   25 

required   reservoir  capacity 

(37   F.R.   3905— February  24,   1972.     Effective: 

9/1/74)] 

55.1.2  Reservoirs.  [One  or  more  service  reser- 
voir systems,  fi-om  which  air  is  delivered  to  the 
brake  chambers,  and  either  an  automatic  con- 
densate drain  valve  for  each  service  reservoir  or 
n  supply  reservoir  between  the  service  reservoir 
system  and  the  source  of  air  pressure.  (37  F.R. 
3905— February   24,   1972.     Effective:   9/1/74)] 

55. 1.2.1  [The  combined  volume  of  all  service 
reservoirs  and  supj>ly  reservoirs  shall  be  at  least 
twelve  times  the  combined  volume  of  all  service 
brake  chambers  at  maximum  travel  of  the  pistons 
or  diaphragms.  (37  F.R.  3905 — February  24, 
1972.    Effective:  9/1/74] 

55.1 .2.2  [Each  reservoir  shall  be  capable  of 
withstanding  an  internal  hydrostatic  pressure  of 
five  times  the  compressor  cutout  pressure  or  500 
p.s.i.,  whichever  is  greater,  for  10  minutes.  (37 
F.R.  3905— February  24,  1972.  Effective: 
9/1/74)] 


55.1 .2.3  [Each  service  reservoir  system  shall  be 
protected  against  loss  of  air  pressure  due  to 
failure  or  leakage  in  the  system  between  the 
service  reser\-oir  and  the  source  of  air  pressure, 
by  check  valves  or  equivalent  devices  whose 
proper  functioning  can  be  checked  without  dis- 
connecting any  air  line  or  fitting.  (37  F.R. 
3905— February  24,  1972.    Effective:  9/1/74)] 

55. 1.2.4  Each  reservoir  shall  have  a  condensate 
drain  valve  that  can  be  manually  operated. 

[S5.1.3  Towing  vehicle  protection  system.  If 
the  vehicle  is  intended  to  tow  another  vehicle 
equipped  with  air  brakes,  a  system  to  protect  the 
air  pressure  in  the  towing  vehicle  from  the  effects 
of  a  loss  of  air  pressure  in  the  towed  vehicle. 
(37  F.R.  3905— February  24,  1972.  Effective: 
9/1/74)] 

55.1.4  Pressure  gauge.  [A  pressure  gauge  in 
each  service  brake  system,  readily  visible  to  a 
person  seated  in  the  normal  driving  position, 
that  indicates  the  service  reservoir  system  air 
pressure.  The  accuracy  of  the  gauge  shall  be 
within  plus  or  minus  7  percent  of  the  compressor 
cut-out  pressure.  (37  F.R.  3905— February  24, 
1972.     Effective:  9/1/74)] 

55. 1.5  Warning  signal.  [A  signal,  other  than 
a  pressure  gauge,  that  gives  a  continuous  warn- 
ing to  a  person  in  the  normal  driving  position 
when  the  ignition  is  in  the  "on"  or  "run"  position 
and  the  air  pressure  in  the  service  reservoir  sys- 
tem is  below  60  p.s.i.  The  signal  shall  be  either 
visible  within  the  driver's  forward  field  of  view, 
or  both  audible  and  visible.  (37  F.R.  12495— 
June  24, 1972.    Effective :  9/1/74)] 

55. 1.6  Antilock  warning  signal.  [A  signal  on 
each  vehicle  equipped  with  an  antilock  system 
that  gives  a  continuous  warning  to  a  jjerson  in 
the  normal  driving  position  when  the  ignition  is 
in  the  "on"  or  "run"  position  in  the  event  of  a 
total  electrical  failure  of  the  antilock  system. 
The  signal  shall  be  either  visible  within  the 
driver's  forward  field  of  view  or  both  audible, 
for  a  duration  of  at  least  10  seconds,  and  con- 
tinuously visible.  The  signal  shall  operate  in  the 
specified  manner  each  time  the  ignition  is  re- 
turned to  the  "on"  or  "run"  position.  (37  F.R. 
12495 — Tune  24,  1972.     Effective:  9/1/74)] 

55. 1.7  Service     brake     stop     lamp     switch.       A 

switch  that  lights  the  stop  lamps  when  the  service 


(Rev.   5/14/74( 


PART  571 ;  S  121-2 


Effective:    Jonuary    1,    1975 
March    1,    1975 


brake  control  is  statically  depressed  to  a  point 
that  produces  a  pressure  of  6  p.s.i.  or  less  in  the 
service  brake  chambers. 

55.2  Required  equipment — trailers.  Each 
trailer  shall  have  the  following  equipment: 

S5.2.1  Reservoirs.  One  or  more  reservoirs  to 
which  the  air  is  delivered  from  the  towing 
vehicle. 

55.2.1.1  [A  reservoir  shall  be  provided  that  is 
capable,  when  pressurized  to  90  p.s.i.,  of  releasing 
the  vehicle's  parking  brakes  at  least  once  and 
that  is  unaffected  by  a  loss  of  air  pressure  in  the 
service  brake  system.  (37  F.R.  12495— June  24, 
1972.    Effective:  9/1/74)] 

55.2.1.2  [Total  service  reservoir  volume  shall 
be  at  least  eight  times  the  combined  volume  of 
all  service  brake  chambers  at  maximum  travel  of 
the  pistons  or  diaphragms.  (37  F.R.  12495 — 
June  24, 1972.    Effective :  9/1/74)] 

55.2.1.3  [Each  reservoir  shall  be  capable  of 
withstanding  an  internal  hydrostatic  pressure  of 
500  p.s.i.  for  10  minutes.  (37  F.R.  3905— 
February  24,  1972.     Effective:  9/1/74)] 

[S5.2.1.4  Each  reservoir  shall  have  a  con- 
densate drain  valve  that  can  be  manually  op- 
erated. (37  F.R.  .3905— February  24,  1972. 
Effective:  9/1/74)] 

[S5.2.1.5  Each  service  reservoir  shall  be  pro- 
tected against  loss  of  air  pressure  due  to  failure 
or  leakage  in  the  system  between  the  service 
reservoir  and  its  source  of  air  pressure  by  check 
valves  or  equivalent  devices.  (37  F.R.  3905 — 
February  24,  1972.    Effective:  9/1/74)] 

55.3  [Service  brakes — road  tests.  The  service 
brake  system  on  each  truck  and  bus  shall,  under 
the  conditions  of  S6.1,  meet  the  requirements  of 
S5.3.1,  S5.3.3,  and  S5.3.4  when  tested  without 
adjustments  other  than  those  specified  in  this 
standard.  The  service  brake  system  on  each 
trailer  shall,  under  the  conditions  of  S6.1,  meet 
the  requirements  of  S5.3.2,  S5.3.3,  and  S5.3.4 
when  tested  without  adjustments  other  than  those 
specified  in  this  standard.  However,  the  truck 
and  trailer  portions  of  an  auto  transporter  (if 
both  are  manufactured  after  .September  1,  1976) 
shall,  in  combination,  meet  the  requirements  of 


S5.3.1  as  they  apply  to  a  single  unit  truck  or  bus, 
in  place  of  the  requirements  of  S5.3.2  as  they 
apply  to  the  trailer  portion,  and  in  place  of  the 
requirements  of  S5.3.1  as  they  apply  to  the  truck 
portion  in  the  loaded  condition.  (40  F.R.  1426 — 
January  7,  1975.    Effective:  1/1/15)] 

S5.3.1    Stopping     distance — trucks     and     buses. 

[Except  as  provided  in  S5.3.1.2  and  S5.3.1.3, 
when  stopped  six  times  for  each  combination 
of  weight,  speed,  and  road  condition  specified  in 
S5.3.1.1,  in  the  sequence  specified  in  Table  I,  the 
vehicle  shall  stop  at  least  once  in  not  more  than 
the  distance  specified  in  Table  II,  measured  from 
the  point  at  which  movement  of  the  service  brake 
control  begins,  without  any  part  of  the  vehicle 
leaving  the  roadway  and  without  lockup  of  any 
wheel  at  speeds  above  10  mph  except  for 

(a)  Controlled  lockup  of  wheels  allowed  by 
an  antilock  system,  or 

(b)  Lockup  of  wheels  on  nonsteerable  axles 
other  than  the  two  rearmost  nonliftable,  non- 
steerable axles  on  a  vehicle  with  more  than  two 
nonsteerable  axles.  (39  F.R.  17550— May  17, 
1974.    Effective:  3/1/75)] 

TABLE  I 
STOPPING  SEQUENCE 

1.  Burnish 

2.  Control  trailer  sei-vice  brake  stops  at  60  mi/h 
(for  truck-tractors  tested  with  a  control  trailer 
trailer  in  accordance  with  S6.1.10.6). 

3.  Control  trailer  emergency  brake  stops  at  60 
mi/h  (for  truck-tractoi-s  tested  with  a  control 
trailer  in  accordance  with  S6.1.10.7). 

4.  Stops  with  vehicle  at  gross  vehicle  weight 
rating : 

(a)  20  mi/h  service  brake  stops  on  skid  num- 
ber of  75. 

(b)  60  mi/h  service  brake  stops  on  skid  num- 
ber of  75. 

(c)  20  mi/h  servnce  brake  stops  on  skid  num- 
ber of  30. 

(d)  20  mi/h  emergency  brake  stops  on  skid 
number  of  75. 

(e)  60  mi/h  emergency  brake  stops  on  skid 
number  of  75. 


(Rev.    3/14/75) 


PART  571;  S  121-3 


Effective:   January    1 ,    1 975 
March    1 ,  1 975 


5.  Parking   brake    test    with    vehicle    loaded    to 
gross  vehicle  yreight  rating. 

6.  Stops  with   vehicle   at  unloaded  weight  plus 
500  lb. : 

(a)  20  mi/h  service  brake  stomas  on  skid  num- 
ber of  75. 

(b)  60  mi/h  service  brake  stops  on  skid  num- 
ber of  75. 

(c)  20  mi/h  service  brake  stops  on  skid  num- 
ber of  30. 

(d)  20  mi/h  emergency  brake  stojiJS  on  skid 
number  of  75. 

(e)  60  mi/h  emergency  brake  stops  on  skid 
number  of  75. 

7.  Parking  brake  test  with  vehicle  at  unloaded 
weight  plus  500  lb. 

[39     F.R.     17550— May     17,     1974.      Effective: 
3/1/75) J 

[S5.3.1.1  Stop  the  vehicle  from  60  m.p.h.  and 
20  m.p.li.  on  a  surface  with  a  skid  number  of  75, 
and  from  20  m.p.h.  on  a  wet  surface  with  a  skid 
number  of  30,  with  the  vehicle  (a)  loaded  to  its 
gross  vehicle  weight  rating,  and  (b)  at  its  un- 
loaded vehicle  weight  plus  500  pounds  (including 
driver  and  instrumentation).  If  the  speed  at- 
tainable in  2  miles  is  less  than  60  m.p.li.,  the  ve- 
hicle shall  stop  from  a  speed  in  Table  II  that  is 
4  to  S  m.p.h.  less  than  the  speed  attainable  in  2 
miles.  (37  F.R.  3905— February  24,  1972. 
Effective:  9/1/74)] 

Table  II. — Stopping  Distance  in  Feet 


Vehicle 

speed       

in  Column 

miles  Skifl 

per  hour    No.  75 


Service  Brake 
stopping  distance 


Column 
Skid 
No.  30 


Emergency  Brake 
stopping  distance 

Column    3     Column    4 
Skid  No.  75 


20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
55 
60 


33 

49 

68 

90 

115 

143 

174 

208 

245 


54 


123 
170 
225 
288 
358 
435 
520 
613 


85 
131 
186 
250 
325 
409 
504 
608 
720 


S5.3.1.2  [When  stopped  in  accordance  with 
S5.3.1,  with  its  brakes  fully  applied,  a  truck 
manufactured  before  September  1,  1976,  that  has 
a  front  steerable  non-driving  axle  with  a  GAWR 
of  16,000  pounds  or  more,  or  a  front  steerable 
drive  axle  with  a  GAWR  of  less  than  18,000 
pounds,  and  a  truck  manufactured  before  Sep- 
tember 1,  1975,  that  has  a  front  steerable  drive 
axle  of  any  GAWR,  need  not  meet  the  require- 
ment that  it  stop  in  the  distance  specified  in 
Table  II  for  stops  on  a  surface  with  a  skid  num- 
ber of  75  if  the  brakes  on  its  front  axle  conform 
to  the  retardation  formula  and  Column  1  values 
of  S5.4.1.  The  vehicles  must  nevertheless  meet 
the  requirements  of  staying  within  the  12-foot 
lane  and  those  relating  to  wheel  lock-up.  (40  F.R. 
12797— March  21,  1975.     Effective:  3/21/75)] 

[S5.3.1.3  ^^lien  .stopped  in  accordance  with 
S5.3.1,  a  truck  or  bus  manufactured  before  Sep- 
tember 1,  1975,  other  than  a  truck  described  in 
S5.3.1.2,  shall  stop  at  least  once  for  each  speed 
and  weight  condition  in  not  more  than  the  dis- 
tance specified  in  Table  Ila,  on  a  surface  with  a 
skid  number  of  75,  instead  of  meeting  the  stop- 
ping distances  specified  in  Table  II  for  stops  on 
a  surface  with  a  skid  number  of  75.  (39  F.R. 
39880— November  12,  1974.     Effective:  3/1/75)] 


Table    Ila. — Stopping    Distance    in    Feet,    Skid    No. 
Surface  (Until  September  1,  1975) 


75 


Vehicle  speed 

Servi 

ice  Brake 

Emergency  Brake 

in  miles 

stopping  distance 

stopping  distance 

per  hour 

in 

feet 

in  feet 

Column  1 

Column  2 

20 

35 

85 

25 

52 

131 

30 

72 

186 

35 

95 

250 

40 

121 

325 

45 

151 

409 

50 

183 

504 

55 

219 

608 

60 

258 

720 

[39  F.R.  804— January  3,  1974.     Effective:  9/1/741 


[39  F.R.  17.550— May  17,  1974,     Effective:  3/1/75)3 

S5.3.2  Stopping     capability — trailers.       [When 
tested  at  each  combination  of  weight,  speed,  and 


(Rev.    3/14/751 


PART  571;  S  121-4 


Effective:    January    1,    197b 
March    1,    1975 


road  condition  specified  in  S5..3.2.1,  in  the  se- 
quence specified  in  Table  I,  with  air  pressure  of 
90  psi  in  the  control  line  and  service  reservoir 
system  and  with  no  application  of  the  towing 
vehicle's  brakes,  a  trailer  shall  stop  without  any 
part  of  the  trailer  leaving  the  roadway  and  with- 
out lockup  of  any  wheel  at  speeds  above  10  mph, 
except  for 

(a)  Controlled  lockup  of  wheels  allowed  by 
an  antilock  system,  or 

(b)  Lockup  of  wheels  on  nonsteerable  axles 
other  than  the  two  rearmost  nonliftable, 
nonsteerable  axles  on  a  trailer  with  more 
than  two  nonsteerable  axles. 

(39  F.R.  804— January  3,  1974.  Effective: 
9/1/74)] 

S5.3.2.1  [Stop  the  vehicle  from  60  m.p.h.  and 
20  m.p.h.  on  a  surface  with  skid  number  of  75,  and 
from  20  m.p.h.  on  a  wet  surface  with  a  skid  num- 
ber of  30,  with  the  vehicle  (a)  loaded  to  its  gross 
vehicle  weight  rating,  and  (b)  at  its  unloaded 
vehicle  weight  plus  .500  'pounds  (including  in- 
strumentation). (37  F.R.  3905— February  24, 
1972.    Effective:  9/1/74)3 

S5.3.3  Brake  actuation  time.  [With  an  initial 
service  I'eservoir  system  air  pressure  of  100  psi, 
the  air  i^ressure  in  each  brake  chamber  shall,  in 
the  case  of  trucks  and  buses,  reach  60  psi  in  not 
more  than  0.35  seconds  measured  from  the  first 
movement  of  the  service  brake  control  and,  in 
the  case  of  trailers,  reach  60  psi  in  not  more  than 
0.25  seconds  measured  from  the  first  movement 
of  the  service  brake  control.  A  vehicle  designed 
to  tow  a  vehicle  equif)ped  with  air  brakes  shall 
be  capable  of  meeting  the  above  actuation  time 

FIGURE  1 
TRAILER  TEST  RK 


RESERVOIR 

(2000  cu.  in.) 


TRACTOR  PROTECTION  VALVE 

(OPTIONAL  I 

SUPPLY  COUPUNG 


RESERVOIR 

(2000  cu.  in.) 


^SERVICE  BRAKE 


CONTROL  COUPUNG 


PUNG   ^ 


SERVICE  BRAKE  CONTROL 


requirement  with  a  50-ciibic-inch  test  reservoir 
connected  to  tlie  control  line  coupling.  A  trailer 
shall  meet  tlie  above  actuation  time  requirement 
with  its  brake  system  connected  to  the  test  rig 
sliown  in  Figure  1.  (39  F.R.  17550— May  17, 
1974.    Effective:  1/1/75  and  3/1/75)] 

S5.3.4  Brake  release  time.  [With  an  initial 
brake  chamber  air  pressure  of  95  psi,  the  air 
pressure  in  each  brake  chamber  shall,  in  the  case 
of  trucks  and  buses,  fall  to  5  psi  in  not  more  than 
0.50  seconds  measured  from  the  first  movement 
of  the  service  brake  control  and,  in  the  case  of 
trailers,  fall  to  5  psi  in  not  more  than<t60  seconds 
measured  from  the  first  movement  of  the  service 
brake  control.  A  vehicle  designed  to  tow  another 
vehicle  equipped  with  air  brakes  shall  be  capable 
of  meeting  the  above  release  time  requirement 
with  a  50-cubic-inch  test  reservoir  connected  to 
the  control  line  coupling.  A  trailer  shall  meet 
the  above  release  time  requirement  with  its  brake 
system  connected  to  the  test  rig  shown  in  Figure 
l".  (39  F.R.  17550— May  17,  1974.  Effective: 
1/1/75  and  3/1/75)] 

[S5.4  Service  brake  system — dynamometer 
tests.  Wlien  tested  without  prior  road  testing, 
under  the  conditions  of  S6.2,  each  brake  as- 
sembly shall  meet  the  requirements  of  S5.4.1, 
S5.4.2,  and  S5.4.3  when  tested  in  sequence  and 
without  adjustments  other  than  those  specified 
in  the  standard.  For  purposes  of  the  require- 
ments of  S5.4.2  and  S5.4.3,  an  average  decelera- 
tion rate  is  the  change  in  velocity  divided  by  the 
deceleration  time  measured  from  the  onset  of  de- 
celeration. (37  F.R.  12495— June  24,  1972.  Ef- 
fective: 9/1/74)] 

S5.4.1.  Brake  retardation  force.  [The  sum  of 
the  retardation  forces  exerted  by  the  brakes  on 
each  vehicle  designed  to  be  towed  by  another 
vehicle  equipped  with  air  brakes  shall  be  such 
that  the  quotient 

sum  of  the  brake  retardation  forces 
sum  of  GAWR's 
relative  to  brake  chamber  air  pressure,  shall  have 
\alues  not  less  than  those  shown  in  Column  1 
of  Table  III,  except  that  the  values  in  the  case 
of  each  such  vehicle  manufactured  before  Sep- 
tember 1,  1976,  shall  be  those  shown  in  Column  2 
of  Table  III.  Retardation  force  shall  be  deter- 
mined as  follows: 


(Rev.    12/31/74) 


PART  571;  S  121-5 


Effective:   January   1,    T975 
March    1,  1975 


TABLE  III 
BRAKE  RETARDATION  FORCE 


BRAKE  RETARDATION 

BRAKE  CHAMBER 

FORCE 

GAWR 

PRESSURE,  p.s.i. 

Column  1 

Column  2 

Column  3 

0.100 

0.06 

20 

0.175 

0.13 

30 

0.250 

0.20 

40 

0.325 

0.27 

50 

0.400 

0.34 

60 

0.475 

0.41 

70 

0.550 

0.47 

80 

(40    F.R.    1426— January    7,    1975.      Effective: 
1/1/75)1 

[S5.4.1.1  After  burnishing  the  brake  pursuant 
to  S6.2.6,  retain  the  brake  assembly  on  the  inertia 
dynamometer.  With  an  initial  brake  temperature 
between  125°F.  and  200°F.,  conduct  a  stop  from 
50  m.p.h.,  maintaining  brake  chamber  air  pressure 
at  a  constant  20  p.s.i.  Measure  the  average  torque 
exerted  by  the  brake  from  the  time  the  specified 
air  pressure  is  reached  until  the  brake  stops  and 
divide  by  the  static  loaded  tire  radius  specified 
by  the  tire  manufacturer  to  determine  the  re- 
tardation force.  Repeat  the  procedure  six  times, 
increasing  the  brake  chamber  air  pressure  by  10. 
After  each  stop,  rotate  the  brake  drum  or  disc 
until  the  temperature  of  the  brake  falls  to  be- 
tween 125°F.  and  200°F.  (37  F.R.  3905— 
February  24,  1972.    Effective:  9/1/74)] 

[S5.4.2  Brake  power.  When  mounted  on  an 
inertia  dynamometer,  each  brake  shall  be  capable 
of  making  10  consecutive  decelerations  at  an 
average  rate  of  9  f.p.s.p.s.  from  50  m.ii.h.  to  15 
m.p.h.,  at  equal  intervals  of  72  seconds,  and  shall 
be  capable  of  decelerating  to  a  stop  from  20 
m.p.h.  at  an  average  deceleration  rate  of  14 
f.p.s.p.s.  one  minute  after  the  10th  deceleration. 
The  series  of  decelerations  shall  be  conducted  as 
follows:  (37  F.R.  3905— February  24,  1972.  Ef- 
fective: 9/1/74)] 

[S5.4.2.1  With  an  initial  brake  temperature 
between  150°F.  and  200°F.  for  the  first  brake 
application,  and  the  drum  or  disc  rotating  at  a 
speed  equivalent  to  50  m.p.h.,  apply  the  brake  and 
decelerate  at  an  average  deceleration  rate  of  9 


f.p.s.p.s.  to  15  m.p.h.  Upon  reaching  15  m.p.h., 
accelerate  to  50  m.p.h.  and  apply  the  brake  for  a 
second  time  72  seconds  after  the  start  of  the  first 
application.  Repeat  the  cycle  until  10  decelera- 
tions have  been  made.  The  service  line  air 
pressure  shall  not  exceed  90  p.s.i.  during  any  de- 
celeration. (37  F.R.  3905— February  24,  1972. 
Effective:  9/1/74)] 

[S5.4.2.2  One  minute  after  the  end  of  the  last 
deceleration  required  by  S5.4.2.1  and  with  the 
drum  or  disc  rotating  at  a  speed  of  20  m.p.h.,  de- 
celerate to  a  stop  at  an  average  deceleration  rate 
of  14  f.p.s.p.s.  The  service  brake  line  air  pressure 
shall  not  exceed  108  p.s.i.  (37  F.R.  3905— Feb- 
ruary 24,  1972.     Effective:  9/1/74)] 

S5.4.3  Brake  recovery.  [Starting  2  minutes 
after  completing  the  tests  required  by  S5.4.2,  the 
brake  shall  be  capable  of  making  20  consecutive 
stoj^s  from  30  mph  at  an  average  deceleration 
rate  of  12  ft/s/s,  at  equal  intervals  of  1  minute 
measured  from  the  start  of  each  brake  applica- 
tion. The  service  line  air  pressure  needed  to 
attain  a  rate  of  12  ft/s/s  shall  be  not  more  than 
75  Ib/in^,  and  not  less  than  20  lb/in=  for  a  brake 
not  subject  to  the  control  of  an  antilock  system, 
or  12  Ib/in^  for  a  brake  subject  to  the  control  of 
an  antilock  system.  (39  F.R.  17550— May  17, 
1974.    Effective:  1/1/75  and  3/1/75)] 

55.5  Antilock   system. 

[S5.5.1  Antilock  system  failure.  On  a  A^ehicle 
equipped  with  an  antilock  system,  electrical  fail- 
ure of  any  part  of  the  antilock  system  shall  not 
increase  the  actuation  and  release  times  of  the 
service  brakes.  (37  F.R.  3905— February  24, 
1972.     Effective:  9/1/74)] 

[S5.5.2  Antilock  system  power — trailers.     On  a 

trailer  equipped  with  an  antilock  system  that  re- 
quires electrical  power  for  operation,  the  jiower 
shall  be  obtained  from  the  stop  lamp  circuit. 
Additional  circuits  may  also  be  used  to  obtain 
redundant  sources  of  electrical  power.  (37  F.R. 
3905— February  24,  1972.    Effective:  9/1/74)] 

55.6  Parking  brake  system.  [Each  vehicle 
other  than  a  trailer  converter  dolly  shall  have  a 
parking  brake  system  that  under  the  conditions 
of  S6.1  meets  the  requirements  of  S5.6.1  or 
S5.6.2,  at  the  manufacturer's  option,  and  the  re- 


(Rev.    1/I0/7S) 


PART  571;  S  121-6 


Effective:   January    1,    1975 
Morch    1,    1975 


quirements  of  S5.6.3  and  S5.6.4.     (39  F.R.  804— 
January  3,  1974.    Effective:  9/1/74)] 

[S5.6.1  Static  retardation  force.  With  al!  other 
brakes  rendered  inoperative,  the  static  retarda- 
tion force  produced  by  tlie  application  of  the 
parking  brakes  on  an  axle  other  tlian  a  steerable 
front  axle  during  a  static  drawbar  pull  in  a 
forward  or  rearward  direction  shall  be  such  that 
the  quotient 

static  retardation  force 


GAWR 

ir  not  less  than  0.28.     (37  F.R.  3905— February 
24,1972.    Effective:  9/1/74)] 

[S5.6.2  Grade  holding.  With  all  parking 
brakes  applied,  the  vehicle  shall  remain  sta- 
tionary facing  uphill  and  facing  downhill  on  a 
smooth,  dry  Portland  cement  concrete  roadway 
with  a  20%  grade,  both  (a)  when  loaded  to  its 
gross  vehicle  weight  rating,  and  (b)  at  its  un- 
loaded vehicle  weight  plus  500  poiuids  (includ- 
ing driver  and  instrumentation).  (37  F.R.  3905 
—February  24,  1972.     Effective:  9/1/74)] 

[S5.6.3  Application  and  holding.  The  parking 
brakes  shall  be  applied  by  an  energj'  source  that 
is  not  affected  by  loss  of  air  pressure  or  brake 
fluid  pressure  in  the  service  brake  system.  Once 
applied,  the  parking  brakes  shall  be  held  in  the 
applied  position  solely  by  mechanical  means. 
(37  F.R.  3905— February  24,  1972.  Effective: 
9/1/74)] 

[S5.6.4  Parking  brake  control — trucks  and 
buses.  The  parking  brake  control  shall  be  sep- 
arate from  the  service  brake  control.  It  shall 
be  operable  by  a  person  seated  in  the  normal 
driving  position.  The  control  shall  be  identified 
in  a  manner  that  specifies  the  method  of  control 
operation.  The  parking  brake  control  shall  con- 
trol the  parking  brakes  of  the  vehicle  and  of 
any  air  braked  vehicle  that  it  is  designed  to  tow. 
(37  F.R.  3905— February  24,  1972.  Effective: 
9/1/74)] 

[S5.7  Emergency  braking  capability — trucks 
and  buses.  Each  truck  and  bus  shall  have  a 
braking  system  with  emergency  braking  capa- 
bility that  meets  the  requirements  of  S5.7.1  or, 
at  the  manufacturer's  option,  the  requirements  of 
S5.7.2.  (37  F.R.  3905— February  24, 1972.  Effec- 
tive :  9/1/74)] 


[S5.7.1  Parking  brake  system  with  automatic 
application.  Each  vehicle  shall  have  a  parking 
brake  system  acting  on  each  axle,  except  steer- 
able  front  axles,  that  conforms  to  S5.6  and  that 
meets  the  following  requirements:  (37  F.R.  3905 
—February  24,  1972.     Effective:  9/1/74)] 

[S5.7.1.1  Automatic  application.  The  parking 
brakes  shall  be  automatically  applied  and  the 
supply  line  to  any  towed  vehicle  vented  to  at- 
mospheric pressure  when  the  air  pressure  in  all 
service  reservoirs  is  less  than  the  automatic  ap- 
plication pressure  level.  The  automatic  applica- 
tion pressure  level  shall  be  between  20  and  45 
p.s.i.  (37  F.R.  3905— February  24,  1972.  Effec- 
tive: 9/1/74)] 

[S5.7.1.2  Automatic  braking  performance.  With 
the  parking  brake  automatically  applied,  a  ve- 
hicle shall  either  be  capable  of  meeting  the  re- 
quirements of  S5.7.2.3,  with  distances  measured 
from  the  point  of  automatic  application,  or  shall 
have  a  static  retardation  force  not  greater  than 
have  a  static  retardation  force  quotient  not 
greater  than  0.40  for  any  axle,  determined  in 
accordance  with  S5.6.1.  (40  F.R.  12797— March 
21,  1975.    Effective:  3/21/75)] 

[S5.7.1.3  Release  after  automatic  application. 
After  automatic  application,  the  parking  brakes 
shall  be  releasable  at  least  once  by  means  of  a 
parking  control.  The  parking  brakes  shall  be 
releasable  only  if  thej'  can  be  automatically  re- 
applied and  exert  the  force  required  by  S5.6 
immediately  after  release.  (37  F.R.  3905— Feb- 
ruary 24,  1972.    Effective:  9/1/74)] 

[S5.7.1.4  Manual  operation.  The  parking 
brakes  shall  be  manually  operable  and  releasable 
when  the  air  pressure  in  the  service  reservoir 
system  is  sufficient  to  keep  the  parking  brakes 
from  automatically  applying.  (37  F.R.  12495 — 
June  24, 1972.    Effective  :"^9/l/74)] 

[S5.7.2  Modulated  emergency  braking  system. 

Each  vehicle  that  does  not  have  a  parking  brake 
system  that  is  automatically  applied  in  tlie  event 
of  air  pressure  loss  shall  have  a  parking  brake 
system  conforming  to  S5.6  that  is  capable  of 
manual  application  at  any  reservoir  system  pres- 
sure level,  and  shall  have  an  emergency  braking 
system  that  meets  tlie  following  requirements: 
137  F.R.  3905— February  24,  1972.  Effective: 
9/1/74)] 


(Rev.    3/14/75) 


PART  571;  S  121-7 


Effective:   January    1,    1975 
March    I,  1975 


[S5.7.2.1      Emergency     braking     control.       The 

emergency  braking  system  sJiall  be  controlled  by 
the  service  brake  control  or  the  parking  brake 
control.  The  control  for  the  emergency  braking 
system  shall  control  the  brakes  on  any  towed 
vehicle  equipped  with  air  brakes.  (37  F.R.  3905 
—February  24,  1972.     Effective:  9/1/74)] 

£55.7.2.2    Emergency    braking    system    failure. 

In  the  event  of  a  failure  of  a  valve,  manifold, 
brake  fluid  housing,  or  brake  chamber  housing 
that  is  common  to  the  service  brake  and  emer- 
gency braking  systems,  loss  of  air  shall  not  cause 
the  parking  brake  to  be  inoperable.  (37  F.R. 
3905— February  24,  1972.    Effective:  9/1/74)] 

55.7.2.3   Emergency   braking    stopping   distance. 

[Exce^jt  as  s^jecitied  in  S5.7.2.3.1  and  S5.7.2.3.2, 
when  stopped  six  times  for  each  combination  of 
weight  and  speed  sj^ecified  in  S5. 3.1.1  on  a  road 
surface  with  a  skid  number  of  75,  witli  a  single 
failure  in  the  service  brake  system  of  a  part  de- 
signed to  contain  compressed  air  or  brake  fluid 
(except  failure  of  a  common  valve,  nuxnifold, 
brake  fluid  housing,  or  brake  chamber  liousing). 
the  vehicle  shall  stop  at  least  once  in  not  more 
than  the  distance  specified  in  column  3  of  Table 
II,  measured  from  the  point  at  which  movement 
of  the  bi-ake  control  begins,  without  any  part  of 
the  vehicle  leaving  the  roadway,  except  that  a 
truck-tractor  tested  at  its  unloaded  vehicle  weight 
plus  500  pounds  shall  stop  at  least  once  in  not 
more  than  the  distance  specified  in  Column  4  of 
Table  II.  (39  F.R.  17550— May  17,  1974.  Ef- 
fective: 1/1/75  and  3/1/75)] 

55.7.2.3.1  [A  truck  manufactured  before  Sep- 
tember 1,  1976,  that  has  a  front  steerable  non- 
driving  axle  with  a  GAWR  of  16,000  pounds  or 
more,  or  a  front  steerable  drive  axle  with  a 
GAWR  of  less  than  18,000  pounds,  and  a  truck 
manufactured  before  September  1,  1975,  that  has 
a  front  steerable  drive  axle  of  any  GAWR,  must 
stop  in  accordance  with  S5.7.2.3  without  any 
part  of  the  vehicle  leaving  the  roadway,  but  need 
not  stop  in  the  distances  specified.  (39  F.R. 
39880— November  12,  1974.     Effective:  3/1/75)] 


£55.7.2.3.2  When  stopped  in  accordance  with 
S5.7.2.3,  a  truck  or  bus  manufactured  before 
September  1,  1975,  other  than  a  truck  described 
in  S5.7.2.3.1,  shall  stop  at  least  once  for  each 
speed  and  weight  condition  on  a  surface  with  a 
skid  number  of  75  in  not  more  than  the  distance 
specified  in  Table  Ila  instead  of  meeting  the  stop- 
ping distances  specified  in  Table  II  for  stops  on 
a  surface  with  a  skid  number  of  75.  (39  F.R. 
39880— November  12,  1974.     Effective:  3/1/75)] 

55.8   Emergency      braking      capability — trailers. 

fEach  trailer  other  than  a  trailer  converter  dolly 
shall  have  a  parking  brake  system  that  conforms 
to  85. 6  and  that  applies  with  the  force  specified 
in  S5.6.1  or  S5.6.2  when  the  air  pressure  in  the 
supply  line  is  at  atmospheric  pressure.  A  trailer 
converter  dolly  shall  have,  at  the  manufacturer's 
option,  (a)  a  parking  brake  system  that  conforms 
to  S5.6  and  that  applies  with  the  force  sjaecified 
in  S5,6.1  or  S5.6.2  when  the  air  pressure  in  the 
supply  line  is  at  atmospheric  pressure,  or  (b)  an 
emergency  system  that  automatically  controls  the 
service  brakes  when  the  service  reservoir  is  at 
any  pressure  above  20  lb/in-  and  the  supply  line 
is  at  atmospheric  pressure.  (39  F.R.  804 — 
January  3,  1974.    Effective:  9/1/74)] 

56.  Conditions.  The  requirements  of  S5  shall 
be  met  under  the  following  conditions.  Where 
a  range  of  conditions  is  specified,  the  vehicle 
must  be  capable  of  meeting  the  requirements  at 
all  points  within  the  range. 

56.1    Road  test  conditions. 

56.1.1  fExcept  as  otherwise  specified  the  ve- 
hicle is  loaded  to  its  gross  vehicle  weight  rating, 
distributed  proportionally  to  its  gross  axle  weight 
ratings.  (39  F.R.  804— January  3,  1974.  Effec- 
tive: 9/1/74)] 

56.1.2  £The  inflation  pressui-e  is  as  specified 
by  the  vehicle  manufacturer  for  the  gross  vehicle 
weight  rating.  (37  F.R.  3905— February  24, 
1972.    Effective:  9/1/74)] 

56.1 .3  £Unless  otherwise  specified,  the  trans- 
mission selector  control  is  in  neutral  or  the  clutch 
is  disengaged  during  all  decelerations  and  during 
static  parking  brake  tests.  (37  F.R.  3905— Feb- 
ruary 24,  1972.     Effective:  9/1/74)] 


(Rev.    1 1  /6/74I 


PART  571;  S  121-8 


^  S6.1.4  All   vehicle  openings    (dooi-s,  windows, 

hood,  trunk,  cargo  dooi's,  etc.)  are  in  a  closed 
position  except  as  required  for  instrumentation 
purposes. 

56.1.5  The  ambient  temperature  is  between 
32°  F.  and  100°  F. 

56.1.6  The  wind  velocity  is  zero. 

56.1.7  [Stopping  tests  are  conducted  on  a  12- 
foot  wide  level  i-oadway  having  a  skid  number  of 
75,  unless  otherwise  specified.  The  vehicle  is 
aligned  in  the  center  of  the  roadway  at  the  be- 
ginning of  a  stop.  (37  F.R.  3905 — February  24, 
1972.    Effective:  9/1/74)] 

56.1.8  [The  brakes  on  a  vehicle  manufactured 
before  September  1,  1976,  are  burnished  before 
testing,  at  the  manufacturer's  option,  in  accord- 
ance with  S6.1.8.1  or  S6.1.8.2.  The  brakes  on  a 
vehicle  manufactured  on  or  after  September  1, 
1976,  are  burnished  before  testing  in  accordance 
with  S6.1.8.1.  However,  for  vehicles  with  park- 
ing brake  systems  not  utilizing  the  service  brake 
friction  elements,  burnish  the  friction  elements 
of  such  systems  prior  to  the  parking  brake  test 
according    to    the    manufacturer's    recommenda- 

I        tions.     (39  F.R.  17550— May  17,  1974.    Effective: 
1/1/75  and  3/1/75)] 

S6. 1.8.1  [With  the  transmission  iii  the  highest 
gear  appropriate  for  the  series  given  in  Table 
IV  make  500  brake  applications  at  a  deceleration 
rate  of  10  ft/s/s,  or  at  the  vehicle's  maximum 
deceleration  rate,  if  not  less  than  10  ft/s/s,  in  the 
sequence  specified  in  Table  IV.    After  each  brake 


Table 

IV 

Snub  conditions 

Series 

Snubs 

(highest  speed  specified) 

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.  804— .January  3,  1974.     Effective:  9/1/741 

application,  accelerate  to  the  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  the  specified  speed  in 
1  mile,  continue  to  accelerate  until  the  specified 
speed  is  reached  or  until  the  vehicle  has  traveled 


Effective:   January    1,    1975 
Morch    1,    1975 

1.5  miles  from  the  initial  point  of  the  previous 
brake  application.  If  during  any  of  the  brake 
applications  specified  in  Table  IV,  the  hottest 
brake  reaches  500°  F.,  make  the  remainder  of 
the  500  applications  from  that  snub  condition 
except  that  a  higher  or  lower  snub  condition 
shall  be  used  as  necessary  to  maintain  an  after- 
stop  temperature  of  500°  F.±50°  F.  Any  auto- 
matic pressure  limiting  valve  is  in  use  to  limit 
pressure  as  designed,  except  that  any  automatic 
front  axle  pressure  limiting  valve  is  bypassed  if 
the  temperature  of  the  hottest  brake  on  a  rear 
axle  exceeds  the  temperature  of  the  hottest  brake 
on  a  front  axle  by  more  than  125°  F.  A  bypassed 
valve  is  reconnected  if  the  temperature  of  the 
hottest  brake  on  a  front  axle  exceeds  the  tem- 
perature of  the  hottest  brake  on  a  rear  axle  by 
100°  F.  After  burnishing,  adjust  the  brakes  as 
recommended  by  the  vehicle  manufacturer.  (39 
F.R.  39880— November  12,  1974.  Effective: 
3/1/75)] 

[S6.1.8.2  With  the  transmission  in  the  highest 
gear  range  appropriate  for  40  mph,  make  400 
brake  applications  from  40  mph  to  20  mph  at 
10  ft/s/s.  After  each  brake  application  accele- 
rate to  40  mph  and  maintain  that  speed  until 
making  the  next  application  at  a  point  1.5  miles 
from  the  point  of  the  previous  brake  application. 
After  burnishing,  adjust  the  brakes  as  recom- 
mended by  the  vehicle  manufacturer.  (39  F.R. 
804— January  3,  1974.    Effective:  9/1/74)] 

[S6.1.9  Static  parking  brake  tests  for  a  semi- 
trailer are  conducted  with  the  front  end  sup- 
ported by  an  unbraked  dolly.  The  weight  of 
the  dolly  is  included  as  part  of  the  trailei  load. 
(37  F.R.  3905— February  24,  1972.  Effective: 
9/1/74)] 

[S6.1.10  In  a  test  other  than  a  static  parking 
brake  test,  a  truck-tractor  manufactured  before 
September  1,  1976,  is  tested  at  its  gross  vehicle 
weight  rating  by  loading  it  without  a  trailer  or, 
at  the  manufacturer's  option,  by  coupling  it  to  a 
flatbed  semitrailer  (hereafter,  control  trailer)  as 
specified  in  S6.1.10.1  to  S6.1.10.7.  In  a  test  other 
tlian  a  static  parking  brake  test,  a  truck-tractor 
manufactured  on  or  after  September  1,  1976,  is 
tested  at  its  gross  vehicle  weight  rating  by  cou- 
pling it  to  a  control  trailer  as  specified  in  S6. 1.1 0.1 
to  S6.1.10.7. 


(Rev.    12/20/73) 


PART  571;  S  121-9 


Effective;   January    1,    1975 
March    1,  1975 


56. 1.1 0.1  The  control  trailer  conforms  to  this 
standard. 

56. 1.1 0.2  The  center  of  gravity  of  the  loaded 
control  trailer  is  on  the  trailer's  longitudinal 
centerline  at  a  height  of  66±3  in.  above  the 
ground. 

56. 1.1 0.3  For  a  truck-tractor  with  a  rear  axle 
gross  axle  weight  rating  of  26,000  lb  or  less, 
the  control  trailer  has  a  single  axle  with  a  gross 
axle  weight  rating  of  18,000  lb  and  a  length, 
measured  from  the  transverse  centerline  of  the 
axle  to  the  centerline  of  the  kingpin,  of  258  d=  6  in. 

56.1.10.4  For  a  truck-tractor  with  a  total  rear 
axle  gross  axle  weight  rating  of  more  than  26,000 
lb  the  control  trailer  has  a  tandem  axle  with  a 
combined  gross  axle  weight  rating  of  32,000  lb 
and  a  length,  measured  from  the  transverse  cen- 
terline between  the  axles  to  tlie  centerline  of  the 
kingpin,  of  390  ±6  in. 

56.1.10.5  The  control  trailer  is  loaded  so  that 
its  axle  is  loaded  to  its  gross  axle  weight  rating 
and  the  tractor  is  loaded  to  its  gross  vehicle 
weight  rating,  with  the  tractor's  fifth  wheel  ad- 
justed so  that  the  load  on  each  axle  measured 
at  the  tire-ground  interface  is  most  nearly  pro- 
portional to  the  axles'  respective  gross  axle 
weight  ratings. 

56. 1.10.6  [Test    equipment    specification.      The 

control  trailer's  service  brakes  are  capable  of 
stopping  the  combination  from  the  maximum 
speed  at  which  the  tractor  is  tested,  under  the 
conditions  of  S6.1,  without  assistance  from  the 
tractor  brakes,  in  the  distance  found  by  multi- 
plying the  service  brake  stopping  distance  speci- 
fied in  Table  II  by  the  ratio : 

weight  on  all  axles  of  combination 
weight  on  trailer  axles 
with  the  tractor's  fifth  wheel  adjusted  as  speci- 
fied in  S6.1.10.5,  the  trailer  service  reservoirs 
pressurized  to  100  Ib/in^  and  the  trailer  loaded 
so  that  its  axle  is  at  gross  axle  weight  rating 
and  its  kingpin  is  at  empty  vehicle  weight.  The 
stopping  distance  is  measured  from  the  point  at 
which  movement  of  the  valve  controlling  the 
trailer  brakes  begins.  The  service  brake  cham- 
bers on  the  trailer  reach  60  lb/in=  in  not  less 
than  0.20  second  and  not  more  than  0.30  second, 
measured  from  the  instant  at  which  movement 


of  the  valve  controlling  the  trailer  brakes  begins. 
(39  F.R.  17550— May  17,  1974.  Effective :  1/1/75 
and  3/1/75)] 

S6. 1.10.7  [Test    equipment    specification.      The 

control  trailer's  emei-gency  brakes  are  capable  of 
stopping  the  combination  under  the  conditions 
of  S6.1  from  the  maximum  speed  at  which  the 
tractor  is  tested,  without  assistance  from  the 
tractor's  brakes,  in  the  distance  found  by  multi- 
plying the  emergency  brake  stopping  distance  in 
column  3  of  Table  II  by  the  ratio: 

weight  on  all  axles  of  combination 
weight  on  trailer  axles 

with  the  combination  loaded  in  accordance  with 
S6.1.10.5.  Stopping  distance  is  measured  from 
the  point  at  which  movement  of  the  valve  con- 
trolling the  trailer  brakes  begins.  In  the  case  of 
control  trailers  that  utilize  parking  brakes  for 
emergency  stopping  capability,  the  pressure  in 
the  trailer's  spring  parking  brake  chambers  falls 
from  95  lb/in-  to  5  lb/in-  in  not  less  than  0.50 
second  and  not  more  than  0.60  second,  measured 
from  the  instant  at  which  movement  of  the  valve 
controlling  the  trailer's  spring  parking  brakes 
begins.  (39  F.R.  17550— May  17,  1974.  Effec- 
tive: 1/1/75  and  3/1/75)] 

[S6.1.11  Special  drive  conditions.  A  vehicle 
equipped  with  an  interlocking  axle  system  or  a 
front  wheel  drive  system  that  is  engaged  and 
disengaged  by  the  driver  is  tested  with  the  sys- 
tem disengaged.  (39  F.R.  804— January  3,  1974. 
Effective:  9/1/74)] 

[S6.1.12  Liftable  axles.  A  vehicle  with  a  lift- 
able  axle  is  tested  at  gross  vehicle  weight  rating 
with  the  liftable  axle  down  and  at  unloaded  ve- 
hicle weight  with  the  liftable  axle  up.  (39  F.R. 
804— January  3,  1974.    Effective:  9/1/74)] 

[S6.1.13  After  September  1,  1975,  the  trailer 
test  rig  shown  in  Figure  1  is  capable  of  increas- 
ing the  pressure  in  a  50  cubic  inch  reservoir  from 
atmospheric  to  60  lb/in-  in  0.06  second,  measured 
from  the  first  movement  of  the  service  brake 
control  to  apply  service  brake  pressure  and  of 
releasing  pressure  in  such  a  reservoir  from  95  to 
5  lb/in-  in  0.22  second  measured  from  the  first 
movement  of  tlie  service  brake  control  to  release 
service  brake  pressure.  (39  F.R.  17550 — May  17, 
1974.    Effective:  1/1/75  and  3/1/75)] 


(Rev.    12/20/73) 


PART  571;  S  121-10 


Effective:    Jonuary    1,    197S 
March    1,     1975 


S6.2   Dynamometer  test  conditions. 

56.2.1  The  dynuniometer  inertia  for  each  wheel 
is  equivalent  to  the  load  on  the  wheel  with  the 
axle  loaded  to  its  gross  axle  weight  rating. 

56.2.2  [The  ambient  temperature  is  between 
75°F.  and  100°F.  (37  F.K.  3905— February  24, 
1972.     (Effective:  9/1/74)] 

56.2.3  [Air  at  ambient  temperature  is  directed 
uniformly  and  continuously  over  the  brake  drum 
or  disc  at  a  velocity  of  2,200  feet  per  minute. 
(37  F.R.  3905— February  24,  1972.  Effective: 
9/1/74)] 

56.2.4  [The  tenifDerature  of  each  brake  is 
measured  by  a  single  plug  type  thermocouple 
installed  in  the  center  of  the  lining  surface  of 
the  most  heavily  loaded  shoe  or  pad  as  shown  in 
Figure  II.  The  thermocouple  is  outside  any 
center  groove.  (37  F.R.  3905 — February  24, 
1972.    Effective:  9/1/74)] 

56.2.5  [The  rate  of  brake  drum  or  disc  rota- 
tion on  a  dynamometer  corresponding  to  the  rate 
of  rotation  on  a  vehicle  at  a  given  speed  is  cal- 
culated by  assuming  a  tire  radius  equal  to  the 
static  loaded  radius  specified  by  the  tire  manu- 
facturer. (37  F.R.  3905— February  24,  1974. 
Effective:  9/1/74)] 

56.2.6  [Brakes  are  burnished  before  testing 
as  follows :  Place  the  brake  assembly  on  an  in- 
ertia dynamometer  and  adjust  the  brake  as  rec- 
ommended by  the  brake  manufacturer.  Make 
200  stoj>s  from  40  mph  at  a  deceleration  of  10 
fpsps,  with  an  initial  brake  temperature  on  each 
stop  of  not  less  than  315°F.  and  not  more  than 
385°F.    Make  200  additional  stops  from  40  mph 


at  a  deceleration  of  10  fpsps  with  an  initial 
brake  temperature  on  each  stojD  of  not  less  than 
450°F.  and  not  more  than  550°F.  After  burnish- 
ing, the  brakes  are  adjusted  as  recommended  by 
the  brake  manufacturer.  (37  F.R.  3905— Feb- 
ruary 24, 1972.    Effective :  9/1/74)] 

S6.2.7  [The  brake  temperature  is  increased  to 
a  specified  level  by  conducting  one  or  more  stops 
fi"om  40  mph  at  a  deceleration  of  10  fpsps.  The 
bi-ake  temperature  is  decreased  to  a  specified 
level  by  rotating  the  drum  or  disc  at  a  constant 
30  mph.  (37  F.R.  3905— February  24,  1972. 
Effective:  9/1/74)] 

FIGURE  2 
THERMOCOUPLE  INSTALLATION 


CB  ORtt.1.  NO  3l 
OlOO  MA»  DEPTH 
BEFORE   GRIND 


36  F.R.  3817 
February  27,  1971 


PART  571:  S  121-11 


Effective:   January    1 ,    1 975 
March    ),    1975 

Note  :  These  amendments  will  not  be  effective  until  September  1,   1976,  but  are  being  published  at  this  time  for  the  conven- 
ience  of   the   subscriber. 


S5.7  [Emergency  brake  system — trucks  ancJ 
buses.  Each  vehicle  shall  be  equipped  with  an 
emergency  brake  system  which,  under  the  con- 
ditions of  S6.1,  conforms  to  the  requirements  of 
S5.7.1  through  S5.7.4.  The  emergency  brake 
system  may  be  a  jsart  of  the  service  brake  system 
or  incorporate  portions  of  the  service  brake  and 
parking  brake  systems.  (40  F.E.  2989 — January 
17,  1975.    Effective:  9/1/70,)] 

55.7.1  [Emergency  brake  system  performance. 

When  stopped  six  times  for  eacli  combination 
of  weight  and  speed  specified  in  S5.3.1.1  on  a 
road  surface  with  a  skid  number  of  75,  with  a 
single  failure  in  the  service  brake  system  of  a 
part  designed  to  contain  comiDressed  air  or  brake 
fluid  (except  failure  of  a  common  \-alve,  mani- 
fold brake  fluid  housing,  or  brake  chamber  hous- 
ing), the  vehicle  shall  stop  at  least  once  in  not 
more  than  the  distance  specified  in  Column  3  of 
Table  II,  measured  from  the  i^oint  at  which 
mo\'ement  of  the  service  brake  control  begins, 
without  any  part  of  the  vehicle  leaving  the  road- 
way, except  that  a  truck-tractor  tested  at  its  un- 
loaded vehicle  weight  plus  500  pounds  shall  stop 
at  least  once  in  not  more  than  the  distance 
specified  in  Column  4  of  Table  II.  (40  F.R. 
2989— January  17,  1975.    Effective:  9/1/76)] 

55.7.2  [Emergency    brake    system    operation. 

The  emergency  brake  system  sliall  be  applied  and 
released,  and  be  capable  of  modulation,  by  means 
of  the  service  brake  control.  (40  F.R.  2989 — 
January  17,  1975.    Effective:  9/1/76)] 

[S5.7.3.  Emergency  brake  system  application 
and  release.  Witli  all  air  reservoirs  charged  to 
100  psi,  and  with  a  failure  as  specified  in  S5.7.1, 
the  emergency  brake  system  shall,  by  means  of 
the  service  brake  control,  be  cajjable  of  not  less 
than  two  applications  and  releases,  as  determined 
by  brake  chamber  air  pressure  of  60  psi  or  more 
during  the  i^ressure  i)hase  of  operation,  and 
brake  chamber  air  pressure  of  not  more  than  1 
psi  during  the  pi-essure  release  phase  of  opera- 
tion. (40  F.R.  2989— January  17,  1975.  Effec- 
tive: 9/1/76)] 


[S5.7.4  Towing  vehicle  emergency  brake  re- 
quirements. In  addition  to  meeting  the  other 
requirements  of  S5.7,  a  Aehicle  designed  to  tow 
another  vehicle  equipped  with  air  brakes  shall — 

(a)  In  the  case  of  a  truck-tractor  in  the  un- 
loaded condition  and  a  single  unit  truck  which 
is  capable  of  towing  an  air-brake  equipped 
vehicle  and  is  loaded  to  gross  vehicle  weight 
rating,  be  capable  of  meeting  the  requirements 
of  S5.7.1  by  operation  of  the  service  brake  con- 
trol only,  when  the  single  failure  in  the  service 
brake  system  consists  of  the  trailer  air  control 
line  or  the  trailer  air  supply  line  and  air  control 
line  from  the  towing  vehicle  being  vented  to  the 
atmosphere  in  accordance  with  S6.1.14; 

(b)  In  the  case  of  a  truck-tractor  loaded  to 
gross  A-ehicle  weight  rating,  be  capable  of  meet- 
ing S5.7.1  by  operation  of  the  service  brake  con- 
trol only,  when  the  single  failure  in  the  service 
brake  system  consists  of  the  air  control  line  from 
the  towing  vehicle  being  rented  to  the  atmosphere 
in  accordance  with  S6.1.14;  and 

(c)  Be  capable  of  modulating  the  air  in  the 
supply  or  control  line  to  the  trailer  by  means  of 
the  service  brake  control  with  a  single  failure 
as  specified  in  S5.7.1.  (40  F.R.  2989 — Tanuary 
17,1975.    Effective:  9/1/76)] 

[S6.1.14  In  testing  the  emergency  braking 
system  of  towing  vehicles  under  S5.7.4(a)  and 
S5.7.4(b)  the  hose(s)  is  vented  to  the  atmos- 
phere at  any  time  not  less  than  1  second  and 
not  more  than  1  minute  before  the  emergency 
stop  begins,  while  the  vehicle  is  moving  at  the 
speed  from  which  the  stop  is  to  be  made  and  any 
manual  control  for  the  towing  \ehicle  protection 
system  is  in  the  position  to  supply  air  and  brake 
control  signals  to  the  vehicle  being  towed.  No 
brake  application  is  made  from  the  time  the 
line(s)  is  vented  until  the  emergency  stop  begins 
and  no  manual  operation  of  the  parking  brake 
system  or  towing  vehicle  protection  system  occurs 
from  the  time  the  line(s)  is  vented  until  the 
stop  is  completed.  (40  F.R.  2989 — January  17, 
1975.    Effective:  9/1/76)] 


(Rev.    1/10/75) 


PART  571;  S  121-12 


Effacllve:  September   1,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.    122 
Motorcycle  Brake  Systems 


This  notice  amends  Part  571  of  Title  49,  Code 
of  Federal  Regulations,  to  add  a  new  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  122  (49  CFR  §  571.- 
122)  that  establishes  performance  requirements 
for  motorcycle  brake  systems.  A  notice  of  pro- 
posed rulemaking  on  this  subject  was  published 
on  March  24,  1971   (36  F.R.  5516). 

The  safety  afforded  by  a  motorcycle's  brak- 
ing system  is  determined  by  several  factors,  in- 
cluding stopping  distance,  linear  stability  whil3 
stopping,  fade  resistance,  and  fade  recovery.  A 
safe  system  should  have  features  that  both  guard 
against  malfunction  and  stop  the  vehicle  should 
a  malfunction  occur  in  the  normal  service  sys- 
tem. Standard  No.  122  covers  each  of  these 
i  aspects  of  brake  safety,  establishing  equipment 
'  and  performance  requirements  appropriate  for 
two-wheeled  and  three-wheeled  motorcycles. 
These  requirements  do  not  differ  greatly  from 
the  proposals,  and  comments  received  in  response 
to  the  notice  have  been  considered  in  promulgat- 
ing the  rule. 

I.  Equipment.  Each  motorcycle  is  required 
to  have  either  a  split  hydraulic  service  brake 
system  or  two  independently  actuated  service 
brake  systems.  The  latter  system  encompasses 
a  hydraulic  service  brake  system  combined  with 
a  hand  operated  parking  brake  system.  Although 
several  objections  were  received  to  the  split 
hydraulic  service  brake  system  proposal,  the 
NHTSA  has  determined  that  partial  failure 
braking  features  are  necessary  in  the  event  of  a 
hydraulic  pressure  loss  in  the  normal  service 
brake  system.  If  a  motorcycle  has  a  hydraulic 
service  brake  system,  it  must  also  have  a  reservoir 
for  each  master  cylinder,  and  a  master  cylinder 
reservoir  label  advising  the  proper  grade  of  DOT 
brake  fluid.  If  the  service  brake  system  is  a 
split  hydraulic  type,  a  failure  indicator  lamp 
is  required. 


Additionally,  three-wheeled  motorcycles  must 
be  equipped  with  a  friction  type  parking  brake 
with  a  solely  mechanical  means  to  retain  engage- 
ment. Some  commenters  felt  that  pin  or  pawl 
type  brakes  should  be  permitted.  The  Admin- 
istration does  not  know  of  an  impact  test  ade- 
quate to  test  the  strength  of  a  mechanical  lock, 
and  pin  or  pawl  type  brakes,  prone  to  failure 
upon  impact,  have  been  found  to  be  inadequate. 
The  NHTSA  concurs,  however,  with  comments 
objecting  to  the  proposed  parking  brake  indicator 
lamp,  and  has  determined  that  the  safety  bene- 
fits involved  are  negligible  in  comparison  with 
the  expense  of  providing  it. 

II.  Performance.  Conformity  with  perform- 
ance requirements  will  be  determined  by  subject- 
ing motorcycles  to  a  series  of  road  tests.  Vehicles 
must  demonstrate  the  effectiveness  of  their  serv- 
ice brake  systems  by  stopping  within  specified 
distances  from  30  mph,  60  mph,  80  mph,  and 
from  a  speed  divisible  by  5  mph  that  is  4  mph 
to  8  mph  less  than  the  maximum  vehicle  speed. 

Motorcycles  will  demonstrate  fade  resistance 
of  their  braking  systems  by  making  recovery 
stops  subsequent  to  a  series  of  fade  stops  from 
60  mph.  The  hand  lever  force  for  the  final  re- 
covery stop  must  be  within  plus  20  pounds  and 
minus  10  pounds  of  the  baseline  check  average 
force.  This  is  a  modification  of  the  proposed 
"plus  10  pounds  or  20  percent,  whichever,  is  less, 
and  minus  20  percent,"  based  upon  comments 
requesting  the  substitution  of  absolute  values. 
The  same  modification  is  made  in  the  final  water 
recovery  stop.  The  maximum  speed  fade  and 
recovery  proposal  has  not  been  adopted,  as  two 
and  three-wheeled  motor  vehicles  do  not  have 
the  inherent  cooling  problems  that  braking  sys- 
tems on  four-wheeled  vehicles  experience.  Reten- 
tion of  the  60  mph  stops  will  ensure  that  the 
system  maintain  adequate  stopping  ability  despite 


PART  571;  S  122— PRE  1 


Effective:   September    1,    1973 

the  high  temperatures  created  by  prolonged  use, 
and  may  reveal  undesirable  brake  lining  char- 
acteristics such  as  glazing. 

The  test  sequence  has  been  rearranged  so  that 
the  parking  brake  system  test  for  three-wheeled 
motorcycles  occurs  immediately  before  the  water 
recovery  test.  At  this  point  in  the  test  sequence 
the  brakes  will  have  been  fully  burnished,  and 
the  test  will  therefore  be  more  indicative  of 
service  performance.  Parking  brake  application 
forces  have  been  modified  from  the  proposal,  and 
specify  a  maximum  applied  force  of  not  more 
than  90  pounds  for  a  foot-operated  system  and 
55  pounds  for  a  hand-operated  system.  These 
forces  are  identical  to  those  specified  in  S6.10, 
the  test  condition  on  brake  actuation  forces,  and 
result  in  a  uniformity  of  brake  actuation  forces 
throughout  the  standard. 

Finally,  a  motorcycle  must  demonstrate  ac- 
ceptable stopping  performance  after  its  brake 
system  has  been  exposed  to  water.  Comments 
expressed  dissatisfaction  with  the  proposed  test 
procedure,  stating  that  complete  immersion  of 
the  brakes  is  not  indicative  of  the  manner  in 
which  they  become  wet  in  actual  service.  NHTSA 
agrees  that  poor  braking  performance  often  is 
not  attributable  to  complete  immersion,  but 
rather  to  prolonged  exposure  to  a  constant  spray 
from  the  road  surface.  However,  there  is  no 
basis  on  which  to  specify  a  test  procedure  reflect- 
ing these  conditions,  and  the  immersion  procedure 
has,  therefore,  been  retained. 

At  the  end  of  the  test  procedure  the  brake 
system  must  pass  a  durability  inspection. 

All  stops  must  be  made  without  lockup  of  any 
wheel.  Two-wheeled  motorcycles  must  remain 
within  an  8-foot-wide  lane  during  stops  (modi- 
fied from  the  proposed  6-foot-wide  lane),  and 
three-wheeled  ones  within  a  lane  equal  to  vehicle 
width  plus  five  feet.  Some  commenters  asked 
that  tests  be  performed  with  the  clutch  engaged. 
However,  the  effectiveness  of  a  brake  system  in 
bringing  a  vehicle  to  a  stop  within  required 
distances  is  more  accurately  judged  by  requiring 
that  stops  be  made  with  the  clutch  disengaged; 
there  is  less  reliance  on  extraneous  factors  such 
as  use  of  engine  retardation  as  a  braking  assist 
and  the  varying  skills  of  individual  drivers  when 
shifting  downward  through  gears. 


Regarding  test  conditions,  comments  were  re-  / 
ceived  that  it  is  unnecessary  for  both  braking  ' 
systems  of  a  two-wheeled  motorcycle  to  be  within 
the  specified  pedal  and  lever  force  range  simul- 
taneously. The  Administration  did  not  concur 
with  these  comments.  The  safety  of  cyclists 
requires  not  only  that  motorcycles  be  capable  of 
stopping  within  specified  distances,  but  also  that 
this  capability  be  demonstrated  when  reasonable 
forces  are  applied  to  the  brake  lever  and  pedal. 

Several  commenters  also  objected  to  the  "im- 
possibility" of  the  test  condition  that  "the  wind 
velocity  is  zero."  The  comment  reveals  misunder- 
standing of  the  significance  of  the  test  condi- 
tions. A  manufacturer  may  test  for  compliance 
by  running  the  tests  under  any  wind  conditions 
that  are  adverse  to  the  vehicle;  obviously  if  the 
vehicle  meets  the  requirements  under  adverse 
wind  conditions,  it  will  meet  them  under  no- 
wind  conditions.  Similarly,  the  Government  will 
prove  noncompliance  by  orienting  the  test  runs 
so  that  wind  conditions  are  favorable  to  the 
vehicle.  Thus,  the  condition  uniquely  allows 
testing  under  whatever  wind  conditions  are  pres- 
ent. It  is  retained  as  the  most  practicable  and 
least  burdensome  test  method  for  all  parties.  i 

Effective  date :  September  1,  1973.  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  is  in  the  public  interest. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Title  49, 
Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  is  amended  by  add- 
ing §571.122,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard 
No.  122,  Motorcycle  Brake  System. 

This  notice  is  issued  under  the  autliority  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  Administrator,  49  CFR 
1.51. 


Issued  on :  March  1,  1972. 


Charles  H.  Hartman 
Acting  Administrator 

37  F.R.  5033 
March  9,   1972 


PART  571 ;  S  122— PRE  2 


Effective:   January    1,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   122 

Motorcycle  Brake  Systems 
(Docket  No.   1-3;  Notice  No.  4) 


This  notice  responds  to  petitions  for  reconsid- 
eration of  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No. 
122  (49  CFR  §  571.122),  and  changes  the  effective 
date  of  the  standard  to  January  1,  1974. 

Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  122  estab- 
lishing requirements  for  motorcycle  braking 
equipment,  stopping  distance,  brake  system  fade 
and  recovery,  and  wet  brake  recovery,  effective 
September  1,  1973,  was  published  on  March  9, 
1972  (37  F.R.  5033).  Thereafter,  pursuant  to 
49  CFR  '§  553.35,  petitions  for  reconsideration  of 
the  rule  were  filed  by  Japan  Automobile  Manu- 
facturers Association,  Inc.  ("JAMA"),  and 
Cushman  Motors  ("Cushman")  through  counsel. 
In  response  to  these  petitions,  the  effective  date 
of  the  standard  is  being  changed.  The  Admin- 
istrator has  declined  to  grant  requested  relief 
from  other  requirements  of  the  standard. 

1.  Lining  inspection  requirement.  S5.1.5  of 
Standard  No.  122  requires  a  brake  system  to  be 
installed  "so  that  the  lining  thickness  of  drum 
brake  shoes  may  be  visually  inspected,  either  di- 
rectly or  by  use  of  a  mirror  without  removing 
the  drums.  .  .  .'"  JAMA  has  petitioned  that  the 
word  "indirectly"  be  substituted  for  "by  use  of  a 
mirror"  in  order  to  allow  use  of  a  device  such 
as  a  wear  indicator  on  the  outside  of  front  and 
rear  brake  panels.  The  NHTSA  considers  wear 
indicators  to  be  a  "direct"  method  of  visual  in- 
spection since  the  extent  of  lining  wear  may  be 
determined  without  removal  of  the  drums.  There 
is  no  need  to  amend  the  Standard  to  allow  their 
use,  and  JAMA's  petition  is  denied. 

2.  Brake  wetting  procedure.  The  procedure 
for  wetting  the  brakes  prior  to  testing  for  wet 
brake  recovery  (S7.10.2)  specifies  the  complete 
immersion  of  brake  assemblies. 


JAMA  has  petitioned  that  a  water  trough  be 
substituted,  with  water  depth  varying  according 
to  the  cycle's  tire  rim  size,  through  which  the 
cycle  would  be  driven  for  2  minutes  at  a  speed 
of  10  m.p.h.  JAMA  notes  that  this  is  similar 
to  the  procedure  NHTSA  proposed  in  Docket 
No.  70-27,  Hydraulic  Brake  Systems,  and  com- 
mented that  the  same  procedure  should  apply  to 
all  motor  vehicles. 

The  NHTSA  has  determined  that  the  inherent 
instability  of  two-  and  three-wheeled  vehicles 
under  wet  road  conditions  justifies  a  different 
test  procedure.  The  difference  in  configuration 
between  motorcycles  and  four-wheeled  vehicles 
is  distinct  enough  that  there  is  no  assurance 
motorcycle  brakes  will  be  wet,  or  wet  uniformly, 
by  the  trough  method.  It  is  recognized  that 
neither  method  may  represent  the  way  brakes 
become  wet  under  actual  road  conditions,  but 
immersion  of  brake  assemblies  has  been  deter- 
mined to  be  the  more  efficiently  reproducible 
method  of  establishing  a  condition  under  which 
motorcycle  brake  system  performance  may  be 
evaluated.    The  petition  is  denied. 

3.  Stopping  distance.  JAMA  and  Cushman 
petitioned  for  a  relaxation  of  the  stopping  dis- 
tance requirements  of  Table  I.  JAMA  recom- 
mended that  the  stopping  distance  values  in 
Column  II  (Preburnish  effectiveness,  partial 
mechanical  system)  and  Column  III  (Effective- 
ness— total  system)  up  to  and  including  70  m.p.h. 
be  the  stopping  distances  specified  in  SAE  Rec- 
ommended Practice  J109a.  This  would  mean  an 
increase  in  range  of  39-136  feet  for  the  pre- 
burnish stopping  distances,  and  1-15  feet  for 
total  system  effectiveness  over  the  values  of 
Standard  No.  122.  JAMA  alleges  that  stopping 
distance   is  highly   dependent   upon   the   rider's 


PART  571;  S  122— PRE  3 


Fffortlus.     C..>— U— 


Effective:  January    1,    1974 

ability  to  control  the  brakes,  and  it  requested  the 
increased  stopping  distances  to  compensate  for 
variations  in  the  rider's  skill. 

Cushman,  whose  three-wheeled  vehicles  have  a 
top  speed  of  38  m.p.h.,  requests  that  all  stopping 
distances  from  30  m.p.h.  and  35  m.p.h.  be  modi- 
fied, alleging  that  the  only  way  it  can  meet  the 
stopping  distances  is  by  redesigning  its  vehicle. 
Cushman  also  states  that  it  is  unaware  of  any 
incident  where  the  stopping  distances  achieved 
by  its  present  vehicle  have  become  a  factor  in  an 
accident,  and  that  accordingly  there  is  no  need 
for  the  stopping  distances  set  forth  in  Table  I, 
as  they  apply  to  Cushman,  in  order  to  protect 
the  public. 

The  NHTSA  recognizes  that  its  standards  on 
braking  (the  forthcoming  amendment  to  Stand- 
ard No.  105,  Hydraulic  Brake  Systems^  Standard 
No.  121,  Air  Brake  Systems,  and  Standard  No. 
122,  Motarcycle  Brake  Systems)  impose  stringent 
requirements  on  the  manufacturers  of  all  types 
of  vehicles,  and  that,  in  some  instances,  redesign 
may  be  necessary.  But  because  of  the  ever  in- 
creasing numbers  of  vehicles  on  urban  and  inter- 
state roadways,  and  of  passenger-miles  traveled, 
the  NHTSA  considers  improved  braking  systems 
to  be  the  highest  priority  in  its  prog^-am  of  ac- 
cident avoidance.  Prompt  and  accurate  braking 
response  is  deemed  especially  critical  in  providing 
a  margin  by  which  the  vulnerable  motorcyclist 
may  escape  death  or  serious  injury.  While  the 
fatality  rate  for  all  motor  vehicle  occupants  fell 
3.8  per  cent  in  1970,  it  rose  18.9  per  cent  for 
motorcycle  riders.  Motorcycles  account  for  less 
than  2.3  per  cent  of  total  vehicle  registrations, 
but  they  are  involved  in  3.6  per  cent  of  all  fatal 
accidents.  Therefore,  the  necessity  that  the  in- 
dustry achieve  the  full  capability  of  the  present 


state  of  the  art  has  been  found  to  outweigh  the 
problems  caused  the  individual  manufacturers  by 
compliance. 

The  NHTSA  recognizes  the  effect  of  rider 
control  upon  stopping  distance  in  the  wording  of 
S7.  which  deems  stopping  distance  requirements 
met  if  only  one  of  the  specified  number  of  stops 
occurs  within  the  maximum  allowable  stopping 
distances.  Comments  to  Docket  No.  1-3  indicate 
that  it  is  clearly  reasonable  and  practicable  to 
require  motorcycles  to  meet  the  stopping  distances 
adopted  for  Standard  No.  122.  The  petitions  of 
JAMA  and  Cushman  are  denied. 

4.  Effective  date.  JAMA  has  requested  a  4 
month  delay  in  the  effective  date  of  Standard 
No.  122  because  model  changeover  time  for  Japa- 
nese manufacturers  extends  through  autumn  to 
the  end  of  the  year.  It  estimates  that  only  50 
per  cent  of  the  industry  could  be  brought  into 
compliance  by  September  1,  1973.  In  light  of  the 
design  changes  that  may  be  necessitated,  the  Ad- 
ministrator finds  this  request  reasonable  and  that 
for  good  cause  shown  a  later  effective  date  is  in 
the  public  interest.  The  effective  date  of  Stand- 
ard No.  122  is  hereby  changed  to  January  1, 1974. 

The  notice  is  issued  pursuant  to  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  June  9,  1972. 


Douglas  W.  Toms 
Administrator 

37  F.R.   11973 
June  16,  1972 


PART  571;  S  122— PRE  4 


Effective:   January    1,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   122 

Motorcycle  Brake  Systems 

(Docket  No.   1-3;   Notice  6) 


This  notice  amends  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  122,  Motorcycle  Brake  Systems, 
49  CFR  571.122,  to  modify  the  master  cylinder 
labeling  and  the  wetting  procedure  for  the  water 
recovery  test,  effective  January  1,  1974. 

The  amendment  is  based  upon  a  notice  pub- 
lished December  15,  1972,  (37  F.R.  26739).  The 
NHTSA  proposed  a  change  in  the  wording  of 
the  master  cylinder  reservoir  label  which  would 
be  identical  to  that  specified  in  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  105a,  Hydraulic  Brake  Sys- 
tems (37  F.R.  17970).  In  addition,  a  change  in 
the  wetting  procedure  for  the  water  recovery 
test  was  proposed  to  require  sequential  immersion 
of  the  front  and  rear  brake  assemblies  in  lieu 
of  simultaneous  immersion. 

The  comments  received  generally  supported  the 
proposal.  Some  minor  changes  were  requested, 
and  Standard  No.  122  is  being  amended  accord- 
ingly. Tlie  reservoir  labeling  requirements  have 
been  modified  in  format  in  a  manner  consistent 
with  recent  amendments  to  Standard  No.  105a 
(38  F.R.  13017).  The  height  of  the  lettering 
has  been  retained  at  3/32  of  an  inch.  In  order 
to  avoid  any  misinterpretation,  it  is  the  NHTSA's 
intent  to  have  the  label  completed  with  DOT 
and  the  grade  of  fluid  designed  for  use  in  the 
system  and  not  a  manufacturer's  brand  name 
and  number.  If,  however,  silicone-based  or  petro- 
leum-based fluids  are  appropriate  for  the  system 
design  specific  fluids  may  be  designated  until  a 
DOT  grade  and  performance  requirements  have 
been  specified.  A  contrast  in  color  will  be  re- 
quired only  of  printed  labels.  For  this  pur- 
pose, it  has  been  decided  that  raised  or  lowered 


letters  will  provide  a  sufficient  degree  of  legi- 
bility. 

Finally,  based  on  a  comment  made  by  the 
Japan  Automobile  Manufacturers  Association, 
Inc.  (JAMA),  the  wetting  procedure  for  the 
water  recovery  test  has  been  changed  to  extend 
the  maximum  testing  time  from  5  minutes  to 
7  minutes.  JAMA  stated  that  immersion  of  the 
rear  brake '  first  would  still  create  engine  stall 
problems  if  the  water  were  allowed  to  enter  the 
engine  through  the  muffler (s)  during  the  front 
brake  assembly  immersion  period.  The  NHTSA 
feels  strongly  that  the  front  brake  should  be 
immersed  last  due  to  potential  instabilies  created 
by  a  "grabbing"  front  brake.  The  extra  time 
which  has  been  allotted  should  be  sufficient  for 
manufacturers  to  provide  protection  for  the  ex- 
haust system,  thereby  alleviating  the  problem  of 
engine  stall,  and  providing  a  measure  of  relief 
for  those  who  considered  the  5-minute  period  as 
excessively  short. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  49  CFR 
§571.122,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No. 
122,  is  amended. .  . . 

Effective  date:  January  1,  1974. 

(Sees.  103,  112,  119  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80  Stat. 
718,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1407;  delegation  of 
authority  at  38  F.R.  12147) 

Issued  on  May  30,  1973. 

James  E.  Wilson 
Associate    Administrator 
Traffic  Safety  Programs 

38   F.R.   14753 
June  5,   1973 


PART  571;  S  122— PRE  5-6 


Effective:   October    14,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   122 

(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  12.3,  to  modify  current  re- 
quirements that  ai:)ply  to  motor-driven  cycles. 

Interested  persons  have  been  afforded  an  op- 
portunity to  participate  in  the  making  of  the 
amendment  by  a  notice  of  proi)osed  rulemakinp; 
published  on  April  12,  1974  (39  F.U.  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  jMotobecane,  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.  Braking 
fade  and  recovery  requirements  also  would  not 
apply  to  these  low-speed  vehicles.  Maximum 
stopping  distance  values  for  the  various  tests 
should  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  the  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  XHTSA  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- 
wlieeled  \eliicles  through  a  research  contract 
with  the  University  of  Michigan.  When  the 
contract  is  completed  the  agency  will  then  decide 
whether  further  rulemaking  is  warranted. 

The  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  mi^h)  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  a  horsepower,  which 
will  be  applicable  to  the  special  lighting  modi- 
fications. In  the  NHTSA's  judgment,  modifica- 
tions by  consumers  and  the  consequent  equipment 
requirements  should  continue  to  be  regulated  at 
the  State  level. 


PART  571;  S  122— PRE  7 


Effective:   October    14,    1974 


The  fact  that  the  af;;ency  took  no  action  to 
propose  a  reduction  in  existing  lieacUamp  re- 
quirements for  motor-driven  cycles  was  criticized 
by  several  manufacturers  as  unduly  restrictive 
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  the  ac- 
tual proposals  for  omission  of  turn  signals,  re- 
duced stop  lamj)  photometries,  relief  from  brake 
fade  requirements,  inclusion  of  maximum  allov,- 
able  stopping  distances  for  low  speeds,  and  rear 
brake  control  placement.  Accordingly,  the 
standards  are  being  amended  in  tlie  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  requireinents.  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  [jurpose  is  ser\ed  by  its  retention. 
Language  is  also  added  to  the  fade  and  recovery 
and  final  effectiveness  test  procedures  (S7.6, 
ST.7,  and  ST.S),  making  it  clear  that  they  do  not 
apply  to  motor-driven  cycles  whose  speed  attain- 
able 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  tha*^.  an  effective  date  earlier 
than  180  days  after  issuance  of  the  amendments 
is  in  tlie  public  interest. 

(Sec.  103,  119.  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80  Stat.  718, 
15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407;  delegation  of  aiithority  at 
49  CFK  1.51.) 

Issued  on  September  6,  1974. 

James   B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

39  F.R.  32914 
September  12,  1974 


PART  571;  S  122— PRE  8 


Effective:   December   10,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   122 


Motorcycle  Brake  Systems 


This  notice  corrects  uii  error  in  paragraph 
S7.8.1  of  49  CFR  571.122,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  122,  Motorcycle  Brake  Systems. 

On  March  24,  1971  NHTSA  proposed  (36  FR 
5516)  as  part  of  its  anticipated  motorcycle  brak- 
ing standard,  that  the  final  eti'ectiveness  test  "re- 
peat S7.6  including  87.3.1".  Proposed  S7.6  was 
the  service  brake  system  second  effectiveness  test. 
Wlien  Standard  No.  122  was  issued  on  ]\Iarch  9, 
1972  (37  F.R.  5033)  the  proposal  was  adopted, 
in  S7.8.1,  that  the  final  effectiveness  test  "Repeat 
S7.6  including  87.3.1'".  However,  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  final  rule  the  test  sequence  was  re- 
arranged and  the  second  effectiveness  test  had 
become  87. 5.  Through  oversight,  a  corresponding 
change  was  not  made  in  the  final  effecti\'eness 
test  provisions.  Accordingly  the  change  is  being 
made  by  this  notice. 


In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  paragraph 
87.8.1  of  49  CFR  §  571.122,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  122  is  revised  to  read  "87.8.1  Serv- 
ice hvake  system.    Repeat  87.5  including  87.3.1". 

Effective  date ;  December  10,  1974.  Because  the 
notice  corrects  an  error  and  creates  no  additional 
burden  upon  any  person,  it  is  found  for  good 
cause  shown  that  an  immediate  effective  date  ig 
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  December  4,  1974. 

James  B.  Gregory 
Administrator 

39  F.R.  43075 
December   10,   1974 


PART  571;  S  122— PRE  9-10 


( 


Effective:   January    I,    1974 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   122 
Motorcycle  Brake  Systems 


51.  Scope.  This  standard  specifies  perform- 
ance requirements  for  motorcycle  brake  systems. 

52.  Purpose.  The  purpose  of  the  standard  is 
to  insure  safe  motorcycle  braking  performance 
under  normal  and  emergency  conditions. 

53.  Application.  This  standard  applies  to 
motorcycles. 

54.  Definitions. 

"Braking  interval"  means  the  distance  meas- 
ured from  the  start,  of  one  brake  application  to 
the  start  of  the  next  brake  application. 

"Initial  brake  temperature"  means  the  tem- 
perature of  the  hottest  service  brake  of  the  vehicle 
0.2  mile  before  any  brake  application. 

"Skid  number"'  means  the  frictional  resistance 
of  a  pavement  measured  in  accordance  with 
American  Society  for  Testing  and  Materials 
Method  E-274-65T  at  40  mph  omitting  water 
delivery  as  specified  in  paragraph  7.1  of  that 
method. 

"Speed  attainable  in  1  mile"  means  the  speed 
attainable  by  accelerating  at  maximum  rate  from 
a  standing  start  for  1  mile,  on  a  level  surface. 

"Stopping  distance"  means  the  distance 
traveled  by  a  vehicle  from  the  start  of  the  brake 
application  to  the  point  where  the  vehicle  stops. 

"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  all  subsystems)  shall 
not  impair  the  operation  of  the  other  sub- 
system (s). 

S.5  Requirements.  Each  motorcycle  shall 
meet  the  following  requirements  under  the  con- 
ditions specified  in  S6,  when  tested  according 
to  the  procedures  and  in  the  sequence  specified 
in  S7.  Corresponding  test  procedures  of  S7  are 
indicated  in  parentheses.    If  a  motorcycle  is  in- 


TABLE  I 

STOPPING  DISTANCES  FOR  EFFECTIVENESS,  FADE  AND 

PARTIAL  SYSTEM  TESTS 

Stopping  distance,  feet 

Effectiveness  tests 

Vehicle            Prebur-              Prebur-          Effective-  Effective- 
test             nish  effec-         nisli  effec-       ness  total     ness  partial 

speed             tiveness            tiveness            system  hydraulic 

m.p.h.                total                 partial              (S5.4)  systems 

system             mechani           (S5.7.1)  (S5.7.2) 
(S5.2.1)          cal  systems 
(S5.2.2) 

I                         II                       III  IV 

15                       13                         30                       11  25 

20                       24                         54                       19  44 

25                       37                         84                       30  68 

30                       54                       121                       43  97 

35                       74                       165                       58  132 

40                       96                       216                       75  173 

45                     121                       273                       95  218 

50                     150                       337                     128  264 

55                     181                       407                     155  326 

60                     216                       484                     185  388 

65     217  415 

70     264  527 

75     303  606 

80     - 345  689 

85     389  788 

90     484  872 

95     540  971 

100     598  1076 

105     659  1188 

110     723  1302 

115     791  1423 

120     861  1549 

[(39     F.R.     329'14— September      12,      1974.  Effective: 
10/14/74)] 

TABLE  II 
BRAKE  TEST  SEQUENCE  AND  REQUIREMENTS 

SEQUENCE     L^O  Test  pro-       Require- 

cedure  ments 

1.  Instrumentation  check    S7.2 

2.  First   (Preburnish)   effectivess  test: 

(a)  Service    brake    sj-stem    S7.3.1  S5.2.1 

(b)  Partial   service  brake  system S7.3.2  S5.2.2 

3.  Burnish     procedure     S7.4 

4.  Second  effectiveness  test   S7.5  S5.3 

5.  First  fade  and   recovery   test S7.6  S5.4 

6.  Reburnish    S7.7 

7.  Final  effectiveness  test : 

(a)  Service   brake   system    S7.8.1  S5.5.1 

(b)  Partial   service   brake  system S7.8.2  S5.5.2 

8.  Parking  brake  test 

(three-wheeled   motorcycles   only)    S7.9  S5.6 

9.  Water   recovery  test S7.10  S5.8 

10.  Design    durability    S7.ll  S5.8 


(Rev.   9/6/74) 


PART  571;  S  122—1 


Effective:   January    1,    1974 


capable  of  attaining  a  specified  speed,  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  1  mile, 
within  stoppping  distances  that  do  not  exceed 
the  stopping  distances  specified  in  Table  1. 

S5.1  Required  equipment — split  service  brake 
system.  Each  motorcycle  shall  have  either  a 
split  service  brake  system  or  two  independently 
actuated  service  brake  systems. 

55.1.1  Mechanical  service  brake  system. 
Failure  of  any  component  in  a  mechanical  sei-vice 
brake  system  shall  not  result  in  a  loss  of  brak- 
ing ability  in  the  other  service  brake  system  on 
the  vehicle. 

55.1.2  Hydraulic  service  brake  system.  A 
leakage  failure  in  a  hydraulic  service  brake  system 
shall  not  result  in  a  loss  of  braking  ability  in 
the  other  service  brake  system  on  the  vehicle. 
Each  motorcycle  equipped  with  a  hydraulic 
brake  system  shall  have  the  equipment  specified 
in  S5.1.2.1  and  S5.1.2.2. 

55. 1.2.1  Master  cylinder  reservoirs.  Each 
master  cylinder  shall  have  a  separate  reservoir 
for  each  brake  circuit,  with  each  reservoir  filler 
opening  having  its  own  cover,  seal,  and  cover 
retention  device.  Each  reservoir  shall  have  a 
minimum  capacity  equivalent  to  one  and  one-half 
times  the  total  fluid  displacement  resulting  when 
all  the  wheel  cylinders  or  caliper  pistons  serv- 
iced by  the  reservoir  move  from  a  new  lining, 
fully  retracted  position  to  a  fully  worn,  fully 
applied  position.  Where  adjustment  is  a  factor, 
the  woi-st  condition  of  adjustment  shall  be  used 
for  this  measurement. 

55.1 .2.2  [Reservoir  labeling.  Each  motorcycle 
shall  have  a  brake  fluid  warning  statement  that 
reads  as  follows,  in  let'ars  at  least  3/32  of  an 
inch  high : 

"WARNING:  Clean  filler  cap  before  removing. 

Use  only fluid  from  a  sealed  container." 

(Inserting  the  recommended  ty^^e  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.     (38 
F.R.   14753— June  5,  1973.     Effective:  1/1/74)] 

S5.1.3  Split  service  brake  system.  In  addition 
to  the  equipment  required  by  S5.1.2  each  motor- 
cycle equipped  with  a  split  service  brake  system 
sliall  have  a  failure  indicator  lamp  as  specified 
in  S5.1.3.1. 

S5. 1.3.1.      Failure  indicator  lamp. 

(a)  One  or  more  electrically  operated  service 
brake  system  failure  indicator  lamps  that  is 
mounted  in  front  of  and  in  clear  view  of  the 
driver,  and  that  is  activated — 

(1)  In  the  event  of  pressure  failure  in  any 
part  of  the  service  brake  system,  other  than  a 
structural  failure  of  either  a  brake  master  cyl- 
inder body  in  a  split  integral  body  type  master 
cylinder  system  or  a  service  brake  system 
failure  indicator  body,  before  or  upon  appli- 
cation of  not  more  than  20  jiounds  of  pedal 
force  upon  the  service  brake. 

(2)  Without  the  application  of  pedal  force, 
when  the  level  of  brake  fluid  in  a  master  cylin- 
der reservoir  drops  to  less  than  the  recom- 
mended  safe  level  specified  by  the  manufac-  f 
turer  or  to  less  than  one-half  the  fluid  reservoir 
capacity,  whichever  is  the  greater. 

(b)  All  failure  indicator  lamps  shall  be  acti- 
vated when  the  ignition  switch  is  turned  from 
the  "off"  to  the  "on"  or  to  the  "start"  position. 

(c)  Except  for  the  momentary  activation  re- 
quired by  S5.1.3.1(b),  each  indicator  lamp,  once 
activated,  shall  remain  activated  as  long  as  the 
condition  exists,  whenever  the  ignition  switch  is 
in  the  "on"  position.  An  indicator  lamp  acti- 
vated when  the  ignition  is  turned  to  the  "start" 
lx)sition  shall  be  deactivated  upon  return  of  the 
switch  to  the  "on"  position  unless  a  failure  exists 
in  the  service  brake  system. 

(d)  Each  indicator  lamj)  shall  have  a  red  lens 
with  the  legend  "Brake  Failure"  on  or  adjacent 
to  it  in  lettere  not  less  than  %2  of  an  inch  high 
that  shall  be  legible  to  the  driver  in  daylight 
when  lighted. 

S5.1.4  Parking  Brake.  Each  three-wheeled 
motorcycle  shall  be  equipped  with  a  parking 
brake  of  a  friction  type  with  a  solely  mechanical 
means  to  retain  engagement. 


(Rev.   5/30/73) 


PART  571;  S  122—2 


EfFeclive;   January    1,    1974 


S5.1.5  Other  requirements.  The  brake  system 
shall  be  installed  so  that  the  lining  thickness  of 
drum  brake  shoes  may  be  visually  inspected, 
either  directly  or  by  use  of  a  mirror  without 
removing  the  drums,  and  so  that  disc  brake 
friction  lining  thickness  may  be  visually  inspected 
without  removing  the  pads. 

S5.2  Service  Brake  System.  First  (pre- 
bumish)  effectiveness. 

S. 5.2.1  Service  brake  system.  The  service 
brakes  shall  be  capable  of  stopping  the  motor- 
cycle from  30  mph  and  60  mph  within  stopping 
distances  which  do  not  exceed  the  stopping  dis- 
tances specified  in  Column  I  of  Table  I  (S7.3.1). 

S5.2.2  Partial  service  brake  system.  Each  in- 
dependently actuated  service  brake  system  on 
each  motorcycle  shall  be  cajiable  of  stopping  the 
motorcycle  from  30  mph  and  60  mph  within 
stoping  distances  which  do  not  exceed  the  stop- 
ping distances  specified  in  Column  II  of  Table  I 
(S7.3.2). 

S.5.3  Service  brake  system — second  effective- 
ness. The  service  brakes  shall  be  capable  of 
stopping  the  motorcycle  from  30  mph,  60  mph, 
80  mph,  and  the  multiple  of  5  mph  that  is  4  mph 
to  8  mph  less  than  the  speed  attainable  in  1  mile 
if  this  speed  is  95  mph  or  greater,  within  stoj)- 
ping  distances  that  do  not  exceed  the  stopping 
distances  specified  in  Column  III  of  Table  I 
(S7.5). 

S5.4     Service  brake  system — fade  and  recovery. 

[These  requirements  do  not  apply  to  a  motor- 
driven  cycle  whose  speed  attainable  in  1  mile  is 
30  mph  or  less.  (39  F.R.  32914— September  12, 
1974.    Effective:  10/14/74)] 

S. 5.4.1  Baseline  check — minimum  and  maxi- 
mum pedal  forces.  The  pedal  and  lever  forces 
used  in  establisliing  the  fade  baseline  check  aver- 
age shall  be  within  the  limits  specified  in  S6.10 
(S7.6.1). 

55.4.2  Fade.  Each  motorcycle  shall  be  ca- 
pable of  making  10  fade  stops  from  60  mph  at 
not  less  than  15  fpsps  for  each  stop  (S7.6.2). 

55.4.3  Fade  recovery.  Each  motorcycle  shall 
be  capable  of  making  five  recovery  stops  with  a 
pedal  force  that  does  not  exceed  90  pounds,  and 
a  hand  lever  force  that  does  not  exceed  55  pounds 


for  any  of  tlie  first  four  recovery  stops  and  that 
for  the  fifth  reco\ery  stop  is  within  plus  20 
pounds  and  minus  10  pounds  of  the  fade  test 
baseline  check  a\eragc  force  (S7.6.3). 

55.5  Service  brake  system — final  effectiveness. 
[These  requirements  do  not  apply  to  a  motor- 
driven  cycle  whose  speed  attainable  in  1  mile  is 
30  mph  or  less.  (39  F.R.  32914— September  12, 
1974.    Effective:  10/14/74)] 

55.5.1  Service  brake  system.  The  service 
brakes  shall  be  capable  of  stopping  the  motor- 
cycle in  a  manner  that  complies  with  S5.3 
(S7.8.1). 

55.5.2  Hydraulic  service  brake  system — partial 
failure.  In  tiie  event  of  a  pressure  component 
leakage  failure,  other  tlian  a  structural  failure 
of  either  a  brake  master  cylinder  body  in  a  split 
mtegral  body  type  master  cylinder  system  or  a 
service  brake  system  failure  indicator  body,  the 
remaining  portion  of  the  service  brake  system 
shall  continue  to  operate  and  shall  be  capable  of 
stopping  the  motorcycle  from  30  mph  and  60 
mph  within  stopping  distances  that  do  not  exceed 
the  stopping  distances  specified  in  Column  IV 
of  Table  I  (S7.8.2). 

55.6  Parking  brake  system.  The  parking  brake 
system  shall  be  capable  of  holding  the  motor- 
cycle, for  5  minutes,  in  both  forward  and  reverse 
directions,  on  a  30  percent  grade,  with  an  applied 
force  of  not  more  than  90  pounds  for  a  foot- 
operated  system,  and  55  pounds  for  hand-oji- 
erated  system  (87.9). 

55.7  Service  brake  system — water  recovery. 

55.7.1  Baseline  check.  The  pedal  and  lever 
forces  used  in  establishing  the  water  recovery 
baseline  check  average  shall  be  within  the  limits 
specified  in  S6.10  (S7.10.1). 

55.7.2  Water  recovery  test.  Each  motorcycle 
shall  be  capable  of  making  five  recovery  stops 
with  a  pedal  force  that  does  not  exceed  90  pounds, 
and  a  hand  lever  force  that  does  not  exceed  55 
pounds,  for  any  of  the  first  four  recovery  stops, 
and  that  for  the  fifth  recovery  stop,  is  within 
plus  20  pounds  and  minus  10  pounds  of  the  base- 
line check  average  force  (S7.10.2). 

55.8  Service  brake  system  design  durability. 
Each  motorcycle  shall  be  capable  of  completing 
all  braking  requirements  of  S5  without  detach- 
ment of  brake  linings   from   the  shoes  or  pad. 


PART  571;  S  122—3 


Effective:  January   1,    1974 


detachment  or  fracture  of  any  brake  system  com- 
ponents, or  leakatje  of  fluid  or  lubricani;  at  the 
wheel  cylinder,  and  master  cylinder  reservoir 
cover,  seal,  or  retention  device  (S7.ll). 

S6  Test  conditions.  The  requirements  of  S5 
shall  be  met  under  the  following  conditions. 
"Where  a  range  of  conditions  is  sisecified,  the 
motorcycle  shall  be  capable  of  meeting  the  re- 
quirements at  all  points  within  the  range. 

56.1  Vehicle  weight.  IVIotorcycle  weight  is 
unloaded  vehicle  weight  plus  200  pounds  (includ- 
ing driver  and  instrumentation),  with  the  added 
weight  distributed  in  the  saddle  or  carrier  if  so 
equipped. 

56.2  Tire  inflation  pressure.  Tire  inflation 
pressure  is  the  pressure  recommended  by  the 
manufacturer  for  the  vehicle  weight  specified  in 
paragraph  S6.1. 

56.3  Transmission.  Unless  otherwise  speci- 
fied, all  stops  are  made  with  the  clutch  disen 
gaged. 

56.4  Engine.  Engine  idle  speed  and  ignition 
timing  settings  are  according  to  the  manufac- 
turer's recommendations.  If  the  vehicle  is 
equipi^ed  with  an  adjustable  engine  speed  gov- 
ernor, it  is  adjusted  according  to  the  manufac- 
turer's recommendation. 

56.5  Ambient  temperature.  The  ambient  tem- 
perature is  between  32°  and  100°  F. 

56.6  Wind  velocity.  The  wind  velocity  is 
zero. 

56.7  Road  surface.  Road  tests  are  conducted 
on  level  roadway  having  a  skid  number  of  75. 
The  roadway  is  8  feet  wide  for  two- wheeled 
motorcycles,  and  overall  vehicle  width  plus  5  feet 
for  three-wheeled  motorcycles. 

56.8  Vehicle  position.  The  motorcycle  is 
aligned  in  the  center  of  the  roadway  at  the  start 
of  each  brake  application.  Stops  are  made  with- 
out any  part  of  the  motorcycle  leaving  the  road- 
way and  without  lockup  of  any  wheel. 

56.9  Thermocouples.  The  brake  temperature 
is  measured  by  plug-type  thermocouples  installed 
in  the  approximate  center  of  the  facing  length 
and  width  of  the  most  heavily  loaded  shoe  or 
disc  pad,  one  per  brake,  as  shown  in  Figure  1. 

56.10  Brake  actuation  forces.  Except  for  the 
requirements  of  the  fifth  recovery  stop  in  S5.4.3 


C&  DRILL  NO  3) 
OOIA    0  100  MAX  DEPTH 
BEFORC  GRIND 


FIGURE  1 

TYPICAL  PLUG  TYPE 
THERMOCOUPLE  INSTALLATIONS 

and  S5.7.2  (S7.6.3  and  S7.10.2)  the  hand  lever 
force  is  not  less  than  five  and  not  more  than  55 
pounds  and  the  foot  pedal  force  is  not  less  than 
10  and  not  more  than  90  pounds.  The  point  of 
initial  application  of  the  lever  forces  is  1.2  inches 
from  the  end  of  the  brake  le\er  grip.  The  direc- 
tion of  the  force  is  perpendicular  to  the  handle 
grip  on  the  plane  along  which  the  brake  lever 
rotates,  and  the  point  of  application  of  the  pedal 
force  is  the  center  of  the  foot  contact  pad  of  the 
brake  pedal.  The  direction  of  the  force  is  per- 
jjendicular  to  the  foot  contact  pad  on  the  plane 
along  which  the  brake  pedal  rotates,  as  shown 
in  Figure  2. 


FIG.  2    DIRECTION  OF  FORCE 


(BRAKE  LEVER) 


IDRAKE  PEDAL 


PART  571;  S  122-^ 


Effective:   January    1,    1974 


S7.  Test  procedures  and  sequence.  Eacli 
'  motorcycle  shall  be  capable  of  meetinjr  all  the 
requirements  of  this  standard  when  tested  accord- 
'm<x  to  the  procedures  and  in  the  sequence  set 
forth  below  without  replacinfr  any  brake  sys- 
tem part,  or  making  any  adjustments  to  the  brake 
system  other  than  as  permitted  in  S7.4.  A  motor- 
cycle shall  be  deemed  to  comply  with  85.2,  S5.3 
and  S5.5  if  at  least  one  of  the  stops  specified 
in  S7.3,  S7.5  and  S7.8  is  made  within  the  stop- 
ping distances  specified  in  Table  I. 

57.1  Braking  warming.  If  the  initial  brake 
temperature  for  the  first  stop  in  a  test  procedure 
(other  than  S7.10)  has  not  been  reached,  heat 
the  brakes  to  the  initial  brake  temperature  by 
making  up  to  10  stops  from  .30  mph  at  a  decelera- 
tion of  not  more  than  10  fpsps.  On  independ- 
ently operated  brake  systems,  the  coldest  brake 
shall  be  within  10°  F.  of  the  hottest  brake. 

57.2  Pretest  instrumentation  check.  Conduct 
a  general  check  of  test  instrumentation  by  mak- 
ing not  more  than  10  stops  from  a  speed  of  not 
more  than  30  mph  at  a  deceleration  of  not  more 
than  10  fpsps.  If  test  instrument  repair,  replace- 
ment,   or    adjustment    is    necessary,    make    not 

I      more  than  10  additional  stops  after  such  repair, 
replacement  or  adjustment. 

57.3  Service  brake  system  -  first  (preburnished) 
effectiveness  test. 

57.3.1  Service  brake  system.  Make  six  stops 
from  30  mph  and  then  six  stops  from  60  mph 
with  an  initial  brake  temperature  between  ISO'"  F. 
and  150°  F. 

57.3.2  Partial    service    brake    system.      For    a 

motorcycle  with  two  independently  actuated  serv- 
ice brake  .systems,  repeat  S7.3.1  using  each  service 
brake  system  individually. 

57.4  Service  brake  system — burnish  procedure. 

Burnish  the  brakes  by  making  200  stops  from 
30  mph  at  12  fpsps.  The  braking  interval  shall 
be  either  the  distance  necassary  to  reduce  the 
initial  brake  temperature  to  between  130°  F.  and 
150°  F.  or  1  mile,  whichever  occurs  first.  Accel- 
erate at  maximum  rate  to  30  mph  immediately 
after  each  stop  and  maintain  that  speed  until 
making  the  next  stop.  After  burnishing  adjust 
the  brakes  in  accordance  with  the  manufacturer's 
recommendation. 


57.5  Service  brake  system — second  effective- 
ness test.  Repeat  S7.3.1.  Then,  make  four  stops 
from  80  mph  and  four  stops  from  the  multiple 
of  5  mph  that  is  4  mph  to  8  mph  less  than  the 
speed  attainable  in  1  mile  if  that  speed  is  95  mph 
or  greater. 

57.6  Service  brake  system — fade  and  recovery 

test.  [These  requirements  do  not  apply  to  a 
motor-driven  cycle  whose  speed  attainable  in  1 
mile  is  30  mph  or  less.  (39  F.E.  32914— Sep- 
tember 12,  1974.     Effective:  10/14/74)] 

57.6.1  Baseline  check  stops.  Make  three  stops 
from  30  mph  at  10  to  11  fpsps  for  each  stop. 
Compute  the  average  of  the  maximum  brake 
pedal  forces  and  the  maximum  brake  lever  forces 
required  for  the  three  stops. 

57.6.2  Fade  stops.  Make  10  stops  from  60 
mph  at  not  less  than  15  fpsps  for  each  stop. 
The  initial  brake  temperature  before  the  first 
brake  application  shall  be  between  130°  F.  and 
150°  F.  Initial  brake  temperatures  before  brake 
applications  for  subsequent  stops  shall  be  those 
occurring  at  the  distance  intervals.  Attain  the 
required  deceleration  as  quickly  as  possible  and 
maintain  at  least  this  rate  for  not  less  than  three- 
fourths  of  the  total  stopping  distance  for  each 
stop.  The  interval  between  the  starts  of  service 
brake  applications  shall  be  0.4  mile.  Drive  1 
mile  at  30  mph  after  the  last  fade  stop  and  im- 
mediately conduct  the  re<;overy  test  specified  in 
S7.6.3. 

57.6.3  Recovery  test.  Make  five  stops  from 
30  mph  at  10  to  11  fpsps  for  each  stop.  The 
braking  interval  shall  not  be  more  than  1  mile. 
Immediately  after  each  stop  accelerate  at  maxi- 
mum rate  to  30  mph  and  maintain  that  speed 
imtil  making  the  next  stop. 

57.7  Service  brake  system — reburnish.  [Re- 
peat S7.4  except  make  35  burnish  stops  instead 
of  200  stops.  Brakes  may  be  adjusted  after  re- 
burnish  if  no  tools  are  used.  These  require- 
ments do  not  apply  to  a  motor-driven  cycle  whose 
speed  attainable  in  1  mile  is  30  mph  or  less. 
(39  F.R.  32914— September  12,  1974.  Effective: 
10/14/74)3 

57.8  Service  brake  system — final  effectiveness 
test.  [These  requirements  do  not  apply  to  a 
motor-driven  cycle  whose  speed  attainable  in  1 


(Rev.   9/6/74) 


PART  571;  S  122—5 


Effective:   January    ],    1974 

mile  is  30  mph  or  less.  (39  F.R.  32914— Sep- 
tember 12,  1974.     Effective:  10/14/74)] 

57.8.1  Service  brake  system.  [Repeat  S7.5 
including  S7.3.1.  (39  F.R.  43075— December  10. 
1974.     Effective:  12/10/7.5)] 

57.8.2  Partial      service      brake      system      test. 

Alter  the  service  brake  system  on  three-wheeled 
motorcycles  to  induce  a  complete  loss  of  brakinp: 
in  any  one  subsystem.  Determine  the  line  pres- 
sure or  pedal  force  necessary  to  cause  the  brake 
system  failure  indicator  to  operate.  Make  six 
stops  from  30  mph  and  then  six  stops  from  60 
mph  with  an  initial  brake  temperature  between 
130°  F.  and  1.50°  F.  Repeat  for  each  subsystem. 
Determine  that  the  brake  failure  indicator  is 
operating  when  the  master  cylinder  fluid  level 
is  less  than  the  level  specified  in  S5.1.3.1(a)  (2), 
and  that  it  complies  with  S5.1.3.1(c).  Check 
for  proper  operation  with  each  reservoir  in  tuni 
at  a  low  level.  Restore  the  service  brake  system 
to  normal  at  completion  of  this  test. 

57.9  Parking  brake  test.  Starting  with  an 
initial  brake  temperature  of  not  more  than 
150°  F.,  drive  the  motorcycle  downhill  on  the 
30  percent  grade  with  the  longitudinal  axis  of 
the  motorcycle  in  the  direction  of  the  grade. 
Apply  the  service  brakes  with  a  force  not  ex- 
ceeding 90  pounds  to  stop  the  motorcycle  and 
place  the  transmission  in  neutral.  Apply  the 
parking  brake  by  exerting  a  force  not  exceeding 
those  specified  in  S5.6.  Release  the  service  brake 
and  allow  the  motorcycle  to  remain  at  rest  for 
5  minutes.  Repeat  the  test  with  the  motorcycle 
parked  in  the  reversed  (uphill)  j^osition  on  the 
grade. 

57.10  Service  brake  system — water  recovery 
test. 

S7.10.1  Baseline  check  stops.  Make  three 
stops  from  30  mph  at  10  to  11  fpsps  for  each 


stop.  Compute  the  average  of  the  maximum 
brake  pedal  forces  and  of  the  maximum  brake 
lever  forces  required  for  the  three  stops. 

S7.10.2  Wet  brake  recovery  stops.  [Com- 
pletely immerse  the  rear  brake  assembly  of  the 
motorcycle  in  water  for  two  minutes  with  the 
brake  fully  released.  Next  completely  immerse  the 
front  brake  assembly  of  the  motorcycle  in  water 
for  two  minutes  with  the  brake  fully  released. 
Perform  the  entire  wetting  procedure  in  not  more 
than  seven  minutes.  Immediately  after  removal 
of  the  front  brake  from  water,  accelerate  at  a 
maximum  rate  to  30  m.p.h.  without  a  brake  appli- 
cation. Immediately  upon  reaching  that  speed 
make  five  stops,  each  from  30  m.p.h.  at  10  to 
11  fpsps  for  each  stop.  After  each  stop  (except 
the  last)  accelerate  the  motorcycle  immediately 
at  a  maximum  rate  to  30  m.p.h.  and  begin  the 
next  stop.  (38  F.R.  14753 — Tune  5,  1973.  Effec- 
tive: 1/1/74)] 

S7.1 1  Final  inspection.  Upon  completion  of 
all  the  tests  inspect  the  brake  system  in  an  as- 
sembled condition,  for  compliance  with  the  brake 
lining  inspection  requirements.  Disassemble  all 
brakes  and  inspect : 

(a)  The  entire  brake  system  for  detachment 
or  fracture  of  any  component. 

(b)  Brake  linings  for  detachment  from  the 
shoe  or  pad. 

(c)  Wheel  cylinder,  master  cylinder,  and  axle 
seals  for  fluid  or  lubricant  leakage. 

(d)  Master  cylinder  for  reservoir  capacity 
and  i-etention  device. 

(e)  Master  cylinder  label  for  compliance  with 
S5.1.2.2. 

37  F.R.  5033 
March    9,     1972 


(Rev.    12/4/74) 


PART  571;  S  122—6 


Effactrva:   StpUmbtr    1,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   123 

Motorcycle  Controls  and  Displays 
(Docket  No.  70-26;  Notice  3) 


This  notice  amends  Part  571  of  Title  49,  Code 
of  Federal  Regulations,  to  add  a  new  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  123  (49  CFR 
§  571.123)  that  establishes  requirements  for 
motorcycle  controls  and  displays.  A  notice  of 
proposed  rulemaking  on  this  subject  was  pub- 
lished on  November  6,  1970  (35  F.R.  17117). 

The  National  Highway  Traffic  Safety  Admin- 
istration estimates  that  over  3,000  accidents  may 
be  avoided  annually  by  specifying  a  uniform 
standard  for  motorcycle  controls  and  displays. 
As  this  agency  commented  in  the  prior  notice; 
"Controls  and  displays  link  the  operator  and  the 
machine,  and  if  there  is  confusion  as  to  their 
location,  interpretation,  or  operation,  a  danger- 
ous situation  may  result.  A  cyclist,  especially 
the  novice  and  the  cyclist  who  has  changed  from 
one  make  of  machine  to  another,  must  not  hesi- 
tate when  confronted  with  an  emergency."  The 
purpose  of  the  new  standard  is  to  minimize 
operator  error  in  responding  to  the  motoring 
environment,  by  standardizing  certain  motor- 
cycle controls  and  displays. 

The  basic  operational  requirement  of  Standard 
No.  123  is  that  handlebar-mounted  controls  be 
operable  throughout  their  full  range  without  the 
operator  removing  his  hand  from  the  handgrip. 
Standard  No.  t^  requires  aH  motorcycles  to 
have  a  supplemental  engine  stop  control,  oper- 
able from  the  right  handlebar,  intended  for  use 
in  emergency  situations.  Notice  of  this  require 
ment  was  proposed  in  Notice  2  to  Docket  No. 
69-20,  Accelerator  Control  Systems  (35  F.R. 
15241).  Standard  No.  123  also  requires  that  if 
any  of  ten  other  specified  equipment  items  are 
provided  on  a  motorcycle,  the  location  and 
method  of  operation  of  the  applicable  control 
shall  be  standardized.  These  items  are :  manual 
clutch    or   integrated   clutch    and   gear   change. 


foot-operated  gear  change,  headlamp  upper- 
lower  beam  control,  horn,  turn  signal  lamps, 
ignition,  manual  fuel  shutoff  control,  twist-grip 
throttle,  front  wheel  brake,  and  rear  wheel 
brakes.  Motorcycles  that  are  designed  and  sold 
exclusively  for  use  by  law  enforcement  agencies 
are  excluded  from  Standard  No.  123,  as  the 
configuration  of  certain  controls  on  such  vehicles, 
necessary  for  law  enforcement  purposes,  differs 
from  that  required  by  the  new  standard.  Pro- 
posals applicable  to  the  instrument  illumination 
intensity  control,  the  electric  starter,  and  the 
kick  starter  have  not  been  adopted  as  insufficient 
correlation  with  motor  vehicle  safety  has  been 
found  for  these  items. 

As  noted  below,  some  of  the  location  and  op- 
erational requirements  that  were  proposed  have 
not  been  adopted  in  the  following  instances 
Otherwise,  the  location  and  operation  of  controls 
are  required  as  proposed. 

1.  Foot-operated  gear  change.  The  likelihood 
of  inadvertent  engagement  of  reverse  gear  has 
been  found  to  be  so  slight  that  a  means  to  pro- 
hibit it  has  not  been  found  necessary.  Further, 
no  requirement  has  been  specified  for  location  of 
neutral  gear.  Under  Proposal  A,  neutral  would 
have  occurred  lowest  in  the  gear  sequence.  Pro- 
posal A  was  not  adopted  because  of  the  likeli- 
hood of  overshooting  low  gear  when  downshift- 
ing, thus  contributing  to  a  possible  loss  of 
control.  In  Proposal  B,  the  transmission  would 
be  put  into  neutral  by  a  rearward  motion  of  the 
operator's  heel  on  a  control  device  separate  from 
the  shift  lever.  This  method  was  not  adopted 
since  it  appears  to  have  no  inherent  safety  ad- 
vantages over  any  other  means  of  finding  neutral. 
The  intent  of  Proposal  B  was  to  ensure  that 
neutral  can  reliably  be  selected  when  desired 
without  being  selected   inadvertently  when  not 


PART  571;  S  123— PRE  1 


Effective:   September    1,    1974 


desired.  The  conventional  neutral  light  may 
serve  as  an  aid  to  such  shifting;  however,  any 
system  which  requires  eye  movements  away  from 
the  road  merely  to  shift  gears  cannot  be  consid- 
ered to  be  an  adjunct  to  safety. 

The  present  standard  does  not  impose  specific 
requirements  for  ease  of  locating  the  gear  posi- 
tion, or  for  protection  against  inadvertent  shift- 
ing into  neutral.  However,  the  Administration 
considers  these  to  be  desirable  objectives  and 
will  consider  amending  the  standard  if  it  ap- 
pears necessary  to  do  so. 

2.  Headlamp  control.  Because  heavy  gloves 
are  needed  for  safe  riding,  only  a  simple  "up  for 
higher  beam,  down  for  lower  beam"  requirement 
has  been  adopted. 

3.  Turn  signal  lamps.  Because  turn  signal 
lamps  are  not  a  required  item  of  motorcycle 
equipment  until  January  1,  1973,  and  the  indus- 
try is  experimenting  with  various  controls, 
Standard  No.  123  specifies  only  that  the  turn 
signal  lamp  control  be  located  on  the  handlebars. 

4.  Ignition:  Because  of  the  adoption  of  the 
requirement  that  motorcycles  be  equipped  with 
a  supplemental  engine  stop  control  on  the  right 
handlebar,  the  need  to  specify  a  location  and 
method  of  operation  for  the  ignition  has  dimin- 
ished. Accordingly,  the  sole  ignition  control 
requirement  is  that  the  "off"  position  be  counter- 
clockwise from  all  other  positions. 

5.  Manual  fue.1  shutofl  control.  The  require- 
ments adopted  do  not  apply  to  automatic  fuel 
shutoff  controls.  No  location  for  a  manual  con- 
trol is  specified.  Based  upon  comments,  revisions 
have  been  made  in  the  direction  of  valve  oper- 
ation. 

Substantial  modifications  have  been  made  as 
well  in  the  display  proposals.  Because  of  the 
limited  range  within  which  displays  can  be  lo- 


cated on  a  motorcycle,  it  has  been  determined  r 
that  no  specific  location  requirements  are  neces- 
sary. Illumination  of  the  neutral  position  and 
the  speedometer  has  been  deemed  essential ;  the 
proposal  that  a  green  lamp  indicate  neutral  po- 
sition has  been  adopted,  and  the  speedometer 
must  be  illuminated  whenever  the  headlamp  is 
activated.  Because  turn  signals  and  upper  beam 
indicators  are  covered  in  Standard  No.  108,  they 
have  been  omitted  from  the  display  illumination 
requirements  of  Standard  No.  123. 

Proposals  for  control  identification,  stands, 
and  passenger  foot-rests  have  been  adopted  sub- 
stantially as  proposed.  Since  operating  instruc- 
tions are  invariably  provided  with  motorcycles, 
the  NHTSA  has  not  adopted  the  proposal  cov- 
ering them. 

Effective  date:  September  1,  1974.  Because 
of  the  leadtime  necessary  for  preparation  for 
production,  it  is  found,  for  good  cause  shown, 
that  an  effective  date  later  than  one  year  after 
the  issue  date  is  in  the  public  interest. 

In   consideration   of  the   foregoing.   Title  49, 
Code    of    Federal    Regulations,    is    amended    by 
adding  §  571.123,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard 
No.   123,  Motorcycle  Controls  and  Displays,  as    \ 
set  forth  below. 

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  April  4, 1972. 

Douglas   W.   Toms 
Administrator 

37  F.R.  7207 
April    12,    1972 


PART  571;  S  123— PRE  2 


EfFccliv*:  S*pt«mb*r   1,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   123 

Motorcycle  Controls  and  Displays 


This  notice  responds  to  petitions  for  recon- 
sideration of  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard 
No.  123  (49  CFR  §571.123)  and  amends  the 
standard  in  minor  respects. 

Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  123, 
establishing  requirements  for  the  location,  op- 
eration, identification,  and  illumination  of 
motorcycle  controls  and  displays,  effective 
September  1,  1974,  was  published  on  April  12, 
1972  (37  F.R.  7207).  Thereafter,  pursuant  to  49 
CFR  §  553.35,  petitions  for  reconsideration  of  the 
rule  were  filed  by  Japan  Automobile  Manufac- 
turers Asociation,  Inc.  ("JAMA"),  Kawasaki 
Motors  Corp.  (Kawasaki),  and  Cushman 
Motors  ("Cushman")  through  counsel.  In  re- 
sponse to  these  petitions  the  standard  is  being 
revised  in  minor  respects.  The  Administrator 
has  declined  to  grant  requested  relief  from  other 
requirements  of  the  standard. 

1.  Manual  juel  shutof  valve.  Standard  No. 
123  requires  that  the  manual  fuel  shutoff  control 
point  downward  when  in  the  "on"  position,  for- 
ward in  the  "off"  position,  and  upward  to  supply 
fuel  from  a  reserve  source  if  one  is  provided. 

JAMA  has  requested  that  the  configuration 
found  on  most  Japanese  motorcycles  be  adopted : 
"off"  with  the  control  position  to  the  left,  "re- 
serve" to  the  right,  and  "on"  downward. 
JAMA's  request  was  originally  made  in  response 
to  the  notice  proposing  control  positions  for  the 
shut-off  valve,  and  was  considered  at  that  time. 
JAMA's  petition  is  denied.  The  NHTSA  has 
determined  that  the  control  should  be  stand- 
ardized by  requiring  its  operation  along  a  longi- 
tudinal rather  than  a  transverse  axis.  In  this 
location  there  is  a  greater  likelihood  that  in  the 
event  of  a  crash,  the  control  will  be  carried  by 
inertia  to  the  off  position,  thereby  shutting  off 
the  fuel. 

JAMA  also  asked  for  an  interpretation  of  the 
words   "control   pointing"  asking  if  the  words 


mean  the  direction  of  a  non-operational  pointer 
indicating  the  off-position,  or  the  direction  of  the 
control  end  operated  by  the  fingers.  "Control 
pointing"  means  the  direction  of  the  control  end 
operated  by  the  fingers.  To  eliminate  this  pos- 
sible ambiguity,  the  word  "pointing"  is  deleted 
from  the  entry  in  Table  I. 

2.  Headlamp  control.  The  NHTSA  requires, 
in  Standard  No.  123,  that  the  upper  headlamp 
beam  be  activated  with  an  upward  motion  of  the 
beam  control,  and  the  lower  beam  by  a  down- 
ward motion.  Kawasaki  has  asked  that  these 
positions  be  reversed.  It  reasons  that  when  the 
left  thumb  is  under  the  handlebar,  the  lower 
beam  control  can  be  more  quickly  activated  with 
an  upward  movement  of  the  thumb,  rather  than 
by  raising  the  thumb  above  the  switch  and  then 
depressing  it.  The  Administration  denies 
Kawasaki's  request,  as  it  is  considered  contrary 
to  good  human  factors  engineering.  Control 
mechanisms  which  are  used  for  increasing  the 
output  of  a  system  are  generally  designed  to  be 
switched  upward  for  higher  intensity. 

3.  Speedometer  graduations.  Both  JAMA 
and  Kawasaki  have  petitioned  for  reconsidera- 
tion of  the  requirement  that  major  and  minor 
graduations  and  numerals  appear  at  the  10  and 
5  mph  intervals  respectively,  alleging  that  op- 
erator confusion  could  be  caused  by  a  clutter  of 
numerals  and  graduations  at  5  mph  intervals. 
The  NHTSA  considers  these  petitions  to  have 
merit  and  is  amending  Standard  No.  123,  to  re- 
quire only  minor  graduations  at  the  5  mph 
intervals. 

4.  Control  identification.  JAMA  has  peti- 
tioned for  an  amendment  of  Table  3  to  eliminate 
identification  of  some  controls  and  to  identify 
only  control  positions.  The  petition  also  re- 
quested abbreviation  of  the  identification  pres- 
ently required.  JAMA  alleges  difficulty  in  pro- 
viding all  the  identification  marks  due  to  lack  of 


PART  571;  S  123— PRE  3 


Effaclive:   September  1,    1974 


space  around  the  handlebar.  It  argues  that  an 
individual  operator  will  not  mistake  one  equip- 
ment item  for  another  on  different  cycles  when 
all  controls  are  uniformly  located  as  specified  by 
Standard  No.  123. 

The  Administration  denies  JAMA's  petition. 
Labeling  control  positions  without  identifying 
the  control  itself  could  confuse  the  novice  motor- 
cyclist and  may  contribute  to  traffic  hazards. 
During  the  initial  learning  stage  the  cyclist  will 
not  be  able  to  identify  controls  by  their  required 
location.  Further,  there  are  no  common  ab- 
breviations with  universal  acceptance  for  the 
controls  mentioned,  viz.,  choke,  starter,  horn,  and 
neutral  indicator. 

JAMA  also  requested  a  clarification  as  to 
whether  control  identification  must  be  indicated 
in  capital  letters.  The  answer  is  no:  use  of 
upper  or  lower  case  lettering  is  at  the  manu- 
facturer's discretion.  Kawasaki  asked  whether 
it  is  permissible  to  add  information  to  the 
tachometer  identification  indicating  that  it 
registers  thousands  of  revolutions  per  minute. 
The  marking  requirements  of  the  standard  are 
minimum  requirements  only,  and  the  NHTSA 
has  no  objection  to  further  identification  of  this 
nature  for  the  tachometer. 

5.  Three-wheeled  motorcycles.  Cushman  man- 
ufactures three-wheeled  motorcycles.  It  alleged 
that  many  of  the  requirements  of  Standard  No. 
123  are  incompatible  with  the  configuration  of  its 
vehicle.  It  requested  that  Standard  No.  123  be 
amended  to  exclude  three-wheeled  motorcycles 
that  are  designed  to  achieve  a  maximum  speed 
no  greater  than  40  mph.  Cushman  raised  a 
number  of  specific  objections  concerning  control 
location  and  operation,  identification,  and  dis- 
plays. In  view  of  the  disposition  of  Cushman's 
petition  it  is  not  necessary  to  discuss  the  objec- 
tions in  detail. 


Cushman's  petition  is  denied  for  the  following 
reasons.  Petitioner  manufactures  two  types  of 
three-wheeled  vehicles,  identical  except  for  steer- 
ing configuration.  One  type  employs  handlebars, 
the  other  a  steering  wheel.  Its  sales  literature 
indicates  that  most  models  manufactured  with 
handlebars  are  intended  for  industrial  applica- 
tions on  private  property,  and  are  not  intended 
to  be  licensed  as  motor  vehicles  for  use  on  the 
public  roads.  The  remaining  models  manufac- 
tured with  handlebars  are  intended  for  police 
use.  Standard  No.  123  does  not  apply  to  this 
type  of  vehicle.  Cushman's  models  intended  for 
street  use  are  equipped  with  the  steering  wheel 
as  standard  equipment.  The  standard  does  not 
apply  to  motorcycles  with  steering  wheels.  A 
denial  of  Cushman's  petition  means  only  that, 
after  September  1,  1974,  three-wheeled  motor- 
cycles for  street  use  may  not  be  sold  with  the 
handlebar  option. 

6.  Miscellaneous.  A  typographical  error  is 
corrected  concerning  the  integrated  clutch  and 
gear  change. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  49  CFR 
§571.123,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No. 
123,  is  revised  ....  Effective  date:  September 
1,  1974,  the  same  effective  date  as  the  standard 
as  previously  issued  (37  F.R.  7207). 

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  August  22, 1972. 


Douglas    W.    Toms 
Administrator 

37   F.R.   17474 
August    29,    1972 


PART  571;  S  123— PRE  4 


Effective:   October   14,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   123 

(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  afforded  an  op- 
portunity to  participate  in  the  makinp;  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  Eobert  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.  Braking 
fade  and  recovery  requirements  also  would  not 
apply  to  these  low-speed  vehicles.  Maximum 
stopping  distances  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  the  proposal,  and 
areas  where  no  standards  currently  exist,  such 
as  motors,  transmissions,  pedals,  and  a  request 
for  exemption  from  Standard  No.  119,  Tires  for 
Vehi<-les  Other  Than  Passenger  Cars.  As  these 
latter  comments  cover  matters  beyond  the  scojje 
of  the  proposal,  this  notice  does  not  discuss  them. 
The  agency,  however,  has  been  formally  peti- 
tioned for  rulemaking  covering  transmissions 
and  Standard  No.  119,  and  will  respond  to  the 
I)etitioners  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,  re- 
ducing the  need  for  forward  lighting  that  is 
currently  required  of  these  vehicles.  Petitioners 
submitted  no  data  justifying  their  request.  Tlie 
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.  Wlien  the 
contract  is  completed  the  agency  will  then  decide 
whether  further  rulemaking  is  warranted. 

The  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  consumers  and  the  consequent  equipment 
requirements  should  continue  to  be  regulated  at 
the  State  level. 


PART  .571;  S  123— PRE  5 


231-088   O  -  77  ■ 


Effective:   October    14,    1974 


The  fact  tliat  the  agency  took  no  action  to 
l)ropose  a  reduction  in  existing  lieacUamp  re- 
quirements for  motor-driven  cycles  was  criticized 
by  several  manufacturers  as  unduly  restrictive 
because  of  the  low  speed  and  power  output  of 
their  vehicles.  No  justification  has  been  shown 
for  such  a  change.  IMotor-driven  cycles  therefore 
must  ha^'e  sufficient  generating  and/or  battery 
caj^acity  to  meet  the  headlamp  requirements. 

There  was  no  substantive  objection  to  the  ac- 
tual proposals  for  omission  of  turn  signals,  re- 
duced stop  lamp  photometries,  relief  from  brake 
fade  requirements,  inclusion  of  maximum  allow- 
able stopping  distances  for  low  speeds,  aiid  rear 
brake  control  placement.  Accordingly,  the 
standards  are  being  amended  in  the  manner 
proposed. 

Standard  Xo.  122  is  also  being  amended  to 
delete  the  final  eifectiveness  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  tlie  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 
ajiply  to  motor-driven  cycles  whose  speed  attain- 
able 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  123— PRE  6 


Effective:   September    1,    1974 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.    123 

Motorcycle  Controls  and   Displays 

(Docket  No.  70-26;   Notice   3) 


51.  Scope.  This  standard  specifies  require- 
ments for  the  location,  operation,  identification, 
and  ilhimination  of  motorcycle  controls  and  dis- 
plays, and  requirements  for  motorcycle  stands 
and  footrests. 

52.  Purpose.  The  purpose  of  this  standard  is 
to  minimize  accidents  caused  by  operator  error 
in  responding  to  the  motoring  environment,  by 
standardizing  certain  motorcycle  controls  and 
displays. 

53.  Application.  This  standard  applies  to 
motorcycles  equipped  with  handlebars,  excej^t 
for  motorcycles  that  are  designed,  and  sold  ex- 
clusively, for  use  by  law  enforcement  agencies. 

54.  Definitions.  "Clockwise"  and  "counter- 
clockwise" mean  opposing  directions  of  rotation 
around  the  following  axes,  as  applicable: 

(a)  The  operational  axis  of  the  ignition  con- 
trol, viewed  from  in  front  of  the  ignition  lock 
opening ; 

(b)  The  axis  of  the  right  handlebar  on  which 
the  twist-grip  throttle  is  located,  viewed  from 
the  end  of  that  handlebar ; 

(c)  The  axis  perpendicular  to  the  center  of 
the  speedometer,  viewed  from  the  operator's 
normal  eye  position. 

55.  Requirements. 

55.1  Each  motorcycle  shall  be  equipped  with 
a  supplemental  engine  stop  control,  located  and 
operable  as  specified  in  Table  I. 

55.2  Each  motorcycle  to  which  this  standard 
applies  shall  meet  the  following  requirements: 

S5.2.1    Control  location  and  operation.     If  any 

item  of  equipment  listed  in  Table  1,  Column  1, 
is  provided,  the  control  for  such  item  shall  be 
located  as  specified  in  Column  2,  and  oj^erable 


as  specified  in  Column  3.  Each  control  located 
on  a  right  handlebar  shall  be  operable  by  the 
operator's  right  hand  throughout  its  full  range 
without  removal  of  the  operator's  right  hand 
from  the  throttle.  Each  control  located  on  a 
left  handlebar  shall  be  operable  by  the  operator's 
left  hand  throughout  its  full  range  without  re- 
moval of  the  operator's  left  hand  from  the  hand- 
grip. If  a  motorcycle  with  an  automatic  clutch 
is  equipped  with  a  supplemental  rear  brake  con- 
trol, the  control  shall  be  located  on  the  left 
handlebar.  If  a  motorcycle  is  equipped  with 
self-propoi'tioning  or  anti-lock  braking  devices 
Titilizing  a  single  control  for  front  and  rear 
brakes,  the  control  shall  be  located  and  operable 
in  the  same  manner  as  a  rear  brake  control. 

55.2.2  Display  illumination   and   operation.      If 

an  item  of  equipment  listed  in  Table  2,  Column 
1,  is  provided,  the  display  for  such  item  shall 
be  visible  to  a  seated  oi>erator  under  daylight 
conditions,  shall  illuminate  as  specified  in  Col- 
umn 2,  and  shall  operate  as  specified  in  Column  3. 

55.2.3  Control    and    display    identification.      If 

an  item  of  equipment  listed  in  Table  3,  Column 
1,  is  provided,  the  control  for  such  item  shall  be 
identified  by  the  word  or  words  shown  in  Column 
2  and  any  corresponding  word  in  Column  3, 
placed  on  or  adjacent  to  the  control. 

Control  positions  shall  be  identified  as  speci- 
fied in  Column  3,  to  signify  the  function  per- 
formed at  that  setting.  The  abbreviations  used 
in  Columns  2  and  3  are  minimum  requirements 
and  appropriate  words  may  be  spelled  in  full. 
Identification  shall  appear  to  the  operator  in  an 
upright  position. 

Functional  identification  need  not  be  provided 
for  equipment  items  with  no  entry  in  Column  3. 


PAET  571;  S  123-1 


EfFecfive:   September    1,    1974 

S5.2.4  Stands.  A  stand  shall  fold  rearward 
and  upward  if  it  contacts  tlie  ground  when  the 
motorcycle  is  moving  forward. 


S5.2.5  Footrests.  Footrests  shall  be  provided 
for  each  designated  seating  position.  Each  foot- 
rest  for  a  passenger  other  than  an  operator  sliall 
fold  rearward  and  upward  when  not  in  use. 


Table  1. — Motorcycle  Control  Location  and  Operation  Requirements 


Equipment  Control 

Location 

Operation 

Column  1 

Column  2 

Colum,n  3 

1. 

Manual  clutch  or  integrated 
clutch  and  gear  change 

Left  handlebar 

Squeeze  to  disengage  clutch. 

2. 

Foot  operated  gear  change 

Left  foot  control 

An  upward  motion  of  the  operator's  toe  shift  trans- 
mission toward  lower  numerical  gear  ratios  (commonly 
referred  to  as  "higher  gears"),  and  a  downward 
motion  toward  higher  numerical  gear  ratios  (common- 
ly referred  to  as  "lower  gears").  If  three  or  more 
gears  are  provided  it  shall  not  be  possible  to  shift 
from  the  highest  gear  directly  to  the  lowest  gear, 
or  vice  versa. 

3. 

Headlamp  upper-lower  beam 

Left  handlebar 

Up  for  upper  beam,  down  for  lower  beam.  If  combined 

control 

with  the  headlight  on-off  switch,  means  shall  be 
provided  to  prevent  inadvertent  actuation  of  the 
"off"  function. 

4. 

Horn 

Left  handlebar 

Push  to  activate. 

5. 

Turn  signal  lamps 

Handlebars 

6. 

Ignition 

"Off — counterclockwise   from   other   positions. 

7. 

Manual  fuel  shutofif  control 

"Off-control  forward,  "On"-control  downward,  "Re- 
serve"  (if  provided)-control  upward. 

8. 

Twist-grip  throttle 

Right  handlebar 

Self-closing  to  idle  in  a  clockwise  direction  after  release 
of  hand. 

9. 

Supplemental  engine  stop 

Right  handlebar 

10. 

Front  wheel  brake 

Right  handlebar 

Squeeze  to  engage. 

11. 

Rear  wheel  brakes 

Right  foot  control  ' 
Left  handlebar  per- 
missible for  motor- 
driven  cycles. 

Depress  to  engage. 

'  See  S5.2.1  for  requirements  for  vehicles  with  a  single  control  for  front  and  rear  brakes,  and  with  a  supplemental 
rear  brake  control. 

1(39  F.R.  32914— September  12,   1974.     Effective:   10/14/74)] 

Table  2. — Motorcycle  Display  Illumination  and  Operation  Requirements 


Display 

Illumination 

Operation 

Column  1 

1.  Speedometer 

2.  Neutral  indication 

Column  2 
Yes 

Green  display  lamp 

Column  S 

The  display  is  illuminated  whenever  the  headlamp  is 
activated. 

The  display  lamp  illuminates  when  the  gear  selector 
is  in  neutral  position. 

(Rev.   9/6/74) 


PART  571;  S  123-2 


Effective:  September   1,    1974 

Table  3. — Motorcycle  Control  and  Display  Identification  Requirements 


Control  and  Display 

Identification  at  Appropriate  Position  of  Control 

Equipment 

Identification 

or  Display 

Column  1 

Column  S 

Column  3 

1. 

Ignition 

Ignition 

Off 

2. 

Supplemental  engine  stop 

Engine  stop 

Off,  run 

3. 

Manual  choke 

Choke 

4. 

Electric  starter 

Start ' 

5. 

Headlamp  upper-lower  beam 
control 

Lights 

Hi,  Lo 

6. 

Horn 

Horn 

7. 

Turn  signal 

Turn 

L,  R 

8. 

Speedometer 

M.P.H. 

M.P.H. 

increase  in 

a  clockwise  direction.   Major  grad- 

uations  and  numerals  appear  at  10  mph  intervals,  mi- 

nor graduations  at 

the   5   mph  intervals.     (37  F.  R. 

17474- 

-August  29, 

1972.  Effective:  9/1/74) 

9. 

Neutral  indicator 

Neutral 

10. 

Upper  beam  indicator 

High  beam 

11. 

Tachometer 

R.P.M. 

12. 

Fuel  tank  shutoff  valve 

Fuel 

Off,  on,  res. 

Required  only  if  electric  starter  is  separate  from  ignition  switch. 


37   F.R.   7207 
April    12,    1972 


(Rev.   8/22/721 


PAKT  571;  S  123-3 


Effective:   September    1,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.    124 
Accelerator  Control  Systems 

(Docket  No.  69-20;   Notice  3) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  establish  a 
new  motor  vehicle  safety  standard  that  specifies 
requirements  for  accelerator  control  systems  of 
passenger  cars,  multi-purpose  passenger  vehicles, 
trucks  and  buses. 

A  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  on  this  sub- 
ject was  published  September  30,  1970  (35  F.R. 
15241).  The  majority  of  comments  received 
supported  the  proposal.  There  were  some  objec- 
tions and  questions,  which  have  been  considered 
in  formulating  the  final  rule. 

In  the  previous  notice,  the  Administrator  in- 
dicated the  importance  of  this  standard  in  re- 
ducing the  number  of  accidents  caused  by 
runaway  engines.  Since  1966,  sixty  recall  cam- 
paigns totalling  over  2.9  million  vehicles  have 
involved  this  problem.  Three  percent  of  all 
complaints  in  the  Administration's  files  have 
reported  malfunctioning  accelerator  or  carbure- 
tor systems.  Because  the  ability  of  a  driver  to 
control  his  vehicle  is  directly  related  to  the 
proper  functioning  of  the  accelerator  control 
system,  it  is  essential  that  this  system  perform 
as  expected,  especially  when  the  driver  removes 
the  actuating  force.  Therefore,  the  standard 
sets  requirements  to  ensure  the  reliability  of 
accelerator  control  systems  over  a  wide  range  of 
driving  conditions.  Each  system  must  include 
two  independent  sources  of  energy  (such  as 
springs)  which  shall  return  the  throttle  to  idle 
upon  the  removal  of  the  actuating  force.  In  the 
case  of  breakage  or  disconnection  in  the  ac- 
celerator system,  the  throttle  shall  return  to  idle 
either  at  the  time  of  breakage  or  at  the  removal 
of  the  actuating  force. 

The  latter  requirement  differs  from  the  NPRM, 
which  mandated  a  return  to  idle  only  when  the 
actuating   force    was    removed.     Industry   com- 


ments raised  valid  objections  to  this  requirement. 
In  some  cases,  if  a  breakage  occurred  and  the 
system  had  to  keep  operating  until  the  driver 
took  his  foot  off  the  pedal,  a  complicated  system 
of  sensors  would  have  to  be  built  into  the  throttle 
which  would  activate  the  redundant  energy 
sources  precisely  at  the  time  of  actual  removal. 
Such  a  device  would  be  too  expensive  for  its 
possible  safety  benefit,  since  the  incidence  of 
accidents  from  engine  loss  of  power  are  minimal 
when  compared  with  runaway  overspeed  statis- 
tics. Manufacturers,  therefore,  have  been  given 
the  option  to  use  either  return-to-idle  mode. 

Although  many  comments  suggested  modifi- 
cation of  the  temperature  range,  the  ambient 
temperature  levels  in  the  NPRM  are  retained. 
A  review  of  meteorological  data  indicates  that 
these  figures  conform  to  possible  driving  condi- 
tions in  various  areas  of  the  United  States. 

There  are  four  other  proposed  requirements 
in  the  NPRM  that  are  not  included  in  the  final 
rule.  These  are  the  300-pound  force  requirement, 
the  coverage  of  automatic  speed  control  systems, 
the  freedom-of-movement  requirement,  and  the 
coverage  of  motorcycles. 

Several  commenters  raised  objections  to  the 
300-pound  overforce,  and  some  asked  for  a  lesser 
force  than  300  pounds.  It  was  found  on  review 
jhat  the  safety  benefits  of  an  overforce  test  has 
not  been  demonstrated  sufficiently  and  the  re- 
quirement has  been  dropped  from  the  rule. 

The  rule  does  not  contain  requirements  for 
automatic  speed  control  devices.  It  was  found 
that  although  nine  recall  campaigns  invohang 
61,176  vehicles  have  concerned  these  devices,  no 
relationship  to  accelerator  overspeed  accidents 
could  be  established  from  automatic  speed  con- 
trols.     Of    the    540   multi-disciplinary   accident 


PART  571;  S  124— PRE  1 


Effective:   September   I,    1973 


reports  that  were  studied  in  formulating  the 
final  rule,  none  mentioned  the  automatic  system. 
The  requirements  of  the  NPRM  reiterated  SAE 
recommendations  that  are  already  used  by  manu- 
facturers. 

The  "freedom-of -movement"  paragraph  raised 
the  objections  of  subjectivity  and  difficulty  of 
implementation.  Enforcement  through  compli- 
ance testing  would  lead  to  controversy  over  the 
imprecise  meaning  of  "necessary  chafing."  It 
appears  that  to  comply  with  the  final  rule,  the 
accelerator  system  will  have  to  be  free  of  exces- 
sive and  unsafe  rubbing  and  friction. 

The  decision  to  eliminate  motorcycles  from  the 
applicability  of  this  standard  is  based  on  the 
fact  that  motorcycles  are  so  different  in  design 
from  the  other  vehicles  covered  that  definitions 
and  failure  modes  are  dissimilar.  Also,  a  safety 
standard  specifically  tailored  for  motorcycle  con- 
trols (Docket  70-26)  will  be  issued  this  year. 

This  issue  of  the  Federal  Register  contains  a 
Notice  of  Proposed  Rule-making  to  amend 
Standard  No.  124  (37  F.R.  7108).  The  proposal 
is  that  the  two  independent  sources  of  energy 
would  return  the  throttle  idle  within  one  half 
second  after  the  removal  of  the  actuating  force 
or  a  breakage  or  disconnection  in  the  accelerator 
control  system. 

This  standard  is  directed  at  the  hazard  caused 
by  a  failure  in  the  accelerator  control  system. 


Those  engine  overspeed  incidents  caused  by 
other  failure  modes  such  as  broken  or  worn  en- 
gine mounts  are  not  addressed  by  this  rulemak- 
ing action.  The  NHTSA  is  presently  developing 
performance  requirements  for  safety  imder  other 
failure  modes. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  Part  571  of 
Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  is 
amended  by  adding  a  new  §  571.124,  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  124,  as  set  forth 
below. 

E-ffective  Date:  September  1,  1973. 

Because  of  the  development  work  and  prepara- 
tion for  production  that  this  standard  will  re- 
quire, it  is  found  that  an  effective  date  later 
than  1  year  from  the  date  of  issuance  is  in  the 
public  interest.  Accordingly,  the  standard  is 
effective  September  1, 1973. 

This  rule  is  issued  under  the  authority  of 
Sections  103  and  119  of  the  National  Traffic  and 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  (15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407) 
and  the  delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51. 

Issued  on  March  31,  1972. 

Douglas  W.   Toms 
Administrator 

37  F.R.  7097 
April    8,    1972 


PART  571;  S  124— ?RE  2 


Effective:  September   1,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.    124 

Accelerator  Control  Systems 
(Docket  No.  «9-20;Notice  5) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  respond  to 
petitions  for  reconsideration  of  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  124  (49  C.F.R.  571.124), 
and  to  amend  the  standard  to  specify  time  re- 
quirements for  the  return  of  a  vehicle's  throttle 
to  the  idle  position. 

On  April  8,  1972  (37  F.R.  7097),  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  124  -was  published, 
establishing  requirements  for  accelerator  control 
systems,  effective  September  1,  1973.  Simul- 
taneously, a  notice  was  published  (37  F.R.  7108) 
proposing  that  when  the  driver  removes  the 
actuating  force  from  the  accelerator  control  or 
in  the  event  of  a  breakage  or  disconnection  in 
the  accelerator  control  system,  the  return  to  idle 
position  shall  occur  within  one-half  second. 

I.  Pursuant  to  49  C.F.R.  553.35,  petitions  for 
reconsideration  of  the  rule  were  filed  by  Alfa 
Romeo,  American  Automobile  Association 
(AAA),  American  Motors  Corporation,  Chrysler 
Corporation,  Diamond  Reo  Trucks,  Incorporated, 
Ford  Motor  Company,  General  Motors  Corpora- 
tion (GM),  International  Harvester  Company, 
Japan  Automobile  Manufacturers  Association 
(JAMA),  Jeep  Corporation,  Jesse  R.  HoUins, 
Mack  Trucks,  Incorporated,  MacMillan  Engi- 
neering Lab,  Motor  Vehicle  Manufacturers  As- 
sociation of  the  United  States,  Incorporated, 
(MVMA)  (formerly  Automobile  Manufacturers 
Association,  Incorporated),  and  Rolls-Royce 
Motors  Limited. 

Favorable  consideration  has  been  granted  to 
some  of  these  petitions,  and  accordingly,  the 
standard  is  being  amended  in  some  minor  re- 
spects. The  Administrator  has  declined  to  grant 
requested  relief  from  other  requirements  of  the 
standard. 


GM  and  Ford  requested  that  vehicles  over 
10,000  pounds  GT\VR  be  exempted  from  the 
standard,  while  Mack  and  Diamond  Reo  re- 
quested an  exemption  for  vehicles  of  26,000  and 
25,000  pounds  or  more  GV\VR,  respectively. 
Petitioners  argued  that  since  these  vehicles  are 
driven  by  professionally  trained  drivers,  are 
equipped  with  engine  governors,  have  a  horse- 
power to  weight  ratio  that  does  not  mandate  a 
fail-safe  requirement,  and  have  not  been  the  sub- 
ject of  a  defect  notification  campaign,  there  is  no 
need  for  the  rule's  applicability. 

The  NHTSA  denies  petitioners'  request. 
Available  information  shows  that  accidents  re- 
sulting from  throttle  failure  do  not  occur  only 
among  the  less  experienced  drivers,  nor  are  they 
diminished  by  the  presence  of  engine  governors 
or  by  changes  in  the  horsepower  to  weight  ratio. 
Further,  these  vehicles  have  been  the  subject  of 
defect  notification  campaigns,  and  accident  re- 
ports submitted  to  the  Bureau  of  Motor  Carrier 
Safety  disclose  that  an  average  of  two  accidents 
occur  per  month  in  which  the  cause  is  attributed 
to  "overspeed  incidents'',  indicating  the  type  of 
failure  the  standard  is  designed  to  eliminate. 

Additionally,  GM  stated  that  the  standard's 
test  requirements  are  not  justified  by  the  possible 
additional  safety  benefit  that  may  accrue.  They 
argued  that  the  only  method  by  which  it  could 
assure  compliance  is  by  immersion  of  the  entire 
vehicle  in  a  low  temperature  cell.  GM  stated 
that  suflScient  facilities  to  conduct  such  tests  on 
all  their  vehicles  are  not  available,  and  even  if 
they  were,  the  test  burden  is  impracticable  be- 
cause of  the  complications  of  determining  where 
over  the  length  of  the  vehicle  the  ambient  tem- 
perature measurements  should  be  taken. 


PART  571;  S  124— PRE  3 


Effective:   September   1,    1973 


The  NHTSA  does  not  view  Standard  No.  124 
as  a  qualification  procedure  by  which  a  manu- 
facturer can  assure  himself  or  his  customers  that 
the  vehicle  now  has  a  fail-safe  system.  The  rule 
is  intended  to  provide  a  minimum  performance 
requirement,  and  does  not  mandate  tliat  assur- 
ances of  being  in  compliance  must  be  made  by 
immersing  the  total  vehicle  in  a  low  temperature 
cell.  Assurances  of  compliance  may  come  from 
other  procedures. 

Several  petitioners  provided  data  showing  that 
it  is  a  common  j^ractice  in  the  automobile  in- 
dustry to  include  the  "throttle  lever"'  or  "actuat- 
ing lever"  as  part  of  the  carburetor.  They  ask 
that  these  devices  be  interpreted  to  be  part  of  the 
fuel  metering  device  so  as  to  afford  them  greater 
freedom  of  design. 

The  NHTSA  agrees  with  this  interpretation. 
The  "throttle  lever"  or  "actuating  lever"  as  de- 
scribed by  the  petitionei's  is  a  component  of  the 
fuel  metering  device. 

Additionally,  several  petitioners  requested  that 
the  definition  of  "idle  position"  be  amended  to 
take  into  consideration  delay  units  or  "dash  pots" 
which  are  frequently  used  on  idle  settings  to 
slow  the  return  of  the  throttle  during  its  last  few 
degrees  of  rotation  to  prevent  stalling  and  exces- 
sive exhaust  emissions.  In  essence,  petitioners 
request  that  the  return  to  idle  time  be  measured 
to  the  point  at  which  the  throttle  first  conies  in 
contact  with  the  delay  unit  or  "dash  pot."  This 
request  is  in  accordance  with  tlie  intended  mean- 
ing of  the  standard.  For  clarification,  the 
NHTSA  is  amending  the  definition  of  "idle  po- 
sition" to  be  the  specific  point  of  throttle  closure 
at  which  the  throttle  first  comes  in  contact  with 
an  engine  idle  speed  control  device. 

Mack  and  Alfa  Romeo  petitioned  that  "hand 
throttles"  and  throttle  positioners  be  specifically 
excluded  from  the  definition  of  "idle  position". 
Petitioners  stated  that  in  the  event  such  a  device 
is  used  a  return  to  the  preset  throttle  position 
occurs  upon  release  of  the  driver-operated  ac- 
celerator control  system.  This  request  is  granted. 
If  a  driver  chooses  to  raise  the  lowest  engine 
speed  threshold  by  the  use  of  a  throttle  position- 
ing device,  the  throttle  should  return  to  that  new 
position  within  the  same  time  requirements  speci- 
fied in  section  S5..3.     Accordingly,  the  NHTSA 


is  amending  the  definition  of  "idle  position"  to 
provide  for  the  use  of  throttle  positioners. 

JAMA  requested  that  the  engine  warm-up 
jirovisions  for  cold  temperatures  be  clarified,  so 
that  it  would  be  possible  to  conduct  tests  "after 
warming  up  the  engine  according  to  the  manu- 
facturer's recommendation."  Standard  No.  124 
is  silent  as  to  engine  warm-up,  and  states  only 
"when  the  engine  is  running"  as  a  condition  for 
the  test.  Although  the  advantages  of  following 
the  manufacturer's  warm-up  procedures  are  rec- 
ognized, it  is  felt  that  in  most  instances  the  driv- 
ing public  does  not  adhere  to  those  recommenda- 
tions. Therefore,  to  afford  the  driving  public  as 
broad  a  coverage  of  the  rule  as  is  possible, 
JAMA's  petition  is  denied. 

AAA  and  Chrysler  petitioned  for  an  amend- 
ment of  the  ambient  temperature  range.  AAA 
urged  that  since  colder  temperatures  are  com- 
monplace in  Alaska  and  that  hotter  temperatures 
are  used  by  vehicle  manufacturers  to  test  fuel 
system  control  devices,  a  more  severe  temperature 
range  should  be  established.  Chrysler  stated 
that  the  minus  40  degree  figure  exceeds  automo- 
tive practice  by  30  degrees  and  asked  that  a 
performance  level  of  minus  10  degrees  be  estab-  ( 
lished. 

In  determining  the  temperature  limits  to  be 
used,  the  NHTSA  attempted  to  provide  motor 
vehicle  safety  without  establishing  impracticable 
design  goals.  Weather  data  discloses  that  al- 
though temperatures  of  minus  40  degrees  Fah- 
renheit are  encountered  in  many  parts  of  the 
United  States,  colder  temperatures  are  unusual. 
For  this  reason,  minus  40  degrees  Fahrenheit 
was  determined  to  be  the  lowest  temperature 
consistent  with  the  needs  of  motor  vehicle  safety. 
Conversely,  vehicle  operations  in  temperatures 
exceeding  125  degrees  Fahrenheit  are  also  un- 
usual. Accordingly,  it  was  determined  that  tem- 
perature limits  of  minus  40  degrees  to  plus  125 
degrees  Fahrenheit  will  allow  for  most  climatic 
conditions  encountered  in  the  United  States. 
The  petitions  are  therefore  denied. 

Several  petitioners  asked  for  an  interpretation 
of  the  phrase  "The  system  shall  include  at  least 
two  sources  of  energy"  in  section  S5.1  and 
whether  it  includes  energy  sources  attached  to 
the    fuel    metering   service.      Petitioners    stated 


PART  571 ;  S  124— PRE  4 


Effaetlvt:  S*pl«mb*r  1,   1973 


that  a  strict  interpretation  would  cause  excessive 
design  restrictions.  If  a  return  spring  attached 
to  the  fuel  metering  device  is  capable  of  return- 
ing the  throttle  to  its  idle  position  after  the  fail- 
ure of  other  energy  sources,  it  meets  the  intent 
of  the  standard  and  should  not  be  disallowed. 
Accordingly,  paragraph  S5.1  is  amended  by  re- 
placing the  phrase  "The  system  shall  include  at 
least  two  sources  of  energy"  with  "There  shall 
be  at  least  two  sources  of  energy". 

JAMA  asked  whether,  if  a  system  includes 
three  or  more  springs,  each  spring  must  be  inde- 
pendently capable  of  returning  the  throttle  to 
the  idle  position.  They  argued  that  a  system 
could  still  remain  adequately  fail-safe  as  long 
as  the  other  springs  operating  together  can  meet 
the  requirements.  The  intent  of  paragraph  S5.1 
is  to  eliminate  the  driver's  dependence  on  a 
single  accelerator  return  spring.  The  NHTSA 
concurs  with  JAMA's  conmients  and  is  amending 
paragraph  S5.1  to  make  it  clear  that  independent 
capability  of  return  springs  is  not  required  if 
remaining  energy  sources  are  collectively  capable 
of  returning  the  throttle  to  the  idle  position. 

The  standard  as  issued  required  that  the  throt- 
tle return  to  the  idle  position  "whenever  any 
element  of  the  accelerator  control  system  becomes 
disconnected  or  broken."  Several  petitioners 
seek  an  interpretation  of  this  wording.  GM 
suggested  that  a  disconnection  or  breakage  within 
the  driver-operated  accelerator  control  system 
was  the  only  failure  mode  addressed  by  the 
standard.  Ford  asked  whether  the  requirement 
was  intended  to  cover  failures  caused  by  bending, 
twisting,  jamming,  or  introduction  of  foreign 
matter.  The  NHTSA's  intent  is  to  assure  safety 
under  conditions  of  a  single  failure  due  only  to 
a  severing  or  disconnection  in  the  accelerator 
control  system.  To  clarify  this  interpretation, 
the  NHTSA  is  changing  the  word  "breakage" 
to  "severance"  in  paragraph  Si,  and  the  word 
"broken"  to  "severed"  in  the  first  sentence  of 
paragraph  S5.2.  Further,  the  phrase  "whenever 
any  element  of  the  accelerator  control  system" 
is  changed  to  "whenever  any  one  component  of 
the  accelerator  control  system"  for  purposes  of 
clarification. 

Ford  and  JAMA  petitioned  that  the  effective 
date  of  the  standard  be  delayed  one  year.    Peti- 


tioners stated  that  additional  time  was  necessary 
to  allow  for  the  creation  and  confirmation  of 
design  changes  and  to  resolve  any  conflicts  with 
emission  control  requirements. 

The  NHTSA  considers  the  complexity  of  the 
requirements  of  standard  No.  124  to  be  minimal 
and  has  granted  relief  on  several  issues  effecting 
design  time,  and  therefore  sees  no  justification 
for  delaying  the  effective  date  of  the  standard. 
The  petitions  are  denied. 

II.  On  April  8,  1972  (37  F.R.  7108)  a  notice 
was  published  proposing  that  when  the  driver 
removes  the  actuating  force  from  the  accelerator 
control  or  in'  the  event  of  a  breakage  or  discon- 
nection in  the  accelerator  control  system,  the  re- 
turn to  idle  position  shall  occur  within  one-half 
second.  Available  information  indicates  that  in 
most  instances  the  time  for  driver  reaction  from 
the  accelerator  control  pedal  to  the  brake  is  ap- 
proximately one-half  second,  and  this  time  was 
chosen  for  the  proposal.  In  response  to  the 
notice,  many  commentors  objected  to  the  one-half 
second  proposal  and  stated  that  it  did  not  ade- 
quately take  into  consideration  the  viscous  nature 
of  lubricants  in  extremely  cold  temperatures  and 
the  impracticability  of  this  time  requirement  for 
the  very  large  systems  in  heavy  trucks  and  buses. 
The  NHTSA  recognizes  the  validity  of  these  ob- 
jections, and  allowances  have  accordingly  been 
made  for  extreme  low  temperature.  An  idle 
time  of  3  seconds  is  established  for  any  vehicle 
tested  or  conditioned  in  ambient  air  of  0  degrees 
Fahrenheit  or  colder. 

Large  systems,  similar  to  those  used  on  rear- 
engine  buses,  have  sufficient  mass  and  friction  to 
preclude  the  possibility  of  compliance  with  the 
one-half  second  proposal,  unless  very  high  spring 
forces,  which  would  require  large  changes  in 
pedal  forces,  are  used.  Several  commentators 
stated  that  tests  for  conformity  with  the  pro- 
posed requirements  show  that  compliance  would 
be  possible  if  the  maximum  time  were  extended 
to  2  seconds.  The  NHTSA  finds  these  comments 
to  have  merit,  and  2  seconds  is  established  as  the 
maximum  return  time  for  vehicles  with  a  GVWR 
over  10,000  pounds. 

Many  comments  pertaining  to  passenger  car 
systems  stated  that  the  one-half  second  proposed 
is   too  severe  a   requirement.     One  commentor 


PART  671;  S  124— PRE  5 


EffacHve:  September  1,   1973 

stated  that  extra  time  will  be  required  if  one  of 
the  return  energy  sources  fails.  It  was  pointed 
out  that  precedent  for  an  extra  allowance  can 
be  found  in  the  dual  braking  system  requirement, 
which  allows  added  distance  for  stopping  when 
half  the  system  has  failed.  The  accelerator 
standard,  however,  does  not  deal  with  a  mech- 
anism with  the  same  redundancy  as  the  braking 
system  and  it  is  felt  that  the  maximum  time 
selected  should  allow  for  the  possibilitj'  of  one 
energy  source  failing. 

There  are  a  large  number  of  models  and  engine 
sizes  in  the  passenger  car  industry,  and  a  large 
number  of  variety  of  accelerator  control  systems 
are  designed  and  built  each  year.  One  com- 
mentor  suggested  that  "...  a  one  second  time 
limit  would  considerably  increase  design  op- 
tions .  .  ."  and  "presently  accepted  pedal  feel  can 
be  retained.  .  .  ."  Accordingly,  one  second  has 
been  decided  upon  as  having  the  qualities  of 
providing  a  reasonable  maximum  time  for  com- 
pliance testing  of  vehicles  of  10,000  pounds  or 
less  GVWE  at  temperatures  above  0  degrees 
Fahrenheit. 


In  response  to  questions  raised  by  several  pe- 
titioners, "ambient  temperature  is  defined  as  the 
surrounding  air  temperature,  at  a  distance  such 
that  it  is  not  significantly  affected  by  heat  from 
the  vehicle  under  test.  The  definition  contrasts 
the  ambient  temperature,  intended  to  simulate  a 
general  outdoor  temperature,  from  temperatuies 
under  the  hood  or  otherwise  in  close  proximity 
to  the  vehicle. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  49  CFK 
571.124,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  124, 
is  revised  to  read  as  set  forth  below. 

Effective  date:  September  1, 1973. 

This  rule  is  issued  under  the  authority  of  sec- 
tions 103  and  119  of  the  National  Traffic  and 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  (15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407) 
and  the  delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFK  1.51. 


Issued  on  September  20,  1972. 


Douglas  W.  Toms 
Administrator 

37  F.R.  20033 
September  23,  1972 


PART  571;  S  124— PRE  6 


Effective:  September   ),    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   124 

Accelerator  Control  Systems 
(Docket  No.  69-20;   Notire  6) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  respond  to 
petitions  for  rulemakinfr  to  amend  and  petitions 
for  reconsideration  of  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  124  (49  CFR  571.124). 

On  September  23,  1972  (37  F.R.  20033),  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  124  was  published 
specifying-  time  requirements  for  the  return  of  a 
vehicle's  throttle  to  the  idle  position.  Pursuant 
to  49  CFR  553.35,  petitions  for  reconsideration 
were  filed  by  Japan  Automobile  Manufacturers 
Association,  Inc.  (JAMA)  and  Volkswagen  of 
America,  Inc.  Additionally,  pursuant  to  49  CFR 
553.31,  a  petition  for  rulemaking  to  amend  the 
standard  was  filed  by  the  Ford  Motor  Company. 

Favorable  consideration  has  been  granted  to 
some  of  the  requests  and  accordingly,  the  stand- 
ard is  being  amended  in  some  minor  respects. 
The  Administrator  has  declined  to  grant  re- 
quested relief  from  other  requirements  of  the 
standard. 

Volkswagen  requested  that  the  test  require- 
ments for  cold  temperatures  be  clarified,  in  order 
to  determine  whether  it  is  possible  to  use  supple- 
mentary starting  devices  and  to  "pump"  the  ac- 
celerator control  pedal  during  and  after  the 
presoak  and  prior  to  the  test.  The  advantages 
of  using  supplementary  devices  and  warmup  pro- 
cedures are  recognized,  but  in  many  instances, 
the  driving  public  either  does  not  adhere  to  the 
manufacturer's  recommended  warmup  procedures 
or  uses  other  procedures.  The  intent  of  the  stand- 
ard is  to  afford  the  driving  public  as  broad  a 
coverage  of  the  rule  as  is  possible,  by  simulating 
as  closely  as  possible  actual  conditions.  Accord- 
ingly, for  purposes  of  testing  compliance  the 
engine  may  be  started  by  the  use  of  any  supple- 
mentary starting  devices  and  procedures  except 
those  which  would  induce  the  vehicle  into  mo- 
tion by  the  application  of  an  external  force. 


Volkswagen  also  asked  the  NHTSA  to  define 
the  speed  at  which  the  accelerator  pedal  is  "to  be 
released"  to  mark  the  beginning  of  the  test 
determining  the  return  of  the  throttle  to  idle 
position.  The  agency's  intent  is  to  provide  pro- 
tection in  the  variety  of  situations  that  may  be 
encountered  on  the  road.  The  vehicle,  therefore, 
must  be  capable  of  meeting  the  requirements  no 
matter. how  rapidly  or  slowly  the  driver's  foot 
is  lifted  from  the  pedal.  The  actuating  force 
actually  is  not  "removed"  from  the  pedal  until 
the  foot  is  no  longer  in  contact  with  it,  so  the 
measured  time  period  for  throttle  return  does 
not  begin  until  the  instant  when  the  foot  leaves 
the  pedal. 

Further,  Volkswagen  asked  the  NHTSA  to  de- 
fine a  "running  engine."  Volkswagen  stated 
that  during  cold  testing  an  engine  could  start, 
run  for  approximately  6  seconds,  and  then  stall. 
Volkswagen  theorized  that  it  would  be  possible  to 
have  an  accelerator  system  fail  the  test  require- 
ments during  this  6-second  interval,  although  the 
engine  would  be  incapable  of  causing  a  safety 
problem.  The  phrase  "engine  running"  defines 
a  condition  without  which  throttle  return  to  idle 
position  has  no  significance.  The  intent  of  the 
standard  is  to  prevent  any  safety  problems 
caused  by  faulty  throttle  return  over  a  broad 
range  of  operating  circumstances  and  tempera- 
ture conditions.  The  condition  of  a  running  en- 
gine, regardless  of  torque  produced,  is  a  clearly 
definable  point  at  which  a  safety  problem  could 
begin  to  occur.  Therefore,  the  vehicle  must  be 
capable  of  meeting  the  requirements  whenever 
the  engine  is  rotating  without  the  application  of 
any  external  force. 

JAMA  requested  that  the  time  requirements 
for  maximum  return  to  idle  position  when  tested 
in  temperatures  between  0  and  minus  40  degrees 


PART  571;  S  124— PRE  7 


EffecHva:   September   1,    1973 


Fahrenheit  be  applied  "only  when  there  is  no 
failure  of  the  source  of  energy  and  no  disconnec- 
tion or  severance  of  components."  JAMA  stated 
that  in  order  for  a  system  to  meet  the  time  re- 
quirements of  the  rule  during  cold  testing,  the 
"required  pedal  effort  would  be  increased  to  an 
extent  that  would  not  be  acceptable  to  the  or- 
dinary driver."  In  its  earlier  comments  to  Notice 
3,  (37  F.R.  7097),  JAMA  stated  that  if  each 
energy  source  was  independently  required  to  re- 
turn the  throttle  to  idle  within  the  specified  time 
requirements,  increased  pedal  forces  would  be 
necessary.  In  response  to  this  comment  and  to 
allow  a  manufacturer  design  freedom,  the  stand- 
ard was  amended  by  Notice  5,  (37  F.R.  20033), 
to  specify  that  independent  capability  of  energy 
sources  to  return  the  throttle  to  idle  position  was 
not  required.  The  amendment  also  gave  an  addi- 
tional time  allowance  for  return  to  idle  position 
for  vehicles  tested  or  conditioned  in  cold  tem- 
peratures. Based  on  these  factors  and  on  the 
comments  received  from  other  manufacturers,  this 
agency's  position  is  that  the  standard  provides 
enough  latitude  for  a  manufacturer  to  feasibly 
meet  the  pedal  force  requirements  and  the  time  re- 
quirements for  return  to  idle,  even  if  there  is  a 
failure  of  one  source  of  energy  or  a  severance  or 
disconnection  occurs.  The  petition  is  therefore 
denied. 

Ford  pointed  out  that  under  the  requirements 
section,  S5.1  states  that,  "There  shall  be  at  least 
two  sources  of  energy"  and  that  this  seemed  at 
variance  with  the  intent  expressed  in  the  pre- 
amble to  Notice  5  that  energy  sources  do  not  have 
to  be  contained  in  the  accelerator  control  system. 
To  further  clarify  the  intent  expressed  in  Notice 
5,  the  phrase  in  S.5  "The  vehicle  shall  be  equipped 


with  a  driver-operated  accelerator  control  system 
that  meets  the  following  requirements"  is  changed 
to  "The  vehicle  shall  meet  the  following  re- 
quirements .  .  .  ." 

Ford  also  asked  for  a  clarification  of  the  word 
"failure"  in  S5.1.  Ford  stated  that  the  word 
was  ambiguous  in  that  it  would  allow  for  ab- 
normal operating  conditions  outside  the  scope 
of  the  standard's  intent  to  assure  safety  under 
conditions  of  a  single  failure  due  to  a  severance 
or  disconnection  in  the  system.  To  clarify  the 
standard's  intent,  the  phrase  in  S5.1  which  states 
tliat,  "In  the  event  of  failure  of  one  source  of 
energy  the  remaining  source  or  sources  shall  be 
capable  of  returning  the  throttle"  is  changed  to 
"In  the  event  of  failure  of  one  source  of  energy 
by  a  single  severance  or  disconnection,  the  throttle 
shall  return  .  .  .  ." 

Further,  in  the  first  sentence  of  S5.2  the  word 
"becomes"  is  changed  to  "is"  and  the  phrase  "at 
a  single  point"  is  added  to  the  end  of  the  sentence 
to  clarify  this  meaning. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  49  CFR 
571.124,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  124, 
is  revised  to  read  as  set  forth  below. 

Effective  date :  September  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  January  24,  1973. 

Douglas  W.  Toms 
Administrator 

38  F.R.  2980 
January  31,  1973 


PART  571:  S  124^PRE  8 


Effective:  September   1,    1973 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   124 
ACCELERATOR  CONTROL  SYSTEMS 


(Docket  No.  69-20;  Notice  3) 


51.  Scope.  This  standard  establishes  require- 
ments for  the  return  of  a  vehicle's  throttle  to  the 
idle  position  when  the  driver  removes  the  ac- 
tuating force  from  the  accelerator  control,  or  in 
the  event  of  a  severance  or  disconnection  in  the 
accelerator  control  system. 

52.  Purpose.  The  purpose  of  this  standard  is 
to  reduce  deaths  and  injuries  resulting  from 
engine  overspeed  caused  by  malfunctions  in  the 
accelerator  control  system. 

53.  Apiclication.  This  standard  applies  to 
passenger  cars,  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles, 
trucks,  and  buses. 

54.  Definitions. 

S4.1  "Driver-operated  accelerator  control  sys- 
tem" means  all  vehicle  components,  except  the 
fuel  metering  device,  that  regulate  engine  speed 
in  direct  response  to  movement  of  the  driver- 
operated  control  and  that  return  the  throttle  to 
the  idle  position  upon  release  of  the  actuating 
force. 

"Fuel  metering  device"  means  the  carburetor, 
or  in  the  case  of  certain  engines,  the  fuel  in- 
jector, fuel  distributor,  or  fuel  injection  pump. 

"Throttle"  means  the  component  of  the  fuel 
metering  device  that  connects  to  the  driver- 
operated  accelerator  control  system  and  that  by 
input  from  the  driver-operated  accelerator  con- 
trol system  controls  the  engine  speed. 

["Idle  position"  means  the  position  of  the 
throttle  at  which  it  first  comes  in  contact  with 
an  engine  idle  speed  control  appropriate  for 
existing  conditions  according  to  the  manufac- 
turers' recommendations.  These  conditions  in- 
clude, but  are  not  limited  to,  engine  speed 
adjustments   for  cold  engine,   air  conditioning, 


and  emission  control,  and  the  use  of  throttle 
setting  devices.  (37  F.K.  20033— September  23, 
1972.    Effective:  9/1/73)] 

["Ambient  teniperature"  means  the  surround- 
ing air  temperature,  at  a  distance  such  that  it  is 
not  significantly  affected  by  heat  from  the  ve- 
hicle under  test.  (37  F.R.  20033— September  23, 
1972.    Effective:  9/1/73)] 

S4.2  In  the  case  of  vehicles  powered  by  elec- 
tric motors,  the  word  "throttle"  and  "idle"  refer 
to  the  motor  speed  controller  and  motor  shut- 
down, respectively. 

S5.  Requirements.  [The  vehicle  shall  meet  the 
following  requirements  when  the  engine  is  run- 
ning under  any  load  condition,  and  at  any  am- 
bient temperature  between  minus  40°  Fahrenheit 
and  plus  125"  Fahrenheit  after  12  hours  of  con- 
ditioning at  any  temperature  within  that  range. 
(38  F.R.  2980— January  31,  1973.  Effective: 
9/1/73)] 

55.1  [There  shall  be  at  least  two  sources  of 
energy  capable  of  returning  the  throttle  to  the 
idle  position  within  the  time  limit  specified  by 
S5.3  from  any  accelerator  position  or  speed  when- 
ever the  driver  removes  the  opposing  actuating 
force.  In  the  event  of  failure  of  one  source  of 
energy  by  a  single  severance  or  disconnection, 
the  throttle  shall  return  to  the  idle  position 
within  the  time  limits  specified  by  S5.3,  from 
any  accelerator  position  or  speed  whenever  the 
driver  removes  the  opposing  actuating  force.  (38 
F.R.  2980— January  31, 1973.  Effective:  9/1/73)] 

55.2  [The  throttle  shall  return  to  the  idle  po- 
sition from  any  accelerator  position  or  any  speed 
of  which  the  engine  is  capable  whenever  any  one 
component  of  the  accelerator  control  system  is 
disconnected  or  severed  at  a  single  point.     The 


(Rev.    1/24/73) 


PART  571;  S  124-1 


Effactiv*:   Septembar   1,    1973 

return  to  idle  shall  occur  within  the  time  limit 
specified  by  S5.3,  measured  either  from  the  time 
of  severance  or  disconnection  or  from  the  first 
removal  of  the  opposing  actuating  force  by  the 
driver.  (38  F.R.  2980— January  31,  1973.  Ef- 
fective: 9/1/73)3 

|[S5.3  Except  as  provided  below,  maximum 
time  to  return  to  idle  position  shall  be  1  second 
for  vehicles  of  10,000  pounds  or  less  GVWE,  and 


2  seconds  for  vehicles  of  more  than  10,000  pounds 
GVWR.  Maximum  time  to  return  to  idle  posi- 
tion shall  be  3  seconds  for  any  vehicle  that  is 
exposed  to  ambient  air  at  0  to  minus  40  degrees 
Fahrenheit  during  the  test  or  for  any  portion  of 
the  12-hour  conditioning  period.  (37  F.R. 
20033— September  23,  1972.    Effective:  9/1/73)] 

37  F.R.  7097 
April    8,    1972 


r 


IR*v.    1/24/731 


PART  571;  S  124r-2 


Effactiv*:  January   1,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   125 

Warning  Devices 


The  purpose  of  this  amendment  to  Part  571 
of  Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  is  to 
add  a  new  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No. 
125  (49  CFR  §571.125)  that  would  establish 
shape,  size,  and  performance  requirements  for 
warning  devices  that  do  not  have  self-contained 
energy  sources.  The  devices  are  carried  in  motor 
vehicles  and  are  erected  to  alert  approaching 
motorists  to  the  presence  of  a  disabled  vehicle. 

A  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  on  this  sub- 
ject was  published  on  November  11,  1970  (36 
F.R.  17350).  The  comments  received  in  response 
to  the  notice  have  been  considered  in  this  issu- 
ance of  a  final  rule. 

As  noted  in  the  proposed  rule,  the  standard 
will  supplement  the  vehicular  hazard  warning 
signal  lamps  required  by  F.M.V.S.S.  No.  108, 
Lamps,  Refective  Devices^  and  Associated  Equip- 
ment, in  minimizing  the  likelihood  of  rear  end 
collisions  between  oncoming  traffic  and  disabled 
vehicles. 

The  standard  is  issued  as  an  equipment  stand- 
ard and  establishes  requirements  only  for  warn- 
ing devices  which  do  not  have  self-contained 
energy  sources.  Because  provision  of  warning 
devices  in  new  vehicles  is  optional,  the  instruc- 
tions regarding  the  number  of  devices  to  be  used 
are  recommendations,  rather  than  requirements, 
and  the  storage  location  requirement  is  deleted. 

The  standard  requires  that  the  device  be  bi- 
directional, lowers  the  minimum  length  of  the 
triangle  legs,  and  increases  the  permissible  devi- 
ation from  a  vertical  plane  for  the  triangle  when 
the  device  is  placed  on  the  road.  It  reduces  the 
required  minimum  candlepower  of  the  red  reflec- 
tive material  and  raises  the  luminance  require- 
ment for  the  orange  fluorescent  material.  It  also 
adds  definitions  of  "reflex  reflective,"  deletes  one 
of  the  two  definitions  of  the  colors  "red"  and 
"orange,"  and  deletes  one  of  the  two  reflectivity 


requirements.  With  respect  to  the  conditioning 
requirements,  the  standard  lowers  the  high  tem- 
perature requirement. 

Several  of  the  comments  submitted  by  foreign 
motor  vehicle  manufacturers  stated  that  the 
warning  device  should  conform  to  the  recom- 
mendations of  international  advisory  groups. 
The  Economic  Commission  of  Europe  (E.C.E.), 
a  United  Nations-sponsored  council  of  which 
twenty-six  nations,  including  the  United  States, 
are  members,  is  in  the  process  of  developing 
specifications  for  warning  triangles  to  be  ratified 
by  national  governments.  The  NHTSA  has 
adopted  most  of  the  proposed  E.C.E.  require- 
ments with  the  exception  of  the  minimum 
candlepower  requirement  for  wide  angle  posi- 
tioning of  tKe  device.  The  NHTSA  has  deter- 
mined that  a  lower  minimum  candlepower  than 
that  required  by  the  E.C.E.  provides  adequate 
protection  and  is  a  more  realistic  reflection  of 
the  state  of  the  art. 

Comments  from  the  domestic  automobile  in- 
dustry objecting  to  mandatory  provision  of 
warning  devices  stated  that  available  informa- 
tion does  not  justify  the  additional  cost  of  sup- 
plying them  in  new  vehicles.  The  NHTSA  has 
concluded  that  it  is  necessary  to  collect  further 
data  regarding  effectiveness  of  warning  devices 
and  frequ^cy  of  use  by  consumers  so  that  more 
accurate  cost-benefit  analyses  may  be  made.  For 
these  reasons,  the  provision  of  warning  devices 
has  been  made  optional  by  issuing  an  equipment 
standard. 

Numerous  manufacturers  of  fusees  submitted 
comments  which  described  the  merits  of  fusees 
and  concluded  that  the  proposed  rule  would  pro- 
hibit the  use  of  fusees.  Neither  the  rule  as  issued 
nor  the  proposed  rule  applies  to  devices  which 
have  a  self-contained  energy  source,  such  as 
fusees,   flare   pots,  and  electric  lanterns.     Thus 


PART  571;  S  125— PRE  1 


231-088   O  -  77  -  49 


Effective:   January    1,    1974 


these  devices  may  continue  to  be  used  as  an 
alternative  or  a  supplement  to  the  device  de- 
scribed in  the  standard. 

Numerous  comments  from  private  citizens  and 
State  officials  expressed  concern  that  the  required 
triangular  shape  of  the  warning  device  would 
prohibit  the  triangular  Slow  Moving  Vehicle 
emblem  currently  used  on  many  motor  vehicles. 
Other  comments  supported  the  use  of  the  tri- 
angular device  because  the  triangular  shapes 
would  be  used  for  similar  purposes,  to  alert 
oncoming  traffic  that  a  reduction  of  speed  is 
necessary  due  to  a  vehicle  ahead.  The  Admin- 
istration supports  the  dual  use  of  the  triangular 
symbol  and  it  is  intended  that  the  warning  de- 
vice and  the  Slow  Moving  Vehicle  emblem  be 
complementary.  As  discussed  in  the  notice  of 
proposed  rulemaking,  State  laws  regarding  slow 
moving  vehicle  emblems  would  be  preempted  by 
the  standard  only  to  the  extent  that  they  forbid 
the  use  of  the  triangular  warning  device  intended 
by  the  standard. 

Many  comments  recommended  that  the  warn- 
ing device  be  bi-directional  in  order  to  eliminate 
the  possibility  of  placing  the  warning  device 
with  the  non-reflective  side  facing  oncoming 
traffic.  It  was  pointed  out  that  the  increased 
cost  of  a  bi-directional  device  over  a  unidirec- 
tional device  would  be  minimal  relative  to  the 
safety  benefits  provided.  The  NHTSA  agrees, 
and  accordingly  the  standard  as  issued  requires 
the  device  to  be  bi-directional. 

Some  commenters  felt  that  the  motorist  would 
subject  himself  to  an  additional  safety  hazard 
in  placing  the  device  approximately  100  feet  be- 
hind the  vehicle.  Some  suggested  that  the  device 
be  placed  either  on  top  of  the  vehicle  or  be  cap- 
able of  attaching  to  a  window  frame.  While  it 
is  of  course  true  that  walking  in  a  roadway  can 
be  hazardous,  in  the  judgment  of  the  NHTSA 
this  risk  is  outweighed  by  the  safety  benefits  of 
positioning  the  device  at  a  distance  behind  the 
vehicle.  Such  positioning  provides  a  greater 
distance  over  which  oncoming  traffic  can  recog- 
nize and  respond  to  the  warning  and  thus  affords 
greater  protection  to  the  disabled  vehicle. 

Figures  3  through  9  indicating  recommended 
jpositioning  of  warning  devices  have  been  con- 
solidated into  a  single  diagram  indicating  the 
suggested  placement  of  the  devices. 


The  permissible  deviation  from  a  vertical 
plane  for  the  triangle  when  the  device  is  placed 
on  the  road  has  been  increased  from  five  degrees 
to  ten  degrees  in  response  to  comments  from 
manufacturers.  The  NHTSA  has  determined 
that  the  change  will  not  alter  the  effectiveness 
of  the  device.  The  required  distance  above  the 
ground  of  the  lower  edge  of  the  triangle  has 
been  increased  from  one-half  to  one  inch  to  im- 
prove the  effectiveness  of  the  device  when  water 
or  mud  collects  on  the  roadway. 

The  minimum  length  of  the  legs  of  the  tri- 
angle has  been  lowered  from  18  to  17  inches,  to 
correspond  to  the  range  of  lengths  permitted  by 
the  Bureau  of  Motor  Carrier  Safety. 

The  minimum  width  of  the  red  reflective  ma- 
terial has  been  clarified  at  the  request  of  two 
manufacturers  of  reflex  reflectors  to  correspond 
to  industry  terminology. 

The  definitions  of  the  colors  "red"  and 
"orange"  have  been  clarified  in  light  of  the  com- 
ments, by  the  deletion  of  the  definition  in  terms 
of  nanometers.  The  NHTSA  has  concluded 
that  definitions  in  terms  of  chromaticity  coordi- 
nates and  purity  are  sufficient.  In  order  to 
standardize  the  requirement  with  respect  to  cur-  / 
rent  color  specification  practice,  the  required  ^.^ 
chromaticity  coordinates  have  been  changed 
slightly. 

The  reflectivity  requirement  has  been  clarified 
to  state  that  the  material  must  be  reflex  reflec- 
tive, and  a  definition  of  "reflex  reflective"  has 
been  added  to  the  standard.  The  reflectivity 
requirement  in  terms  of  candlepower  per  square 
inch  has  been  found  to  be  superfluous,  and  ac- 
cordingly has  been  deleted. 

The  Economic  Commission  of  Europe  re- 
quested that  the  required  total  minimum  candle- 
power  per  incident  foot  candle  for  an  observa- 
tion angle  of  0.2  degrees  be  lowered  from  120 
candlepower  fo  correspond  to  the  international 
specifications.  The  NHTSA  has  concluded  that 
80  candlepower  will  provide  sufficient  protection 
and  the  minimum  candlepower  has  been  lowered 
accordingly. 

In  order  to  standardize  the  requirement  with 
respect  to  current  photometric  practice,  the 
luminance  requirement  for  orange  fluorescent 
material  in  the  warning  device  has  been  raised 
from  not  less  than  30  percent  to  not  less  than 


PART  571;  S  125— PRE  2 


35  percent  of  that  of  a  flat  magnesium  oxide 
surface.  The  himinance  criterion,  "when  com- 
pared under  the  liglit  from  an  overcast  sky,"  has 
been  changed  to  read  "when  subjected  to  a  150- 
watt  high  pressure  xenon  compact  arc  lamp." 

Man}'  equipment  manufacturers  stated  that 
the  200  degree  Fahrenheit  requirement  for  the 
high  temperature  conditioning  is  not  justified  by 
evidence  showing  that  the  device  must  withstand 
temperatures  at  that  level  when  in  use.  This 
contention  has  been  found  to  have  merit,  and 
the  temperature  requirement  has  been  lowered 
to  150  degrees. 

Ejfective  date:  January  1,  1974.  Because  the 
standard  is  issued  later  than  anticipated,  the 
effective  date  has  been  extended  from  January 
1,  1972  to  January  1,  1974.  The  NHTSA  ha's 
concluded  that  this  date  will  permit  manufac- 
turers of  warning  devices  which  do  not  have 
self-contained  energy  sources  and  which  do  not 


Effective:   January    1,    1974 

meet  the  specifications  of  the  standard  to  retool 
for  manufacture  of  complying  devices.  It  is 
therefore  found,  for  good  cause  shown,  that  an 
effective  date  more  than  one  year  from  the  date 
of  issuance  is  in  the  public  interest. 

In  consideration  of  the  above,  a  new  §  571.125, 
Standard  No.  125,  Warning  Devices,  is  added  to 
Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations.  .  .  . 

This  rule  is  issued  under  the  authority  of 
sections  103,  112,  and  119  of  the  National  Traffic 
and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  (15  U.S.C.  1392, 
1401,  1407)  and  the  delegation  of  authority  at 
49  CFR  1.51. 


Issued  on  March  1,  1972. 


Charles  H.  Hartman 
Acting  Administrator 

37  F.R.  5038 
March   9,    1972 


PART  571;  S  125— PRE  3^ 


r 


t 

V 


Effective:   January   1,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.    125 


Warning   Devices 
(Docket  4-2;  Notice  5) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  respond  to  peti- 
tions for  reconsideration  of  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  125,  Warning  Devices,  in  §  571.125 
of  Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations.  The 
standard  was  issued  on  March  1,  1972  (37  F.R. 
5038). 

The  Amerace-Esna  Corporation  suggested  that 
the  98%  purity  requirement  for  the  red  reflex  re- 
flective material  be  deleted  since  the  trichromatic 
color  coefficients  provide  sufficient  definition  of 
the  red  color.  The  NHTSA  agrees,  and  further- 
more has  determined  that  the  purity  requirement 
for  the  orange  fluorescent  material  should  be  de- 
leted for  the  same  reasons.  Accordingly, 
S5.3.1(c)  and  S5.3.2(c)  are  deleted  from  the  rule. 

Hawes  Industries,  Inc.  requested  that  the  stand- 
ard permit  the  use  of  a  triangular  warning  de- 
vice designed  to  be  secured  on  the  roof  of  a  motor 
vehicle.  They  stated  that  the  roof  location  was 
more  convenient  to  the  consumer  than  the  recom- 
mended positioning  behind  the  car  and  afforded 
as  much  or  more  protection.  As  stated  in  the 
preamble  to  the  standard,  a  number  of  comments 
advocating  positioning  of  the  device  on  the  ve- 
hicle roof  or  side  were  received  and  reviewed  by 
the  NHTSA  in  the  formulation  of  the  final  rule. 
The  Administration  determined  that  placement 
of  the  device  behind  the  vehicle  would  provide 
maximum  protection  by  affording  a  greater  dis- 
tance for  recognition  and  response  by  oncoming 
traffic.  For  this  reason,  it  has  recommended  posi- 
tioning of  the  device  100  feet  behind  the  vehicle 
and  requires  an  illustration  indicating  this  loca- 
tion to  be  provided  in  the  instructions.  The 
standard  does  not  prohibit  manufacture  or  sale  of 
a  device  capable  of  being  mounted  on  a  vehicle 
roof,  as  long  as  it  meets  all  the  Standard  125  re- 
quirements, including  the  capability  of  being  set 
up  on  the  ground. 


The  standard  requires  that  an  illustration  de- 
picting recommended  positioning  of  the  device 
be  included  with  the  instructions  for  the  device. 
The  Administration  is  amending  S5.1.5(c)  to 
clarify  its  intent  that  the  illustration  provided  be 
substantially  identical  to  Figure  3. 

The  standard  as  issued  establishes  separate 
width  requirements  for  red  reflex  reflective  ma- 
terial and  orange  fluorescent  material  affixed  to 
the  faces  of  the  warning  device.  Rowland  De- 
velopment Corporation  stated  that  it  manufac- 
tures a  "dual  purpose  fluorescent  orange-red 
reflective  material,"  and  requested  that  the  sep- 
arate width  requirements  be  suspended  when  such 
material  is  used.  The  request  appears  to  have 
merit,  but  NHTSA  has  concluded  that  an  evalua- 
tion of  the  requirements  pertaining  to  the  fluo- 
rescent orange  material  is  necessary  before  it  can 
respond  to  this  request.  A  notice  of  proposed 
rulemaking  containing  proposed  changes  will  be 
issued  when  the  evaluation  is  completed.  When 
the  final  revised  requirements  for  the  fluorescent 
material  are  established,  a  precise  definition  of  the 
dual  purpose  material  can  be  formulated. 

Prof.  D.  M.  Finch  of  the  University  of  Cali- 
fornia stated  that  in  order  to  clarify  the  color  re- 
quirements the  respective  sources  of  illumination 
for  the  measurement  of  the  red  and  orange  color 
should  be  specified.  The  NHTSA  agrees  that 
this  should  be  done,  and  accordingly  S5.3.1  has 
been  modified  to  specify  the  use  of  a  lamp  with  a 
tungsten  filament  operating  at  2,854°  K  for  the 
red  measurement.  The  source  of  illumination  for 
the  measurement  of  the  orange  color  will  be  spec- 
ified with  the  revision  of  the  fluorescent  material 
requirements  referred  to  above. 

The  word  "tungsten"  is  inserted  before  the 
word  "filament"  in  the  rule,  as  a  clarification  of 
the  test  conditions  for  red  color  and  reflectivityj 


PART  571;  S  125— PRE  5 


Effectiva:  January   1,   1974 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  Motor  Ve-        1407)  and  the  delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR     f 
hide  Safety  Standard  No.  125,  Warning  Devices,        1.51.  y 

49  CFR  §  571.125,  is  amended.  .  .  .  Issued  on  June  19, 1972. 

Elective  date :  January  1,  1974.  Douglas  W.  Toms 

This  notice  is  issued  under  the  authority  of  sec-  Administrator 
tions  103,  112,  and  119  of  the  National  Traffic  and  37  f.R.  12323 

Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  (16  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  June  22,  1972 


^ 


PART  571;  S  125— PRE  6 


Effective:   January    1,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   125 

Warning   Devices 

Docket  No.  4-2;   Notice  6) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  respond  further 
to  petitions  for  reconsideration  and  amendment 
of  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  125, 
Warning  Devices,  §  571.125  of  Title  49,  Code  of 
Federal  Regidations.  The  standard  was  issued 
on  March  1,  1972,  (37  F.R.  5038).  On  June  22, 
1972,  a  previous  notice  of  amendments  and  recon- 
sideration of  the  standard  was  published  (37 
F.R.  12323). 

AVith  respect  to  the  configuration  of  the  device 
Rowland  Development  Corporation  stated  that 
it  manufactures  a  dual  purpose  fluorescent  orange 
and  red  reflective  material  and  requested  that  the 
separate  width  requirements  for  red  reflex  re- 
flective material  and  orange  fluorescent  material 
affixed  to  the  faces  of  the  device  be  suspended 
when  such  material  is  used.  The  NHTSA  has 
concluded  that  the  use  of  such  dual  purpose  ma- 
terial as  an  alternative  to  separate  material  is 
permissible  if  the  material  is  capable  of  meeting 
the  requirements  of  Standard  125.  S5.1.1,  S5.2.3, 
S5.5,  and  S6.2(a)  are  hereby  modified  accord- 
ingly, and  the  separate  width  requirements  will 
not  be  applicable  when  dual  purpose  material  is 
used. 

Tri-Lite  interpreted  the  standard  as  permitting 
the  use  of  a  flag  as  part  of  a  "combination  signal 
deWce"  as  long  as  the  device  did  not  violate 
S5.2.1(b),  relating  to  obstruction  of  the  reflective 
and  fluorescent  material.  In  a  previous  letter  to 
Tri-Lite  the  NHTSA  had  stated  that  the  stand- 
ard would  be  interpreted  to  allow  such  additions. 
(Docket  entry  N4-4-2-10,  July  18,  1972.)  Upon 
further  consideration,  the  agency  has  determined 
that  permitting  additions  to  the  device  will  lessen 
its  efl'ectiveness  by  degrading  the  uniformity  of 
its  shape.  Accordingly,  the  use  of  additional 
shapes  or  attachments  will  not  be  permitted,  and 
a  new  S5.2.6  is  added  to  that  effect. 


A  number  of  petitions  regarding  the  orange 
fluorescent  material  were  received.  Personnel 
from  the  National  Bureau  of  Standards  sug- 
gested that  the  requirements  for  the  color  of  the 
orange  fluorescent  material  be  amended  so  as  not 
to  penalize  colors  that  have  the  same  hue  but  are 
stronger  than  the  present  maximum  y  and  mini- 
mum X  values.  The  NHTSA  agrees  with  tlie 
suggestion  and  S5.3.2  has  been  amended  accord- 
ingly. 

Tri-Lite  stated  that  the  fluorescent  material 
deteriorates  over  time  and  is  therefore  unreliable. 
It  requested  that  the  provision  of  orange  fluores- 
cent material  on  the  device  be  made  optional. 
The  NHTSA  recognizes  that  deterioration  of 
fluorescence  is  a  possibility;  however,  it  is  felt 
that  the  requirement  of  an  opaque  container  and 
the  improving  technology  of  fluorescent  materials 
should  offset  the  possible  problem.  It  is  antici- 
pated that  the  device  will  be  used  only  infre- 
quently, in  emergencies,  by  most  drivers.  The 
request  of  Tri-Lite  is  therefore  denied. 

Rowland  Corp.  requested  that  the  luminance 
requirement  be  expressed  in  terms  relative  to  the 
amount  of  fluorescent  material  affixed  to  the  de- 
vice rather  than  the  percentage  figure  of  mag- 
nesium oxide  presently  required.  The  agency 
position  is  that  a  minimum  level  of  luminance  is 
necessary  for  identifiability,  but  that  a  somewhat 
lower  limit  for  luminance  of  the  orange  material 
could  be  suitable  if  more  material  is  used.  Ac- 
cordingly, S5.5  has  been  amended  to  lower  the 
minimum  relative  luminance  relative  to  mag- 
nesium oxide  from  35%  to  25%,  and  to  require 
a  minimum  product  of  that  relative  luminance 
and  width  in  inches  of  the  device  of  44.  Dayglo 
Color  Corp.  requested  that  two  sources  of  light 
for  luminance  test.  Source  C  and  Source  D-65, 
be  permitted  in  addition  to  the  xenon  arc  lamp 


PART  571;  S  125— PRE  7 


Effective:   January    1,    1974 


specified  in  the  standard.  Tlie  NHTSA  has  con- 
chided  that  the  most  consistent  test  results  are 
provided  when  the  material  is  diHusely  irradiated 
with  undispersed  light  from  a  high-pressure 
xenon  arc  lamp  to  simulate  daytime  conditions. 
As  a  general  rule,  alternative  test  procedures  for 
a  single  property  are  inadvisable,  and  no  suffi- 
cient justification  for  them  has  been  shown  here. 
Therefore  the  Dayglo  request  is  denied. 

In  light  of  evidence  that  differing  relative 
luminance  values  are  obtained  from  different  pro- 
cedures used  to  measure  it,  a  procedures  para- 
graph (S6.3)  for  the  luminance  testing  of  the 
orange  fluorescent  material  has  been  added  to 
the  standard.  The  procedure  is  adapted  from 
the  publication  "Colorimetry",  of  the  Interna- 
tional Commission  on  Illumination  (CIE  Pub- 
lication No.  15,  E-1.3.1,  1971). 

Two  petitions  dealt  with  the  stability  re- 
quirements. Rowland  De\'elopment  Corporation 
requested  that  the  standard  permit  the  manu- 
facture of  a  triangle  device  constructed  of  flexible 
material  which  is  secured  at  the  outer  corners 
of  the  triangle  and  is  otherwise  free  to  flex  with 
the  wind.  Safety  Triangles  Company  requested 
that  the  device  be  permitted  to  tilt  to  a  position 
up  to  30°  from  the  vertical  rather  than  the  pres- 
ently allowed  10°.  These  requests  were  directed 
at  permitting  manufacturers  to  produce  lighter 
and  cheaper  devices.  TheNHTSA  has  concluded 
that  if  the  triangle  is  permitted  to  flex  in  the 
wind  or  tilt  to  a  position  up  to  30°   from  the 


vertical,  the  attitude  of  the  triangle  is  altered  so 
that  the  shape  of  the  equilateral  triangle  is  dis- 
torted, thus  detracting  from  one  of  the  goals  of 
the  standard.  The  present  performance  require- 
ments and  the  consequent  cost  factors  have  been 
found  to  be  reasonable.  These  requests  are  ac- 
cordingly denied. 

With  respect  to  reflectivity  testing,  Rowland 
stated  that  candlepower  requirements  for  an  ob- 
servation angle  of  0.2°  were  superfluous  and  not 
related  to  true  highway  situations,  and  I'equested 
their  deletion.  The  NHTSA  has  determined  in 
the  formulation  of  the  standard  that  the  speci- 
fied reflectivity  requirements  allow  a  maximum 
recognition  and  detection  distance  to  oncoming 
traffic.  Accordingy,  the  requirements  for  the  0.2° 
observation  angle  are  retained. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  125,  Warning  Devices, 
49  CFR  §571.125,  is  amended.  .  .  . 

Effective  date:  January  1,  1974. 

(Sec.  103,  112,  119,  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80  Stat. 
718,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1407;  delegation  of  au- 
thority at  49  CFR  1.51.) 

Issued  on  January  23,  1973. 

Douglas  W.  Toms 
Administrator 

38  F.R.  2760 
January   30,    1973 


PART  571;  S  125— PRE  8 


Effective:   November    11,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   125 

Warning   Devices 
(Docket  No.  74-2;  Notice   10) 


The  purpose  of  this  amendment  to  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  125  (49  CFR  571.125), 
Warning  Devices,  is  to  prescribe  the  color  specifi- 
cations for  the  orange  and  red  materials  used  in 
the  warning  devices  authorized  under  the  stand- 
ard. 

On  April  6,  1973,  the  NHTSA  issued  a  pro- 
posal on  this  subject  (38  F.R.  8752).  The  com- 
ments from  industry  were  generally  in  agreement 
with  the  method  for  testing  the  orange  fluores- 
cent material,  although  several  requested  that 
light  source  C  be  allowed  for  testing  of  the  orange 
fluorescent  material.  After  consultation  with 
testing  laboratories  and  the  National  Bureau  of 
Standards,  NHTSA  has  concluded  that  for  pur- 
poses of  obtaining  repeatable  results  and  simulat- 
ing daylight  conditions,  source  C  does  not  pro- 
vide the  necessary  ultraviolet  radiation.  Tliere- 
fore,  the  use  of  the  xenon  arc  lamp  has  been 
incorporated  into  the  standard  and  will  be  re- 
quired for  testing  of  the  orange  color  and  lumi- 
nescence of  the  daylight  fluorescent  material. 

The  majority  of  the  commenters  and  the  Na- 
tional Bureau  of  Standards  agreed  that  the  direct 
illumination  method  for  testing  of  standard 
orange  fluorescent  material  for  both  color  and 
luminance  should  be  continued,  and  the  integrat- 
ing sphere  method  should  be  used  for  dual- 
purpose  materials.  The  industry,  including  the 
testing  laboratories,  have  had  sufficient  time  to 
utilize  this  method  and  repeatable  results  have 
been  obtained. 

The  color  definition  equation  for  the  orange 
fluorescent  material  has  been  broadened  from 
x-l-y  =  0.943    to    x-l-y  =  0.93.      The    majority    of 


those  commenting  had  no  objection  to  broaden- 
ing the  area  of  the  orange  fluorescent  material, 
but  one  equipment  manufacturer  desired  the  red 
boundary  to  be  extended  from  y  =  0.35  to  y  =  0.34. 
NHTSA  concludes  that  to  do  so  would  place  this 
boundary  line  too  near  the  red  area  for  proper 
diflferentiation  between  orange  and  red.  Since 
orange  is  used  as  a  daylight  material,  it  should 
not  be  similar  to  the  red  material  in  color. 

As  proposed,  the  three-digit  system  in  the 
straight-line  equations  for  the  boundary  of  the 
orange  and  red  colors  has  been  converted  to  a 
two-digit  system,  as  this  degree  of  accuracy  is 
sufficient  for  general  testing  purposes. 

The  final  amendment  to  the  standard  estab- 
lishes the  type  of  light  to  be  used  for  testing  the 
orange  material  used  in  dual  purpose  material. 
Of  particular  importance  in  this  test  procedure 
is  separating  the  red  retroreflective  and  orange 
fluorescent  material.  The  majority  of  the  com- 
menters and  the  National  Bureau  of  Standards 
recommended  that  the  xenon  arc  lamp  be  used,  as 
it  provides  sufficient  ultraviolet  radiation  to  simu- 
late daylight  conditions  with  overcast  sky,  if  the 
unmodified  spectrum  illuminating  the  material  is 
at  an  angle  of  incidence  of  45°  and  the  angle 
of  observation  is  90°.  In  this  procedure,  which 
is  adopted,  the  material  is  illuminated  diffusely 
by  an  integrating  sphere. 

Because  a  number  of  amendments  to  Standard 
No.  125  have  been  issued,  the  standard  is  hereby 
reissued  in  its  entirety. 

In  light  of  the  foregoing,  49  CFR  §  571.125, 
Standard  No.  125,  Warning  Devices,  is  amended 
to  read  as  set  forth  below. 


PART  571;  S  125— PRE  9 


Effective:    November    11,    1974 


Effective  date:  Nov.  11,  1974.  Issued  on :  Aug.  2,  1974.  ^ 

James  B.   Gregory 
(Sec.  103,  119,  Pub.  L.  89-563)   80  Stat.  718,  Administrator 

15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407;  delegation  of  authority  at  39  f.R.  28636 

49  CFR  1.51.)  August  9,  1974 


PART  571;  S  125— PRE  10 


c 


Effective:   January    1,    1974 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   125 
Warning   Devices 


51.  Scope.  This  standard  establishes  require- 
ments for  devices,  without  self-contained  energy 
sources,  that  are  designed  to  be  carried  in  motor 
vehicles  and  used  to  warn  approacliing  traffic 
of  the  presence  of  a  stopped  vehicle,  except  for 
devices  designed  to  be  permanently  affixed  to  the 
vehicle. 

52.  Purpose.  The  purpose  of  this  standard 
is  to  I'educe  deaths  and  injuries  due  to  rear  end 
collisions  between  moving  traffic  and  disabled 
vehicles. 

53.  Application.  This  standard  applies  to  de- 
vices without  self-contained  energy  sources,  that 
are  designed  to  be  carried  in  motor  vehicles  and 
used  to  warn  approaching  traffic  of  the  presence 
of  a  stopped  vehicle,  except  for  devices  designed 
to  be  permanently  affixed  to  the  vehicle. 

S.4.  Definitions.  "Entrance  angle"  means  the 
angle  having  as  its  sides  the  line  through  the 
center,  and  normal  to  the  face,  of  the  object  to 
be  tested,  and  the  line  from  the  center  of  the 
object  to  the  center  of  the  source  of  illumination 
(Figure  2). 

"Fluorescent"  means  the  property  of  emitting 
visible  light  due  to  the  absorption  of  radiation 
of  a  shorter  wave-length  which  may  be  outside 
the  visible  spectrum. 

"Observation  angle"  means  the  angle  having 
as  its  sides  the  line  from  the  observation  point 
to  the  center  of  the  object  to  be  tested  and  the 
line  from  the  center  of  that  object  to  the  center 
of  the  source  of  illumination  (Figure  2). 

"Reflex  reflective"  means  reflective  of  light  in 
directions  close  to  the  direction  of  incident  light, 
over  a  wide  range  of  variations  in  the  direction 
of  incident  light. 


WARNING  DEVICE 


0.25  TO  0.50  RADIUS 


2  TO  3 


RED  REFLECTIVE 
MATERIAL  0.75  TO  1.75 


ORANGE  FLUORESCENT 

MATERIAL 

1  25  TO  1.30 


DIMENSIONS  OF  WARNING  DEVICE  (Inches) 


S5. 


Figure  1 
Requirements. 


S5.1      Equipment. 

55.1.1  Reflex  reflective  material  and  fluores- 
cent material  that  meet  the  requirements  of  this 
standard  shall  be  affixed  to  both  faces  of  the 
warning  device.  Alternatively,  a  dual  purpose 
orange  fluorescent  and  red  reflective  material  that 
meets  the  requirements  of  this  standard  (here- 
after referred  to  as  "dual  purpose  material") 
may  be  affixed  to  both  faces  in  place  of  the  reflec- 
tive and  fluorescent  materials. 

55.1 .2  Each  warning  device  shall  be  protected 
from  damage  and  deterioration— 

(a)  By  enclosure  in  an  opaque  protective  re- 
usable container,  except  that  two  or  three  wam- 


(Rev.   8/2/74) 


PART  571;  S  125—1 


Effective:   January    1,    1974 


ing  devices  intended  to  be  sold  for  use  as  a  set 
with  a  single  vehicle  may  be  enclosed  in  a  single 
container;  or 

(b)  By  secure  attachment  to  any  light-tight, 
enclosed  and  easily  accessible  compartment  of  a 
new  motor  vehicle  with  which  it  is  supplied  by 
the  vehicle  manufacturer. 

55.1.3  The  warning  device  shall  be  designed 
to  be  erected,  and  replaced  in  its  container,  with- 
out the  use  of  tools. 

55.1.4  The  warning  device  shall  be  perma- 
nently and  legibly  marked  with : 

(a)  Name  of  manufacturer; 

(b)  Month  and  year  of  manufacture,  which 
may  be  expressed  numerically,  as  "6/72",  and 

(c)  The  symbol  DOT,  or  the  statement  that 
the  warning  device  complies  with  all  applicable 
Federal  motor  vehicle  safety  standards. 

55.1.5  Each  warning  device  shall  liave  in- 
structions for  its  erection  and  display. 

a)  The  instructions  shall  be  either  indelibly 
printed  on  the  warning  device  or  attached  in 
such  a  manner  that  they  cannot  be  easily  removed. 

(b)  Instructions  for  each  warning  device  shall 
include  a  recommendation  that  the  driver  activate 
the  vehicular  hazard  warning  signal  lamps  before 
leaving  the  vehicle  to  erect  the  warning  device. 

(c)  Instructions  shall  include  the  illustration 
depicted  in  Figure  3  indicating  recommended 
positioning. 

OBSERVATION  POINT 


APPROXIMATELY         40  PACES 


DISABLED 
VEHICLE 


:o 


REFLECTED  LIGHT 


OBSERVATION 
(DIVERGENCE)  ANGLE 


LIGHT 
SOURCE 


INCIDENT  LIGHT 

ENTRANCE  (INCIDENCE)  ANGLE 
PERPENDICULAR  TO  REFLECTIVE  SURFACE 
REFLECTIVE  SURFACE 


-100  FT. - 


REFLECTIVITY  TEST  DIAGRAM 


Figure  2 


'     WARNING 

JSl    device 


RECOMMENDED  WARNING  DEVICE  POSITIONING 


Figure  3 


S5.2     Configuration. 

S5.2.1 .  When  the  warning  device  is  erected  on 
level  ground: 

(a)  Part  of  the  warning  device  shall  form  an 
equilateral  triangle  that  stands  in  a  plane  not 
more  than  10°  from  the  vertical,  with  the  lower 
edge  of  the  base  of  the  ti'iangle  horizontal  and 
not  less  than  1  inch  above  the  ground. 

(b)  None  of  the  required  portion  of  the  re- 
flective material  and  fluorescent  material  shall 
be  obscured  by  any  other  part  of  the  warning 
device  except  for  any  portion  of  the  material 
over  which  it  is  necessary  to  provide  fasteners, 
pivoting  beads  or  other  means  to  allow  collapsi- 
bility  or  support  of  the  device.  In  any  event, 
sufficient  reflective  and  fluorescent  material  shall 
be  used  on  the  triangle  to  meet  the  requirements 
of  85.4  and  S5.5. 

55.2.2  Each  of  the  three  sides  of  the  tri- 
angular portion  of  the  warning  device  shall  not 
be  less  than  17  and  not  more  than  22  inches  long, 
and  not  less  than  2  and  not  more  than  3  inches 
wide  (Figui'e  1). 

55.2.3  Each  face  of  the  triangular  portion 
of  the  warning  device  shall  have  an  outer  border 
of  red  reflex  reflective  material  of  uniform  width 
and  not  less  than  0.75  and  not  more  than  1.75 
inches  wide,  and  an  inner  border  of  orange 
fluorescent  material  of  uniform  width  and  not 
less  than  1.25  and  not  more  than  1.30  inches  wide 
(Figure  1).  However,  this  requirement  shall  not 
apply  if  the  dual  purpose  material  is  used. 

55.2.4  Each  vertex  of  the  triangular  portion 
of  the  warning  device  shall  have  a  radius  of  not 
less  than  0.25  inch  and  not  more  than  0.50  inch. 

55.2.5  All  edges  shall  be  rounded  or  cham- 
fered, as  necessary,  to  reduce  the  possibility  of 
cutting  or  harm  to  the  user. 


(Rev.    8/2/74) 


PART  571;  S  125—2 


Effective:   January    I,    1974 


S5.2.6  The  device  shall  consist  entirely  of  the 
trian<riilar  portion  and  attachments  necessaiy 
for  its  support  and  enclosure,  without  additional 
visible  shapes  of  attachments. 


1 

'—  iio 

*'V 

• — ; 

^ 

/ 

\ 

S 

\ 

1 

\" 

\ 

"<; 

Uft 

\ 

0. 

EN 

\-i. 

LOWISf 

1          X^  1 

) 

\ 

1  on 

- 

V, 

**»^ 

\ 

A 

/"^y 

"n 

vEttOWOR* 

NGE 

•-\ 

*V 

\ 

^ 

> 

\ 

54 

\ 

EEN 

^ 

y 

,^ 

PINK 

''•*'*    y     HEODISl^V 

\ 

SisU 

c-c   1 

tUMIMANT 

1     > 

/- 

—^ 

^- 

'* 

\, 

Cftti 
BLUt 

k^ 

^ 

^1    ^ 

:^ 

ISO  -nt 

\ 

'^ 

> 

'■-" 

^ 

PUBf 

LISH 

^ 

-^ 

-^ 

V 

7^ , 

7'/ 

rwB^iE 

> 

^ 

-\  /m 

JWLE 

BEDO 

E      L' 

^' 

■'^m 

iWh 

'~ 

'  m 

Fifyra  4      CIE  Chianiiticitir  Oiairtm 

S5.3     Color. 

55.3.1  The  color  of  the  red  reflex  reflective 
material  on  the  warning  device  shall  have  the 
followinti  characteristics,  both  before  and  after 
the  warning  device  has  been  conditioned  in  ac- 
cordance with  S6.1,  when  the  source  of  illumina- 
tion is  a  lamp  with  a  tungsten  filament  operating 
at  2856°  Kelvin  color  temperature.  Expressed 
in  terms  of  the  International  Commission  on 
Illumination  (CIE)  lOSl  standard  colorimetric 
observer  system  (CIE  chromaticity  diagram. 
Figure  4),  the  chromaticity  coordinates  of  the 
red  reflex  reflecti\-e  material  shall  lie  within  the 
I'egion  bounded  by  the  spectrum  locus  and  the 
lines  on  the  diagram  defined  by  the  following 
equations : 

Boundary  Equations 

Yellow  y  =  0.33 

Wliite  x4-y  =  0.98 

55.3.2  The  color  of  the  oi'ange  fluorescent 
material  on  the  warning  device  shall  have  the 
following  characteristics,  both  before  and  after 
the  warning  device  has  been  conditioned  in  ac- 
cordance with  S6.1,  when  the  source  of  illumina- 


tion is  a  1.50-watt  high  pressure  xenon  compact 
arc  lamp.  Expressed  in  terms  of  the  Interna- 
tional Commission  on  Illumination  (CIP2)  1931 
standard  colorimetric  observer  system,  the  chro- 
maticity coordinates  of  the  orange  fluorescent 
material  shall  lie  within  the  region  bounded  by 
the  spectrum  locus  and  the  lines  on  the  diagram 
defined  by  the  following  equations: 
Boundary  Equation 

Yellow  y  =  0.49x -1-0.17 

"Wliite  X  +  y  =  0.93 

Red  y  =  0.35 

The  150- watt  high  pressure  xenon  compact  arc 
lamp  shall  illuminate  the  sample  using  the  un- 
modified spectrum  at  an  angle  of  incidence  of  45° 
and  an  angle  of  observation  of  90°.  If  dual 
purpose  material  is  being  tested,  it  shall  be  illum- 
inated by  a  150-watt  high  pressure  xenon  com- 
pact arc  lamp,  whose  light  is  diffused  by  an 
integrating  sphere. 

55.4  Reflectivity.  When  the  red  reflex  reflec- 
tive material  on  the  warning  device  is  tested  in 
accordance  with  S6.2,  both  before  and  after  the 
warning  device  has  been  conditioned  in  accord- 
ance with  S6.1,  its  total  candlepower  per  incident 
foot  candle  shall  be  not  less  than  the  values 
specified  in  Table  I  for  each  of  the  listed  entrance 
angles. 

55.5  Luminance.  When  the  orange  fluores- 
cent material  on  the  warning  device  is  tested  in 
accordance  with  86.3,  both  before  and  after  the 
warning  device  has  been  conditioned  in  accord- 
ance with  S6.1,  it  shall  have  a  minimum  relative 
luminance  of  25  percent  of  a  flat  magnesium 
oxide  surface  and  a  minimum  product  of  that 
relative  luminance  and  width  in  inches  of  44. 

55.6  Stability.  Wlien  tlic  warning  device  is 
erected  on  a  iiorizontal  lirushed  concrete  surface 
both  with  and  against  tlie  brush  marks  and  sub- 
jected to  a  horizontal  wind  of  40  miles  per  hour 
in  any  direction  for  3  minutes — 

(a)  Xo  part  of  it  shall  slide  more  than  3  inches 
from  its  initial  position ; 

(b)  Its  triangular  portion  shall  not  tilt  to  a 
position  that  is  more  than  10°  from  the  vertical; 
and 

(c)  Its  triangidar  position  shall  not  turn 
through  a  horizontal  angle  of  more  than  10°  in 
either  direction  from  the  initial  position. 


(Rev.    8/2/74) 


PART  571;  S  125—3 


Effective:   January    1,    1974 


Table  1.     Total  Minimum  Candlepower  Per  Incident  Foot  Candle 

Entrance  Angles  -  Degrees 


Observation 
Angles  -  Degrees 

0 

10 
up 

10 
down 

20 
left 

20 
right 

30 
left 

30 
right 

0.2 

80 

80 

80 

40 

40 

8.0 

8.0 

1.5 

0.8 

0.8 

0.8 

0.4 

0.4 

0.08 

0.08 

S5.7  Durability.  When  the  warning  device  is 
conditioned  in  accordance  with  S6.1,  no  part  of 
the  warning  device  shall  become  warped  or  sepa- 
rated from  the  rest  of  the  warning  device. 

S6.     Test  Procedures. 

56.1  Conditions. 

S6.1 .1  Submit  the  warning  device  to  the  fol- 
lowing conditioning  sequence,  returning  the  device 
after  each  step  in  the  sequence  to  ambient  air  at 
68°  F.  for  at  least  2  hours. 

(a)  Minus  40°  F.  for  16  hours  in  a  circulating 
air  chamber  using  ambient  air  which  would  have 
not  less  than  30  percent  and  not  more  than  70 
percent  relative  humidity  at  70°  F. ; 

(b)  150°  F.  for  16  hours  in  a  circulating  air 
oven  using  ambient  air  which  would  have  not  less 
than  30  percent  and  not  more  than  70  percent 
relative  humidity  at  70°  F. ; 

(c)  100°  F.  and  90  percent  relative  humidity 
for  16  hours; 

(d)  Salt  spray  (fog)  test  in  accordance  with 
American  Society  of  Testing  and  Materials 
Standard  B-117,  Standard  Method  of  Salt  Spray 
(fog)  testing,  August  1964,  except  that  the  test 
shall  be  for  4  hours  ratlier  tlian  40  liours ;  and 

(e)  Immersion  for  2  hours  in  water  at  a  tem- 
perature of  100°  F. 

56.2  Reflectivity  Test.  Test  the  red  reflex 
reflective  material  as  follows: 

(a)  Unless  dual  purpose  material  is  used,  pre- 
vent the  orange  fluorescent  material  from  affect- 
ing the  photometric  measurement  of  the  reflec- 
tivity of  the  red  reflex  reflective  material,  either 
by  separation  or  masking. 


(b)  Use  a  lamp  with  a  tungsten  filament  op- 
erating at  2856°  Kelvin  color  temperature  as  the 
source  of  illumination. 

(c)  Place  the  source  of  illumination  100  feet 
from  the  red  reflex  reflective  material  (Figure  2). 

(d)  Place  the  observation  point  directly  above 
the  source  of  illumination  (Figure  2). 

(e)  Calculate  the  total  candlepower  per  in- 
cident foot  candle  of  the  red  reflex  reflective 
material  at  each  of  the  entrance  and  observation 
angles  specified  in  Table  1. 

S6.3  Luminance  Test.  Test  the  orange  fluores- 
cent matei-ial  as  follows: 

(a)  Unless  dual  purpose  material  is  used,  pre- 
vent the  red  reflex  reflective  material  from  affect- 
ing the  photometric  measurement  of  the  lumin- 
ance of  the  orange  fluorescent  material. 

(b)  Using  a  150-watt  high  pressure  xenon  com- 
pact arc  lamp  as  the  light  source,  illuminate  the 
test  sample  at  an  angle  of  incidence  of  45°  and 
an  angle  of  observation  of  90°.  If  dual  purpose 
material  is  being  tested,  illuminate  the  sample 
diffusely  through  an  integrating  sphere. 

(c)  Measure  the  luminance  of  the  material  at 
a  perpendicular  viewing  angle,  with  no  ra^^  of 
the  viewing  beam  more  than  5°  from  the  per- 
pendicular to  the  specimen. 

(d)  Repeat  the  procedure  for  a  flat  magnesium 
oxide  surface,  and  compute  the  quotient  (per- 
centage) of  the  luminance  of  the  material  relative 
to  that  of  the  magnesium  oxide  surface. 

37  F.R.  5038 
March   9,    1972 


(Rev.    8/2/74) 


PART  571;  S  125—4 


Effective:   January    1,    1973 
(Except  as  Noted  In  Rule) 


PREAMBLE  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   126 

Truck-Camper  Loading 
(Docket  No.  71-7;  Notice  2) 


This  notice  amends  Part  571  of  Title  49,  Code 
of  Federal  Regulations,  to  add  a  new  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  126  (49  CFR 
571.126)  that  requires  manufacturers  of  slide-in 
campers  and  of  trucks  that  would  accommodate 
them  to  provide  information  concerning  proper 
loading  and  load  distribution.  A  notice  of  pro- 
posed rulemaking  on  this  subject  was  published 
on  April  9, 1971  (36  F.R.  6837). 

The  purpose  of  the  new  standard  is  to  provide 
information  that  can  be  used  to  reduce  overload- 
ing and  improper  load  distribution  in  truck- 
camper  combinations,  and  to  prevent  accidents 
resulting  from  the  adverse  effects  of  these  con- 
ditions on  vehicle  handling  and  braking.  Stand- 
ard No.  126  requires  manufacturers  of  slide-in 
campers  to  permanently  affix  a  label  to  a  rear 
surface  of  each  camper  that  includes  the  weight 
of  the  camper  when  it  contains  standard  equip- 
ment, and  water,  bottled  gas,  and  ice  box  with 
ice  or  refrigerator.  The  camper  manufacturer 
is  also  required  to  provide,  in  an  owner's  manual 
or  other  document  delivered  with  the  camper,  a 
picture  showing  the  location  of  the  longitudinal 
center  of  gravity  of  the  camper  when  loaded  and 
a  picture  showing  a  proper  match  of  the  slide-in 
camper  on  a  typical  truck.  Standard  No.  126 
also  requires  manufacturers  of  trucks  to  which  a 
camper  could  be  attached  to  provide,  in  an  oper- 
ator's manual  or  other  document  delivered  with 
the  truck,  a  picture  showing  the  manufacturer's 
recommended  longitudinal  center  of  gravity  zone 
for  the  cargo  weight  rating,  and  one  depicting 
the  proper  match  of  a  truck  and  slide-in  camper. 

Standard  No.  126  differs  from  the  proposal  m 
several  aspects.  The  standard  as  proposed  would 
have  applied  to  incomplete  vehicles  intended  for 
completion  as  trucks,  and  to  multipurpose  pas- 
senger vehicles  with  a  GVWR  of  10,000  pounds 


or  less.  These  categories  have  been  excluded 
from  the  final  rule,  which  applies  to  trucks  that 
would  accommodate  slide-in  campers.  These 
generally  are  pick-up  trucks.  In  excluding  other 
proposed  categories  the  NHTSA  considers  that 
the  information  the  manufacturer  of  an  incom- 
plete vehicle  must  furnish  pursuant  to  49  CFR 
Part  568,  Vehicles  Manufactured  in  Two  or  More 
Stages,  should  be  sufficient  to  assist  a  final  as- 
sembler in  permanently  installing  a  chassis- 
mount  camper  on  a  truck  chassis,  or  in  assembling 
a  vehicle  such  as  a  motor  home. 

The  proposal  would  also  have  required  that  a 
label  be  permanently  affixed  to  each  cargo  com- 
partment that  would  specify  the  maximum  rec- 
ommended weight  for  a  load  placed  in  the 
compartment.  Commenters  argued  persuasively 
that  camper  owners  would  disregard  a  series  of 
weight  capacity  labels  on  all  storage  compart- 
ments, and  the  proposal  was  not  adopted.  The 
final  rule  requires  the  certification  label  and  the 
owner's  manual  to  provide  a  figure  denoting 
camper  weight,  which  as  noted  previously  in- 
cludes the  weight  of  standard  equipment,  a  re- 
frigerator, or  ice  box  with  ice,  and  maximum 
capacity  of  water  and  bottled  gas.  The  cubic 
capacity  of  the  refrigerator  or  weight  of  ice,  the 
weight  of  bottled  gas,  and  the  gallons  of  water 
encompassed  in  the  maximum  weight  figure  will 
also  be  listed  on  the  permanent  label  and  in  the 
owner's  manual.  The  camper  manufacturer  may 
exclude  any  of  these  items  from  the  label  if  the 
camper  is  not  designed  to  accommodate  them, 
provided  that  a  notation  to  that  effect  appears  in 
the  owner's  manual.  The  standard  also  requires 
a  manufacturer  to  provide  a  listing  of  optional 
or  additional  equipment  that  the  camper  is  de- 
signed to  carry,  and  the  respective  weight  of 
each  if  the  unit  weight  exceeds  20  pounds. 


PART  571;  S  126— PRE  1 


Effective:  January  1,  1973 
(Except  as  Noted  in  Rule) 

The  label  will  also  state  the  month  and  year  of 
manufacture,  and  a  recommendation  that  the  user 
consult  the  owner's  manual  or  data  sheet  for  the 
weight  of  optional  and  additional  equipment. 
The  label  is  to  be  mounted  in  a  plainly  visible 
location  on  a  surface  at  the  rear  of  the  camper 
other  than  the  roof,  steps  or  bumper  extension. 

The  proposed  reference  point,  or  the  distances 
of  the  camper  center  of  gravity  from  the  refer- 
ence point,  have  not  been  adopted  for  use  on  the 
exterior  label.  Manufacturers  of  campers  gen- 
erally have  had  no  experience  with  the  relatively 
complex  vertical  center  of  gravity  measurement 
techniques.  Truck  manufacturers  pointed  out  a 
number  of  variables  that  would  have  to  be  con- 
sidered, and  stated  that  the  limiting  envelope 
would  not  be  rectangular  as  implied  by  the  pro- 
posal. Other  comments  objected  to  the  end  of 
the  truck's  axle  shaft  as  a  reference  point  for 
specifying  a  recommended  cargo  center  of  grav- 
ity zone.  Variations  in  the  longitudinal  center 
of  gravity  of  the  load  are,  however,  known  to 
have  a  direct  relationship  to  a  truck's  gross  axle 
loading,  and  can  adversely  affect  the  steering  and 
stopping  ability  of  the  vehicle.  The  camper 
manufacturer  will  therefore  be  required  to  pro- 
vide in  the  owner's  manual  a  picture  showing  the 
location  of  the  camper's  longitudinal  center  of 
gravity  within  2  inches,  under  specified  load  con- 
ditions. A  manufacturer  can  easily  measure  the 
longitudinal  center  of  gravity  of  a  slide-in 
camper  by  balancing  it  on  a  transverse  horizontal 
rod.  The  camper  owner's  manual  must  also  con- 
tain specific  advice  on  proper  choice  of  truck  to 
which  a  camper  may  be  mounted,  and  proper 
loading  of  the  camper  once  it  is  attached.    Truck 


manufacturers  in  turn  are  required  to  include  in 
the  operator's  manual  a  picture  showing  the  rec- 
ommended longitudinal  center  of  gravity  zone 
for  the  cargo  weight  rating  and  loading  recom- 
mendations. 

In  order  to  allow  the  relatively  small  camper 
manufacturers  time  to  consider  the  recommenda- 
tions of  truck  manufacturers,  and  to  modify 
camper  designs  if  needed,  a  camper  manufacturer 
need  not  provide  center  of  gravity  location  in- 
formation until  July  1, 1973. 

Effective  date:  January  1,  1973,  with  addi- 
tional requirements  effective  July  1,  1973.  Be- 
cause compliance  with  the  rule  does  not  involve 
extensive  leadtime,  the  Administrator  finds  for 
good  cause  shown  that  an  effective  date  earlier 
than  one  hundred  eighty  days  after  issuance  is 
in  the  public  interest. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  49  CFE 
Part  571  is  amended  by  adding  §  571.126,  Stand- 
ard No.  126,  Truck-Camper  Loading.  .  .  . 

This  notice  is  issued  imder  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,  1403,  and  1407)  and  the 
delegation  of  authority  from  the  Secretary  of 
Transportation  to  the  National  Highway  Traffic 
Safety  Administrator,  49  CFR  1.51. 


Issued  on  August  3, 1972. 


Douglas  W.  Toms 
Administrator 

37  F.R.   16497 
August  15,  1972 


PART  571;  S  126— PRE  2 


Effective:  January   1,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   126 


Truck-Camper  Loading 
(Docket  No.  71-7;   Notice  4) 


This  notice  responds  to  petitions  for  reconsid- 
eration of  49  CFR  §571.126,  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  126,  Truck -Camper  Load- 
ing. The  portion  of  the  regulation  requiring 
information  to  be  provided  by  camper  manu- 
facturers is  retained  as  a  Federal  motor  vehicle 
safety  standard,  and  a  vehicle  information  num- 
ber is  added  to  the  list  of  information  to  be  pro- 
vided. The  portion  of  the  rule  applicable  to 
truck  manufacturers  is  reissued  as  a  consumer 
information  regulation  by  a  separate  notice  (37 
F.R.  26607). 

Standard  No.  126,  establishing  requirements 
for  slide-in  campers  and  trucks  that  would  ac- 
commodate them,  was  published  on  August  15, 
1972  (37  F.R.  16497).  Thereafter,  pursuant  to 
49  CFR  §  553.35,  petitions  for  reconsideration  of 
the  standard  were  filed  by  Chrysler  Corporation 
(Chrysler),  Ford  Motor  Company  (Ford), 
General  Motors  Corporation  (GM),  Jeep  Cor- 
poration (Jeep),  Motor  Vehicle  Manufacturers 
Association  of  the  United  States,  Inc.  (MVMA), 
Recreational  Vehicle  Institute,  Inc.  (RVI),  and 
Toyota  Motor  Sales,  U.S.A.,  Inc.  (Toyota). 

In  response  to  information  contained  in  several 
of  these  petitions  the  standard  is  being  amended 
in  certain  respects.  The  Administrator  has  de- 
clined to  grant  requested  relief  from  other  re- 
quirements of  the  standard. 

1.  Statutory  Authority.  Standard  No.  126  as 
issued  applied  to  slide-in  campers  and  to  trucks 
that  would  accommodate  them.  It  required  man- 
ufacturers of  slide-in  campers  to  attach  to  their 
products  a  label  containing  the  name  of  the  man- 
ufacturer, the  month  and  year  of  manufacture, 
a  certification  of  conformity,  and  information 
concerning  the  camper's  maximum  weight.  The 
standard  also  required  camper  manufacturers  to 


provide  the  same  information  and  certain  addi- 
tional items  in  a  manual  or  other  document  to 
accompany  each  camper.  A  parallel  requirement 
was  adopted  applicable  to  truck  manufacturers; 
they  were  required  to  provide  information  in  a 
manual  or  other  document  supplied  with  their 
products  that  would  assist  truck  owners  in  choos- 
ing a  properly  matched  camper. 

Chrysler.  Ford,  GM,  Jeep,  and  MVMA  ques- 
tioned the  authority  to  issue  the  requirements  of 
49  CFR  §571.126  as  a  Federal  motor  vehicle 
safety  standard  rather  than  in  the  form  of  a 
Consumer  Information  Regulation  (49  CFR 
Part  575),  alleging  that  Standard  No.  126  is 
"neither  a  performance  standard  nor  does  it  pro- 
vide any  objective  criteria  for  determining  com- 
pliance." 

The  NHTSA  does  not  agree  that  it  lacks  au- 
thority to  issue  Standard  No.  126  in  the  form 
in  which  it  appeared.  Actually,  the  regulation 
was  issued  under  the  combined  authority  of  four 
sections  of  the  Act:  section  103  (the  authority 
for  the  Federal  motor  vehicle  safety  standards), 
section  112  (the  primary  authority  for  technical 
information  and  data  to  be  provided  by  a  manu- 
facturer to  NHTSA  and  the  consumer),  section 
114  (the  authority  for  vehicle  and  equipment 
certification)  and  section  119  (the  general  rule- 
making authority).  Many  of  the  existing  stand- 
ards contain  information  requirements,  and  it  is 
the  position  of  this  agency  that  such  provisions 
fully  satisfy  the  statutory  criteria  as  objective 
performance  requirements.  The  question  there- 
fore is  in  most  respects  the  merely  formal  one  of 
whether  the  rule  is  called  a  "safety  standard" 
or  a  "consumer  information  regulation,"  and 
codified  accordingly. 


PART  571;  S  126— PRE  3 


'88   O  -  77  -  50 


Effective:  January   1,    1973 


On  reconsideration  of  all  aspects  of  the  stand- 
ard, however,  this  agency  has  determined  that 
there  is  an  advantage  to  issuing  the  requirements 
for  trucks  in  the  form  of  a  consumer  informa- 
tion regulation.  49  CFR  §  575.6(b)  requires  all 
Part  575  consumer  information  to  be  made  avail- 
able to  prospective  purchasers  in  dealer  show- 
rooms, and  paragraph  (c)  of  that  section  re- 
quires such  information  to  be  furnished  directly 
to  the  NHTSA.  Neither  of  these  requirements 
applies  to  information  furnished  pursuant  to 
Part  571  safety  standards.  Part  575  consumer 
information  regulations  are  enforceable  in  sub- 
stantially the  same  manner  and  with  the  same 
sanctions  as  safety  standards.  The  requirements 
for  trucks  in  49  CFR  §571.126  are  therefore 
reissued  as  a  new  consumer  information  regula- 
tion, 49  CFR  §  575.103,  by  an  action  published 
in  this  issue,  37  F.R.  26607. 

2.  Effective  date.  The  requirement  for  pic- 
tures showing  camper  center  of  gravity  and 
proper  truck-camper  match  that  camper  manu- 
facturers were  to  provide  as  of  July  1,  1973,  is 
being  deferred  2  months,  and  will  not  be  required 
until  September  1,  1973.  RVI  has  petitioned  for 
an  extension  of  the  effective  date  of  these  require- 
ments to  January  1,  1974,  on  the  basis  that  the 
extension  "would  give  the  relatively  small 
camper  manufacturers  additional  time  to  con- 
form camper  design  to  the  center  of  gravity 
envelopes  developed  by  the  truck  manufacturers." 
The  regulation,  however,  only  requires  manufac- 
turers to  provide  information,  not  to  redesign 
their  products.  The  NHTSA  finds  that  RVI 
has  shown  insufficient  justification  to  support  its 
request,  and  the  petition  is  denied. 

3.  Definitions.  RVI  petitioned  that  its  defini- 
tion of  "camper"  be  adopted  so  that  there  would 
be  no  confusion  within  the  recreational  vehicle 
industry  as  to  whether  the  standard  applied  to 
motor  homes  and  pickup  covers.  RVI's  petition 
was  similar  to  the  one  it  submitted  for  recon- 
sideration of  Standard  No.  205,  Glazing  Ma- 
terials. The  NHTSA  has  not  adopted  the  RVI 
definition,  but  it  has  defined  the  terms  "camper" 
and  "slide-in  camper"  so  as  to  clarify  these  terms 
and  differentiate  them  from  "motor  home"  and 
"pickup  cover,"  also  defined  in  Standard  No.  205. 
"Cargo  weight  rating"  was  defined  as  "the  maxi- 
mum weight  of  cargo  .  .  .  that  can  safely  be 


carried  by  a  vehicle  under  normal  operating  | 
conditions.  .  .  ."'  Ford  objects  that  the  definition  * 
is  subjective  and  urges  that  the  term  be  redefined 
as  "the  maximum  weight  of  cargo  .  .  .  that  the 
truck  manufacturer  specifies  may  be  carried  on 
the  vehicle."  The  NHTSA  concurs  generally 
with  Ford's  views.  The  definition  has  been  re- 
written to  make  clear  that  the  rating,  like  GVWR 
and  GAWR,  is  to  be  assigned  at  the  discretion 
of  the  manufacturer. 

4.  Information.  Ford  believes  the  reference 
to  "total  load"  in  paragraph  S5.1.2(c)  is  mis- 
leading "in  that  users  may  easily  understand  this 
to  be  the  total  load  on  the  truck."  It  suggests 
substitution  of  the  term  "cargo  load."  Ford's 
point  is  well  made,  and  the  term  is  redesignated 
"total  cargo  load"  as  a  clarification. 

Toyota  has  asked  that  paragraph  S5.1.2(e) 
be  amended  to  substitute  four  inches  for  the  re- 
quirement that  camper  manufacturers  provide 
a  picture  showing  the  location  of  the  center  of 
gravity  of  the  camper  within  an  accuracy  of  two 
inches  under  the  loaded  condition.  The  petition 
is  denied.  The  intent  of  the  specification  is  to 
insure  an  accuracy  within  two  inches,  in  either 
direction,  in  effect,  a  range  of  four  inches.  The  C 
NHTSA  does  not  consider  this  tolerance  to"  be 
overly  demanding. 

Finally,  RVI  states  that  its  members  have  had 
difficulty  in  interpreting  Figure  2  and  requests 
the  NHTSA  to  more  clearly  indicate  "that  the 
terminology  'Mount  at  Aft  End  of  Truck  Cargo 
Area'  means  that  the  designated  point  in  the 
figure  signifies  the  point  where  the  identified 
surface  of  the  camper  abuts  the  rearmost  edge 
or  surface  of  the  cargo  area  of  the  truck,  pre- 
sumably the  tailgate  in  most  configurations."  To 
clarify  its  intent  the  NHTSA  is  changing  the 
language  in  question  to  "point  that  contacts  rear 
end  of  truck  bed." 

5.  Vehicle  Identification  Number  (VIN.)  The 
NHTSA  proposed  on  August  15,  1972  (Docket 
No.  71-7;  Notice  3,  F.R.  16505)  that  slide-in 
campers  be  identified  by  a  VIN,  consisting  of 
arabic  numerals,  roman  letters,  or  both.  The 
notice  also  proposed  to  require  that  the  VIN  of 
two  campers  manufactured  by  a  manufacturer 
within  a  ten  year  period  shall  not  be  identical. 
No  objections  were  raised  to  the  proposal,  and 
Standard  No.  126  is  amended  to  adopt  the  pro- 


PART  571;  S  126— PRE  4 


Effactlve:  January   1,    1973 


posed  requirements,  reworded  slightly  effective 
January  1,  1973. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  49  CFR 
§  571.126,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No. 
126,  is  amended.  .  .  . 

Effective  date:  January  1,  1973,  with  addi- 
tional requirements  effective  September  1,  1973. 
Because  the  amendment  consists  principally  of 
the  reissue  of  existing  requirements,  and  com- 
pliance with  the  amendment  requiring  a  VIN 
does  not  involve  extensive  leadtime,  the  Admin- 
istrator finds  for  good  cause  shown  that  an  effec- 
tive date  eariler  than  180  days  after  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  of  1966 
(15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1403,  and  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  6,  1972. 

Douglas  W.  Toms 
Administrator 

37  F.R.  26605 
December  14,  1972 


PART  571;  S  126— PRE  5-6 


r 


( 


( 


Efftctlvc:   February   14,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   126 

Truck-Camper  Loading 
(Docket  No.  71-7;  Notice  7) 


This  notice  responds  to  a  petition  for  reconsid- 
eration of  49  CFR  §  571.126,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  126,  Truck-camper  loading,  with  an 
amendment  allowing  optional  wording  of  a  por- 
tion of  the  placard  to  be  affixed  to  campers,  and 
of  other  required  information.  The  amendments 
are  effective  upon  publication  in  the  Federal  Reg- 
ister. 

On  August  15,  1972  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  126  was  originally  published  (37 
F.R.  16497).  In  response  to  petitions  for  recon- 
sideration the  standard  was  republished  on  De- 
cember 14, 1972  (37  F.R.  26605)  with  amendments 
that  included  minor  changes  in  the  text  of  infor- 
mation required  to  be  furnished  to  purchasers  of 
slide-in  campers. 

Paragraph  S5.1.2(a)  of  Standard  No.  126  re- 
quires each  manufacturer  of  a  slide-in  camper 
to  provide  in  a  manual  or  other  document  deliv- 
ered with  each  camper  "the  statement  and  infor- 
mation provided  on  the  certification  label  as 
specified  in  paragraph  S5.1.1".  Among  this  in- 
formation is  the  month  and  year  that  the  camper 
was  manufactured.  The  Trailer  Coach  Associa- 
tion has  asked  in  a  letter  dated  December  29, 
1972  that  wording  such  as  "see  certification  label 
for  date  of  manufacture"  be  substituted  for  the 
month  and  year  of  manufacture,  contending  that 
"to  require  manufacturers  to  list  the  month  and 
year  of  manufacture  in  each  vehicle  owner's 
manual  would  be  an  unnecessary  hardship  in 
view  of  the  production  and  shipping  schedule 
which  varies  greatly  from  time  to  time  during 
the  year." 

The  NHTSA  believes  that  the  request  of  TCA 
is  reasonable,  and  is  treating  TCA's  letter  as  a 
petition  for  reconsideration  filed  pursuant  to  49 
CFR   553.35.     However,  since   the   information 


requirement  became  effective  January  1,  1973, 
and  because  of  the  possibility  that  manufacturers 
now  providing  this  data  may  wish  to  continue  to 
do  so,  the  manufacturer  should  have  the  option 
of  including  either  the  month  and  year  of  manu- 
facture or  a  reference  to  the  certification  label. 
The  standard  is  being  amended  to  provide  this 
option. 

In  the  amendments  published  on  December  14, 
1972  two  minor  changes  were  made  in  terminol- 
ogy. In  Paragraph  S5.1.2(c)  the  phrase  "total 
load",  which  appears  twice,  was  changed  to  "total 
cargo  load"  as  a  clarification.  Further  clarifica- 
tion was  provided  in  an  amendment  to  Figure  2, 
Camper  Center  of  Gravity  Information  where  the 
legend  "Mount  at  Aft  End  of  Truck  Cargo  Area" 
was  changed  to  "Point  That  Contacts  Rear  End 
of  Truck  Bed".  In  view  of  the  amendments  to 
§  575.103  delaying  the  effective  date  30  days  until 
April  1,  1973,  and  permitting  use  of  the  earlier 
form  until  October  1,  1973  (Docket  No.  71-7; 
Notice  6  (38  F.R.  4400)),  camper  manufactur- 
ers who  have  printed  manuals  with  the  old 
terminology  should  be  afforded  the  same  oppor- 
tunity as  truck  manufacturers  to  exhaust  obsolete 
stocks  of  materials.  Appropriate  amendments  are 
therefore  made  to  Standard  No.  126,  including  a 
30  day  delay  in  the  pictorial  information  that 
was  to  have  been  provided  as  of  September  1, 
1973. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing  49  CFR 
§  571.126  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  126 
is  amended  .... 

Effective  date:  February  14, 1973.  Because  the 
amendments  create  no  additional  burden  it  is 
found  for  good  cause  that  an  effective  date  earlier 
than  one  hundred  eighty  days  after  issuance  is 
in  the  public  interest. 


PART  571;  S  126— PRE  7 


Eihcflve:  February   14,    1973 

(Sec.  103,  112,  114,  and  119,  Pub.  L.  89-563, 
80  Stat.  718,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401, 1403  and  1407 ; 
delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51.) 

Issued  on  February  12, 1973. 

Douglas  W.  Toms 
Administrator 

38  F.R.  4399 
February  14,  1973 


PART  571;  S  126— PRE  8 


( 


EffacHve:  March  9,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   126 

Truck-Camper  Loading 
(Docket  No.  71-7;  Notice  8) 


This  notice  corrects  the  amendment  to  49  CFK 
§571.126,  Standard  No.  126,  Truck-cam'per 
loading,  published  on  February  14,  1973  (38 
F.R.  4399).  The  amendment  to  paragraph 
S5.1.2(a)  erroneously  referred  to  "the  informa- 
tion required  by  subparagraphs  (c)  and  (d)  of 
paragraph  S5.1.1".  The  reference  should  have 
been  to  "subparagraphs  (b)  and  (c)". 

Additionally,  the  opening  statement  of  the 
preamble  erroneously  stated  that  the  amendment 
allowed  "optional  wording  of  a  portion  of  the 
"'icard  to  be  aflixed  to  campers,  and  of  other 
required  information".  The  amendment  itself 
correctly  allowed  optional  wording  of  informa- 


tion provided  in  the  manual  or  other  document 
delivered  with  the  camper,  not  on  the  placard. 

Efective  date:  March  9,  1973.  Because  the 
amendment  corrects  an  error,  it  is  found  for 
good  cause  shown  that  an  immediate  effective 
date  is  in  the  public  interest. 

(Sec.  103,  112,  114  and  119,  Pub.  L.  89-563, 
80  Stat.  718,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1403,  and 
1407;  delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51.) 

Issued  on  March  5, 1973. 

Douglas  W.   Toms 
Administrator 

38  F.R.  6392 
March  9,  1973 


PART  671;  S  12&-PRE  9-10 


Effective:   January    1,    1973 
(Except   as   Noted   In   Rule) 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   126 

Truck-Camper  Loading 
(Docket  No.  71-7;   Notice  2) 


51.  Scope.  [This  standard  requires  manufac- 
turers of  slide-in  campers  to  affix  a  label  to  each 
camper  that  contains  information  relating  to 
certification,  identification,  and  proper  loading, 
and  to  provide  more  detailed  loading  informa- 
tion in  the  owner's  manual.  (37  F.R.  26605 — 
December  14,  1972.    Effective:  1/1/73)] 

52.  Purpose.  [The  purpose  of  this  standard 
is  to  provide  information  that  can  be  used  to 
reduce  overloading  and  improper  load  placement 
in  truck-camper  combinations,  and  unsafe  truck- 
camper  matching,  in  order  to  prevent  accidents 
resulting  from  the  adverse  effects  of  these  condi- 
tions on  vehicle  steering  and  braking.  (37  F.R. 
26605— December  14,  1972.     Effective:  1/1/73)] 

53.  Application.  [This  standard  applies  to 
slide-in  campers.  (37  F.R.  26605 — December  14, 
1972.    Effective:  1/1/73)] 

54.  Definitions. 

"Camper"  means  a  structure  designed  to  be 
moimted  in  the  cargo  area  of  a  truck,  or  attached 
to  an  incomplete  vehicle  with  motive  power,  for 
the  purpose  of  providing  shelter  for  persons. 

["Cargo  weight  rating"  means  the  value  spec- 
ified by  the  manufacturer  as  the  cargo-carrying 
capacity,  in  pounds,  of  a  vehicle,  exclusive  of  the 
weight  of  occupants  in  designated  seating  posi- 
tions. (37  F.R.  26605— December  14,  1972.  Ef- 
fective: 1/1/73)] 

"Slide-in  camper"  means  a  camper  having  a 
roof,  floor  and  sides,  designed  to  be  mounted  on 
and  removable  from  the  cargo  area  of  a  truck 
by  the  user. 

55.  Requirements. 

S5.1    Slide-in  camper. 

S5.1 .1  Labels.  Each  slide-in  camper  shall  have 
permanently  affixed   to  it,  in  a  manner  that  it 


cannot  be  removed  without  defacing  or  destroy- 
ing it,  in  a  plainly  visible  location  on  an  exterior 
rear  surface  other  tlian  the  roof,  steps,  or  bumper 
extension,  a  label  containing  the  following  infor- 
mation in  the  English  language  lettered  in  block 
capitals  and  numerals  not  less  than  3/32-incli  high, 
of  a  color  contrasting  with  the  background,  in 
the  order  shown  below  and  in  the  f  oi-m  illustrated 
in  Figure  1. 


MFG.  BY:  (CAMPER  MANUFACTURERS  NAME) 

(MONTH   AND   YEAR   OF  /AANUFACTURE) 

THIS  CAMPER  CONFORMS  TO  ALL  APPLICABLE  FEDERAL 

MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARDS  IN  EFFECT  ON  THE 

DATE  OF  MANUFACTURE  SHOWN  ABOVE. 

CAMPER     WEIGHT     IS     LBS.     MAXIMUM 

WHEN    IT    CONTAINS    STANDARD    EQUIPMENT,   

GAL.  OF  WATER, IBS.  OF  BOHLED  GAS, 

AND    CUBIC    FT.    REFRIGERATOR   (or    ICE 


BOX   WITH 


LBS.   OF   ICE,  as  applicable). 


CONSULT   OWNER'S   /MANUAL  (or   DATA   SHEET   as   applicable) 
FOR    WEIGHTS    OF    ADDITIONAL    OR    OPTIONAL    EQUIPMENT. 

(VEHICLE  IDENTIFICATION  NUMBER) 


FiouBE  1.    Label  for  Campers. 

(a)  Name  of  camper  manufacturer.  The  full 
corporate  or  individual  name  of  the  actual  as- 
sembler of  the  camper  shall  be  spelled  out,  except 
that  such  abbreviations  as  "Co.,"  or  "Inc.,"  and 
their  foreign  equivalents,  and  the  first  and  mid- 
dle initials  of  individuals  may  be  used.  The 
name  of  the  manufacturer  shall  be  preceded  by 
the  words  "Manufactured  By"  or  "Mfd.  By". 

(b)  Month  and  year  of  manufacture.  It  may 
be  spelled  out  {e.g.,  "June  1973"),  or  expressed 
in  numerals  {e.g.,  "6/73"). 

(c)  The  statement:  "This  camper  conforms  to 
all    applicable    Federal    Motor    Vehicle    Safety 


(Rev.   2/23/73) 


PART  571;  S  126-1 


Effective:  January  I,   1973 
(Except  as  Noted  in  Rule) 

Standards  in  effect  on  the  date  of  manufacture 
shown  above."  The  expression  "U.S."  or 
"U.S.A."  may  be  inserted  before  the  word 
"Federal". 

(d)  The  following  statement  completed  as  ap- 
propriate: "CAMPER  WEIGHT  IS  

LBS.    MAXIMUM    WHEN    IT    CONTAINS 


STANDARD  EQUIPMENT, 


GAL. 


OF  WATER, 
GAS,  AND  __ 


LBS.  OF  BOTTLED 


CUBIC  FT.  REFRIG- 


LBS. 


ERATOR  (or  ICE  BOX  WITH 

OF  ICE,  as  applicable).  CONSULT  OWN- 
ER'S  MANUAL  (or  DATA  SHEET  as  ap- 
plicable) FOR  WEIGHTS  OF  ADDITIONAL 
OR  OPTIONAL  EQUIPMENT." 

"Gal.  of  water"  refers  to  the  volume  of  water 
necessary  to  fill  the  camper's  fresh  water  tanks  to 
capacity.  "Lbs.  of  bottled  gas"  refers  to  the 
weight  of  gas  necessary  to  fill  the  camper's 
bottled  gas  tanks  to  capacity.  The  statement 
regarding  a  "Refrigerator"  or  "Icebox"  refers  to 
the  capacity  of  the  refrigerator  with  which  the 
vehicle  is  equipped  or  the  weight  of  the  ice  with 
which  the  icebox  may  be  filled.  Any  of  these 
items  may  be  omitted  from  the  statement,  if  the 
corresponding  accessories  are  not  included  with 
the  camper,  provided  that  the  omission  is  noted 
in  the  camper  owner's  manual  as  required  in 
paragraph  S5.1.2(a). 

£(e)  Vehicle  Identification  Number.  Each 
slide-in  camper  shall  have  a  number  assigned  by 
its  manufacturer  for  identification  purposes  con- 
sisting of  arabic  numerals,  roman  letters  or  both. 
No  two  slide-in  campers  manufactured  by  the 
same  manufacturer  within  any  10-year  period 
shall  have  the  same  Vehicle  Identification  Num- 
ber. (37  F.R.  26605— December  14,  1972.  Effec- 
tive: 1/1/73)] 

S5.1.2  Owner's  manual.  [Each  slide-in  camper 
manufacturer  shall  provide  with  each  camper  a 
manual  or  other  document  containing  the  infor- 
mation specified  in  S5.1.2(a)  through  S5.1.2(d). 
The  information  in  S5.1.2(e)  and  S5.1.2(f)  shall 
also  be  provided  with  each  camper  manufactured 


on  or  after  October  1,  1973.     (38  F.R.  4399—     1 
February  14,  1973.    Effective:  2/14/73)] 

(a)  [The  statement  and  information  provided 
on  the  certification  label  as  specified  in  paragraph 
S5.1.1.  Instead  of  the  information  required  by 
subparagraphs  (b)  and  (c)  of  paragraph  S5.1.1 
a  manufacturer  may  use  the  statements,  "See 
camper  certification  label  for  month  and  year  of 
manufacture"  and  "This  camper  conforms  to  all 
applicable  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Stand- 
ards in  effect  on  the  date  of  manufacture".  If 
water,  bottled  gas,  or  refrigerator  (icebox)  has 
been  omitted  from  this  statement,  the  manufac- 
turer's information  shall  note  such  omission  and 
advise  that  the  weight  of  any  such  item  when 
added  to  the  camper,  should  be  added  to  the 
maximum  camper  weight  figure  used  in  selecting 
an  appropriate  truck.  (38  F.R.  4399 — February 
14, 1973.    Effective :  2/14/73)] 

(b)  A  list  of  other  additional  or  optional 
equipment  that  the  camper  is  designed  to  carry, 
and  the  maximum  weight  of  each  if  its  weight 
is  more  than  20  lbs.  when  installed. 

(c)  [The   statement:   "To   estimate   the   total 
cargo  load  that  will  be  placed  on  a  truck,  add  the     i 
weight  of  all  passengers  in  the  camper,  the  weight 

of  supplies,  tools,  and  all  other  cargo,  the  weight 
or  installed  additional  or  optional  camper  equip- 
ment, and  the  manufacturer's  camper  weight 
figure.  Select  a  truck  that  has  a  cargo  weight 
rating  that  is  equal  to  or  greater  than  the  total 
cargo  load  of  the  camper,  and  whose  manufacturer 
recommends  a  cargo  center  of  gravity  zone  that 
will  contain  the  camper's  center  of  gravity  when 
it  is  installed".  Until  October  1,  1973  the  phrase 
"total  load"  may  be  used  instead  of  "total  cargo 
load".  (38  F.R.  4399— February  14,  1973.  Ef- 
fective: 2/14/73)] 

(d)  The  statements:  "When  loading  this 
camper  store  heavy  gear  first,  keeping  it  on  or 
close  to  the  camper  floor.  Place  heavy  things  far 
enough  forward  to  keep  the  loaded  camper's 
center  of  gravity  within  the  zone  recommended 
by  the  truck  manufacturer.  Store  only  light  ob- 
jects on  high  shelves.  Distribute  weight  to  ob- 
tain even  side-to-side  balance  of  the  loaded 
vehicle.  Secure  loose  items  to  prevent  weight 
shifts  that  could  affect  the  balance  of  your  ve- 
hicle.    When  the  truck-camper  is  loaded,  drive 

to  a  scale  and  weigh  on  the  front  and  on  the  rear      / 


(Rev.   2/12/73) 


PART  571:  S  126-2 


Effective:   January   I,    1973 
(Except   as   Noted   In   Rule) 


wheels  separately  to  determine  axle  loads.  The 
load  on  an  axle  should  not  exceed  its  gross  axle 
weight  rating  (GAWR).  The  total  of  the  axle 
loads  should  not  exceed  the  gross  vehicle  weight 
rating  (GVIVR).  These  weight  ratings  are 
given  on  the  vehicle  certification  label  that  is 
located  on  the  left  side  of  the  vehicle,  normally 
the  dash  panel,  hinge  pillar,  door  latch  post,  or 
door  edge  next  to  the  driver  on  trucks  manu- 
factured on  or  after  January  1,  1972.  If  weight 
ratings  are  exceeded,  move  or  remove  items  to 
bring  all  weights  below  the  ratings." 

(e)  [A  picture  showing  the  location  of  the 
longitudinal  center  of  gravity  of  the  camper 
within  an  accuracy  of  2  inches  under  the  loaded 


CAMPER  MANUFACTURER'S  NAME 


) 

\M 

°/ 

□□ 

r 

a 
o 

o 

\ 

CENTER  OF  GRAVtTV  LOCATION  L^ 

UNDER  SPECIFIED  LOADING  ' 

CONDITION  ,  * 


t.    POINT  THAT 

CONTACTS  REAR 
END  OF  TRUCK 
BED 


FIGURE  2    CAMPER  CENTER  OF  GRAVITY  INFORMATION 

condition  specified  in  paragraph  S5.1.1(d),  iii 
the  manner  illustrated  in  Figure  2.  Until  Oc- 
tober 1,  1973  the  phrase  "Mount  at  Aft  End  of 
Truck  Cargo  Area"  may  be  used  in  Figure  2 


instead  of  "Point  That  Contacts  Rear  End  of 
Truck  Bed".  (38  F.R.  4399— February  14,  1973. 
Effective:  2/14/73)] 


FIGURE  3    EXAMPLE  OF  PROPER  TRUCK  AND  CAMPER  MATCH 

(f)  A  picture  showing  the  proper  match  of  a 
truck  and  slide-in  camper  in  the  form  illustrated 
in  Figure  3. 


TRUCK  MANUFACTURER'S  NAME 
TRUCK  MODEL  OR  DESCRIPTION 

RECOMMENOfO 
LOCATION  rOR 
CARGO CENTCn 
OF  GRAVItV  FOR 

CARGO  WEIGHT    ■ 

~N  RATtMC 


FIGURE  4    TRUCK  LOADING  INFORMATION 


37   F.R.    16497 
August   15,   1972 


(Rev.   2/ 1  2/731 


PART  571;  S  126-3 


r 


( 


Eff«ctiv«:   January    1,    1968 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.201 

Occupant  Protection  In   Interior  impact — Passenger  Cars 

(Docket   No.   19) 


Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  201,  issued 
January  31,  1967,  and  published  in  the  Federal 
Register,  February  3,  1967  (32  F.R.  2413),  speci- 
fies requirements  for  instrument  panels,  seat 
backs,  protrusions,  sun  visors,  and  armrests  to 
afford  impact  protection  for  occupants  of  passen- 
ger cars  manufactured  after  January  1,  1968. 

Parties  adversely  affected  by  the  Standard 
were  permitted  to  petition  for  reconsideration 
on  or  before  March  6,  1967,  pursuant  to  23  CFR 
215.17.  By  order  dated  March  29,  1967,  the 
Acting  Under  Secretary  of  Commerce  for  Trans- 
portation consolidated  the  27  petitions  related 
to  Standard  No.  201  and  ordered  that  a  hearing 
on  reconsiderations  be  held. 

On  April  21,  1967,  the  Federal  Highway  Ad- 
ministration issued  an  order  directing  that  a 
rule-making  hearing  be  held  pursuant  to  5  U.S.C. 
553  (formerly  sec.  4  of  the  Administrative  Pro- 
cedure Act  (60  Stat.  238,  5  U.S.C.  1003).  The 
hearing  was  held  May  22  and  23,  1967,  at  Detroit, 
Mich.,  and  May  24  and  25,  1967,  at  Washington, 
D.C.  On  June  22,  1967,  the  presiding  officer 
submitted  his  Report  of  Recommended  Findings 
to  the  Federal  Highway  Administration. 

On  June  8  and  9,  1967,  and  July  6  and  7,  1967, 
meetings  were  held  by  the  National  Highway 
Safety  Bureau  with  domestic  and  foreign  auto 
industry  engineers  in  which  detailed  engineering 
discussions  of  all  problems  of  compliance  with 
the  Standard  were  held. 

After  review  of  the  evidence  presented  at  the 
hearings  ordered  by  the  Federal  Highway  Ad- 
ministration, the  report  of  the  presiding  officer, 


and  the  Bureau's  analysis  of  the  engineering 
meetings  with  the  industry,  I  have  determined 
that  Standard  201  issued  January  31, 1967,  should 
be  superseded  by  a  new  Standard  that  specifies 
initial  requirements  to  afford  impact  protection 
for  occupants,  and  that  certain  related  definitions 
should  be  amended  accordingly. 

Good  cause  is  shown  that  an  effective  date 
earlier  than  180  days  after  issuance  is  in  the 
public  interest  and  notice  and  public  procedure 
hereon  are  unnecessary  since  these  amendments 
relieve  restrictions  and  impose  no  additional 
burden  on  any  person. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Part  371, 
Initial  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standards, 
is  amended  by  superseding  §  371.21,  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  201  (32  F.R.  2413), 
with  a  new  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No. 
201  ..  .  and  by  amending  §  371.3(b).  .  .  . 

These  amendments  are  made  under  the  author- 
ity 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  effec- 
tive January  1, 1968. 

Issued  in  Washington,  D.C,  on  August  11, 
1967. 

Lowell  K.  Bridwell, 

Federal  Highway  Administrator 

32  F.R.   11776 
August  16,   1967 


PART  571;  S  201— PRE  1-2 


EffacMva:   January   1,    1970 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  201 
Occupant  Protection  in  Interior  Impact — Passenger  Cars 


I 


51.  Purpose  and  scope.  This  standard  speci- 
fies requirements  to  afford  impact  protection  for 
occupants. 

52.  Application.  This  standard  applies  to  pas- 
senger cars. 

53.  Requirements. 

S3.1  Instrument  panels.  Except  as  provided 
in  S3.1.1,  when  that  area  of  the  instrument  panel 
that  is  within  the  head  impact  area  is  impacted 
in  accordance  with  S3.1.2  by  a  15  pound,  6.5  inch 
diameter  head  form  at  a  relative  velocity  of  15 
miles  per  hour,  the  deceleration  of  the  head  form 
shall  not  exceed  80g  continuously  for  more  than 
3  milliseconds. 

53. 1.1  The  requirements  of  S3.1  do  not  apply 
to— 

(a)  Console  assemblies; 

(b)  Areas  less  than  5  inches  inboard  from  the 
juncture  of  the  instrument  panel  attachment  to 
the  body  side  inner  structure ; 

(c)  Areas  closer  to  the  windshield  juncture 
than  those  statically  contactable  by  the  head  form 
with  the  windshield  in  place ; 

(d)  Areas  outboard  of  any  point  of  tangencj' 
on  the  instrument  panel  of  a  6.5  inch  diameter 
head  form  tangent  to  and  inboard  of  a  vertical 
longitudinal  plane  tangent  to  the  inboard  edge 
of  the  steering  wheel ;  or 

(e)  Areas  below  any  point  at  which  a  vertical 
line  is  tangent  to  the  rearmost  surface  of  the 
panel. 

53. 1.2  Demonstration  procedures.  Tests  shall 
be  performed  as  described  in  Society  of  Auto- 
motive Engineers  Recommended  Practice  J921, 
"Instrument  Panel  Laboratory  Impact  Test  Pro- 
cedure," June  1965,  using  the  specified  instru- 
mentation or  insti-umentation  that  'meets  the 
performance  requirements  specified  in  Society  of 
Automotive  Engineers  Recommended  Practice 
J977,  "In.strumentation  for  Laboratory  Impact 
Tests,"  November  1966,  except  that — 


(a)  The  origin  of  the  line  tangent  to  the  in- 
strument panel  surface  shall  be  a  point  on  a 
transverse  horizontal  line  through  a  point  5 
inches  horizontally  forward  of  the  seating  refer- 
ence point  of  the  front  outboard  passenger  des- 
ignated seating  position,  displaced  vertically  an 
amount  equal  to  the  rise  which  results  from  a 
5  inch  forward  adjustment  of  the  seat  or  0.75 
inches;  and 

(b)  Direction  of  impact  shall  be  either — 

(1)  In  a  vertical  plane  parallel  to  the  ve- 
hicle longitudinal  axis ;  or 

(2)  In  a  plane  normal  to  the  surface  at  the 
point  of  contact. 

S3.2  Seat  Backs.  Except  as  provided  in  S3.2.1, 
when  that  area  of  the  seat  back  that  is  within 
the  head  impact  area  is  impacted  in  accordance 
with  S3.2.2  by  a  15  pound,  6.5  inch  diameter 
head  form  at  a  relative  velocity  of  15  miles  per 
hour,  the  deceleration  of  the  head  form  shall  not 
exceed  80g  continuously  for  more  than  3  milli- 
seconds. 

53.2.1  The  requirements  of  S3.2  do  not  applj' 
to  rearmost,  side-facing,  back-to-back,  folding 
auxiliary  jump,  and  temporary  seats. 

53.2.2  Demonstration  procedures.  Tests  shall 
be  performed  as  described  in  Society  of  Auto- 
motive Engineers  Recommended  Practice  J921, 
"Instrument  Panel  Laboratory  Impact  Test  Pro- 
cedure," June  1965,  using  the  specified  instru- 
mentation or  instrumentation  that  meets  the 
performance  requirements  specified  in  Society  of 
Automotive  Engineers  Recommended  Practice 
J977,  "Instrumentation  for  Laboratory  Impact 
Tests,"  November  1966,  except  that — 

(a)  The  origin  of  the  line  tangent  to  the  up- 
permost seat  back  fraAie  component  shall  be  a 
point  on  a  transverse  horizontal  line  through  the 
seating  reference  point  of  the  right  rear  desig- 
nated seating  position,  with  adjustable  forward 
seats  in  their  rearmost  design  driving  position 


PART  571;  S  201-1 


Effective:   January   1,    1970 


and  reclinable  forward  seat  backs  in  their  nomi- 
nal design  driving  position; 

(b)  The  direction  of  impact  shall  be  either — 

(1)  In  a  vertical  plane  parallel  to  the  ve- 
hicle longitudinal  axis ;  or 

(2)  In  a  plane  normal  to  the  surface  at  the 
point  of  contact ; 

(c)  For  seats  without  head  restraints  installed, 
tests  shall  be  performed  for  each  individual  split 
or  bucket  seats  back  at  points  within  4.0  inches 
left  and  right  of  its  centerline,  and  for  each 
bench  seat  back  between  points  4.0  inches  out- 
board of  the  centerline  of  each  outboard  desig- 
nated seating  position; 

(d)  For  seats  having  head  restraints  installed, 
each  test  shall  be  conducted  with  the  head  re- 
straint in  place  at  its  lowest  adjusted  position, 
at  a  point  on  the  head  restraint  centerline;  and 

(e)  For  a  seat  that  is  installed  in  more  than 
jne  body  style,  tests  conducted  at  the  fore  and 
aft  extremes  identified  by  application  of  sub- 
paragraph (a)  shall  be  deemed  to  have  demon- 
strated all  intermediate  conditions. 

S3.3  Interior  compartment  doors.  Each  interior 
compartment  door  assembly  located  in  an  instru- 
ment panel,  console  assembly,  seat  back,  or  side 
panel  adjacent  to  a  designated  seating  position 
shall  remain  closed  when  tested  in  accordance 
with  either  S3.3.1(a)  and  S3.3.1(b)  or  S3.3.1(a) 
and  S3.3.1(c).  Additionally,  any  interior  com- 
partment door  located  in  an  instrument  panel  or 
seat  back  shall  remain  closed  when  the  instru- 
ment panel  or  seat  back  is  tested  in  accordance 
with  S3.1  and  S3.2.  All  interior  compartment 
door  assemblies  with  a  locking  device  must  be 
ttisted  with  the  locking  device  in  an  unlocked 
position. 

S3.3.1    Demonstration  procedures. 

(a)  Subject  the  interior  compartment  door 
latch  system  to  an  inertia  load  of  lOg  in  a  hori- 
zontal transverse  direction  and  an  inertia  load 
of  lOg  in  a  vertical  direction  in  accordance  with 
the  procedure  described  in  section  5  of  SAE 
Recommended  Practice  J839b,  "Passenger  Car 
Side  Door  Latch  Systems,"  May  1965,  or  an 
approved  equivalent. 


[(b)   Impact  the  vehicle  perpendicularly  into     /" 
a  fixed  collision  barrier  at  a  forward  longitudinal     I 
velocity  of  30  miles  per  hour.     (35  F.R.  11242 
July  14,  1970.    Effective:  9-1-70).] 

(c)  Subject  the  interior  compartment  door 
latch  system  to  a  horizontal  inertia  load  of  30g 
in  a  longitudinal  direction  in  accordance  with 
the  procedure  described  in  section  5  of  SAE 
Recommended  Practice  J839b,  "Passenger  Car 
Side  Door  Latch  Systems,"  May  1965,  or  an 
approved  equivalent. 

53.4  Sun  visors. 

53. 4.1  Two  sun  visors  shall  be  provided  that 
are  constructed  of  or  covered  with  energj'- 
absorbing  materials. 

53.4.2  Each  sun  visor  mounting  shall  present 
no  rigid  material  edge  radius  of  less  than  0.125 
inch  that  is  statically  coijtactable  by  a  spherical 
6.5  inch  diameter  head  form. 

53. 5  Armrests. 

53. 5.1  General.  Each  installed  armrest  shall 
conform  to  at  least  one  of  the  following: 

(a)  It     shall     be     constructed     with    energy- 
absorbing  material  and  shall  deflect  or  collapse 
laterally   at   least   2   inches   without   permitting     / 
contact  with  any  underlying  rigid  material.  ^ 

(b)  It  shall  be  constructed  with  energ}'- 
absorbing  material  that  deflects  or  collapses  to 
within  1.25  inches  of  a  rigid  test  panel  surface 
without  permitting  contact  with  any  rigid  ma- 
terial. Any  rigid  material  between  0.5  and  1.25 
inches  from  the  panel  surface  shall  have  a  mini- 
mum vertical  height  of  not  less  than  1  inch. 

(c)  Along  not  less  than  2  continuous  inches 
of  its  length,  the  armrest  shall,  when  measured 
vertically  in  side  elevation,  provide  atjeast  2 
inches  of  coverage  within  the  pelvic  impact  area. 

53. 5. 2  Folding  armrests.  Each  armrest  that 
folds  into  the  seat  back  or  between  two  seat  backs 
shall  either — 

(a)  Meet  the  requirement  of  S3.5.1;  or 

(b)  Be  constructed  of  or  covered  with  energy- 
absorbing  material. 

33  F.R.  15794 
October  25,  1968 


IRev.   7/14/70) 


PART  571;  S  201-2 


Effactiv*:   January   1,    1969 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  202 

Head  Restraints — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.  8) 


A  proposal  to  amend  §  371.21  of  Part  371, 
Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standards,  by 
adding  a  new  standard,  Head  Restraints — Pas- 
senger Cars;  was  published  in  the  Federal  Reg- 
ister on  December  28,  1967  (32  F.R.  20865). 

Interested  persons  have  been  afforded  an  op- 
portunity to  participate  in  the  making  of  the 
amendment. 

Several  comments  requested  that  the  use  of  a 
50th  percentile  adult  male  manikin  be  permitted 
in  demonstrating  compliance  with  the  Standard. 
The  Administration  feels  that  a  50th  percentile 
manikin  is  not  representative  of  a  large  enough 
percentage  of  the  public,  but  recognizes  that  cer- 
tain modifications  to  a  50th  percentile  manikin 
may  result  in  a  suitable  test  device.  Therefore, 
the  Standard  has  been  modified  to  permit  use 
of  an  approved  equivalent  test  device. 

A  comment  from  an  equipment  manufacturer 
and  an  equipment  manufacturers'  association  as- 
serted that  the  Standard  should  not  require  that 
motor  vehicle  manufacturers  provide  head  re- 
straints at  the  time  of  vehicle  manufacture,  but 
that  each  customer  should  be  free  to  equip  his 
vehicle  with  head  restraints  of  his  own  choice, 
maintaining  that  the  installation  of  head  re- 
straints is  a  relatively  simple  matter  and  that 
there  appears  to  be  virtually  no  technological 
advantage  in  requiring  factory  installation.  The 
Administration  has  determined  that  safety  dic- 
tates that  head  restraints  be  provided  on  all 
passenger  cars  manufactured  on  or  after  January 
1,  1969,  and  that  a  head  restraint  standard  that 
merely  specified  performance  requirements  for 
head  restraint  equipment  would  not  insure  that 
all  passenger  cars  would  be  so  equipped,  and 
would  not,  therefore,  meet  the  need  for  safety. 
Furthermore,  the  Administration  has  determined 
that  the  performance  of  a  head  restraint  is  de- 


pendent upon  the  strength  of  the  structure  of 
the  seat  to  which  it  is  attached,  as  well  as  the 
compatibility  of  the  head  restraint  with  its 
anchorage  to  the  seat  structure. 

Some  of  the  comments  expressed  concern  that 
the  proposed  Standard  would  exclude  the  use  of 
head  restraints  that  are  integral  with  the  seat 
back.  The  Administration  did  not  intend  to 
imply  that  "add-on"  head  restraint  devices  are 
the  only  available  means  of  providing  appro- 
priate levels  of  protection.  Such  protection  may 
be  achieved  by  the  use  of  a  restraint  system  that 
is  integral  with  the  seat  back. 

Some  comments  noted  that  when  testing  head 
restraints  that  are  adjustable  to  a  height  of  more 
than  27.5  inches  above  the  seating  reference  point, 
the  load  would  not  be  applied  to  the  appropriate 
portion  of  the  head  restraint.  To  provide  the 
necessary  flexibility,  the  Standard  has  been  modi- 
fied to  specify  that  the  point  of  load  application 
and  the  point  of  width  measurement  be  deter- 
mined relative  to  the  top  of  the  head  restraint 
rather  than  the  seating  reference  point. 

Some  comments  stated  that  the  8g  perform- 
ance requirement  would  be  incomplete  without 
the  inclusion  of  a  time  duration  requirement. 
The  Administration  has  concluded  that  a  mini- 
mum time  duration  of  80  milliseconds  is  appro- 
priate and  the  Standard  has  been  so  modified. 

Some  comments  requested  that  the  location  of 
the  head  restraint  relative  to  the  torso  line  be 
measured  without  a  load  being  applied  to  the 
head  restraint.  The  Administration  feels  that 
this  measurement  would  be  unrealistic  and, 
therefore,  the  Standard  requires  that  the  meas- 
urement be  taken  during  the  application  of  the 
132-pound  initial  load. 

Many  comments  requested  a  more  precise  de- 
scription of  the  method  to  be  used  in  locating 


PART  571;  S  202— PRE  1 


231-088   O  -  77  -  51 


Effective:  January    ),    1969 

the  test  device's  reference  line  and  torso  refer- 
ence line.  Therefore,  the  Standard  has  been 
modified  to  provide  the  necessary  clarification. 

Some  comments  claimed  that  lead  time  would 
be  a  problem;  however,  the  Administration  be- 
lieves that  the  need  to  protect  the  public  from 
neck  injury  outweighs  the  possible  lead  time 
problems. 

Several  comments  requested  clarification  of  the 
term  "approved  representation  of  a  human  ar- 
ticulated neck  structure."  "Approved"  is  defined 
in  §  371.3(b)  as  "approved  by  the  Secretary." 
The  Secretary  would  approve  the  neck  structure 
of  a  test  device  if  it  could  be  demonstrated  by 
technical  test  data  that  the  artro^ilation  of  the 
neck  structure  represented  that  of  a  human  neck. 
Approval  could  only  be  given  to  a  structure 
sufficiently  described  in  performance  parameters 
to  ensure  reliable  and  reproducible  test  data. 


In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  §  371.21  of 
Part  371,  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Stand- 
ards, is  amended  by  adding  Standard  No.  202  . . . 
Eflfective  January  1, 1969. 

(Sees.  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 
Mar.  31,  1967,  32  F.R.  5606;  as  amended  Apr.  6, 
1967,  32  F.R.  6495;  July  27,  1967,  32  F.R.  11276; 
Oct.  11,  1967,  32  F.R.  14277;  Nov.  8,  1967,  32 
F.R.  15710,  and  Feb.  8,  1968) 

Issued  in  Washington,  D.C.,  on  February  12, 
1968. 

Lowell  K.  Bridwell, 

Federal  Highway  Administrator 

33  F.R.  2945 
February   14,    1968 


r 


PART  671 ;  S  202— PRE  2 


c 


Effadiva:  January   1,    1969 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  202 

Head  Restraints — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.  8) 


Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  202,  issued 
February  12,  1968,  and  published  in  the  Federal 
Register  February  14,  1968  (33  F.R.  2945),  speci- 
fies requirements  for  head  restraints  to  reduce 
the  frequency  and  severity  of  neck  injury  in 
rear-end  and  other  collisions  to  occupants  of 
passenger  cars  manufactured  after  January  I, 
1969. 

Pursuant  to  23  CFR  216.35  (32  F.R.  15818), 
interested  persons  could  petition  the  Federal 
Highway  Administrator  for  reconsideration  on 
or  before  March  15,  1968. 

Several  petitioners  questioned  the  80  milli- 
second duration  requirement  of  the  8g  dynamic 
test  on  the  grounds  that  it  imposes  a  more  severe 
load  on  the  seat  back  than  is  required  in  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  207,  Anchorage  of 
Seats — Passenger  Cars.  The  Administrator  has 
determined  that  the  demonstration  procedure 
should  be  revised  to  incorporate  a  half-sine  wave 
■  cceleration  pulse  shape  with  an  amplitude  of  8g 
and  a  base  (duration)  of  80  milliseconds.  This 
revised  loading  is  closer  to  actual  crash  condi- 
tions, and  is  more  consistent  with  existing  seat 
strength  requirements.  The  demonstration  pro- 
cedure has  been  revised  to  include  the  half-sine 
wave  pulse  shape. 

Several  petitioners  questioned  the  method  for 
establishing  the  displaced  torso  line  for  the  static 
test  on  the  grounds  that  it  did  not  take  into 
account  the  compression  of  the  seat  back  cushion 
by  the  torso  under  load.  The  Administrator  has 
determined  that  the  Standard  should  be  revised 
to  take  into  account  seat  back  cushion  compres- 
sion in  establishing  the  displaced  torso  line,  and 
the  demonstration  procedure  has  been  revised 
accordingly. 


One  petitioner  questioned  the  procedure  out- 
lined for  establishing  the  dummy  reference  line 
for  the  dynamic  test.  The  procedure  made  use 
of  the  torso  line  of  the  95th  percentile  dummy 
or  test  device  and  there  is  no  commonly  accepted 
definition  of  this  torso  line.  The  Administrator 
has  revised  the  procedure  for  establishing  dummy 
torso  reference  lines  to  make  use  of  the  SAE 
two-dimensional  manikin,  with  its  torso  line 
established  in  accordance  with  SAE  Aerospace — 
Automotive  Drawing  Standards. 

One  petitioner  questioned  the  requirement  that 
a  spherical  head  form  be  used  to  apply  the  static 
load  because  tests  have  shown  that  this  head 
form  tends  to  slip  under  the  foundation  structure 
of  the  head  restraint,  thus  showing  an  unrealistic 
loss  of  load.  The  Administrator  has  revised  the 
demonstration  procedure  to  include  a  cylindrical 
head  form  as  an  alternative. 

One  petitioner  requested  that  the  static  load 
requirement  of  200  pounds  for  head  restraints 
adjusted  to  a  height  of  27.5  inches  be  changed 
to  an  equivalent  moment  about  the  seating  refer- 
ence point.  This  would  permit  the  manufacturer 
who  has  a  head  restraint  which  adjusts  higher 
than  27.5  inches  to  subject  his  head  restraint  to 
less  than  a  200  pound  static  load.  This  petition 
is  denied.  The  Administrator  has  determined 
that  the  200  pound  static  load  should  remain  in 
the  Standard  to  ensure  that  all  head  restraints 
sustain  this  load  to  meet  the  needs  of  safety. 

Since  this  amendment  provides  clarification, 
relieves  a  restriction,  and  imposes  no  additional 
burden,  notice  and  public  procedure  are  unnec- 
essary. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  ■§  371.21  of 
Part  371,  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard 
No.  202,  which  becomes  effective  January  1,  1969, 


PART  571;  S  202— PRE  3 


Effactlva:   January   1,    1969 

is  amended  by  revising  sections  5.1  and  5.2  (re-  Issued  in  Washington,  D.C.,  on  April  11,  1968.     C 

lating  to  the  demonstration  procedures).  ...  \ 

(Sees.    103,   119,   National   Traffic   and   Motor  Lowell  K.  Bridwell, 

Safety   Act   of   1966    (15   U.S.C.    1392,    1407) ;  Federal  Highway  Administrator 
delegation  of  authority  of  March  31,  1967   (32 

F.R.  5606),  as  amended  April  11,  1968  (33  F.R.  33  F.R.  5793 

5803))  April   16,   1968 


( 


PAET  571;  S  202— PRE  4 


Effccllv*:  January   1,   1969 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  202 

Head  Restraints — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket   No.   8) 


Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  202  (33 
F.R.  2945),  as  amended  (33  F.R.  5793),  specifies 
requirements  for  head  restraints  to  reduce  the 
frequency  and  severity  of  neck  injury  in  rear- 
end  and  other  collisions  to  occupants  of  passenger 
cars  manufactured  after  January  1,  1969. 

Paragraph  S4 (b)(2)  of  the  Standard  provides 
that  a  head  restraint  qualifying  under  the  static 
procedure  shall  have  a  lateral  width  of  10  inches 
for  use  with  bench-type  seats  and  6.75  inches  for 
use  with  individual  type  seats  when  measured 
2.5  inches  below  the  top  of  the  head  restraint. 

One  manufacturer  has  petitioned  the  Admin- 
istrator for  reconsideration  of  the  method  by 
which  the  lateral  width  of  the  head  restraint  is 
to  be  measured.  The  petitioner  requests  that  the 
Standard  be  revised  to  permit  the  width  to  be 
measured  either  2.5  inches  below  the  top  of  the 
head  restraint  of  25  inches  above  the  seating 
reference  point. 

Measurement  of  width  2.5  inches  below  the  top 
of  the  head  restraint  may  present  possible  diffi- 
culties for  manufacturers  of  vehicles  with  head 
restraints  which  are  integrated  into  the  seat  back. 
These  manufacturers  may  elect  to  exceed  the 
minimum  required  height  of  27.5  inches  to  ac- 
commodate tall  occupants  and  taper  the  top  por- 
tion of  the  head  restraint  to  provide  minimum 
visibility  restriction.  In  this  case,  the  head  re- 
straint, when  measured  2.5  inches  below  the  top, 
might  meet  the  minimum  width  requirement. 

The  Administrator  has  determined  that  the 
procedure  for  measuring  head  restraint  lateral 
width  should  be  revised  since  it  is  in  the  public 
interest  to  encourage  the  additional  protection 
offered  by  seat  backs  higher  than  the  minimum 
height  requirement  of  this  Standard.  Accord- 
ingly, the  Standard  is  being  amended  to  permit 


measurement  of  head  restraint  width  either  2.5 
inches  below  the  top  of  the  head  restraint  or  25 
inches  above  the  seating  reference  point. 

Paragraph  S5.1(c)  of  the  Standard  provides 
that  the  magnitude  of  the  acceleration  curve  for 
the  dynamic  test  shall  not  be  less  than  that  of  a 
half-sine  wave  having  the  amplitude  of  8g  and 
a  duration  of  80  milliseconds  not  more  than  20% 
above  the  half -sine  wave. 

One  manufacturer  has  requested  an  interpre- 
tation of  the  term  "not  more  than  20%  above  the 
half-sine  wave." 

It  is  necessary  that  a  test  tolerance  be  allowed 
because  of  equipment  variances.  However,  the 
tolerance  must  be  properly  limited  to  prevent 
very  severe  accelerations  which  might  fail  the 
seat  back  without  properly  testing  the  head  re- 
straint. The  intent  of  the  "20%"  limitation  was 
to  establish  a  half-sine  wave  upper  limit  curve 
having  an  amplitude  of  9.6g  and  a  duration  of 
96  milliseconds. 

Accordingly,  the  Standard  is  being  amended 
to  require  that  the  magnitude  of  the  acceleration 
curve  be  not  more  than  that  of  a  half-sine  wave 
curve  having  an  amplitude  of  9.6g  and  a  duration 
of  96  milliseconds.  In  addition,  the  equation  for 
the  lower  limit  curve  is  being  deleted  since  it 
imposes  an  unnecessary  restriction  on  the  lateral 
location  of  the  curve.  By  removing  the  equation, 
the  limit  curves  can  then  be  moved  laterally  with 
respect  to  each  other  to  allow  for  normal  test 
variances. 

Since  these  amendments  provide  clarification 
and  an  alternate  means  of  compliance,  relieve 
restrictions,  and  impose  no  additional  burden,  1 
find  that  for  good  cause  shown  notice  and  public 
procedure  are  unnecessary,  and  that  an  effective 


PART  571;  S  202— PRE  5 


EffMtiva:  January   I,    1969 

date  for  these  amendments  of  less  than  180  days       lations  of  the  Office  of  the  Secretary  of  Trans-     , 
is  in  the  public  interest.  portation  (49  CFR  1.4(c)).  V 

In    consideration    of    the    foregoing,    Section  j^g^^^j   j^^   Washington,   D.C.,   on   October   3, 

371.21  of  Part  371,  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety        ^Qgg 
Standard  No.  202,  as  amended,  is  further  amended 
effective  January  1, 1969 ii  tt   pi  •  q     ii 

These  amendments  are  made  under  the  author-  tfY   \  ^;.  ^J^'^'^®"' ,    .  .  ,    , 

ity  of  Sections  103  and  119  of  the  National  Traffic  federal  Highway  Admmistrator 

and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966  (15  U.S.C. 

1392,  1407)  and  the  delegation  of  authority  con-  33  F.R.  15065 

tained  in  Section  1.4(c)  of  Part  1  of  the  Regu-  October  9,  1968 


c 


PART  571;  S  202— PRE  6 


Effective:  January    1,    1969 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   202 
Head  Restraints — Passenger  Cars 


51.  Purpose  and  Scope.  This  standard  speci- 
fies requirements  for  head  restraints  to  reduce 
the  frequency  and  severity  of  neck  injury  in 
rear-end  and  other  collisions. 

52.  Application.  This  standard  applies  to  pas- 
senger cars. 

53.  Definitions.  "Head  restraint"  means  a  de- 
vice that  limits  rearward  angular  displacement 
of  the  occupant's  head  relative  to  his  torso  line. 

54.  Requirements.  A  head  restraint  that  con- 
forms to  either  (a)  or  (b)  shall  be  provided  at 
each  outboard  front  designated  seating  position — 

(a)  It  shall,  when  tested  in  accordance  with 
S5.1,  during  a  forward  acceleration  of  at  least 
8g  on  the  seat  supporting  structure,  limit  rear- 
ward angular  displacement  of  the  head  refer- 
ence line  to  4:5°  from  the  torso  reference  line;  or 

(b)  It  shall,  when  adjusted  to  its  fully  ex- 
tended design  position,  conform  to  each  of  the 
following-— 

(1)  When  measured  parallel  to  torso  line, 
the  top  of  the  head  restraint  shall  not  be  less 
than  27.5  inches  above  the  seating  reference 
point ; 

[(2)  When  measured  either  2.5  inches  be- 
low the  top  of  the  head  restraint,  or  25  inches 
above  the  seating  reference  point,  the  lateral 
width  of  the  head  restraint  shall  be  not  less 
than — 

(i)   10  inches  for  use  with  bench-type  seats ; 

and 

(ii)   6.75    inches    for   use   with   individual 

seats;   (33  F.R.  15066— Oct.  9,  1968)3 

(3)  When  tested  in  accordance  with  S5.2, 
the  rearmost  portion  of  the  head  form  shall  not 
be  displaced  to  more  than  4  inches  perpendicu- 
larly rearward  of  the  displaced  entended  torso 
reference  line  during  the  application  of  the 
load  specified  in  S5.2(c) ;  and 


(4)  When   tested   in   accordance   with  S5.2, 
the  head  restraint  shall  withstand  an  increas- 
ing load  until  one  of  the  following  occurs — 
(i)  Failure  of  the  seat  or  seat  back;  or 
(ii)  Application  of  a  load  of  200  pounds. 

S5.  Demonstration  Procedures. 

S5.1  [Comi:)liance  with  S.4(a)  shall  be  demon- 
strated in  accordance  with  the  following  with 
the  head  restraint  in  its  fully  extended  design 
position : 

(a)  On  the  exterior  profile  of  the  head  and 
torso  of  a  dummy  having  the  weight  and  seated 
height  of  a  95th  percentile  adult  male  with  an 
approved  representation  of  a  human,  articulated 
neck  structure,  or  an  approved  equivalent  test 
device,  establish  reference  lines  by  the  following 
method : 

(1)  Position  the  dummy's  back  on  a  hori- 
zontal flat  surface  with  the  lumbar  joint  in  a 
straight  line. 

(2)  Rotate  the  head  of  the  dummy  rear- 
ward until  the  back  of  the  head  contacts  the 
same  horizontal  surface  in  (1). 

(3)  Position  the  SAE  J-826  two-dimen- 
sional manikin's  back  against  the  flat  surface 
in  (1),  alongside  the  dummy  with  the  h-point 
of  the  manikin  aligned  with  the  h-point  of  the 
dummy. 

(4)  Establish  the  torso  line  of  the  manikin 
as  defined  in  SAE  Aerospace-Automotive 
Drawing  Standards,  Sec.  2.3.6,  P.  El.Ol, 
September  1963. 

(5)  Establish  the  dummy  torso  reference 
line  by  superimposing  the  torso  line  of  the 
manikin  on  the  torso  of  the  dummy. 

(6)  Establish  the  head  reference  line  by  ex- 
tending the  dummy  torso  reference  line  onto 
the  head. 


PART  571;  S  202-1 


Effacllva:  January   1,    1969 


(b)   At  each  designated  seating  position  having 
a  head  restraint,  place  the  dummy,  snugly  re- 
strained by  a  Type  1  seat  belt,  in  the  manufac- 
turer's recommended  design  seated  position. 
(33  F.R.  5793— April  16,  1968)] 

[(c)  During  a  forward  acceleration  applied 
to  the  structure  supporting  the  seat  as  described 
below,  measure  the  maximum  rearward  angular 
displacement  between  the  dummy  torso  reference 
line  and  the  head  reference  line.  When  graph- 
ically depicted,  the  magnitude  of  the  acceleration 
curve  shall  not  be  less  than  that  of  a  half-sine 
wave  having  the  amplitude  of  8g  and  a  duration 
of  80  milliseconds  and  not  more  than  that  of  a 
half-sine  wave  curve  having  an  amplitude  of 
9.6g  and  a  duration  of  96  milliseconds.  (33  F.R. 
15066— Oct.  9,  1968)] 

[55.2  Compliance  with  §4.(b)  shall  be  dem- 
onstrated in  accordance  with  the  following  with 
the  head  restraint  in  its  fully  extended  design 
position : 

(a)  Place  a  test  device,  having  the  back  pan 
dimensions  and  torso  line,  (centerline  of  the 
head  room  probe  in  full  back  position)   of  the 


three  dimensional  SAE  J-826  manikin,  at  the 
manufacturer's  recommended  design  seated  po- 
sition. 

(b)  Establish  the  displaced  torso  reference 
line  by  applying  a  rearward  moment  of  3300  in. 
lb.  about  the  seating  reference  point  to  the  seat 
back  through  the  test  device  back  pan  located 
in  (a). 

(c)  After  removing  the  back  pan,  using  a  6.5 
inch  diameter  spherical  head  form  or  a  cylindri- 
cal head  form  having  a  6.5  inch  diameter  in 
plain  view  and  a  6-inch  height  in  profile  view, 
apply,  perpendicular  to  the  displaced  torso  refer- 
ence line,  a  rearward  initial  load  2.5  inches  below 
the  top  of  the  head  restraint  that  will  produce 
a  3300  in.  lb.  moment  about  the  seating  reference 
point. 

(d)  Gradually  increase  this  initial  load  to 
200  lbs.  or  until  the  seat  or  seat  back  fails, 
whichever  occurs  first.  (33  F.R.  5793— April  16, 
1968)] 

33  F.R.  15065 
October  9,   1968 


PART  571;  S  202-2 


Effective:   May   27,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO   MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   203 
Impact  Protection  from  the  Steering   Control   System 
(Docket  No.  74-33;   Notice  2) 


This  notice  amends  Standard  No.  203,  Impact 
protection  from  the  steering  control  system,  49 
CFR  §  571.203,  to  exclude  from  its  requirements 
some  passenger  cars  whieli  meet  (lie  frontal  bar- 
rier crash  requirements  of  Standard  No.  208, 
Occupant  crash  protection,  49  CFR  §  571.208. 

The  NHTSA  proposed  this  exclusion  of  ve- 
hicles from  the  requirements  of  Standard  No. 
203  at  the  request  of  General  Motore,  to  permit 
development  of  an  air  cushion  restraint  system 
at  the  driver's  position  as  a  means  of  meeting 
the  frontal  barrier  crasli  protection  requirements 
(S5.1)  of  Standard  No.  208  (39  F.R.  34062.  Sep- 
tember 23,  1974).  General  Motors  sought  the 
exclusion  because  its  modification  to  the  steering 
control  system  to  incorporate  the  air  cushion  sys- 
tem and  accept  higher  loads  exerted  during  a 
crash  makes  conformity  of  the  column  with 
Standard  No.  203  difficult  and  sometimes  impos- 
sible. 

Comments  were  received  from  General  Motors 
Corporation  and  Volvo  of  America  Corporation, 
in  support  of  the  proposal.  Renault,  Inc., 
Peugeot,  Inc.,  and  Mercedes-Benz  of  North 
America,  Inc.,  supported  the  proposal  and  sug- 
gested that  the  exception  be  extended  to  passive 
straint  systems  that  incorporate  seat  belts.  These 
comments  argue  that  the  use  of  passive  belts  will 
be  high  and  that  the  protection  offered  by  Stand- 
ard No.  203  would  in  nearly  all  cases  be  redun- 
dant to  that  of  Standard  No.  208. 

As  a  general  matter,  the  NHTSA  has  main- 
tained that  the  redundant  occupant  crash  protec- 
tion offered  by  standards  (e.g..  Standard  No.  212, 
Windshield  retention)  is  justified  for  those  sit- 
uations wliere  the  primary  occupant  crash  pro- 
tection system  fails,  or  multiple  collisions  occur. 


Redundant  protection  is  particularly  justified  in 
the  case  of  passive  seat  belts  because  of  the 
greater  likelihood  that  seat  belt  protection  will 
be  rendered  inoperative  by  an  occupant  than  will 
crash-deployed  protection. 

In  this  case,  the  NHTSA  has  made  the  limited 
determination  that  the  redundant  protection  of- 
fered by  Standard  No.  203  is  not  justified  where 
it  directly  interferes  with  development  of  a  more 
advanced,  convenient,  and  effective  restraint  sys- 
tem. In  contrast,  it  is  obvious  that  passive  sys- 
tems whicli  utilize  belt  assemblies  do  not  require 
modifications  of  steering  control  systems  and 
there  is,  therefore,  no  reason  to  sacrifice  the  re- 
dundant protection.  These  petitions  to  expand 
the  scope  of  the  proposed  exception  are  accord- 
ingly denied. 

American  Motors  Corporation  has  suggested 
that  an  exception  not  be  granted  in  this  case 
until  future  requirements  of  Standard  No.  208 
are  established,  and  that  General  Motors'  devel- 
opmental work  be  undertaken  on  the  basis  of  a 
temporary  exemption  under  49  CFR  Part  555. 
This  approach  has  not  been  adopted  by  the 
NHTSA.  In  light  of  the  financial  commitments 
that  might  be  involved,  this  agency  has  con- 
cluded that  General  Motors  is  entitled  to  the 
assurance  that  their  developments  on  advanced 
Standard  No.  208  systems  will  not  be  barred  by 
Standard  No.  203  in  the  future. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  paragraph 
S3  (application)  in  Standard  No.  203  (49  CFR 
§571.203)  is  amended 

Eflectire  date:  [30  days  following  date  of 
publication  of  the  amendment  in  the  Federal 
Register^.  Because  this  amendment  relieves  a 
restriction,  it  is  found  for  good  cause  shown  that 


PART  571;  S  203— PRE  1 


EfFective:   May   27,    1975 

an  effective  dfute  sooner  than  ISO  days  from  the  Issued  on  April  17,  1975. 

date  of  its  publication  in  tlie  Federal  Register  I 

is  in  the  public  interest.  James  B.   Gregory 

(Sec.   103,  119,  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80  Stat.  718  Administrator 

(15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407);  delegation  of  authority  40  F.R.  17992 

at49CFRl.51.)  April  24,  1975 


( 


PART  571;  S  203— PRE  2  V 


Effective:   January    1,    1968 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD   NO.   203 
impact  Protection  for  the  Driver  from  the   Steering   Control  System — Passenger  Cars 


51.  Purpose  and  scope.  This  standard  speci- 
fies requirements  for  steering  control  systems  that 
will  minimize  chest,  neck,  and  facial  injuries  to 
the  driver  as  a  result  of  impact. 

52.  Application.  [Tliis  standard  applies  to 
passenger  cai-s.  However  it  does  not  apply  to 
vehicles  that  conform  to  the  frontal  barrier  crash 
requirements  (S5.1)  of  Standard  No.  208 
(§  571.208)  by  means  other  than  seat  belt  as- 
semblies. (40  F.R.  17992— April  21,  1975.  Ef- 
fective: 5/27/75)] 

53.  Definitions.  "Steering  control  system" 
means  the  basic  steering  mechanism  and  its  as- 
sociated trim  hardware,  including  any  portion 
of  a  steering  column  assembly  that  provides 
energy  absorption  upon  impact. 

54.  Requirements. 

S4.1  Except  as  jjrovided  in  S4.2,  when  the 
steering  control  system  is  impacted  by  a  body 
block  in  accordance  with  Society  of  Automotive 
Engineers  Recommended  Practice  J944,  "Steer- 
ing Wheel  Assembly  Laboratory  Test  Proce- 
dure," December  1965  or  an  appi'oved  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. 

54.2  A  Type  2  seat  belt  assembly  that  con- 
forms to  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  209 
shall  be  installed  for  the  driver  of  any  vehicle 
with  forward  control  configuration  that  does  not 
meet  the  requirements  of  S4.1. 

54.3  The  steering  control  system  shall  be  so 
constructed  that  no  components  or  attachments, 
including  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.K.  3390— 
March  1,  1967)] 

32   F.R.   2414 
February  3,    1967 


(Rev.    4/17/75) 


PART  571:  S  203-1 


( 


EfhcHvc:  January  1,   196( 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  204 
Steering  Control  Rearward  Displacement — Passenger  Cars 


51.  Purpose  and  scope.  This  standard  speci- 
fies requirements  limiting  the  rearward  displace- 
ment of  the  steering  control  into  the  passenger 
compartment  to  reduce  the  likelihood  of  chest, 
neck,  or  head  injury. 

52.  Application.  This  standard  applies  to  pas- 
senger cars. 

53.  Definitions. 

"Steering  column"  means  a  structural  housing 
that  surrounds  a  steering  shaft. 

"Steering  shaft"  means  a  component  that 
transmits  steering  torque  from  the  steering  wheel 
to  the  steering  gear. 

54.  Requirements. 

S4.1  Except  as  provided  in  S4.2,  the  upper 
end  of  the  steering  column  and  shaft  shall  not  be 
displaced  horizontally  rearward  parallel  to  the 
longitudinal  axis  of  the  vehicle  relative  to  an 
undisturbed  point  on  the  vehicle  more  than  5 
inches,  determined  by  dynamic  measurement,  in 
a  barrier  collision  test  at  30  miles  per  hour  mini- 
mum conducted  in  accordance  with  Society  of 
Automotive  Engineers  Recommended  Practice 
J850,  "Barrier  Collision  Tests,"  February  1963. 


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

[Interpretations 

(1)  When  conducting  the  barrier  collision 
test,  a  driver  dummy  may  be  used  without  meas- 
uring the  impact  force  developed  on  the  chest. 

(2)  In  the  event  that  the  vehicle  impacts  the 
barrier  at  a  velocity  not  less  than  30  miles  per 
hour  nor  more  than  33  miles  per  hour,  the  dis- 
placement of  the  steering  column  may  be  cor- 
rected to  30  miles  per  hour  by  means  of  the 
following  formula: 


V,^ 


(32  F.R.  8808— June  21, 1967)  J 

32  F.R.  2414 
February  3,  1967 


PART  671;  S  204r-l 


< 


EIFcctlv*:  September  19,   196t 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  205 

Glazing  Materials— Passenger  Cars,  Multipurpose  Vehicles,  Motorcycles,  Trucks,  and 

Buses 

(Docket  No.  9) 


Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  205  (32 
F.R.  2414)  as  amended  (32  F.R.  10072)  specifies 
requirements  for  glazing  materials  for  use  in 
passenger  cars,  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles, 
motorcycles,  trucks,  and  buses. 

As  a  result  of  inquiries  seeking  clarification  of 
the  applicability  of  the  Federal  motor  vehicle 
safety  standards  to  campers,  a  ruling  was  pub- 
lished in  the  Federal  Register  on  March  26,  1968 
(FHWA  Ruling  68-1)  (33  F.R.  5020)  vtrhich 
specified  that  the  glazing  standard  is  applicable 
to  slide-in  campers  because  they  are  items  of 
motor  vehicle  equipment  for  use  in  motor  ve- 
hicles and  to  chassis-mount  campers. 

The  glazing  standard  requires  that  glazing 
materials  "conform  to  the  United  States  of 
America  Standards  Institute  'American  Standard 
Safety  Code  for  Safety  Glazing  Materials  for 
Glazing  Motor  Vehicles  Operating  on  Land 
Highways,'  ASA  Standard  Z26.1— 1966."  As  a 
result,  windshields  and  forward  facing  windows 
are  required  to  be  ASl  laminated  glass. 

The  Federal  Highway  Administration  has  re- 
ceived petitions  for  rule  making  requesting  that 
forward  facing  windows  on  campers  be  allowed 
to  use  AS2  or  AS3  laminated  glass  which  is  able 
to  meet  the  Z26.1-1966  penetration  resistance  test, 
No.  26,  required  of  ASl  type  glass.  The  requests 
point  out  that  ASl  type  glass  which  is  presently 
required  for  forward  facing  windows  in  campers 
is  unduly  expensive  and  unnecessary  for  camp- 
ers because  ASl  type  glass  must  meet  stringent 
optical  tests.  The  petitioners  argue  that  forward 
facing  windows  on  campers  should  not  have  to 
meet  these  stringent  optical  tests  because  the 
windows  are  not  used  for  driver  visibility. 

The  Administrator  has  determined  that  grant- 
ing the  petitions  would  not  reduce  the  protection 


afforded  the  public  by  the  standard.  Accord- 
ingly the  glazing  standard  is  being  amended  to 
allow  AS2  or  AS3  laminated  glass  in  forward 
facing  windows  of  campers  if  the  glass  is  able 
to  meet  the  penetration  resistance  test.  The 
amendment  will  require  that  forward  facing 
windows  in  campers  conform  to  ASl  type  lami- 
nated safety  glass ;  or  AS2  type  laminated  safety 
glass  that  meets  Test  26  of  Z26.1-1966;  or  ASS 
type  laminated  safety  glass  that  meets  the  re- 
quirements of  Test  26  of  Z26.1-1966.  The  latter 
two  glazing  materials  will  be  identified  by  the 
characters  AS2-26  and  AS3-26  respectively. 

The  Federal  Highway  Administration  has  re- 
ceived a  petition  for  rule  making  requesting  that 
Standard  No.  205  be  amended  so  that  paragraph 
S3.2  Edges  be  changed  to  provide  that  exposed 
edges  must  meet  the  Society  of  Automotive  Engi- 
neers Recommended  Practice  J673a,  Automotive 
Glazing,  August  1967,  instead  of  the  SAE  Rec- 
ommended Practice  J673,  Automotive  Glazing, 
June  1960.  The  petition  also  requests  that  the 
words  "except  that  the  minimum  edge  radius 
dimension  shall  not  be  less  than  the  nominal 
thickness  of  the  glazing  material"  be  deleted 
because  this  requirement  is  already  included  in 
the  SAE  Reconunended  Practice  J673a.  These 
requests  would  allow  minor  imperfections  in 
edging  that  would  not  diminish  the  safety  bene- 
fits derived  from  the  requirements  but  would 
allow  normal  manufacturing  tolerances.  These 
requests  are  granted  and  Standard  No.  206  is 
being  amended  accordingly. 

The  Administrator  has  received  a  petition 
concerning  certification  requirements  for  prime 
manufacturers  of  glazing  materials;  prime  glaz- 
ing material  manufacturers  being  those  who  fab- 
ricate,   laminate   or   temper   glazing   materials. 


PART  671;  S  205— PRE  1 


EHkIIv*:  $«pl«mb«r  19,    196S 


The  Petitioner  states  that  he  has  encountered 
practical  problems  in  the  use  of  certification 
labels  because:  (a)  glass  stored  for  appreciable 
lengths  of  time,  covered  by  the  label,  may 
"wenther"  in  a  different  manner  from  the  re- 
maining areas  of  the  glass  (b)  labels  on  indi- 
vidual lights  of  glass  can  produce  pressure  points 
due  to  local  area  loading  and  may  result  in 
breakage  during  shipment  and  storage,  and  (c) 
certification  labels  can  become  separated  from 
the  material  prior  to  delivery  from  consigned 
stock  distributors  to  non-stocking  distributors. 

The  Petitioner  points  out  that  Standard  No. 
205  requires  marking  of  safety  glazing  materials 
in  accordance  with  paragraph  6  of  the  United 
States  of  America  Standards  Institute  (USASI) 
Standard  Z26.1-1966.  The  Petitioner  requests 
that  the  permanent  marking  on  the  glazing  ma- 
terial required  by  Standard  No.  205,  with  the 
addition  of  the  symbol  "DOT",  be  allowed  as  an 
alternative  method  of  certification  required  under 
Section  114  of  the  National  Traffic  and  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966  (15  USC  1401).  This 
petition  is  granted  provided  that  the  symbol 
"DOT"  and  an  approved  two  digit  manufac- 
turer's code  number  is  included  in  the  permanent 
marking.  Any  prime  glazing  material  manu- 
facturer may  apply  for  an  approved  two  digit 


manufacturer's  code  number  assignment  to  the 
Director,  National  Highway  Safety  Bureau, 
Washington,  D.C.  20591. 

Since  these  amendments  relieve  restrictions, 
provide  alternative  means  of  compliance  and 
create  no  additional  burden  the  Administrator 
finds,  for  good  cause  shown,  that  it  is  in  the 
public  interest  to  make  them  effective  upon  date 
of  issuance. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Section 
371.21  of  Part  371,  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  205  (32  F.R.  2414)  as  amended 
(32  F.R.  10072)  is  amended 

These  amendments  are  made  under  the  author- 
ity of  Sections  103  and  119  of  the  National  Traffic 
and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966  (15  USC 
1392,  1407)  and  the  delegation  of  authority  con- 
tained in  section  1.4(c)  of  Part  I  of  the  Regu- 
lations of  the  Office  of  the  Secretary  (49  CFR 
1.4(c)). 

Issued  in  Washington,  D.C,  on  September  13, 
1968. 

John  R.  Jamieson,  Deputy 
Federal  Highway  Administrator 

33  F.R.  14162 
September  19,  1968 


PART  571;  S  205— PRE  2 


EffccHv*:  March    1,    1969 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  205 

Glazing  Materials 
(Docket  No.  23;  Notice  2) 


Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  205  speci- 
fies requirements  for  glazing  materials  for  us-c! 
in  passenger  cars,  multipurpose  passenger  ve- 
hicles, motorcycles,  trucks,  and  buses. 

As  a  result  of  inquiries  seeking  clarification 
of  the  applicability  of  the  Federal  motor  vehicle 
safety  standards  to  campers,  a  ruling  was  pub- 
lished in  the  Federal  Register  on  March  26,  1968 
(33  F.R.  5020),  which  specified  that  the  glazing 
standard  (No.  205)  is  applicable  to  slide-in  camp- 
ers because  they  are  items  of  motor  vehicle 
equipment  for  use  in  motor  vehicles. 

Standard  No.  205  requires,  among  other  things, 
that  glazing  materials  "conform  to  the  United 
States  of  America  Standards  Institute  'American 
Standard  Safety  Code  of  Safety  Glazing  Ma- 
terials for  Glazing  Motor  Vehicles  Operating  on 
Land  Highways,'  ASA  Standard  Z26.1-1966" 
(hereafter  Z26.1-1966). 

By  order  published  in  the  Federal  Register  on 
September  19,  1968  (33  F.R.  14162),  section  S3.2 
of  the  Standard  was  amended  to  allow  the  use 
of  AS2  or  AS3  laminated  glass  in  forward  facing 
windows  of  campers  provided  such  glass  met  the 
requirements  of  Test  26  of  Z26.1-1966.  On  the 
assumption  that  Z26.1-1966,  as  incorporated  in 
Standard  No.  205,  required  the  use  of  ASl  type 
laminated  glass  in  forward  facing  windows  of 
campers,  the  Administrator  found  that  this 
amendment  relieved  restrictions,  provided  alter- 
nate means  of  compliance  and  created  no  addi- 
tional burdens.  Accordingly,  the  amendment 
was  made  effective  immediately. 

Thereafter,  petitions  for  reconsideration  were 
filed  on  the  grounds,  among  others,  that  properly 
interpreted  Z26.1-1966  permitted  the  use  of  ASl, 
AS2,  ASS,  AS4,  and,AS5  glazing  material  in 
forward  facing  camper  windows  and  that,  there- 


fore, the  September  amendment  did  not  relax  an 
existing  requirement  but  in  fact  imposed  addi- 
tional restrictions  upon  manufacturers  by  limit- 
ing the  types  of  glazing  materials  allowable  for 
use  in  such  windows.  Consequently,  it  is  urged 
that  notice  of  that  amendment  should  have  been 
given  and  interested  parties  afforded  an  oppor- 
tunity to  comment. 

The  Administrator  recognizes  that,  prior  to 
the  issuance  of  the  September  amendment, 
Standard  No.  205  as  initially  promulgated  could 
have  been  reasonably  interpreted  as  allowing  the 
use  of  ASl,  AS2,  AS3,  AS4,  and  AS5  glazing 
materials  in  the  forward  facing  windows  of 
campers,  that  many  manufacturers  could  have 
reasonably  acted  in  reliance  upon  such  a  reading, 
that  a  great  deal  of  confusion  concerning  the 
requirements  has  and  continues  to  exist  and  that, 
in  fact,  comments  focusing  directly  upon  the 
proper  glazing  materials  required  in  forward 
facing  windows  of  campers  have  not  been  spe- 
cifically solicited  by  the  Administration.  In  the 
light  of  all  of  these  circumstances  it  is  consid- 
ered appropriate  to  revoke  section  S3.2 — "Ma- 
terials for  use  in  forward  facing  windows  of 
campers"  of  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  205,  as  amended  (33  F.R.  14162), 
as  well  as  any  interpretation  that  would  have 
required  the  use  of  ASl  glass  only  in  forward 
facing  camper  windows.  The  net  effect  of  this 
action  is  to  permit,  subject  to  further  rulemaking 
action,'  the  use  of  glazing  materials  that  peti- 
tioners represent  are  presently  being  used,  i.e., 
ASl,  AS2,  AS3,  AS4,  and  AS5  glazing  materials 
referred  to  in  Z26.1-1966. 

Since  this  amendment  relieves  restrictions  and 
creates  no  additional  burden  the  Administrator 
finds  good  cause  is  shown  that  an  effective  date 
earlier    than    180    days    after    issuance    in    the 


PART  571;  S  205— PRE  3 


231-088  O  -  77  -  52 


EffccHva:   Moreh    I,    1969 

public  interest  and  the  amendment  is  made  ef- 
fective upon  date  of  issuance. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  §  371.21  of 
Part  371,  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard 
No.  205  as  amended  (33  F.R.  14162)  is  amended 
by  revoking  S3.2 — "Materials  for  use  in  forward 
facing  windows  of  campers". 

(Sees.  103,  119,  National  Traffic  and  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966  (15  U.S.C.  1392, 
1407) ;    delegation    of    authority    contained    in 


§  1.4(c)  of  Part  1  of  the  regulations  of  the  Office    i 
of  the  Secretary  (49  CFR  1.4(c) )  * 

Issued :  February  27, 1969. 

John  R.  Jamieson,  Deputy 
Federal  Highway  Administrator 


'  See  notice  of  proposed  rule  making  published  at 
34  F.R.  3699,  which  proposes  glazing  requirements  for 
forward  facing  windows  of  campers. 

34  F.R.  3688 
March   1,  1969 


PAUT  571;  S  205— PRE  4 


Effective  April    1,    1973 

(Excapl  a%  noted  In  th«  RuU) 

RalituMi:   Jun*   14,    1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  205 


Glazing  Materials 


(Docket  No.  71- 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  amend  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  205,  "Glazing  Ma- 
terials," to  permit  the  use  of  certain  plastic  ma- 
terials in  motor  vehicles  in  addition  to  those 
presently  allowed ;  to  modify  the  certification  and 
labeling  requirements ;  and  to  modify  the  test  for 
the  chemical  resistance  of  plastic  materials.  It 
also  clarifies  the  applicability  of  the  standard  to 
motor  vehicle  equipment,  and  the  provisions  of 
the  standard  dealing  with  readily  removable 
windows. 

Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No. 
205  was  initially  published  February  3,  1967  (32 
F.R.  2414),  and  amended  July  8,  1967  (32  F.R. 
10072),  September  19,  1968  (33  F.R.  14162),  and 
March  1,  1969  (34  F.R.  3688).  On  January  9, 
1971,  a  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  (Docket 
71-1,  Notice  1)  was  published  based  upon  peti- 
tions for  rulemaking  received  from  the  Eastman 
Chemical  Products,  Inc.,  and  the  California 
Highway  Patrol.  The  former  requested  that  the 
standard  be  amended  to  allow  the  use  of  butyrate 
plastic  materials,  and  the  latter  requested  changes 
in  the  requirements  of  the  standard  dealing  with 
the  marking  of  glazing  materials.  This  amend- 
ment responds  to  both  of  these  petitions  and  also 
modifies  the  stand&rd  as  a  result  of  independent 
agency  action. 

Standard  No.  205  is  applicable  to  "glazing  ma- 
terials for  use  in  passenger  cars,  multipurpose 
passenger  vehicles,  trucks,  buses  and  motorcycles." 
It  is  also  applicable,  under  FHWA  Ruling  68-1 
(33  F.R.  5020,  March  26,  1968),  to  glazing  for  use 
in  slide-in  and  chassis-mount  campers.  This 
amendment  to  Standard  No.  205  incorporates  the 
substance  of  FHWA  Ruling  68-1  into  the  appli- 
cability section  of  the  standard  and  specifies,  in 
accordance  with  the  notice  of  March  1,  1969 
(Docket  23;  Notice  2,  34  F.R.  3688)  the  glazing 


1;  Notice  3) 

materials  that  are  permitted  to  be  used  in  these 
equipment  items. 

The  notice  of  January  9,  1971,  proposed  to  re- 
vise the  incorporation  by  reference  of  American 
Standards  Association  Test  (ASA)  Z26.1-1966  to 
include  supplement  Z26.1a-1969,  March  7,  1969, 
and  to  reflect  the  change  in  the  name  of  the  Amer- 
ican Standards  Association  to  the  American  Na- 
tional Standards  Institute.  No  objections  were 
raised  in  the  comments  to  these  proposals,  and 
they  are  incorporated  into  the  standard  by  this 
amendment. 

The  notice  proposed  to  modify  the  chemical  re- 
sistance tests  incorporated  into  the  standard 
(Tests  19  and  20),  by  deleting  carbon  tetrachlo- 
ride as  a  testing  agent  and  by  adding  trichlor- 
ethylene.  The  tests  are  designed  to  test  the 
resistance  of  plastic  materials  to  chemicals  that 
are  commonly  used  to  clean  them.  By  this  notice, 
carbon  tetrachloride  is  deleted  from  the  list  of 
materials.  As  indicated  in  the  notice  of  proposed 
rulemaking,  the  deletion  is  commensurate  with 
the  ban  imposed  by  the  Food  and  Drug  Admin- 
istration on  this  substance  because  of  its  high 
toxicity.  At  the  same  time,  the  NHTSA  has  de- 
cided not  to  include  either  trichlorethylene  or 
freon  in  the  list  of  testing  agents.  The  comments 
have  indicated  that  these  substances  are  not  com- 
monly used  as  cleaning  agents,  and  accordingly 
they  are  not  used  for  test  purposes. 

The  major  revision  proposed  by  the  notice, 
based  upon  a  petition  for  rulemaking  from  the 
Eastman  Chemical  Products  Co.,  Inc.,  was  to  al- 
low additional  plastic  materials  to  be  used  in 
motor  vehicles.  The  petitioner  claimed  that  the 
requested  materials  would  meet  any  test  to  which 
other  plastic  materials  are  subjected,  except  for 
resistance  to  undiluted  denatured  alcohol   (For- 


PART  571;  S  205— PRE  5 


Effective:  April    1,    1973 
(Except  as  noted  In  the  Rule) 
Reissued:  Juno    14,    1972 


mula  SD  30),  where  a  slight  tackiness  would  oc- 
cur. Rather  than  merely  exempt  these  plastics 
from  the  alcohol  resistance  requirement,  the  no- 
tice suggested  that  they  still  be  subjected  to  the 
same  chemicals  as  other  plastics,  but  that  if 
structural  integrity  were  maintained,  a  loss  of 
transparency  would  be  allowed.  The  notice  for 
the  same  reason  proposed  not  to  subject  these 
materials  to  the  abrasion  and  weathering  tests 
applied  to  other  plastics.  Instead,  the  proposal 
would  have  required  labels  to  be  affixed  to  the 
material  specifying  cleaning  agents  and  instruc- 
tions that  would  minimize  loss  of  transparency, 
and  would  have  restricted  them  to  locations  in 
motor  vehicles  where  loss  of  transparency  would 
not  affect  driver  visibility. 

Based  upon  information  received  during  the 
rulemaking  process,  the  NHTSA  has  determined 
that  the  materials  in  question  exhibit  character- 
istics which  make  them  satisfactory  from  the 
standpoint  of  safety  for  use  in  certain  motor 
vehicle  applications.  Many  comments,  however, 
opposed  the  approach  taken  by  NHTSA  in  the 
proposed  rule,  and  as  a  result  the  proposed  re- 
quirements have  been  changed.  The  standard  as 
now  amended  will  provide  that  these  materials 
not  be  required  to  show  resistance  to  undiluted 
denatured  alcohol  if  (1)  they  show  resistance  to 
the  other  chemicals  presently  specified  as  testing 
agents,  (2)  they  can  meet  the  other  tests  to  which 
other  plastic  materials  are  subjected,  and  (3)  they 
are  used  in  only  limited  locations  in  the  motor 
vehicle.  In  addition,  they  must  be  labeled,  as 
proposed,  with  instructions  regarding  cleaning 
that  will  minimize  a  loss  of  transparency. 

Some  comments  also  objected  to  certain  loca- 
tions where  the  additional  plastic  materials  would 
have  been  allowed  to  be  used :  specifically,  aux- 
iliary wind  deflectors  and  folding  doors.  The 
comments  suggested  that  transparency  is  an  im- 
portant characteristic  for  glazing  used  in  these 
locations,  and  that  materials  not  resistant  to  For- 
mula SD  30  alcohol  should  not  be  used  in  them. 
The  NHTSA  has  determined  that  these  comments 
have  merit,  and  has  not  permitted  these  materials 
to  be  used  in  the  two  locations. 

The  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  would  have 
required  all  interior  mirrors,  both  rearview  and 
vanity-type,  to  be  constructed  of  glazing  ma- 


terials that  meet  the  requirements  of  ANS  Z26. 
As  a  result  of  comments  received,  the  NHTSA 
has  determined  that  the  requirements  should  not 
be  applied  to  interior  mirrors.  With  regard  to 
rearview  mirrors,  many  are  today  constructed  of 
annealed  glass  of  a  wedge  shape,  in  the  form  of 
day /night  mirrors.  The  comments  have  indicated 
that  materials  allowed  to  be  used  pursuant  to 
ANS  Z26  do  not  make  satisfactory  day /night 
mirrors.  As  these  mirrors  have  clear  safety  ad- 
vantages when  used  in  night  driving  conditions, 
the  NHTSA  has  determined  that  their  elim- 
ination would  not  be  in  the  best  interests  of 
safety.  With  reference  to  other  vehicle  interior 
mirrors,  while  the  use  of  safety  glazing  in  them 
is  preferable,  there  is  presently  a  lack  of  data 
which  shows  a  compelling  need  for  changing  cur- 
rent industry  practices.  This  is  especially  im- 
portant where,  as  here,  much  of  the  equipment 
involved  is  not  peculiarly  adapted  to  motor  ve- 
hicle usage.  One  particular  type  of  mirror,  a 
sun-visor  mirror,  falls  within  the  purview  of 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  201,  "Oc- 
cupant Protection  in  Interior  Impact,"  and  will  ^H 
be  dealt  with  as  part  of  that  standard.  ^| 

The  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  prescribed 
a  scheme  for  the  marking  and  certification  of 
glazing  materials  which  would  have  required 
prime  glazing  manufacturers  to  certify  glazing 
materials  by  applying  to  the  glazing  material  the 
symbol  DOT  and  an  appropriate  code  mark,  to- 
gether with  the  marking  required  by  section  6 
of  ANS  Z26.  The  proposal  would  have  also 
required  these  markings  to  be  in  a  specified 
format  and  in  a  specific  location  of  the  completed 
glazing.  Other  than  primary  manufacturers 
would  have  been  required  to  certify  the  material 
by  affixing  the  mark  of  the  primary  manufacturer. 

As  amended  Standard  No.  205  will  require 
prime  manufacturers  to  certify  glazing  material, 
as  proposed,  by  adding  to  the  markings  required 
by  section  6  of  ANS  Z26  the  symbol  DOT  and 
a  code  mark  obtained  on  application  to  the 
NHTSA.  Those  who  as  manufacturers  or  dis- 
tributors cut  glazing  for  use  in  motor  vehicles 
from  larger  sheets  are  required  to  certify  con- 
formity to  the  standard  in  any  way  they  choose, 
as  long  as  the  method  chosen  is  consistent  with  ^^ 
Section  114  of  the  National  Traffic  and  Motor      ^| 


PART  571;  S  205— PRE  6 


Vehicle  Safety  Act.  One  such  method  would  be 
to  affix  a  label  to  the  completed  piece  of  glazing 
containing  a  statement  to  the  effect  that  the  ma- 
terial conforms  to  Standard  No.  205.  The  pro- 
posed requirement  that  such  manufacturers  label 
the  material  with  the  marking  of  the  prime  manu- 
facturer has  been  deleted,  as  is  the  proposed  re- 
quirement that  would  have  required  the  markings 
to  appear  in  a  specified  order,  or  in  specific  loca- 
tions on  the  glazing  material. 

An  issue  arose  during  the  period  that  this 
rulemaking  was  under  consideration  concerning 
the  use  of  plastics  in  side  windows  of  buses. 
General  Motors  has  requested  an  interpretation 
of  Standard  No.  205  that  would  include  within 
the  definition  of  "readily-removable  windows" 
emergency  escape  windows  which  can  be  pushed 
out,  except  for  one  side  which  is  hinged  to  the 
window  frame,  without  the  use  of  any  special 
tools.  The  NHTSA  has  concluded  that  the  term 
"readily  removable  windows"  includes  windows 
of  this  design,  and  in  this  amendment  so  clarifies 
Standard  No.  205. 

Elective  dates:  The  addition  of  glazing  ma- 
terials to  those  already  allowed  imposes  no  addi- 
tional burdens  on  any  person,  and  relieves 
restrictions   on   the   types   of   glazing  materials 


EfFadIv*:  April    1,    1973 

(Except  as  noted  In  the  Rule) 

Reissued:   June   14,    1972 

which  can  be  used.  That  part  of  the  amendment 
pertaining  to  the  addition  of  these  materials, 
paragraphs  S5.1.1.2,  S5.1.1.3,  andS5.1.2,  is  effec- 
tive upon  publication  of  this  notice  in  the  Federal 
Register.  Similarly,  both  the  deletion  of  the  test 
for  chemical  resistance  of  plastics  to  carbon  tet- 
rachloride in  paragraph  S5. 1.1.1,  and  the  clarifica- 
tion of  "readily-iemovable  windows"  in  S5.1.1.4 
relieve  restrictions,  and  the  effective  date  of  those 
amendments  is  the  date  of  publication  of  this 
notice.  The  other  amendments  to  the  standard 
are  effective  April  1,  1973. 

In  light  of  the  above,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  205,  appearing  at  49  CFR  section 
571.205,  is  revised.  .  .  . 

This  notice  is  issued  pursuant  to  the  authority 
of  sections  103, 114,  and  119  of  the  National  Traf- 
fic and  ]Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  (15  U.S.C.  1392, 
1403,  1407)  and  the  delegation  of  authority  at 
49  CFR  1.51. 


Issued  on  June  14  ,1972. 


Douglas  W.  Toms 
Administrator 

37  F.R.  12237 
June  21,  1972 


PART  571;  S  205— PRE  7-8 


Effective:    April    I,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   205 

Glazing   Materials 
(Docket  71-1;   Notice  4) 


This  notice  i-esponds  to  petitions  for  reconsid- 
eration of  an  amendment  publislied  June  21, 
1972  (37  F.R.  12237),  to  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  205,  "Ghizing  Materials"  (49  CFK 
§571.205).  Petitions  were  received  from  tin- 
Recreational  Vehicle  Institute  (RVI)  and  tlie 
California  Highway  Patrol.  To  the  extent  that 
this  notice  does  not  grant  the  requests  of  the 
petitioners,  they  are  hereby  denied. 

In  the  amendment  of  June  21,  the  NHTSA 
changed  tJie  application  section  of  tiie  standard, 
based  on  FHWA  Ruling  68-1  (33  F.R.  5020, 
March  26,  1968)  to  expressly  include  glazing  for 
use  in  all  campers,  and  defined  campers  to  include 
both  slide-in  or  "pickup"  campers  (including  a 
related  item,  pickup  covers)  and  chassis-mount 
camj^ers  (campers  mounted  directly  onto  truck 
chassis).  The  1968  ruling  held  that  Standard 
No.  205  applied  to  glazing  for  use  in  slide-in 
campers,  and  that  glazing  for  use  in  chassis- 
mount  campers  came  within  the  standard  when 
the  camper  was  ultimately  attached  to  a  chassis, 
as  the  standard  applied  expressly  to  the  glazing 
of  the  completed  vehicle,  a  multipurpose  pas- 
senger vehicle.  The  petitioner  objects  to  this 
amendment  on  the  basis  that  the  recreational 
vehicle  industry  has  distinguished  between  thi; 
two  camper  types,  and  has  considered  the  lattei 
a  motor  home  (a  multipurpose  passenger  vehicle 
under  Standard  No.  205),  and  the  former  an 
item  of  motor  vehicle  equipment.  It  requests 
in  its  petition  that  this  earlier  distinction  be 
retained  in  the  standard. 

The  NHTSA  has  determined  that  the  petition 
of  RVI  in  this  regard  should  be  granted,  and  the 
applicability  section  of  the  standard  is  amended 
to  refer  specifically  both  to  glazing  for  use  in 
"slide-in   campers",   as   that   term   is   defined    in 


Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  126,  Truck- 
Camper  Loading,  (49  CFR  571.126),  and  to  glaz- 
ing for  use  in  pickup  covers.  Chassis-mount 
campers  are  included  in  a  newly  defined  category 
of  multipurpose  passenger  vehicle,  "motor  home", 
and  glazing  for  use  in  them  is  subject  to  the 
standard  insofar  as  they  are  incorporated  into 
completed  vehicles. 

The  RVI  petition  also  requested  that  the  re- 
quirements of  the  standard  for  glazing  for  use 
in  . multipurpose  passenger  vehicles  (including 
chassis-mount  campers  and  other  motor  homes) 
be  clarified,  suggesting  that  the  requirements  be 
made  identical  to  those  for  passenger  car  glaz- 
ing, with  an  exception  in  the  case  of  motor  homes 
for  locations  other  than  windshields,  and  win- 
dows directly  to  the  right  and  left  of  the  driver. 
It  further  requested  that  forward-facing  win- 
dows of  motor  homes  be  considered  to  be  "open- 
ings in  the  roof"  under  ANS  Z.26.  The  NHTSA 
has  previously,  as  a  matter  of  interpretation, 
taken  the  position  that  fs  embodied  in  this  amend- 
ment, that  for  the  purposes  of  Standard  No.  205 
glazing  for  use  in  multipurpose  passenger  ve- 
hicles is  subject  to  the  requirements  for  glazing 
for  use  in  trucks.  This  is  based  on  the  definition 
of  multipurpose  passenger  vehicle  in  section 
571.3:  "A  motor  vehicle  with  motive  power,  ex- 
cept a  trailer,  designed  to  carry  10  persons  or 
less,  which  is  constructed  either  on  a  truck  chassis 
or  with  sfjecial  features  for  occasional  off-road 
operation".  The  agency  has  decided  to  adhere 
to  this  position. 

An  exception  is  hereby  adopted  for  motor 
home  windows  other  than  windshields,  forward- 
facing  windows,  and  windows  directly  to  the 
right  and  left  of  the  driver.  Manufacturers  may 
use  in  these  other  locations  any  type  of  glazing 


PART  571;  S  205— PRE  9 


Effective:   April    1,    1973 


allowed  by  tlie  standard  to  be  used  in  motor 
^•elucles.  This  is  the  position  previously  adoi)ted 
for  slide-in  campers,  which  have  a  purpose  and 
use  similar  to  motor  homes.  The  effect  of  this 
provision  is  to  allow  the  use  in  motor  home.s, 
except  for  windshields,  forward-facino-  windows, 
and  windows  to  the  immediate  right  and  left  of 
the  driver,  of  any  item  authorized  for  use  in 
motor  vehicles  by  Standard  No.  205.  Wind- 
shields and  windows  to  the  immediate  right  and 
left  of  the  driver  must  conform  to  the  i"equire- 
ments  api^licable  to  trucks  for  those  locations. 
Forward-facing  windows  may  be  manufactured 
of  any  item  autiiorized  for  use  by  the  Standard 
excejit  item  6  (AS  6),  item  7  (AS  T),  and  item 
13  (AS  13)  flexible  plastics. 

The  California  Highway  Patrol  lias  petitioned 
for  reconsideration  of  that  part  of  the  amend- 
ment which  seemed  to  delete  a  requirement  thar 
persons  who  cut  glazing  material  must  place  on 
the  cut  material  tlie  prime  manufacturer's  mark- 
ing. Section  6  of  ANS  Z26  requires  sections  of 
glazing  cut  from  pieces  bearing  the  markings 
required  by  that  section  to  be  identically  marked. 
The  June  21  notice  did  not  delete  this  provision. 
It  deleted  that  part  of  the  proposed  requirements 
specifying  that  persons  who  cut  glazing  materials 
include  the  DOT  symbol  and  the  prime  manu- 
facturer's code  number.  The  language  of  the 
preamble  (p.  12238,  col.  3)  was  intended  to  re- 
flect only  that  fact.  This  amendment  clarifies 
those  requirements  to  make  it  clear  that  persons 
who  cut  glazing  must  include  the  markings  re- 


quired by  section  6  of  ANS  Z26  on  each  cut 
piece.  The  amendment  also  provides  that  the 
prime  manufacturer's  DOT  symbol  and  code 
number  are  to  be  affixed  only  to  glazing  items 
made  by  the  prime  manufacturer  as  components 
for  specific  vehicles,  and  not  on  sheets  to  be  cut 
into  components  by  other  persons. 

The  marking  provisions  are  further  amended 
to  specify  that  the  new  items  of  glazing  material 
authorized  by  the  amendment  of  June  21  be 
identified  for  purposes  of  marking  by  the  marks 
'•AS  12"  and  "AS  13''.  The  use  of  these  marks 
does  not  indicate  approval  by  the  American 
National  Standards  Institute,  but  is  specified  for 
the  purpose  of  consistency  with  existing  mark- 
ing requirements. 

In  light  of  the  above.  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  205,  Glazing  Materials,  appearing 
at  49  CFR  §  571.205,  is  amended 

I'Jffective  date:  The  effective  date  of  April  1, 
1973,  is  retained. 

Til  is  notice  is  issued  under  the  authority  of 
Section  103,  114,  and  119  of  the  National  Traffic 
and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  (15  U.S.C.  1392, 
1403,  1407)  and  the  delegation  of  authority  at 
49  CFR  1.51. 

Issued  on  November  8,  1972. 

Douglas  W.  Toms 
Administrator 

37  F.R.  24035 
November  11,  1972 


PART  571;  S  205— PRE  10 


Effective:    April    1,    1973 

(Except   as   noted   in   the   Rule) 

Reissued:    June    14,    1972 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   205 


Glazing 

51.  Scope.  This  stiindard  specifies  require- 
ments for  jrliizin<r  materials  for  use  in  motor  ve- 
hicles and  motor  vehicle  equipment. 

52.  Purpose.  The  purpose  of  this  standard 
is  to  reduce  injuries  resultin<r  from  impact  to 
<rlrtzin<i'  surfaces,  to  ensure  a  necessary  dejrree  of 
transi)arency  in  motor  vehicle  windows  for  driver 
visihility,  and  to  minimize  the  possibility  of  oc- 
cupants l)ein<i:  tiirown  tliroufih  tiie  \ehicle  win- 
dows in  collisions. 

53.  Application.  [Tliis  standard  applies  to 
ijlazing  materials  for  use  in  passenger  cars, 
nuiltipur|)ose  passenger  vehicles,  trucks,  buses, 
motorcycles,  slide-in  campers,  and  i:)ickup  covers 

)  designed  to  carry  persons  while  in  motion.  (37 
F.R.  24085— November  11,  1972.  Effective: 
11/11/72)3 

54.  Definitions. 

["Camper"  means  a  structure  designed  to  be 
mounted  in  the  cargo  area  of  a  truck,  or  attached 
to  an  incomplete  vehicle  with  motive  jiower,  for 
the  purpose  of  providing  shelter  for  persons. 

"Motor  home"  means  a  multipurpose  passenger 
vehicle  that  provides  living  accommodations  for 
persons. 

"Pickup  cover"  means  a  camper  having  a  roof 
and  sides  but  without  a  floor,  designed  to  be 
mounted  on  and  removable  from  the  cargo  area 
of  a  truck  by  the  user. 

"Slide-in  camper"  means  a  camper  having  a 
roof,  floor,  and  sides,  designed  to  be  mounted  on 
and  removable  from  the  cargo  area  of  a  truck 
by  the  user.  (37  F.R.  24035— November  11, 
1972.    Effective:  11/11/72)] 

55.  Requirements. 

S5.1      Materials. 

55.1 .1      Glazing  materials  for  use  in  motor  ve- 
hicles, e.xcept  as  otherwise  provided  in  this  stand- 
I      ard,   shall    conform    to   the   American    National 


Materials 

Standard  "Safety  Code  for  Safety  (ilaziug  Ma- 
terials for  Glazing  Motor  Vehicles  Operating  on 
Land  Highways,"  Z2(;.l— 19(i(>,  July  15,  1966.  as 
supiilemented  by  Z2fi.la— 1969,  March  7,  19G9 
(iiereinafter  referred  to  as  "ANS  Z26"). 

55.1.1.1  The  chemicals  specified  for  testing 
cliemical  resistance  in  Tests  Nos.  19  and  20  of 
ANS  Z2(i  sliall  be: 

(a)  One  percent  solution  of  nonabrasive  soaj). 

(b)  Kerosene. 

(c)  Undiluted  denatured  alcohol.  Formula  SD 
No.  30  ( 1  part  lOO-percent  methyl  alcohol  in  10 
[.'arts  190-proof  ethyl  alcohol  by  \olume). 

(d)  Commercial  motcn-  car  gasoline. 
(Effective:  6/21/72) 

55.1.1.2  The  following  locations  are  added  to 
the  lists  specified  in  ANS  Z26  in  which  item  4, 
item  5,  item  8,  and  item  9  safety  glazing  may  be 
used : 

[(j)  Windows  and  doors  in  motor  homes, 
except  for  the  windshield  and  windows  to  the 
immediate  right  or  left  of  the  driver. 

(k)  Windows  and  doors  in  slide-in  campers 
and  pickup  covers.  (37  F.R.  24035 — November 
11,  1972.    Effective:  11/11/72)] 

55.1.1.3  The  following  locations  are  added  to 
the  lists  specified  in  ANS  Z26  in  which  item  6 
and  item  7  safety  glazing  may  be  used : 

[(j)  Windows  and  doors  in  motor  homes, 
except  for  the  windshield,  forward-facing  win- 
dows, and  windows  to  the  immediate  right  or 
left  of  the  driver. 

(k)  Windows,  except  forward-facing  windows, 
and  doors  in  slide-in  campers  and  pickup  covers. 
(37  F.R.  24035— November  11,  1972.  Effective: 
11/11/72)] 

55.1.1.4  The  phrase  "i-eadily  removable  win- 
dows" as  defined  in  ANS  Z26,  for  the  purposes  of 


(Rev.    11/8/72) 


PART  571;  S  205-1 


EfFective:   April    1,    1973 
(Except   a$   noted   in   the   Rule) 
Reissued:   June    1 4,    1972 

tliis  standard,  in  buses  having  a  (iVWR  of  more 
tlmn  10,000  i)oiinds,  shall  include  pushout  win- 
dows and  windows  mounted  in  emergency  exits 
that  can  be  manually  pushed  out  of  their  location 
in  the  veliicle  without  the  use  of  tools,  re<>ardless 
of  whether  such  windows  remain  hinged  at  one 
side  to  the  vehicle.     (Effective:  6/21/72) 

[S5.1.1.5   Multipurpose       Passenger       Vehicles. 

Except  as  otherwise  specifically  provided  by  this 
standard,  glazing  for  use  in  multipurpose  pas- 
senger vehicles  shall  conform  to  tlie  requirements 
for  glazing  for  use  in  trucks  as  specified  in  ANS 
Z26.  (37  F.R.  24035— November  11,  1972.  Ef- 
fective: 11/11/72)] 

S5.1.2     In   addition   to  the  glazing  materials 
specified  in  ANS  Z26,  materials  conforming  to 
S5. 1.2.1  or  S5. 1.2.2  may  be  used  in  the  locations 
of  motor  vehicles  s[)ecified  in  those  sections. 
(Effective:  6/21/72) 

55. 1.2.1  Item  12 — Rigid  plastics.  Safety  plas- 
tic materials  that  comply  with  Tests  Nos.  10,  13, 
16,  17,  21,  and  24  of  ANS  Z26,  Tests  Nos.  19 
and  20  of  ANS  Z26  with  the  exception  of  the 
test  for  resistance  to  undiluted  denatured  alcohol 
Formula  SI)  No.  30,  and  the  labeling  require- 
ments of  S.5. 1.2.3,  may  be  used  in  a  motor  vehicle 
only  in  the  following  specific  location  at  levels 
not  requisite  for  driving  \isibility. 

[(a)  AVindows  and  doors  in  slide-in  campers 
and  pickup  covers.  (37  F.R.  24035 — November 
11,  1972.    Effective:  11/11/72)] 

(b)  Motorcycle  windscreens  below  the  intersec- 
tion of  a  horizontal  plane  15  inches  vertically 
above  the  lowest  seating  position. 

(c)  Standee  windows  in  buses. 

(d)  Interior  partitions. 

(e)  Openings  in  the  roof. 

(f )  Flexible  curtains  or  readily  renio\able  win- 
dows or  in  ventilators  used  in  conjunction  with 
readily  removable  windows. 

[(g)  Windows  and  doors  in  motor  homes,  ex- 
cept for  the  windshield  and  windows  to  the 
immediate  right  or  left  of  the  driver.  (37  F.R. 
24035— November  11.  1972.   Effective:  11/11/72)] 

55. 1.2.2  Item  13 — Flexible  plastics.  Safety 
plastic  materials  tiiat  comply  with  Tests  Nos.  Hi, 
22,  and  2:5  or  24  of  ANS  Z26.  Tests  Nos.  19  and 


(Rev.    11/8/72) 


PART    571 


20  of  ANS  Z26  witli  the  exception  of  the  test  for 
resistance  to  undiluted  denatured  alcoiiol  For- 
mula SI)  No.  30,  and  the  labeling  requirements 
of  S5. 1.2.3,  may  be  used  in  a  motor  \ehicle  only 
in  the  following  s[)eciHc  locations  at  levels  not 
requisite  for  dri\'ing  visibility. 

t(a)  Windows,  except  forward-facing  win- 
dows, and  doors  in  slide-in  campers  and  pickup 
covers.  (37  F.R.  24035— November  11,  1972. 
Effective:  11/11/72)] 

(b)  Motorcycle  windscreens  l)elow  the  inter- 
section of  a  horizontal  plane  15  inches  vertically 
above  the  lowest  seating  position. 

(c)  Standee  windows  in  l)u.ses. 

(d)  Interior  jjartitions. 

(e)  Openings  in  the  roof. 

(f )  Flexible  curtains  or  readily  remoxable  win- 
dows or  in  \entilators  used  in  conjunction  with 
readily  removable  windows. 

[(g)  AA^indows  and  doors  in  motor  homes,  ex- 
cept for  the  windshield,  forward-facing  win- 
dows, and  windows  to  the  immediate  right  or 
left  of  the  driver.  (37  F.R.  24035— November  11, 
1972.     Effective:  11/11/72)]  % 

S5.1.2.3  Cleaning  instructions.  Each  manu- 
facturer of  glazing  materials  designed  to  meet 
the  requirements  of  S5. 1.2.1  or  S5.1.2.2  shall  affix 
a  label,  remo\-al)le  by  hand,  to  each  item  of  such 
glazing  material.  The  label  shall  specify  instruc- 
tions and  agents  for  cleaning  the  nuiterials  that 
will  minimize  the  loss  of  transparency. 

S5.2  Edges.  In  \eliicles  except  school  buses, 
exposed  edges  shall  be  treated  in  accordance  with 
SAE  Recommended  Practice  J()7;5a,  "Automotive 
Glazing",  August  1967.  In  school  l)uses,  exposed 
edges  shall  be  banded. 

S6.      Certification  and  marking. 

[S6.1  Each  prime  glazing  material  maiui- 
facturer,  except  as  specified  below,  sliall  mark 
glazing  materials  manufactured  by  him  in  ac- 
cordance with  section  6  of  ANS  Z26.  The  ma- 
terials specified  in  S5. 1.2.1  and  So. 1.2.2  shall  be 
identified  by  the  marks  "AS  12"  and  "AS  13" 
respectively.  A  prime  glazing  material  manu- 
facturer is  one  who  fabr'^ates,  laminates,  or 
tempers  the  glazing  material. 

S6.2  Each  prime  glazing  material  manufac- 
turer shall  certify  each  piece  of  glazing  material       ^ 

S  205-2 


to  which  this  standard  applies  that  is  designed 
as  a  component  of  any  specific  motor  vehicle  or 
camper,  pursuant  to  section  114  of  the  National 
Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966, 
by  adding  to  the  mark  required  by  S6.1  in  letters 
and  numerals  of  the  size  specified  in  section  6 
of  ANS  Z26,  the  symbol  "DOT"  and  a  manu- 
facturer's code  mark,  which  will  be  assigned  by 
the  NHTSA  on  the  written  request  of  the  manu- 
facturer. 

S6.3  Each  prime  glazing  material  manufac- 
turer shall  certify  each  piece  of  glazing  material 
to  which  this  standard  applies  that  is  designed 
to  be  cut  into  components  for  use  in  motor  ve- 
hicles or  items  of  motor  vehicle  equipment,  pur- 
suant to  section  114  of  the  National  Traffic  and 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act. 


Effacllve:   Aprit    1,    1973 

(Except  as   noted  In   the  Rule) 

Reissued:   June    14,    1972 

56.4  Each  manufacturer  or  distributor  who 
cuts  a  section  of  glazing  material  to  which  this 
standard  applies,  for  use  in  a  motor  vehicle  or 
camper,  shall  mark  that  material  in  accordance 
with  section  6  of  ANS  Z26. 

56.5  Each  manufacturer  or  distributor  who 
cuts  a  section  of  glazing  material  to  which  this 
standard  applies,  for  use  in  a  motor  vehicle  or 
camper,  shall  certify  that  his  product  comj^lies 
with  this  standard  in  accordance  with  section  114 
of  the  National  Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Act.  (37  F.R.  24035— November  11,  1972.  Ef- 
fective: 4/1/73)] 

37  F.R.  12237 
June  21,  1972 


(Rev.    11/8/72) 


PART  571;  S  205-3 


^ 


I 


Eff*ct<v«:  jQnuary   1,   1970 
January   I,   1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  FEDERAL  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  206 

Door  Loc("  and  Door  Retention  Components — Passenger  Cars,  Multipurpose  Passenger 

Vehicles,  and  Trucks 

(Docket  No.  2-16) 


A  proposal  to  further  amend  Federal  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  206,  extending  its 
applicability  to  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles 
and  trucks,  was  published  in  the  Federal  Register 
on  December  28,  1967  (32  F.R.  20868). 

Interested  persons  have  been  afforded  an  op- 
portunity to  participate  in  the  making  of  this 
amendment.  Their  comments  and  other  available 
information  have  been  carefully  considered. 

Ejection  from  passenger  cars  and  trucks,  upon 
impact,  has  proven  to  be  a  primary  cause  of 
occupant  injury  and  death.  Standard  No.  206 
was  issued  to  minimize  the  likelihood  of  occu- 
pants being  thrown  from  passenger  cars  by  pro- 
viding, among  other  things,  load  requirements 
for  door  latches  and  door  hinge  systems.  A 
study  conducted  by  the  Cornell  Aeronautical 
Laboratory  disclosed  that  the  rate  of  occupant 
ejection  from  trucks  is  almost  twice  that  of 
recent-model  passenger  cars.  Moreover,  the 
study  revealed  that  the  rate  of  severe  and  fatal 
injuries  among  truck  drivers  who  have  been 
thrown  from  vehicles  is  four  times  that  of  drivers 
who  remained  in  the  vehicle  after  impact.  Ex- 
tending the  requirements  of  Standard  206  to 
trucks  and  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles 
clearly  meets  the  need  for  motor  vehicle  safety. 
This  conclusion  is  concurred  in  generally  by  the 
commenters. 

Several  changes  have  been  made  in  the  text  of 
the  standard  from  that  which  appeared  in  the 
Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making.  The  title  of 
the  standard  has  been  changed  to  more  accurately 
describe  the  items  dealt  with  in  the  standard. 
In  addition,  in  response  to  some  of  the  comments 
submitted,  the  category  of  side  doors  previously 
referred  to  as  "hinged  doors"  has  been  divided 


into  two  new  groups — "hinged  cargo-type  doors" 
and  "hinged  doors  except  cargo-type  doors,"  and 
separate  load  requirements  and  demonstration 
procedures  have  been  prescribed  for  each.  In 
light  of  other  comments  submitted,  the  demon- 
stration procedure  for  "sliding  doors"  has  also 
been  changed  for  reasons  of  practicability.  Fur- 
ther, a  definition  of  the  term  "cargo-type  doors" 
has  been  inserted  in  the  standard.  The  term 
"temporary  doors"  referred  to  and  defined  in  the 
notice  has  been  deleted.  Finally,  several  other 
changes  have  been  made  for  clarification  purposes 
only. 

No  multipurpose  passenger  vehicle  manufac- 
turer objected  to  the  proposed  effective  date  of 
this  amendment,  January  1,  1970.  On  the  other 
hand,  one  heavy  truck  manufacturer  specifically 
objected  to  the  proposed  effective  date  on  the 
ground  that  additional  lead  time  would  be  needed 
to  redesign,  test,  and  retool,  in  order  to  comply 
with  the  amended  standard.  Several  other  truck 
manufacturers  also  considered  the  lead  time  to 
be  insuflScient.  A  January  1,  1972  effective  date 
for  trucks  was  proposed  by  the  aforesaid  heavy 
truck  manufacturer.  The  Administrator  con- 
cludes that  there  is  merit  to  his  objection.  Heavy 
truck  manufacturers  will  require  more  time  than 
was  originally  anticipated  to  take  the  steps  nec- 
essary to  comply  with  the  standard.  Accord- 
ingly, the  effective  date  of  this  amendment, 
insofar  as  trucks  are  concerned,  is  extended  to 
January  1,  1972. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Federal 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  206,  as 
amended,  49  C.F.R.  §  371.21,  is  amended  to  read 
as  set  forth  below,  effective  January  1,  1970,  for 
passenger  cars  and  multipurpose  passenger  ve- 
hicles, and  January  1,  1972,  for  trucks. 


PART  571;  S  206— PRE  1 


EIIkHv*:  January   1,    1970 
January   1,    1972 

This  rule-making  action  is  taken  under  author- 
ity 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  con- 
tained in  Part  I  of  the  Regulations  of  the  Office 
of  the  Secretary  of  Transportation  (49  CFR 
1.4(c)). 


Issued  on  January  17, 1969. 


Lowell  K.  Bridwell, 

Federal  Highway  Administrator 

34  F.R.  1150 
January  24,  1969 


PART  571 ;  S  206— PRE  2 


Efftctiv*:   August   19,    1969 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  206 

Door  Locks  and  Door  Retention  Components — Passenger  Cars,  Multipurpose  Passenger 

Vehicles  and  Trucks 

(Docket  No.  2-16) 


Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No. 
206  (49  CFR  371.21),  as  amended  (34  F.R.  1151), 
specifies  strength  requirements  for  door  locks  and 
door  retention  components  on  passenger  cars, 
multipurpose  passenger  vehicles,  and  trucks. 

Paragraph  S4.  of  Standard  206  exempts  com- 
ponents of  detachable  doors  for  vehicles  manu- 
factured for  use  without  doors  from  the  require- 
ments of  the  standard.  This  was  done  because 
such  doors  are  provided  not  for  the  purpose  of 
retaining  the  driver  and  passengers  in  case  of 
collision  but  only  as  protection  from  inclement 
weather. 

One  manufacturer  has  noted  that  strength  re- 
quirements are  equally  inapplicable  to  compo- 
nents of  folding  and  roll-up  doors  and  has  peti- 
tioned for  an  amendment  which  would  treat  such 
doors  in  the  same  manner  as  detachable  door«. 
It  has  been  determined  that  the  petition  has 
merit.  Accordingly,  the  standard  is  amended  to 
remove  folding  and  roll-up  doors  from  the  re- 
quirements of  the  standard. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  paragraph 
S4.  of  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard 
No.  206  is  amended  to  read  as  follows: 

S4.  Requirements.  Side  door  components  re- 
ferred to  herein  shall  conform  to  this  standard 
if  any  portion  of  a  90-percentile  two-dimensional 


manikin  as  described  in  SAE  Practice  J826, 
when  positioned  at  any  seating  reference  point, 
projects  into  the  door  opening  area  on  the  side 
elevation  or  profile  view.  Components  on  folding 
doors,  roll-up  doors  and  doors  that  are  designed 
to  be  easily  attached  to  or  removed  from  motor 
vehicles  manufactured  for  operation  without 
doors  need  not  conform  to  this  standard. 

*     *     *     •     ♦ 

Correction:  The  paragraph  title  "S5.2.3  '•'■Slid- 
ing Doors'''  of  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  206  is  changed  to  read  "S5.3  Slid- 
ing Doors'\ 

Since  this  amendment  relaxes  a  requirement 
and  imposes  no  additional  burden  on  any  person, 
notice  and  opportunity  to  comment  thereon  are 
unnecessary,  and  it  becomes  effective  on  publica- 
tion in  the  Federal  Register.  This  notice  of 
amendment  is  issued  imder  the  authority  of  sec- 
tions 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  Federal 
Highway  Administrator,  49  CFR  1.4(c). 

Issued  on  August  14, 1969. 

F.  C.  Turner 

Federal  Highway  Administrator 


PART  571;  S  206— PRE  3-4 


( 


( 


^■■^ 


Effective:  September    1,    1972 
January   8,    1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO  206 

Door  Locks  and  Retention  Components 

(Docket  No.  71-5;  NoHce  2) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  amend  Stand- 
ard No.  206,  Door  Locks  and  Door  Retention 
Components,  to  require  that  all  side  doors  lead- 
ing into  a  passenger  compartment  containing  one 
or  more  seating  accommodations  meet  the  re- 
quirements of  the  standard,  regardless  of  seat 
location  or  whether  the  seats  are  within  the 
definition  of  designated  seating  positions.  This 
notice  also  amends  the  standard  to  make  clear 
the  distinction  between  front  and  rear  doors. 

I.  A  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  proposing 
the  extension  of  the  requirements  of  the  standard 
to  all  side  doors  leading  into  passenger  compart- 
ments was  published  in  the  Federal  Register  on 
February  3,  1971  (36  F.R.  1913).  The  three 
conmients  which  were  received  in  response  to  the 
notice  were  carefully  considered.  All  of  them 
supported  the  proposed  amendment.  The  amend- 
ment in  this  notice  is  identical  to  the  proposed 
amendment  except  for  the  effective  date.  That 
date  has  been  changed  to  September  1,  1972  to 
permit  adequate  time  for  compliance. 

II,  The  standard  specifies  in  S4.1.3  different 
door  lock  requirements  for  front  and  rear  doors. 
The  Standard  does  not,  however,  precisely  dif- 
ferentiate between  these  two  types  of  doors.  The 
problem  of  determining  whether  a  door  is  to  be 
treated  as  a  front  door  or  rear  door  arises  par- 
ticularly in  connection  with  multipurpose  pas- 
senger vehicles  having  a  single  right  side  door. 

To  clarify  the  application  of  the  requirements 
of  S4.1.3,  this  notice  amends  the  Standard  by 
adding  the  word  "Side"  to  the  titles  of  S4.1.3.1 
and  S4.1.3.2  and  by  adding  definitions  of  "Side 
front  door"  and  "Side  rear  door"  to  S3.  The 
definitions  adopt,  as  the  reference  point  for  dif- 
ferentiating between  front  and  rear  doors,  the 


rearmost  point  on  the  driver's  seatback,  when 
the  driver's  seat  is  adjusted  to  its  most  vertical 
and  rearward  position.  A  door  with  50  percent 
or  more  of  its  opening  area  in  a  side  view  for- 
ward of  that  point  is  a  "side  front  door".  A 
door  with  more  than  50  percent  of  its  opening 
area  in  a  side  view  to  the  rear  of  that  point  is  a 
"side  rear  door". 

These  amendments  to  Standard  No.  206  are 
clarifying  and  interpretive  in  nature.  Conse- 
quently, it  is  found  that  notice  and  opportunity 
to  conmient  are  unnecessary  and  that,  for  good 
cause  shown,  an  effective  date  earlier  than  30 
days  after  issuance  is  in  the  public  interest. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  206,  §  571.206  of  title 
49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  is  amended 

Effective  dates:  Amendment  1.  concerning  the 
application  of  the  standard  is  effective  September 
1,  1972.  Amendment  2.  through  4.  concerning 
the  distinction  between  front  and  rear  doors  are 
effective  January  8,  1972. 

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  January  4, 1972. 


Douglas  W.  Toms 
Administrator 


37  F.R.  284 
January  8,  1972 


PART  571;  S  206— PRE  5-6 


231-088   O  -  77  -  54 


( 


( 


Effactivs:   January    1,    1970 
January    1,    1972 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   206 

Door  Locks  and   Door  Retention  Components — Passenger  Cars,  Multipurpose  Passenger 

Vehicles,  and  Trucks 


51.  Purpose  and  scope.  This  standard  speci- 
fies requirements  for  side  door  locks  and  side 
door  retention  components  including  latches, 
hinges,  and  other  supporting  means,  to  minimize 
the  likelihood  of  occupants  being  thrown  from 
the  vehicle  as  a  result  of  impact. 

52.  Application.  This  standard  applies  to  pas- 
senger cars,  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles,  and 
trucks. 

53.  Definitions.  "Cargo-Type  Door"  means  a 
door  designed  primarily  to  accommodate  cargo 
loading  including,  but  not  limited  to,  a  two-part 
door  that  latches  to  itself. 

["Side  front  door"  means  a  door  that  in  a 
side  view,  has  50  percent  or  more  of  its  opening 
area  forward  of  the  rearmost  point  on  the 
driver's  seatback,  when  the  driver's  seat  is  ad- 
justed to  its  most  vertical  and  rearward  position. 

"Side  rear  door"  means  a  door  that,  in  a  side 
view,  has  more  than  50  percent  of  its  opening 
area  to  the  rear  of  the  rearmost  point  on  the 
driver's  seatback,  when  the  driver's  seat  is  ad- 
justed to  its  most  vertical  and  rearward  position. 
(37  F.K.  284— January  8,  1972.  Effective: 
1/8/72)] 

54.  Requirements.  [Components  on  any  side 
door  leading  directly  into  a  compartment  that 
contains  one  or  more  seating  accommodations 
shall  conform  to  this  standard.  However,  com- 
ponents on  folding  doors,  roll-up  doors  and 
doors  that  are  designed  to  be  easily  attached  to 
or  removed  from  motor  vehicles  manufactured 
for  operation  without  doors  need  not  conform 
to  this  standard.  (37  F.R.  284— January  8,  1972. 
Effective:  9/1/72)] 


S4.1    Hinged  Doors,  Except  Cargo-Type  Doors. 

54.1.1  Door  Latches.  Each  door  latch  and 
striker  assembly  shall  be  provided  with  two  po- 
sitions consisting  of — 

(a)  A  fully  latched  position;  and 

(b)  A  secondary  latched  position. 

54.1.1.1  Longitudinal  Load.  The  door  latch  and 
striker  assembly,  when  in  the  fully  latched  posi- 
tion, shall  not  separate  when  a  longitudinal  load 
of  2,500  pounds  is  applied.  When  in  the  sec- 
ondary latched  position,  the  door  latch  and 
striker  assembly  shall  not  separate  when  a  longi- 
tudinal load  of  1,000  pounds  is  applied. 

54.1.1.2  Transverse  Load.  The  door  latch  and 
striker  assembly,  when  in  the  fully  latched  po- 
sition, shall  not  separate  when  a  transverse  load 
of  2,000  pounds  is  applied.  When  in  the  sec- 
ondary latched  position,  the  door  latch  and 
striker  assembly  shall  not  separate  when  a  trans- 
verse load  of  1,000  pounds  is  applied. 

54.1.1.3  Inertia  Load.  The  door  latch  shall  not 
disengage  from  the  fully  latched  position  when 
a  longitudinal  or  transverse  inertia  load  of  30g 
is  applied  to  the  door  latch  system  (including 
the  latch  and  its  actuating  mechanism  with  the 
locking  mechanism  disengaged). 

54.1.2  Door  Hinges.  Each  door  hinge  system 
shall  support  the  door  and  shall  not  separate 
when  a  longitudinal  load  of  2,500  pounds  is  ap- 
plied. Similarly,  each  door  hinge  system  shall 
not  separate  when  a  transverse  load  of  2,000 
pounds  is  applied. 

54.1 .3  Door  Locks.  Each  door  shall  be  equipped 
with  a  locking  mechanism  with  an  operating 
means  in  the  interior  of  the  vehicle. 


PART  571;  S  206-1 


EffacHva:  January   1,    1970 
January   1,    1972 

54.1.3.1  Side  Front  Door  Locks.  When  the 
locking  mechanism  is  engaged,  the  outside  door 
handle  or  other  outside  latch  release  control  shall 
be  inoperative. 

54.1.3.2  Side  Rear  Door  Locks.  In  passenger 
cars  and  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles,  when 
the  locking  mechanism  is  engaged,  both  the  out- 
side and  inside  door  handles  or  other  latch  re- 
lease controls  shall  be  inoperative. 

54.2  Hinged  Cargo-Type  Doors. 

54.2.1  Door  Latches. 

54.2.1.1  Longitudinal  Load.  Each  latch  system, 
when  in  the  latched  position,  shall  not  separate 
when  a  longitudinal  load  of  2,500  pounds  is 
applied. 

54.2.1.2  Transverse  Load.  Each  latch  system, 
when  in  the  latched  position,  shall  not  separate 
when  a  transverse  load  of  2,000  pounds  is  ap- 
plied. When  more  than  one  latch  system  is  used 
on  a  single  door,  the  load  requirement  may  be 
divided  among  the  total  number  of  latch  systems. 

54.2.2  Door  Hinges.  Each  door  hinge  system 
shall  support  the  door  and  shall  not  separate 
when  a  longitudinal  load  of  2,500  pounds  is  ap- 
plied, and  when  a  transverse  load  of  2,000  pounds 
is  applied. 

54.3  Sliding  Doors.  The  track  and  slide  com- 
bination or  other  supporting  means  for  each 
sliding  door  shall  not  separate  when  a  total 
transverse  load  of  4,000  pounds  is  applied,  with 
the  door  in  the  closed  position. 

S5.  Demonstration  Procedures. 

S5.1    Hinged  Doors,  Except  Cargo-Type  Doors. 

S5.1.1    Door  Latches. 

S5. 1.1.1    Longitudinal     and     Transverse     Loads. 

Compliance  with  paragraphs  S4.1.1.1  and  S4.1.1.2 
shall  be  demonstrated  in  accordance  with  para- 
graph  4   of   Society   of   Automotive   Engineers 


Recommended   Practice  J839b,   "Passenger   Car 
Side  Door  Latch  Systems,"  May  1965. 

S5.1.1.2  Inertia  Load.  Compliance  with  S4.1.1.3 
shall  be  demonstrated  by  approved  tests  or  in 
accordance  with  paragraph  5  of  SAE  Recom- 
mended Practice  J839b,  May  1965. 

S5.1.2  Door  Hinges.  Compliance  with  S4.1.2 
shall  be  demonstrated  in  accordance  with  para- 
graph 4  of  SAE  Recommended  Practice  J934, 
"Vehicle  Passenger  Door  Hinge  Systems,"  July 
1965.  For  piano-type  hinges,  the  hinge  spacing 
requirements  of  SAE  J934  shall  not  be  applicable 
and  arrangement  of  the  test  fixture  shall  be 
altered  as  required  so  that  the  test  load  will  be 
applied  to  the  complete  hinge. 

55.2  Hinged  Cargo-Type  Doors. 

55.2.1  Door  Latches.  Compliance  with  S4.2.1 
shall  be  demonstrated  in  accordance  with  para- 
graphs 4.1  and  4.3  of  SAE  Recommended  Prac- 
tice J839b,  "Passenger  Car  Side  Door  Latch 
Systems,"  May  1965.  An  equivalent  static  test 
fixture  may  be  substituted  for  that  shown  in 
Figure  2  of  SAE  J839b,  if  required. 

55.2.2  Door  Hinges.  Compliance  with  S4.2.2 
shall  be  demonstrated  in  accordance  with  para- 
graph 4  of  SAE  Recommended  Practice  J934, 
"Vehicle  Passenger  Door  Hinge  Systems,"  July 
1965.  For  piano-type  hinges,  the  hinge  spacing 
requirement  of  SAE  J934  shall  not  be  applicable 
and  arrangement  of  the  test  fixture  shall  be 
altered  as  required  so  that  the  test  load  will  be 
applied  to  the  complete  hinge. 

55.3  Sliding  Doors.  Compliance  with  S4.3 
shall  be  demonstrated  by  applying  an  outward 
transverse  load  of  2,000  pounds  to  the  load  bear- 
ing members  at  the  opposite  edges  of  the  door 
(4,000  pounds  total).  The  demonstration  may 
be  performed  either  in  the  vehicle  or  with  tho 
door  retention  components  in  a  bench  test  fixture. 

34  F.R.   1150 
January  24,   1969 


PART  5T1;  S  206-2 


Effective:  January    1,    1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  207 

Seating  Systems — Passenger  Cars,  Multipurpose  Passenger  Vehicles,  Trucks,  and  Buses 

(Docket  No.  2-12;  Notice  No.  3) 


The  purpose  of  this  amendment  to  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  207  is  to  extend  its 
application  to  multipurpose  passenger  v'ehicles, 
trucks  and  buses,  to  require  a  seat  to  remain  in 
its  adjusted  position  during  load  application,  and 
to  clarify  and  restructure  the  standard. 

A  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  on  the  sub- 
ject of  amending  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard 
No.  207,  and  extending  it  to  multipurpose  pas- 
senger vehicles,  trucks  and  buses  was  published 
on  September  20,  1969  (34  F.E.  14661). 

The  need  for  adequately  anchored  seating  is 
clear.  A  seat  that  tears  loose  on  impact  adds  to 
the  hazards  that  are  inherent  in  crash  situations. 
Each  seat  must  remain  in  place  if  it  is  to  afford 
any  protection  to  its  occupant.  Standard  No. 
207  accordingly  established  strength  require- 
ments for  the  anchorage  of  occupant  seats,  re- 
quired that  a  means  be  provided  for  keeping 
folding  seats  and  seat  backs  in  place,  and  pre- 
scribed strength  requirements  for  seat  backs  and 
seat  back  restraints.  The  proposal  to  extend  the 
standard's  application  to  additional  types  of  ve- 
hicles is  part  of  an  overall  effort  to  afford  occu- 
pants of  these  vehicles  protection  equal  to  that 
now  available  to  occupants  of  passenger  cars. 
The  extension  of  Standard  No.  207  is  closely 
allied  with  the  extension  of  standards  for  seat 
belt  installation  (208)  and  anchorages  (210)  to 
these  other  vehicle  types. 

Most  of  the  comments  favored  the  extended 
application  of  the  standard.  Some  persons  who 
objected  voiced  the  fear  that  the  seat  system 
requirements  would  eliminate  some  seating  con- 
figurations in  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles 
and  walk-in  van-type  trucks.  Although  manu- 
facturers of  these   vehicles  may  have  to  make 


design  changes,  it  has  been  determined  that 
strength  and  convenience  in  this  case  are  not 
incompatible,  and  that  the  provision  of  adequate 
seats  is  not  impracticable  for  such  vehicles.  It 
should  also  be  noted  that  if  a  seat  is  not  intended 
for  use  while  the  vehicle  is  in  motion,  and  there- 
fore provides  no  designated  seating  position  im- 
der  the  amended  definition  of  that  term  in  section 
571.3  of  Title  49  CFR,  the  requirements  of  this 
standard  do  not  apply  to  it. 

Several  respondents  observed  that  the  require- 
ments of  S4.2  that  a  seat  sustain  the  required 
force  "in  each  position  to  which  it  can  be  ad- 
justed" would  impose  a  substantial  burden  on 
power  seats,  whose  "positions"  may  be  very 
numerous.  The  intent  of  the  paragraph  is  to 
insure  that  a  seat  would  be  able  to  sustain  the 
specified  force  in  any  position  that  is  usable  in 
actual  operations,  although  the  manufacturer 
may  choose  to  test  it  only  in  its  most  vulnerable 
positions.  Thus,  the  manufacturer  may  use  what- 
ever means  are  at  his  disposal  to  meet  the  mini- 
mum requirements;  the  standards  are  not  in- 
tended to  dictate  either  the  nature  or  the  quantity 
of  manufacturer  testing.  The  requirement  has 
been  reworded  slightly  and  language  has  been 
added  to  make  it  clear  that  the  force  specified  by 
subparagraph  (d)  is  applied  to  the  seat  only  in 
the  rearmost  position. 

The  requirement  that  the  seat  withstand  the 
load  without  leaving  its  adjusted  position  has 
been  retained,  but  in  response  to  another  group 
of  comments  it  has  been  decided  to  allow  non- 
locking suspension  type  seats  to  travel  normally 
during  application  of  the  loads  required  by  S4.2. 
Any  other  method  of  testing  would  not  accurately 
reflect  the  actual  performance  characteristics  of 
such  seats. 


PAET  571;  S  207— PRE  1 


Effective:  January    1,    1972 


Several  comments  questioned  the  utility  of  re- 
quiring a  seat  back  restraint  release  to  be  readily 
accessible  if  its  use  is  not  required  for  normal 
exit  from  the  vehicles.  There  appears  to  be 
merit  to  this  argument  with  respect  to  the  need 
for  rear  seat  occupants  to  use  the  release  and  the 
paragraph  has  been  altered  accordingly. 

One  comment  stated  that  subparagraph  S4.3.2.1 
of  the  proposal  should  be  amended  to  require  the 
restraint  on  a  rearward- facing  seat  to  withstand 
a  rearward  load  equal  to  eight  times  the  weight 
of  the  pivoiting  or  folding  portion  of  the  seat. 
This  suggestion  has  merit,  and  the  subparagraph 
has  been  amended  by  the  addition  of  a  new  sub- 
paragraph dealing  expressly  with  rearward- 
facing  seats. 

Several  comments  requested  that  addition  of 
language  permitting  "approved  physical  demon- 
strations" or  "approved  dynamic  tests"  in  place 
of  the  static  loading  requirements  in  S4.2  and 
S4.3.  For  several  reasons,  that  language  has  not 
been  added  to  the  amended  Standard  No.  207. 
The  Bureau  adheres  to  the  procedures  specified 
in  the  standard  in  its  own  testing,  and  it  is  there- 
fore essential  that  the  procedures  be  set  forth 
with  precision.  However,  if  a  manufacturer 
develops  test  procedures  which  are  equal  to  those 
in  the  standard,  in  the  sense  that  the  results  can 


be  accurately  correlated  with  the  standard's  re- 
quirements, nothing  in  the  Act  or  in  the  standard 
prevents  him  from  using  his  tests  to  determine 
that  his  product  conforms  to  the  standard.  The 
Bureau  wishes  to  encourage  new  developments 
in  the  field  of  testing,  and  does  not  intend  that 
the  amended  standard  should  inhibit  them. 

The  proposal  has  been  further  changed  by  in- 
corporating the  substance  of  the  test  procedures 
in  SAE  J879b  into  the  text  of  the  standard  and 
by  adopting  the  accompanying  drawings  as 
figures  1-5  of  the  standard. 

Effective  date:  January  1, 1972. 

Several  comments  indicated  that  the  proposed 
effective  date  of  January  1,  1971,  would  leave 
many  manufacturers  unable  to  comply,  par- 
ticularly with  respect  to  multipuri^ose  passenger 
vehicles  and  trucks.  Therefore,  it  has  been  de- 
termined that  there  is  good  cause  for  specifying 
an  effective  date  more  than  1  year  after  the  date 
of  publication. 

Issued  on  Septem'ber  23,  1970. 

Charles  H.  Hartman, 
Acting   Director. 

35    F.R.   15290 
October    1,    1970 


PART  571:  S  207— PRE  2 


EffacHve:   January   1,    1972 


PREAMBLE  TO   AMENDMENT  TO   MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  207 

Seating  Systems — Passenger  Cars,  Multipurpose  Passenger  Vehicles,  Trucks  and  Buses 

(Docket  No.  2-12;  Notice  No.  4) 


An  amendment  to  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  207,  Seating  Systems,  was  pub- 
lished on  October  1,  1970  (35  F.R.  15290). 
Thereafter,  pursuant  to  §  553.35  of  the  pro- 
cedural rules  (49  CFR  553.35,  35  F.R.  5119), 
petitions  for  reconsideration  were  filed  by  the 
Ford  Motor  Company  and  Rolls  Royce,  Ltd. 

The  petition  of  Rolls  Royce,  Ltd.,  sought  to 
amend  §  S4.2.1,  Seat  adjustment,  to  permit  a 
displacement  of  2  inches  during  the  application 
of  the  required  force.  The  company  stated  that 
such  an  allowance  was  necessary  to  accommodate 
power  seats  that  are  continuously  adjustable. 
Although  the  Administration  has  determined 
that  it  is  not  advisable  to  permit  a  specific  dis- 
placement, the  special  circumstances  of  the  power 
seat  warrant  a  more  explicit  interpretation  of  the 
term  "adjusted  position"  as  employed  in  the 
standard. 

Some  types  of  manual  adjustment  devnce  have 
a  small  amount  of  slack,  that  is  detected  during 
the  test  procedure  but  is  not  an  indication  of 
incipient  failure  and  is  therefore  not  considered 
to  affect  the  conformity  of  the  system.  In  re- 
viewing the  characteristics  of  power  adjustment 
devices,  the  Administration  has  concluded  that 
some  similar  amount  of  slack  may  exist  in  such 
systems  and  that  it  should  not  be  the  basis  for 
a  finding  of  non-conformity.  The  Administra- 
tion will  consider  a  continuously  adjustable 
power  seat  to  have  remained  in  its  adjusted 
position  despite  some  movement,  if  the  move- 
ment is  small  and  if  it  has  stopped  as  the  maxi- 
mum required  force  level  is  reached. 


The  substance  of  the  Ford  petition  was  that 
the  requirement  for  the  seat  back  release  control 
to  be  accessible  to  an  occupant  of  the  seat  is  not 
appropriate  if  the  occupant  does  not  need  to  use 
it  to  exit  from  the  vehicle.  This  point  was 
illustrated  by  the  case  of  a  seat  in  a  truck  cab 
that  folds  for  access  to  a  storage  compartment. 
The  Administration  has  determined  that  the 
situation  used  by  Ford  to  illustrate  its  case  is  a 
situation  in  which  relief  from  the  requirement 
should  be  granted,  but  that  where  there  is  a  seat- 
ing position  behind  the  folding  seat  the  release 
control  should  continue  to  be  accessible  to  the 
occupant  of  the  folding  seat.  This  requirement 
has  been  a  part  of  the  standard  from  the  outset, 
and  by  making  the  latch  more  easily  usable 
makes  it  less  likely  to  be  intentionally  defeated. 

Ford  also  indicated  that  it  understood  the 
standard  to  require  that  the  seat  be  releasable 
from  each  seating  position  on  the  seat.  This  is 
not  a  correct  reading  of  the  standard.  The  Ad- 
ministration's interpretation  continues  to  be  that 
the  release  conrol  must  be  accessible  to  at  least 
one  occupant  of  each  folding  part  of  a  seat. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  section 
S4.3.1,  Accessibility  of  release  control,  in  Stand- 
ard No.  207,  49  CFR  571.21,  is  amended 

Effective  date :  January  1, 1972. 

Issued  on  April  14,  1971. 

Douglas  W.  Toms, 
Acting   Administrator. 

36   F.R.  7419 
April    20,    1971 


PART  571;  207— PRE  3-4 


( 


( 


Effective:   January    1,    1972 


Seating  Systems 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  207 

-Passenger  Cars,  Multipurpose  Passenger  Vehicles,  Trucks  and  Buses 
(Docket  No.  2-12;  Notice  No.  3) 


51.  Purpose  and  scope.  This  standard  estab- 
lishes requirements  for  seats,  their  attachment 
assemblies,  and  their  installation  to  minimize 
the  possibility  of  their  failure  by  forces  acting 
on  them  as  a  result  of  vehicle  impact. 

52.  Application.  This  standard  applies  to  pas- 
senger cars,  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles, 
trucks  and  buses. 

53.  Definition.  "Occupant  seat"  means  a  seat 
that  provides  at  least  one  designated  seating 
position. 

54.  Requirements. 

54.1  Driver  seat.  Each  vehicle  shall  have  an 
occupant  seat  for  the  driver. 

54.2  General  performance  requirements.  When 
tested  in  accordance  with  S5,  each  occupant  seat, 
other  than  a  side- facing  seat  or  a  passenger  seat 
on  a  bus,  shall  withstand  the  following  forces: 

(a)  In  any  position  to  which  it  can  be  ad- 
justed— 20  times  the  weight  of  the  seat  applied  in 
a  forward  longitudinal  direction; 

(b)  In  any  position  to  which  it  can  be  ad- 
justed— 20  times  the  weight  of  the  seat  applied 
in  a  rearward  longitudinal  direction; 

(c)  For  a  seat  belt  assembly  attached  to  the 
seat — the  force  specified  in  subparagraph  (a),  if 
it  is  a  forward  facing  seat,  or  subparagraph  (b), 
if  it  is  a  rearward  facing  seat,  in  each  case  ap- 
plied simultaneously  with  the  forces  imposed  on 
the  seat  by  the  seat  belt  assembly  when  it  is 
loaded  in  accordance  with  section  S4.2  of  Fed- 
eral Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  210 ;  and 

(d)  In  its  rearmost  position — a  force  that 
produces  a  3,300  inch- pound  moment  about  the 
seating  reference  point  for  each  designated  seat- 
ing position  that  the  seat  provides,  applied  to  the 
upper   cross-member   of   the   seat   back   or   the 


upper  seat  back,  in  a  rearward  longitudinal  di- 
rection for  forward- facing  seats  and  in  a  forward 
longitudinal  direction  for  rearward-facing  seats. 

S4.2.1  Seat  adjustment.  Except  for  vertical 
movement  of  nonlocking  suspension  type  oc- 
cupant seats  in  trucks  or  buses,  the  seat  shall  re- 
main in  its  adjusted  position  during  the  applica- 
tion of  each  force  specified  in  S4.2. 

S4.3  Restraining  device  for  hinged  or  folding 
seats  or  seat  backs.  Except  for  a  passenger  seat 
in  a  bus  or  a  seat  having  a  back  that  is  adjustable 
only  for  the  comfort  of  its  occupants,  a  hinged 
or  folding  occupant  seat  or  occupant  seat  back 
shall  be  equipped  with  a  self-locking  device  for 
restraining  the  hinged  or  folding  seat  or  seat 
back  and  a  control  for  releasing  that  restraining 
device. 

54.3.1  Accessibility     of     release     control.       [If 

there  is  a  designated  seating  position  immediately 
behind  a  seat  equipped  with  a  restraining  device, 
the  control  for  releasing  the  device  shall  be 
readily  accessible  to  the  occupant  of  the  seat 
equipped  with  the  device  and,  if  access  to  the 
control  is  required  in  order  to  exit  from  the 
vehicle,  to  the  occupant  of  the  designated  seat- 
ing position  immediately  behind  the  seat.  (36 
F.R.  7419— April  20,  1971.    Effective:  1/1/72)] 

54.3.2  Performance  of  restraining  device. 
S4.3.2.1   Static  force. 

(a)  Once  engaged,  the  restraining  device  for 
forward-facing  seat  shall  not  release  or  fail  when 
a  forward  longitudinal  force  equal  to  20  times 
the  weight  of  the  hinged  or  folding  portion  of 
the  seat  is  applied  through  the  center  of  gravity 
of  that  portion  of  the  seat. 

(b)  Once  engaged,  the  restraining  device  for 
a  rearward  facing  seat  shall  not  release  or  fail 


(lev.  4/20/71) 


PART  571;  S  207-1 


EfFective:  January    1,    1972 


when  a  rearward  longitudinal  force  equal  to  8 
times  the  weight  of  the  hinged  or  folding  portion 
of  the  seat  is  applied  to  the  center  of  gravity  of 
that  portion  of  the  seat. 

S4.3.2.2  Acceleration.  Once  engaged,  the  re- 
straining device  shall  not  release  or  fail  when  the 
device  is  subjected  to  an  acceleration  of  20  g.  in 
the  longitudinal  direction  opi^osite  to  that  in 
which  the  seat  folds. 

S4.4  Labeling.  Seats  not  designated  for  oc- 
cupancy while  the  vehicle  is  in  motion  shall  be 
conspicuously  labeled  to  that  effect. 

S5.  Test  procedures. 

S5.1  Apply  the  forces  specified  in  S4.2(a)  and 
S4.2(b)  as  follows: 

S5.1.1  If  the  seat  back  and  the  seat  bench  are 
attached  to  the  vehicle  by  the  same  attachments, 


y 

STRUT 

RIGID 
MEMBER 

HORIZONTAL 
FORCE  THRO 
CENTER  OF  G 

REARWARD^'  ^^^ 

UGH  THE                -,      "^ 
RAVITY            -            ^^    \c 

',    A  .  i*^-^"^ 

RIGID  MEMBER 

!/ 

..X.  >d^ 

^^S\  j 

/\ 

^^^ 

S 

^*c^"~^~ 

DIAGONAL  STRUT  ATTACHEO  ^"Sj^^^*^ 
ASFARFOHWAROOF  FRONT           \.\ 
ATTACHING  POINT  AS  POSSIBLE            C.\ 

\ 

^^          /       - 
HORIZONTAL  FORWARD  FORCE 
THROUGH  THE  CENTER 
OF  GRAVITY 

FIGURE  1 

secure  a  strut  on  each  side  of  the  seat  from  a 
point  on  the  outside  of  the  seat  frame  in  the 
horizontal  plane  of  the  seat's  center  of  gravity  to 


— ^ 

CENTER  OF  GRAVITY 
^=-   OF  SEAT  BACK 

\ 
LOAD  CELL  ^^"^ 

FORWARD  -~— ^_7N 
HORIZONTAL            J^^ 
FORCE                       J^^- 

iL-e:^--~_^        \                 REARWARD 
/             ~--— «^_    \  .*J>     HORIZONTAL 

1                   --^                   ^""^^ 

HORIZONTAL 
FORCE 


CENTER  OF  GRAVITY 
OF  SEAT  CUSHION 


REARWARD 
'  .<*>  HORIZONTAL 
— '^  FORCE 


LOAD  CELL 


FIGURES 


a  point  on  the  frame  as  far  forward  as  possible 
of  the  seat  anchorages.  Between  the  upper  ends 
of  the  struts  place  a  rigid  cross-member,  in  front 
of  the  seat  back  frame  for  rearward  loading  and 
behind  the  seat  back  frame  for  forward  loading. 


HORIZONTAL  FORCE  (P)  TO 
SEAT  BACK  AT  UPPER 
CROSSMEMBER 


SEATING  REFERENCE 
POINT 


RIGID  MEMBER 


FIGURE  2 


MOMENT  (P  X  O)  COMPUTED  ABOUT  THE 
SEATING  REFERENCE  POINT 

FIGURE  4 

Apply  the  force  specified  by  S4.2(a)  or  S4.2(b) 
horizontally  through  the  rigid  cross-member  as 
shown  in  figure  1. 

S5.1.2  If  the  seat  back  and  the  seat  bench  are 
attached  to  the  vehicle  by  different  attachments, 
attach  to  each  component  a  fixture  capable  of 
transmitting  a  force  to  that  component.  Apply 
forces  equal  to  20  times  the  weight  of  the  seat 
back  horizontally  through  the  center  of  gravity 
of  the  seat  back,  as  shown  in  figure  2,  and  apply 
forces  equal  to  20  times  the  weight  of  the  seat 


PAKT  571:  S  207-2 


Effective:   January    1,    1972 


I 


bench  horizontally  through  the  center  of  gravity 
of  the  seat  bench,  as  shown  in  figure  3. 

55.2  Develop  the  moment  specified  in  S4.2(d) 
as  shown  in  figure  4. 

55.3  Apply  the  forces  specified  in  S4.3.2.1  (a) 
and  (b)  to  a  hinged  or  folding  seat  as  shown  in 
figure  1  and  to  a  hinged  or  folding  seat  back  as 
shown  in  figure  5. 

55.4  Determine  the  center  of  gravity  of  a  seat 
or  seat  component  with  all  cushions  and  uphols- 
tery in  place  and  with  the  head  restraint  in  its 
fully  extended  design  position. 


35  F.R.  15290 
October  1,  1970 


HORIZONTAL  FORCE  THROUGH 
THE  CENTER  OF  GRAVtTY 


IGID  SUPPORT 


SEAT  IN  LATCHED  POSITION 
FIGURES 


^y 


PAKT  571;  S  207-3 


Effective:  January  1,  1972 
AugusI  15,  1973 
August  IS,  1975 
August   15,    1977 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO   MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  208 

Occupant  Crash  Protection  in  Passenger  Cars,  Multipurpose  Passenger 
Vehicles,  Trucks,  and  Buses 

(Docket  No.  69-7;   Notice  No.  9) 


The  purpose  of  this  amendment  to  Standard 
No.  208,  49  CFR  571.21,  is  to  specify  occupant 
crash  protection  requirements  for  passenger  cars, 
multipurpose  passenger  vheicles,  trucks,  and 
buses  manufactured  on  or  after  January  1,  1972, 
with  additional  requirements  coming  into  effect 
for  certain  of  those  vehicles  on  August  15,  1973, 
August  15,  1975,  and  August  15,  1977.  The  re- 
quirements effective  for  the  period  beginning  on 
January  1,  1972,  were  the  subject  of  a  notice  of 
proposed  rulemaking  published  September  25, 
1970  (35  F.R.  14941),  and  appear  today  for  the 
first  time  in  the  form  of  a  rule.  The  require- 
ments for  subsequent  periods  were  issued  in  rule 
form  on  November  3,  1970  (35  F.E.  16927),  and 
are  reissued  today  in  amended  form  as  the  result 
of  petitions  for  reconsideration. 

The  substantive  rulemaking  actions  that  pre- 
ceded this  amendment  are  as  follows: 

(a)  May  7,  1970  (35  F.E.  7187)— Proposed 
requirements  and  a  schedule  for  the  adoption  of 
passive  restraint  systems  and  interim  active 
systems. 

(b)  September  25,  1970  (35  F.E.  14941)  — 
Proposal  for  a  modified  interim  set  of  require- 
ments effective  January  1, 1972. 

(c)  November  3,  1970  (35  F.E.  16927)— Rule 
amending  Standard  No.  208  to  specify  require- 
ments for  passive  restraints,  effective  July  1, 
1973. 

(d)  November  3,  1970  (35  F.E.  16937)— Pro- 
posed additional  requirements  and  conditions  to 
be  contained  in  Standard  No.  208. 

Following  issuance  of  the  November  3  amend- 
ment, petitions  for  reconsideration  were  filed 
pursuant  to  §  553.35  of  the  procedural  rules  (49 
CFR  553.35,  35  F.E.  5119)  by  Japan  Automobile 


Manufacturers  Association,  Inc.,  American 
Safety  Belt  Council,  Peugeot,  Inc.,  American 
Motors  Corp.,  Volvo,  Inc.,  Ford  Motor  Co., 
Chrysler,  Chrysler  United  Kingdom,  Ltd.,  Inter- 
national Harvester  Co.,  Automobile  Manufac- 
turers Association,  General  Motors  Corp.,  Volks- 
wagen of  America,  Inc.,  Takata  Kojyo  Co.,  Ltd., 
Renault,  Inc.,  American  Motors  (Jeep),  Rolls- 
Royce,  Ltd.,  American  Safety  Equipment  Corp., 
Hamill  Manufacturing  Co.,  Energy  Systems 
Division  (Olin),  American  Association  for  Auto- 
motive Medicine,  Checker  Motors  Corp.,  Eaton 
Yale  and  Towne,  Inc.,  and  the  American 
Academy  of  Pediatrics. 

Concurrently  with  the  evaluation  of  the  peti- 
tions, the  Administration  has  reviewed  the  com- 
ments received  in  response  to  the  September  25 
and  November  3  proposals,  and  the  interim 
occupant  protection  requirements  are  combined 
herein  with  the  requirements  for  later  periods. 

The  standard  establishes  quantitative  criteria 
for  occupant  injury,  as  determined  by  use  of 
anthropomorphic  test  devices.  For  the  head,  the 
criterion  is  a  severity  index  of  1,000,  calculated 
according  to  SAE  Information  Report  J885a; 
for  the  upper  thorax,  it  is  a  deceleration  of  60g 
except  for  a  cumulative  period  of  not  more  than 
3  milliseconds;  and  for  the  upper  legs  it  is  an 
axial  force  of  1,400  pounds.  A  fourth  criterion 
is  that  the  test  devices  must  be  contained  by  the 
outer  surfaces  of  the  passenger  compartment. 

For  systems  that  provide  complete  passive  pro- 
tection there  are  three  vehicle  impact  modes  in 
which  a  vehicle  is  required  to  meet  the  injury 
criteria.  In  the  frontal  mode,  the  vehicle  im- 
pacts a  fixed  collision  barrier  perpendicularly  or 
at  any  angle  up  to  and  including  30°  in  either 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  1 


Effecflve:      \  H  172;   8/15/73; 
a/tS/TS;  8/1S/77 


direction  from  the  perpendicular  while  traveling 
longitudinally  forward  at  any  speed  up  to  30 
m.p.h.  In  the  lateral  mode,  the  vehicle  is  im- 
pacted on  its  side  by  a  barrier  moving  at  20 
m.p.h.  In  the  rollover  mode,  the  vehicle  is  rolled 
over  from  a  speed  of  30  m.p.h. 

On  January  1,  1972,  a  passenger  car  will  be 
required  to  provide  one  of  three  options  for  oc- 
cupant protection :  ( 1 )  Passive  protection  system 
that  meets  the  above  injury  criteria  in  all  im- 
pact modes  at  all  seating  positions;  (2)  lap  belts 
at  all  positions,  with  a  requirement  that  the  front 
outboard  jxeitions  meet  the  injury  criteria  with 
lap-belted  dummies  in  a  30-m.p.h.  perpendicular 
barrier  crash;  or  (3)  lap-and-shoulder-belt  sys- 
tems at  the  front  outboard  positions  that  restrain 
test  dummies  in  a  30-m.p.h.  barrier  crash  without 
belt  or  anchorage  failure,  and  lap  belts  in  other 
positions. 

Both  the  second  and  third  options  require 
warning  systems  that  activate  a  visible  and 
audible  signal  if  an  occupant  of  either  front  out- 
board position  has  not  extended  his  lap  belt  to  a 
specified  length.  Lap  belts  furnished  under  the 
second  or  third  options  must  have  emergency- 
locking  or  automatic-locking  retractors  at  all  out- 
board positions,  front  and  rear.  Shoulder  belts 
furnished  under  the  third  option  must  have 
either  manual  adjustment  or  emergency-locking 
retractors. 

On  August  15,  1973,  a  passenger  car  will  be 
required  to  provide  one  of  two  options  for  oc- 
cupant protection:  (1)  Passive  protection  that 
meets  the  injury  criteria  in  all  impact  modes  at 
all  seating  positions;  or  (2)  a  system  that  pro- 
vides passive  protection  for  the  front  positions 
in  a  perpendicular  frontal  fixed  barrier  crash, 
that  includes  lap  belts  at  all  seating  positions 
such  that  the  injury  criteria  are  met  at  the  front 
positions  both  with  and  without  lap  belts 
fastened  in  a  perpendicular  frontal  fixed  barrier 
crash,  and  that  has  a  seat  belt  warning  system 
at  the  front  outboard  positions. 

On  and  after  August  15,  1975,  a  passenger  car 
will  be  required  to  meet  the  injury  criteria  in  all 
impact  modes  at  all  seating  positions  by  passive 
means. 

Multipurpose  passenger  vehicles  and  trucks 
with  gross  vehicle  weight  ratings  of  10,000 
pounds  or  less  manufactured  from  January  1, 

PART  571;  S 


1972,  to  August  15,  1975,  will  have  the  option  of  v 
meeting  the  injury  criteria  in  all  impact  modes 
at  all  seating  positions  by  passive  means,  or  of 
providing  a  seatbelt  assembly  at  each  designated 
seating  position.  From  August  15,  1975,  to 
August  15,  1977,  these  vehicles  will  be  required 
to  meet  one  of  the  two  options  permitted  pas- 
senger cars  during  the  period  August  15,  1973,  to 
August  15,  1975.  On  and  after  August  15,  1977, 
they  will  be  required  to  meet  the  full  passive 
crash  protection  requirements  that  become  effec- 
tive for  passenger  cars  on  August  15,  1975.  For- 
ward control  vehicles,  however,  may  continue  to 
use  belt  systems,  and  certain  other  specialized 
types  of  vehicles  may  continue  to  provide  only 
head-on  passive  protection. 

Multipurpose  passenger  vehicles  and  trucks 
with  a  GVWR  of  more  than  10,000  pounds 
manufactured  on  or  after  January  1,  1972,  will 
have  the  option  of  providing  protection  by  pas- 
sive means  that  meet  all  the  crash  protection  re- 
quirements or  of  installing  seat  belt  assemblies 
at  all  seating  positions.  Buses  manufactured 
after  January  1,  1972,  will  be  required  to  pro- 
vide one  of  these  options  for  the  driver's  seating  ^ 
position.  V 

The  remainder  of  this  preamble  is  separated 
into  sections  dealing  with  (I)  the  comments  re- 
ceived in  response  to  the  September  25  proposal 
for  the  interim  system,  (II)  the  petitions  for 
reconsideration  of  the  November  3  rule  on  the 
requirements  for  later  periods,  and  (III)  the 
comments  received  and  action  taken  pursuant  to 
the  November  3  proposal  for  additional  require- 
ments. 

I.  The  September  25  proposal  specified  a  series 
of  options  for  occupant  protection  in  passenger 
cars  manufactured  on  or  after  January  1,  1972. 
Each  option  represented  a  significant  advance 
over  the  level  of  protection  afforded  occupants 
by  present  seat  belt  systems.  Upon  consideration 
of  comments  requesting  postponement  of  the  re- 
quirements, it  has  been  determined  that  com- 
pliance with  one  or  another  of  the  options  by 
January  1,  1972,  is  reasonable  and  practicable. 
In  response  to  the  comments  and  other  available 
information,  however,  certain  changes  have  been 
made. 

In  the  proposal,  the  first  option  consisted  of  a 
passive  protection  system  that  would  meet  the    i 

208— PRE  2 


J^  injury  criteria  at  all  seating  positions  in  a  30 
m.p.h.  perpendicular  frontal  impact.  A  large 
number  of  respondents  (to  this  notice  and  to 
others  dealt  with  herein),  both  within  and  out- 
side of  the  concerned  industries,  took  the  posi- 
tion that  the  requirements  for  installation  of 
seat  belts  should  not  be  dropped  until  the  ve- 
hicles in  question  provided  protection  in  angular, 
lateral,  and  rollover  crash  modes,  in  addition  to 
the  direct  frontal  mode.  After  detailed  con- 
sideration of  these  argiunents  and  other  available 
data,  it  has  been  determined  that  the  added  cost 
of  seatbelt  systems  is  justified,  even  where  ve- 
hicles provide  passive  frontal-impact  protection. 
Accordingly,  the  first  option,  the  only  one  under 
which  manufacturers  are  allowed  not  to  provide 
seat  belts  in  their  vehicles,  requires  a  passive  pro- 
tection system  that  meets  the  injury  criteria  in 
all  of  the  impact  modes  mentioned  above. 

The  second  option  set  forth  in  the  proposal 
consisted  of  Type  1  seatbelt  assemblies  with  a 
warning  system  at  the  front  outboard  positions 
and  Type  1  or  Type  2  assemblies  at  the  other 
positions.     The   front   outboard   positions   were 

1^      either  to  meet  the  injury  criteria  in  a  perpen- 

7  dicular  impact  by  use  of  the  belts,  or  be  pro- 
tected by  energy  absorbing  materials  conforming 
to  amended  requirements  proposed  for  Standards 
No.  201  and  203.  The  latter  alternative  was  the 
subject  of  several  adverse  comments,  and  in  the 
light  of  these  comments  and  the  tentative  nature 
of  the  proposed  amendments  to  Standards  No. 
201  and  203,  the  alternative  has  been  deleted. 
As  adopted,  the  option  provides  that  the  front 
outboard  positions  must  meet  the  injury  criteria 
in  a  perpendicular  fixed  barrier  crash  w^ith  the 
test  dummies  restrained  by  Type  1  belts  only. 
The  wording  that  a  vehicle  should  have  "either  a 
Type  1  or  a  Type  2"  seatbelt  assembly  under  this 
option  has  been  changed  to  refer  simply  to  Type 
1  (lap  belt)  assemblies.  A  manufacturer  may  at 
his  option  provide  upper  torso  restraints,  which 
do  or  do  not  attach  to  the  lap  belts.  The  essence 
of  the  second  option,  however,  is  that  the  vehicle 
be  designed  to  provide  protection  with  lap  belts 
alone,  in  view  of  their  much  higher  level  of  pub- 
lic use  in  comparison  with  lap-and-shoulder 
combinations.  Vehicles  under  this  option,  there- 
fore,   must    provide   lap   belts   that    are   usable 

t\     separately. 


Effectlva:      1/1/7J;   8/15/73; 
8/15/75;   8/15/77 

The  third  option  proposed  in  the  September 
25  notice  has  been  adopted  with  some  changes. 
It  consists  of  an  improved  combination  of  lap 
and  shoulder  belts  in  the  front  outboard  seating 
positions,  with  lap  belts  in  other  positions.  The 
belts  and  anchorages  at  the  front  outboard  posi- 
tions must  be  capable  of  restraining  a  dummy  in 
a  30-m.p.h.  frontal  perpendicular  impact  with- 
out separtion  of  the  belts  or  their  anchorages. 

The  seatbelt  warning  system  required  under 
the  second  and  third  options  has  been  modified 
somewhat  in  the  light  of  the  comments,  to  clarify 
the  requirements  and  to  restrict  its  operation  to 
situations  where  the  vehicle  is  likely  to  be  in 
motion.  The  notice  proposed  that  the  system 
operate  when  the  driver  or  right  front  passenger, 
or  both,  occupied  the  seat  but  did  not  fasten  the 
belt  about  them.  It  was  stated  in  several  com- 
ments such  systems  operating  through  the  buckle 
are  relatively  complex  and  that  leadtime  would 
be  a  significant  problem.  Upon  evaluation  of 
the  comments,  it  has  been  decided  to  provide  for 
warning  system  operation  when  the  driver's  belt 
is  not  extended  to  a  length  that  will  accommo- 
date a  5th-percentile  adult  female,  or  when  the 
right  front  passenger's  seat  is  occupied  and  that 
belt  is  not  extended  far  enough  to  fit  a  50th- 
percentile  6-year-old.  Keying  the  system  to  belt 
withdrawal  is  technolosricallv  simpler,  and  still 
provides  protection  against  tampering.  The 
notice  had  proposed  that  the  system  operate 
whenever  the  vehicle's  ignition  was  in  the  "on" 
position.  It  was  pointed  out  in  the  comments 
that  situations  arise  in  which  the  vehicle  is  at 
rest  with  the  ignition  on  and  the  engine  running, 
as  when  picking  up  or  discharsring  passengers. 
To  avoid  the  annoyance  to  vehicle  occupants  of 
the  warning  svstem  in  such  situations,  the  stand- 
ard provides  that  the  system  shall  operate  only 
if  the  ignition  is  in  the  "on"  position  and  the 
transmission  is  in  a  drive  position. 

The  seat  belt  system  requirements  have  also 
been  changed  somewhat  in  response  to  com- 
ments. The  notice  had  proposed  to  require  re- 
tractors at  all  seating  positions  in  those  options 
specifying  seat  belts.  Several  comments  stated 
tha  the  installation  of  retractors  at  inboard  posi- 
tions would  require  extensive  redesign  of  bench- 
type  seats.  In  the  light  of  the  low  occupancy 
rate  for  the  center  seats,  the  difficulties  in  meet- 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  3 


Effective:      1/1/72;    8/15/73; 
8/15/75;    8/15/77 


ing  the  requirement,  and  the  short  leadtime  avail- 
able, the  requirement  for  center-position  retrac- 
tors has  been  omitted. 

The  requirement  that  the  shoulder  and  pelvic 
restraints  be  releasable  at  a  single  point  by  a 
pushbutton-type  action  has  been  retained.  The 
Administration  considers  that  single-point  re- 
lease is  essential  to  the  convenient  operation  of 
the  seat  belts,  and  that  standardization  of  the 
buckle  release  device  is  also  important,  par- 
ticularly in  emergency  situations.  However,  the 
additional  requirement  for  one-hand  fastening  by 
the  driver  has  been  deleted.  Adjustable  bench 
seats  would  require  major  redesign  in  many  cases, 
and  it  has  been  determined  that  the  additional 
convenience  afforded  the  driver  would  not  be 
sufficient  to  justify  the  cost  and  leadtime  prob- 
lems that  would  result. 

A  number  of  comments  noted  that  no  dimen- 
sions were  specified  in  the  notice  for  the  various 
occupants,  and  that  there  were  no  dimensions  of 
this  type  in  general  use.  To  remedy  the  problem, 
the  standard  provides  a  table  of  dimensions  for 
various  sizes  of  adult  occupants  and  50th- 
percentile  6-year-olds.  The  latter  set  of  dimen- 
sions has  been  adopted  because  of  the  availability 
of  manikins  at  that  size. 

In  response  to  several  comments  stating  that 
the  proposed  8-inch  distance  between  the  oc- 
cupant's centerline  and  the  intersection  of  the 
upper  torso  belt  with  the  lap  belt  was  too  great, 
the  distance  has  been  reduced  to  6  inches.  It  has 
been  determined  that  a  6-inch  distance  will  pro- 
vide satisfactory  protection  and  lessen  the  con- 
venience problems  that  might  be  created  with  the 
greater  distance. 

II.  With  few  exceptions,  the  petitions  for  re- 
consideration of  the  November  3  amendment 
requested  that  the  requirement  for  mandatory 
passive  protection  be  postponed.  The  length  of 
postponement  requested  varied  from  2  months  to 
several  years.  After  full  consideration  of  the 
issues  raised  by  the  petitions,  it  has  been  decided 
to  continue  to  require  passive  protection  for  the 
front  seating  positions  of  passenger  cars  in  1973. 
In  order  to  ease  the  problem  of  model  year 
scheduling,  the  date  is  changed  from  July  1, 
1973,  to  August  15,  1973.  The  petitions  did  not 
offer  sufficient  reasons  to  change  the  Administra- 
tion's position  as  set  forth  in  previous  notices  in 


this  docket,  that  passive  protection  systems  are  a  m 
vitally  important  step  in  reducing  the  death  and 
injury  toll  on  our  highways,  and  that  the  relevant 
technology  is  sufficiently  advanced  to  provide  this 
basic  protection,  in  accordance  with  the  perform- 
ance requirements  and  the  time  schedule  that 
have  been  specified.  The  petitions  that  requested 
a  postponement  of  all  passive  protection  require- 
ments beyond  August  15,  1973,  are  therefore 
denied. 

However,  considerable  data  was  presented  in 
the  petitions  to  the  effect  that  the  development  of 
passive  systems  for  the  various  impact  modes 
has  not  proceeded  at  an  equal  rate.  It  appears 
that  a  number  of  manufacturers  may  be  unable 
to  comply  with  the  lateral  crash  protection  re- 
quirements in  1973.  Accordingly,  it  has  been  de- 
cided to  establish  two  restraint  options  for  the 
front  seating  positions  of  passenger  cars  manu- 
factured on  or  after  August  15,  1973,  and  before 
August  15,  1975.  A  manufacturer  may  choose, 
first,  to  provide  a  passive  system  that  meets  the 
occupant  crash  protection  requirements  at  all 
seating  positions,  in  all  impact  modes.  If  he  is 
unable  to  provide  such  full  passive  protection, 
he  may  choose  to  adopt  a  system  that  provides  |^ 
passive  protection  for  the  front  occupants  in  a 
head-on  collision,  and  also,  includes  a  lap  belt 
at  each  seating  position  with  a  seatbelt  warning 
system  for  the  front  outboard  positions.  Under 
this  option,  the  injury  criteria  must  be  met  at 
each  front  position  in  a  perpendicular  barrier 
crash  up  to  30  m.p.h.,  both  with  and  without  the 
lap  belts  fastened.  This  option  thus  resembles 
the  second  option  permitted  during  the  interim 
period,  except  that  the  injury  criteria  must  also 
be  met  with  the  test  dummies  unrestrained,  and 
at  the  front  center  position  as  well  as  the  front 
o)itboard  positions. 

The  date  on  which  a  passenger  car  must  pro- 
vide passive  means  of  meeting  the  injury  criteria 
in  a  side  impact  is  changed  to  August  15,  1975, 
to  reflect  the  greater  leadtime  needed  to  develop 
such  passive  systems.  To  provide  uniform 
phasing,  and  allow  time  for  development  of  pas- 
sive protection  in  the  angular-impact  and  roll- 
over modes,  the  effective  date  for  these  require- 
ments is  also  set  at  August  15,  1975.  Thus,  after 
August  15,  1975,  each  passenger  car  must  meet 
the  crash  protection  requirements  at  each  seating    y 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  4 


position  in  all  impact  modes  by  means  that  re- 
quire no  action  by  vehicle  occupants. 

Petitions  of  manufacturers  of  multipurpose 
passenger  vehicles  and  trucks  with  GVWR  of 
10,000  pounds  or  less  stated  that  the  trucking  in- 
dustry as  a  whole  would  need  additional  time  to 
assimilate  the  experience  of  passenger  car  manu- 
facturers, before  passive  systems  could  be  prop- 
erly installed  on  their  vehicles.  The  Administra- 
tion has  determined  that  additional  leadtime  is 
required  for  these  vehicles.  The  standard  ac- 
cordingly provides  that  the  protection  required 
for  passenger  cars  in  1973  will  be  required  for 
multipurpose  passenger  vehicles  and  trucks  with 
a  GVWR  of  10,000  pounds  or  less  on  August  15, 
1975.  The  protection  required  for  passenger  cars 
on  August  15,  1975,  will  be  required  of  these  ve- 
hicles on  August  15, 1977. 

The  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  published 
on  November  3,  1970,  proposed  to  make  the  pas- 
sive protection  requirements  applicable  to  open- 
body  type  vehicles.  Review  of  the  comments  and 
the  petitions  for  reconsideration  leads  to  the  con- 
clusion that  this  type  of  vehicle,  along  with  con- 
vertibles, walk-in  van-type  vehicles,  motor  homes, 
and  chassis-mount  campers  cannot  be  satisfac- 
torily equipped  with  a  complete  passive  protec- 
tion system.  Accordingly,  the  standard  provides 
that  onlv  the  head-on  passive  protection  svstem 
required  for  passenger  cars  in  1973  will  be  re- 
quired for  each  of  these  tvpes  on  Aucrust  15,  1977, 
and  thereafter.  It  has  been  further  determined 
that  it  may  not  be  feasible  to  provide  passive  pro- 
tection in  some  forward  control  vehicles,  and  such 
vehicles  are  therefore  permitted  the  option  of 
providing  seat  belt  assemblies  at  all  seating 
positions. 

A  number  of  petitions  obiected  to  the  require- 
ment for  a  minimum  speed  below  which  a  crash- 
deployed  system  may  not  deploy.  Upon  con- 
sideration of  the  petitions,  it  has  been  determined 
that  it  is  preferable  to  allow  manufacturers  free- 
dom in  the  design  of  their  protective  systems  at 
all  speeds,  and  this  requirement  is  hereby  deleted 
from  the  standard. 

The  injury  criteria  specified  in  the  November 
3  amendment  were  the  subject  of  numerous  peti- 
tions. The  basic  objections  to  the  head  injury 
criteria  were  that  the  70g-3-millisecond  require- 
ment was  too  conservative,  with  respect  to  both 


Eiracllva:      1/1/72;  8/15/73; 
8/15/75;   8/15/77 

acceleration  levels  and  time  factors.  Review  of 
these  objections  and  a  reevaluation  of  the  infor- 
mation available  to  the  Administration  leads  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  head  injury  criteria  can 
be  more  appropriately  based  on  the  severity  in- 
dex described  in  the  Society  of  Automotive 
Engineers  Information  Report  J885(a),  June 
1966.  Accordingly,  the  standard  adopts  as  the 
criterion  for  head  injury  a  severity  index  of  1,000 
calculated  by  the  method  in  the  SAE  report. 

The  severity  index  is  based  on  biomechanical 
data  derived  from  head  injury  studies  and  does 
not  adapt  itself  readily  to  chest-injury  usage. 
Several  petitions  stated  that  the  chest  injury 
criteria  were  set  at  too  low  a  level.  In  some  re- 
spects, a  higher  "g-level"  on  the  chest  actually 
increases  the  protective  capabilities  of  the  system, 
if  properly  designed,  since  it  more  effectively 
utilizes  the  available  space  in  which  the  occu- 
pant can  "ride  down"  the  crash  impact — an 
especially  important  factor  in  higher-speed 
crashes.  Therefore,  in  accordance  with  data  cur- 
rently available,  a  chest  tolerance  level  of  60g, 
except  for  a  cumulative  period  of  3  milliseconds, 
is  hereby  adopted. 

No  data  was  received  to  support  the  contention 
of  several  petitioners  that  the  upper  leg  load  was 
too  conservative.  The  maximum  force  level  of 
1,400  pounds  appears  well  founded  and  is  re- 
tained. 

Several  petitions  obiected  to  the  condition 
that  vehicles  be  tested  at  their  gross  vehicle 
weight  rating.  Under  review  of  the  appro- 
priateness of  this  requirement  for  passenger  cars 
and  a  review  of  loading  patterns  on  trucks,  it 
has  been  decided  to  alter  the  condition  to  specify 
that  passenger  cars  are  tested  at  a  weight  that 
represents  their  unloaded  vehicle  weight  (re- 
cently defined  in  the  Federal  Register  of  Feb.  5, 
1971,  36  F.R.  2511)  plus  the  weight  of  rated 
cargo  capacity  and  the  specified  number  of  test 
devices.  Trucks  are  to  be  tested  at  a  weight  that 
approximates  a  half-loaded  vehicle,  with  the  load 
secured  in  the  cargo  area,  plus  the  specified  num- 
ber of  test  devices. 

The  use  of  the  anthropomorphic  test  device  de- 
scribed in  SAE  J963  was  objected  to  by  several 
petitioners,  on  the  grounds  that  further  specifica- 
tions are  needed  to  ensure  repeatability  of  test 
results.     The  Administration  finds  no  sufficient 


231-088  O  -  77  -  53 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  5 


Effective:      1/1/72;    8/15/73; 
8/15/75;    8/15/77 

reason  to  alter  its  conclusion  that  the  SAE 
specification  is  the  best  available.  The  NHTSA 
is  sponsoring  further  research  and  examining  all 
available  data,  however,  with  a  view  to  issuance 
of  further  specifications  for  these  devices. 

In  response  to  other  comments  with  respect  to 
test  conditions,  the  test  devices'  hand  positions 
are  adjusted  to  reduce  apparent  test  variability. 
Also,  the  frequency  filtration  criteria  of  SAE 
Eecommended  Practice  J211  have  been  sub- 
stituted for  the  filtration  criteria  employed  in 
the  November  3  notice. 

III.  The  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  issued 
on  November  3,  1970,  dealt  with  several  aspects 
of  the  occupant  protection  standard  for  which 
changes  contemplated  by  the  Administration, 
after  review  of  the  comments  to  the  May  7  notice, 
were  thought  to  require  additional  opportunity 
for  comment.  These  aspects  included  a  proposed 
deletion  of  the  exemption  from  the  rollover  re- 
quirements previously  proposed  for  open-body 
type  vehicles,  the  raising  of  the  low-velocity  de- 
ployment requirement  from  10  to  15  m.p.h.,  the 
establishment  of  requirements  for  the  lateral 
component  of  head  and  chest  acceleration,  and 
the  amendment  of  the  test  conditions  for  the 
lateral  impact  and  rollover  requirements. 

Since  the  subject  of  low  speed  deployment  and 
the  question  of  exemptions  were  also  the  subjects 
of  petitions  for  reconsideration  under  the 
November  3  rule,  the  disposition  of  these  matters 
has  been  noted  in  the  preceding  section.  For  the 
reasons  given  therein,  the  low-velocity  deploy- 
ment requirement  lias  been  omitted,  and  the  ex- 
emptions have  been  expanded  to  include  forward 
control  vehicles,  convertibles,  walk-in  van-type 
trucks,  motor  homes,  and  chassis-mount  campers. 
These  type  descriptions  are  in  general  use 
among  manufacturers  to  describe  vehicles  shar- 
ing certain  well-defined  characteristics.  Defini- 
tions of  these  types  of  vehicles  may,  as  found 
necessary  in  the  future,  be  added  to  §  571.3 
Definitions. 

Upon  review  of  the  comments  and  other  infor- 
mation available  to  the  Administration,  it  has 
been  decided  that  the  establishment  of  require- 
ments for  the  Lateral  component  of  head  and 
chest  acceleration  is  not  feasible  at  this  time. 
However,  it  is  anticipated  that  biomechanical 
studies    will    shortly    provide    data    regarding 


lateral  tolerances  on  which  a  requirement  can  be     ^ 
based  and  that  rulemaking  action  will  thereupon 
resume. 

The  conditions  proposed  for  the  lateral  impact 
and  rollover  tests  have  been  adopted  as  proposed 
without  significant  change.  Comments  on  the 
lateral  impact  test  revealed  no  significant  sup- 
port for  a  fixed  barrier  collision  of  the  type 
proposed  in  the  May  7  notice,  although  several 
recommended  use  of  the  moving  barrier  specified 
in  SAE  Recommended  Practice  J972  and  others 
requested  that  the  height  of  the  barrier  be 
lowered  from  65  inches  to  36-38  inches  as  speci- 
fied in  SAE  J972.  The  decision  to  retain  the 
test  and  barrier  dimensions  as  proposed  in  the 
November  3  notice  was  made  after  a  full  review 
of  the  SAE  procedures. 

The  test  as  adopted  is  considered  to  afford 
greater  repeatability  than  the  SAE  procedure, 
which  permits  a  much  more  complex  interaction 
between  the  barrier  and  the  impacted  vehicle. 
The  height  of  the  barrier  has  been  retained  at 
65  inches  so  that  it  will  test  the  head  impact 
protection  afforded  by  the  vehicle  when  struck 
by  a  surface  extending  to  head  height.  Pas-  ^ 
senger  compartment  intrusion  of  the  type  that  \ 
might  result  from  use  of  a  lower  barrier  is  the 
subject  of  a  separate  rulemaking  action  on  side 
door  strength. 

Some  comments  suggested  that  the  wording  of 
the  proposed  procedures,  that  the  moving 
barrier  undergo  no  deformation  or  nonlongi- 
tudinal  movement,  was  unduly  restrictive.  The 
wording  is  not,  however,  intended  to  describe  an 
actual  test,  but  to  establish  the  condition  that 
the  vehicle  must  be  capable  of  meeting  the  stated 
requirements  no  matter  how  small  the  degree  of 
deformation  or  nonlongitudinal  movement  of  the 
barrier.  This  issue,  in  the  case  of  the  moving 
barrier,  is  thus  analogous  to  that  in  the  definition 
of  "fixed  collision  barrier"  (35  F.R.  11242,  July 
14,  1970).  To  more  clearly  reflect  this  position 
and  the  legal  similarity  of  the  two  types  of 
barriers,  the  word  "significant"  is  added  to  the 
conditions  relating  to  movement  and  deformation 
of  the  barrier. 

Several  comments  stated  that  the  rollover  test 
would  not  produce  repeatable  results.  Although 
refinements  may  be  made  in  the  procedure  before 
the  date  on  which   rollover  protection  becomes 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  6 


> 


Effactlvt:      1/1/72;    tlMni; 
8/}S/7S;   8/15/77 

mandatory,  the  Administration  has  determined  In    light    of    the    foregoing,    Motor    Vehicle 

that  the  test  as  adopted  is  more  satisfactory  than  Safety  Standard  No.  208  in  §  571.21  of  Title  49, 

any  other  suggested  thus  far.     The  kinematics  Code  of  Federal   Regulations,  is  amended  .  .  . 

of  a  rollover  type  accident  are  such  that  vari-  with  effective  dates  as  specified  in  the  text  of 

ability  in  vehicle  behavior  may  often  be  more  the  standard. 

visible  than  in  other  test  procedures.  _        ,       ■.,      ,   „   ,^», 

'■  Issued  on  March  3,  1971. 
A  number  of  other  mmor  issues  were  raised  by 

the    petitions,    and    each    has    been    carefully  Douglas  W.  Toms 
evaluated  by  the  Administration.    With  respect  Acting   Administrator, 
to  those  objections  and  suggestions  not  specifi- 
cally   mentioned   elsewhere    in   this   notice,   the  36  F.R.  4600 
petitions  are  hereby  denied.  March   10,  1971 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  7-8 


( 


EffMHva:  January  1,   1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  208 

Occupant  Crash  Protection 
(Docket  No.  69-7;  Notice  10) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  respond  to 
petitions  for  reconsideration  of  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  208,  Occupant  Crash  Pro- 
tection, in  §  571.21  of  Title  49,  Code  of  Federal 
Regulations.  The  petitions  addressed  herein  are 
those  dealing  with  seat  belts  and  seat  belt  warn- 
ing systems.  A  notice  responding  to  petitions 
concerning  the  passive  protection  aspects  of  the 
standard  will  be  issued  shortly  and  the  standard 
republished  in  its  entirety  at  that  time. 

The  standard  as  issued  March  3,  1971  (36  F.R. 
4600),  established  January  1,  1972,  as  the  first 
date  in  the  progressive  stages  of  the  Occupant 
Crash  Protection  requirements.  Two  petitioners, 
Mercedes-Benz  and  American  Motors,  requested 
a  delay  in  the  introduction  of  the  interim  pro- 
tection systems.  American  Motors  requested  a 
delay  until  April  1,  1972,  to  allow  for  adequate 
compliance  testing,  and  Mercedes  requested  a 
date  of  July  1,  1972,  to  avoid  disruption  of  the 
1972  model  production  which  begins  on  July  1, 
1971.  Upon  review  of  all  available  information, 
the  NHTSA  has  concluded  that  the  date  is  not 
unreasonably  demanding,  and  the  requests  are 
denied. 

The  improved  seat  belt  systems  required  in 
passenger  cars  that  do  not  provide  full  passive 
protection  were  the  subject  of  several  petitions. 
Primary  attention  was  directed  to  the  belt  warn- 
ing system  and  the  conditions  under  which  it 
must  operate.  As  issued  on  March  3,  the  stand- 
ard provides  that  the  system  shall  operate  when 
and  only  when  the  ignition  is  on,  the  transmis- 
sion is  in  any  forward  or  reverse  position,  and 
either  the  driver's  lap  belt  is  not  extended  at 
least  to  the  degree  necessary  to  fit  a  5th-per- 
centile  adult  female  or  a  person  of  at  least  the 
weight  of  a  50th-percentile  6-year  old  is  seated 


in  the  Hght  front  position  and  the  belt  is  not 
extended  to  the  length  necessary  to  fit  him. 

The  intent  of  the  transmission  position  require- 
ment was  to  require  operation  of  the  warning 
system  when  the  vehicle  was  likely  to  be  in  mo- 
tion, and  the  effect  of  the  "when  and  only  when" 
phrase  was  to  require  deactivation  in  all  other 
positions.  Some  petitioners  argued  that  rear- 
ward motion  was  not  likely  to  be  fast  enough  to 
present  a  hazard.  Others  stated,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  vehicles  with  automatic  transmissions 
should  deactivate  the  system  only  in  "Park",  to 
encourage  drivers  to  use  that  position  when  leav- 
ing the  vehicle  with  the  engine  nmning.  Sim- 
ilarly, it  was  requested  that  alternative  means  of 
warning  system  deactivation  be  permitted  on 
cars  with  manual  transmissions,  with  one  alterna- 
tive being  application  of  the  parking  brake.  The 
NHTSA  has  found  these  arguments  to  have 
merit,  and  therefore  amends  S7.3  of  the  standard 
in  several  respects.  The  amended  section  re- 
quires, as  the  first  condition  necessary  to  acti- 
vate the  warning,  that  the  ignition  be  "on"  and 
that  the  transmission  be  in  a  forward  gear.  Ac- 
tuation is  permitted  in  reverse,  but  is  no  longer 
required.  The  section  is  further  amended  to  re- 
quire that  the  system  on  a  car  with  automatic 
transmissions  shall  not  activate  when  the  trans- 
mission is  in  "park"  and  that  the  system  on  a 
car  vsdth  manual  transmission  shall  not  activate 
when  the  parking  brake  is  on  or,  alternatively, 
when  the  transmission  is  in  neutral. 

Several  petitions  stated  that  although  the 
length  necessary  to  fit  a  50th-percentile  6-year 
old  or  a  5th-percentile  adult  female  may  be  ob- 
jectively determinable,  the  sensor  in  a  system  may 
not  exactly  measure  this  length  due  to  unavoid- 
able variances  in  production.    To  allow  for  this 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  9 


Effective:  January    1,    1972 


variance,  a  manufacturer  must  calibrate  the  re- 
tractors so  that  the  range  of  this  variance  will 
be  beyond  the  minimum  length,  and  as  a  result 
it  is  likely  that  the  warning  will  continue  to 
operate  in  some  situations  where  a  small  occu- 
pant has  properly  fastened  the  belt.  A  similar 
objection  was  raised  by  Mercedes-Benz  and  il- 
lustrated by  the  case  of  a  small  child  whose 
bouncing  could  cause  the  belt  to  retract  far 
enough  to  trigger  the  warning  intermittently. 
These  objections  are  considered  to  have  merit, 
and  the  NHTSA  has  therefore  decided  to  specify 
a  range  of  extensions  below  which  the  system 
must  activate  and  above  which  it  must  not  ac- 
tivate. The  lower  end  of  the  range  is  an  ex- 
tension of  4  inches  from  the  normally  stowed 
position,  and  the  upper  end  is  the  extension 
necessary  to  fit  a  50th-percentile  6-year-old  child 
when  the  seat  is  in  the  rearmost  and  lowest  posi- 
tion. This  range  will  allow  manufacturers  a 
tolerance  of  several  inches  in  most  cases  and  will 
enable  them  to  avoid  the  problems  of  inadvertent 
activation. 

Mercedes-Benz  requested  that  the  warning  be 
deactivated  by  closing  the  buckle  and  stated  that 
this  would  be  simpler  and  more  effective  than 
deactivation  by  belt  extension.  Although  Mer- 
cedes' objections  are  partially  met  by  the  amend- 
ments made  by  this  notice  to  the  warning  sys- 
tem requirements,  a  related  consequence  of  the 
amendments  is  that  the  extension  needed  to  close 
the  buckle  would  fall  within  the  range  of  discre- 
tionary deactivation.  There  does  not  appear  to 
be  good  reason  to  prohibit  deactivation  by  means 
of  the  buckle,  and  the  standard  is  therefore 
amended  to  permit  buckle  deactivation  as  an 
alternative  to  deactivation  by  measurement  of 
the  belt  extension. 

General  Motors  requested  a  minimum  duration 
for  the  warning  signal  beyond  which  it  would 
not  be  required  to  operate.  On  review,  this  re- 
quest appears  to  satisfy  the  need  for  warning 
and  to  reduce  the  annoyance  of  the  signal  in 
situations  where  unfastening  of  the  belt  is  neces- 
sary. A  minimum  activation  period  of  one  min- 
ute is  therefore  provided. 

One  other  request  for  amendment  of  the  warn- 
ing system  requirements  has  been  found  meri- 
torious.    American   Motors   requested   that   the 


words  "Fasten  Belts"  be  permitted  as  an  alter- 
native to  "Fasten  Seat  Belts."  The  change 
would  not  affect  the  sense  of  the  message,  and 
the  request  is  granted.  Requests  in  other  peti- 
tions for  the  use  of  symbols  in  place  of  words, 
and  for  a  two-stage  warning  sequence,  have  been 
evaluated  and  rejected. 

In  its  petition,  Chrysler  requested  the  adoption 
of  size  specifications  for  the  buttocks  of  a  dummy 
representing  a  6-year-old  child,  on  the  grounds 
that  currently  available  dummies  do  not  corre- 
spond to  human  shape  and  do  not  activate  the 
Chrysler  warning  system  as  a  child  would.  The 
problem  is  not  considered  serious  enough  to  war- 
rant amendment  of  the  standard  in  the  absence 
of  satisfactory  data  on  the  shape  of  6-year-old 
children,  and  the  request  is  denied. 

A  number  of  petitions  dealt  with  other  aspects 
of  the  seat  belt  options.  The  requirement  for 
retractors  at  all  outboard  seating  positions,  in- 
cluding the  third  seats  in  station  wagons,  was 
objected  to  by  Ford  and  Chrysler  because  of 
installation  difficulties  and  the  low  frequency  of 
seat  occupancy.  The  similarity  of  these  seating 
positions  to  the  center  positions,  which  are  ex- 
empt from  the  reactor  requirements,  has  been 
found  persuasive  and  retractors  are  therefore 
required  only  for  outboard  positions  on  the  first 
and  second  seats. 

Another  petition  requested  that  the  shoulder 
belt  of  Type  2  assemblies  should  not  adjust  to  fit 
50th-percentile  6-year  olds,  as  presently  required 
for  passenger  seats  by  S7.1.1.  As  pointed  out  in 
the  petition,  the  previous  rule  had  specified  the 
5th-percentile  adult  female  as  the  lower  end  of 
the  range  for  shoulder  belts.  The  change  effected 
by  the  March  3  rule  was  inadvertent,  and  the 
range  of  occupants  is  therefore  specified  as 
being  from  the  5th-percentile  adult  female  to  the 
95th-percentile  male. 

Correspondence  from  Toyo  Kogyo  requesting 
an  interpretation  of  S7.1.2  has  pointed  out  a 
need  to  clarify  the  requirement  that  the  inter- 
section of  an  upper  torso  belt  with  a  lap  belt 
must  be  six  inches  from  the  occupant's  center- 
line.  The  phrase  "adjusted  in  accordance  with 
the  manufacturer's  instructions"  is  intended  to 
refer  to  adjustment  of  the  upper  torso  belt,  and 
not   to   the   lap   belt   which   must   adjust   auto- 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  10 


Effective:   January   1,    1972 


matically.  The  section  is  amended  to  clarify  this 
intent. 

The  second  options  under  the  1972  and  1973  re- 
quirements (S4.1.1.2,  S4. 1.2.2)  are  amended  to 
expressly  permit  a  Type  2  seat  belt  assembly 
with  a  detachable  upper  torso  restraint  at  any 
seating  position.  A  choice  of  belt  systems  is  per- 
mitted under  the  third  option  in  1972,  and  there 
was  no  intent  under  the  second  options  to  limit 
all  positions  to  Type  1  belts. 

Several  requests  and  questions  were  raised  re- 
garding the  status  of  "passive"  seat  belt  systems 
under  the  standard  as  issued  March  3.  Some 
belt-based  concepts  have  been  advanced  that  ap- 
pear to  be  capable  of  meeting  the  complete  pas- 
sive protection  options  and  further  regulation 
of  their  performance  does  not  appear  necessary. 
With  respect  to  the  options  other  than  the  com- 
plete passive  protection  options,  a  question  has 
been  raised  as  to  whether  a  passive  belt  must  be 
used  in  conjunction  with  active  belt  systems  or 
conform  to  the  adjustment,  latching,  and  warn- 
ing system  requirements  applicable  to  active 
belts.  Upon  review,  the  NHTSA  has  concluded 
that  the  passive  belt  system  that  is  not  capable 
of  full  protection  in  all  crash  modes  is  in  some 
respects  appropriately  regulated  by  seat  belt 
requirements,  and  is  in  other  respects  entitled  to 
treatment  as  a  passive  system. 

To  deal  expressly  with  passive  belts,  a  new 
general  requirements  section  is  added  to  state  the 
applicability  of  various  requirements  to  passive 
belts  and  to  make  it  clear  that  redundant  active 
belts  need  not  be  employed  if  passive  belts  are 
used  to  meet  any  option  requiring  Type  1  or 
Type  2  belts. 

Many  of  the  requirements  applicable  to  belts 
have  been   adopted   because  of   properties  that 


exist  regardless  of  whether  the  system  is  active 
or  passive.  The  range  of  the  belt's  adjustment, 
the  elasticity  and  width  of  its  webbing,  and  the 
integrity  of  its  attachment  hardware  are  all 
known  to  aflFect  the  protection  given.  As 
amended,  the  standard  therefore  requires  a  pas- 
sive belt  to  conform  to  the  adjustment  require- 
ments of  S7.1  and  to  the  webbing,  attachment 
hardware,  and  assembly  performance  require- 
ment of  Standard  No.  209.  The  petitioners'  ob- 
jections as  to  the  application  of  the  latching 
requirements  to  a  system  that  does  not  require 
latching  and  of  the  warning  system  requirements 
to  a  system  that  would  be  functional  unless  will- 
fuly  defeated  have  been  found  to  have  merit. 
A  passive  belt  system  is  therefore  not  required 
to  conform  to  S7.2  and  S7.3. 

In  order  to  assure  that  a  passive  belt  or  other 
passive  system  will  not  hinder  an  occupant  from 
leaving  the  vehicle  after  a  crash,  the  NHTSA 
proposes  in  a  separate  notice  in  today's  issue  of 
the  Federal  Register  (36  F.R.  12866)  to  require 
a  release  for  the  occupant  that  either  operates 
automatically  in  the  event  of  a  crash,  or  operates 
manually  at  a  single  point  that  is  accessible  to 
the  seated  occupant. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  208,  Occupant  Crash 
Protection,  in  §  571.21  of  Title  49,  Code  of  Fed- 
eral Regulations,  is  amended.  .  .  .  Effective 
date:  January  1,  1972. 

Issued  on  July  2,  1971. 

Douglas  W.  Toms 
Acting  Administrator 

36  F.R.  12858 
July  8,  1971 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  11-12 


( 


Effective:   January    1,    1972 


Preamble  to  Amendment  to  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard   No.   208 

Occupant  Crash   Protection 

(Docket  No.  69-7;   Notice   12) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  respond  to 
petitions  filed  pursuant  to  §  553.35  of  Title  49, 
Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  requesting  recon- 
sideration of  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No. 
208,  Occupant  Crash  Protection,  49  CFR  571.21, 
published  on  March  10,  1971  (36  F.R.  4600). 

The  petitions  covered  by  this  notice  deal  with 
the  passive  restraint  requirements,  and  with  the 
restraint  options  available  after  August  15,  1973. 
Petitions  relating  to  seat  belts  and  seat  belt 
warning  systems  were  answered  in  a  notice  pub- 
lished in  the  Federal  Register  on  July  8,  1971 
(36  F.R.  12858).  Each  request  contained  in  the 
petitions  has  been  evaluated.  Particular  requests 
relative  to  the  March  10,  1971,  rule  not  expressly 
mentioned  in  this  notice  or  in  the  notice  of  July 
8  have  been  denied. 

To  avoid  possible  confusion  as  to  the  number 
of  test  devices  to  be  used  in  a  test,  the  NHTSA 
is  amending  S5.1  at  the  request  of  American 
Motors  and  General  Motors  to  indicate  more 
clearly  that  test  devices  are  to  be  placed  at  all 
seating  positions  unless  a  lesser  number  is  pre- 
scribed in  S4. 

Several  petitioners  sought  amendment  of  the 
readiness  indicator  requirement  in  S4.5.2  to 
limit  the  components  of  a  deployable  system 
that  must  be  monitored.  In  particular,  it  was 
stated  that  the  integrity  of  a  pressure  vessel 
could  be  diminished  by  a  pressure  gauge,  and 
that  the  reliability  of  electrically  activated  ex- 
plosive release  devices  would  be  impaired  if  the 
activating  wire  had  to  be  monitored.  To  permit 
manufacturers  to  avoid  designs  that  are  prone 
to  deterioration,  the  requirement  has  been 
amended  by  omitting  specific  reference  to  com- 
pressed gases  and  electrical  circuits. 

Several  petitions  requested  changes  with  re- 
spect  to    the    weight    at   which   a   multipurpose 


passenger  vehicle,  truck,  or  bus  is  to  be  tested. 
It  was  stated  that  the  half-loaded  weight  speci- 
fied in  the  standard  was  unrepresentative  of  the 
weights  of  vehicles  involved  in  crashes,  and  that 
it  placed  an  unreasonably  severe  strain  on  the 
vehicle.  On  consideration  of  the  data  and  argu- 
ments presented,  it  has  been  determined  that  a 
reduction  in  the  loading  of  these  vehicles  is  ap- 
propriate. The  required  vehicle  weight  is  ac- 
cordingly reduced  to  300  pounds  plus  the  weight 
of  the  necessary  anthropomorphic  test  devices. 
It  should  be  noted  that  instrumentation  is  to  be 
included  as  part  of  the  300  pounds. 

With  regard  to  the  placement  of  test  devices 
in  the  vehicle,  it  was  pointed  out  that  the  speci- 
fied position  of  the  driver's  right  foot  often  pro- 
duced an  unnaturally  awkward  result  and  that 
the  positioning  might  be  achieved  in  some  cases 
only  by  sacrificing  some  portion  of  underdash 
padding.  In  response  to  these  points,  the  posi- 
tioning requirement  is  amended  to  permit  more 
natural  placement,  with  the  foot  in  contact  with 
the  undepressed  accelerator  pedal. 

The  petitions  included  several  objections  to 
the  requirements  for  rollover  testing.  It  was 
argued  that  the  test  did  not  produce  repeatable 
results  with  respect  to  vehicle  behavior.  The 
NHTSA  has  given  serious  consideration  to  these 
arguments,  and  has  conducted  a  series  of  vehicle 
tests  according  to  the  procedures  of  the  standard. 
These  tests  have  demonstrated  a  high  degree  of 
repeatability  in  vehicle  behavior.  Occupant 
ejection  in  rollover  accidents,  and  the  retention 
of  occupants  in  rollovers  is  a  major  element  in 
effective  crash  protection.  The  petitions  to  de- 
lete the  rollover  test  from  the  standard  are  there- 
fore denied. 

Some  petitions  objected  to  the  requirement  for 
barrier  tests  at  "any  angle  up  to  30°  in  either 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  13 


EffacHve:  January   1,    1972 


direction  from  the  perpendicular."  The  NHTSA 
is  aware  that  such  an  all-angles  test  may  be  more 
demanding  than  a  test  that  arbitrarily  selects 
two  angles,  such  as  15°  and  30°.  Manufacturers 
are  free,  however,  to  limit  their  testing  to  the 
"worst  case."  Since  accidents  occur  at  all  angles, 
it  is  considered  important  that  vehicles  be  capable 
of  meeting  the  protection  requirements  at  any 
angle  within  the  prescribed  limits. 

The  lateral  moving  barrier  test  was  also  ob- 
jected to  by  several  petitioners,  particularly  by 
manufacturers  of  smaller  vehicles  who  consider 
the  4,000-pound  weight  of  the  barrier  to  be  ex- 
cessive. The  lateral  moving  barrier  test  is  in- 
cluded in  the  standard  because  of  the  dispropor- 
tionately high  number  of  serious  injuries  suffered 
in  side  impacts.  The  weight  of  the  barrier  was 
chosen  to  represent  the  average  weight  of  do- 
mestic passenger  cars,  the  vehicles  most  likely 
to  strike  the  side  of  a  vehicle,  regardless  of  the 
impacted  vehicle's  size.  The  requirement  is 
retained. 

The  use  of  the  Severity  Index  of  1000  as  the 
criterion  for  head  injury  was  objected  to  as  too 
stringent,  and  a  more  lenient  index  requested. 
Considering  the  present  state  of  the  art  in  head 
injury  measurement,  it  has  been  determined  that 
a  Severity  Index  of  1000  is  the  most  acceptable 
criterion  at  this  time,  and  it  has  therefore  been 
retained.  In  a  related  objection,  Chrysler  stated 
that  the  1000-Hz  channel  class  requirement  for 
accelerometers  in  the  head  was  too  high.  In  the 
judgment  of  the  NHTSA,  however,  the  1000-Hz 
channel  class  specification  as  incorporated  in 
SAE  J211  represents  an  acceptable  level  of  in- 
strument sensitivity.  The  requirement  has  there- 
fore been  retained. 

In  the  context  of  the  petitions  regarding  the 
rollover  requirements,  it  w«?  suggested  that  the 
requirement  of  S6.1  that  all  portions  of  the  test 
device  be  contained  within  the  passenger  com- 
partment during  the  test  was  unnecessarily 
stringent.  In  retaining  this  requirement  the 
NHTSA  intends  to  require  a  substantial  degree 
of  passenger  compartment  integrity  in  all  types 
of  accidents.  The  test  condition  that  specifies 
windows  to  be  in  the  up  position  is  retained  to 
restrict  random  excursions  of  test  devices,  and 
to  provide  for  consistency  in  the  evaluation  of 
test  results. 


General  Motors  noted  in  its  petition  that  there  ^ 
are  a  large  number  of  State  and  local  laws  con-  " 
cerning  the  shipment,  storage  and  use  of  pres- 
surized cylinders  and  explosive  devices  that 
might  be  used  in  air  bag  systems.  Many  of 
these  laws  are  at  variance  with  the  regulations  of 
the  Department  of  Transportation's  Hazardous 
Materials  Regulations  Board  governing  these 
materials  (found  in  Chapter  1,  Subtitle  B,  of 
Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations).  If  these 
State  and  local  laws  were  to  be  applied  to  equip- 
ment that  is  part  of  a  large  proportion  of  the 
new  passenger  cars  in  this  country,  the  distribu- 
tion, sale,  use,  and  maintenance  of  those  vehicles 
could  be  seriously  hindered.  General  Motors 
suggested  that  the  Federal  regulations  governing 
these  materials  be  incorporated  into  the  require- 
ments of  Standard  No.  208,  thus  preempting  all 
State  and  local  requirements  (i.e.,  requiring  them 
to  be  identical)  under  section  103(d)  of  the 
National  Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act, 
15  U.S.C.  1392(d).  The  NHTSA  recognizes 
this  problem,  and  is  considering  various  methods 
of  solving  it,  in  consultation  with  other  con- 
cerned agencies.  No  regulatory  action  to  that 
end  is  taken  in  this  notice,  but  some  such  action  ^ 
is  anticipated  in  the  near  future.  \ 

Several  petitioners  noted  that  the  requirements 
for  anthropomorphic  test  devices  specified  in  the 
standard,  mainly  those  set  forth  in  SAE  Recom- 
mended Practice  J963,  do  not  completely  define 
all  the  characteristics  of  the  dummies  that  may 
be  relevant  to  their  (and  the  vehicle's)  perform- 
ance in  a  crash  test.  The  NHTSA  considers  the 
comment  valid.  It  would  actually  be  difficult,  if 
not  impossible,  to  describe  the  test  dummy  in 
performance  terms  with  such  specificity  that 
every  dummy  that  could  be  built  to  the  specifi- 
cations would  perform  identically  under  similar 
conditions.  Of  course,  since  the  dummy  is  merely 
a  test  instrument  and  not  an  item  of  regulated 
equipment,  it  is  not  necessary  to  describe  it  in 
performance  terms;  its  design  could  legally  be 
"frozen"  by  detailed,  blueprint-type  drawings 
and  complete  equipment  specifications.  Such  an 
action  does  not,  however,  appear  to  be  desirable 
at  this  time.  Considerable  development  work  is 
in  process  under  various  auspices  to  refine  the 
dynamic  characteristics  of  anthropomorphic  de- 
vices, to  determine  which  designs  are  most  prac- 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  14 


Effective:   January    1,    1972 


I 


ticable,  offer  the  most  useful  results,  and  best 
simulate  the  critical  characteristics  of  the  human 
body.  The  NHTSA  is  monitorinjj  this  work 
(and  sponsoring  some  of  it),  and  intends  to  pro- 
pose amendments  of  the  standard  in  accordance 
with  it  to  add  more  detailed  performance  and 
descriptive  specifications  for  the  test  dummies, 
although  no  changes  are  being  made  in  that  re- 
spect by  this  notice. 

In  the  meantime,  it  should  be  understood  that 
the  NHTSA  does  not  intend  that  a  manufac- 
turer's status  with  respect  to  compliance  will  be 
jeopardized  by  possible  variances  in  test  dum- 
mies permitted  by  the  present  set  of  specifica- 
tions. In  the  agency's  judgment,  a  test  dummy 
that  conforms  to  the  specifications  incorporated 
by  the  standard  is  an  adequate  test  tool  for  de- 
termining the  basic  safety  characteristics  of  a 
vehicle.  If  the  NHTSA  concludes  after  inves- 
tigation that  a  manufacturer's  tests  are  properly 
conducted,  with  dummies  meeting  the  specifica- 
tions, and  show  compliance  with  the  standard, 
and  that  differerces  in  results  from  tests  con- 
ducted by  the  agency  are  due  to  differences  in 
the  test  dummies  used  by  each,  the  agency  tests 
will  not  be  considered  to  be  the  basis  for  a  find- 
ing of  noncompliance. 

A  number  of  the  petitioners  sought  a  delay  in 
the  effective  dates  of  the  standard,  particularly 
the  August  15,  1973,  date  which  passenger  cars 
are  required  to  provide  at  least  head-on  protec- 
tion for  front-seat  occupants  by  means  that  re- 
quire no  occupant  action.  Several  vehicle  manu- 
facturers argued  that  further  time  is  needed  to 
prepare  for  the  introduction  of  passive  restraint 
systems  in  all  passenger  car  lines.  They  pointed 
out  that  much  of  their  effort  during  the  past 
year  has  been  spent  refining  and  testing  the  de- 
sign of  these  systems  in  order  to  ensure  satis- 
factory performance  under  the  most  adverse 
conditions  that  may  be  encountered  by  vehicles 
in  use.  Mandatory  introduction  of  passive  re- 
straints in  all  passenger  cars  by  the  August  15, 
1973,  date,  it  was  argued,  would  impose  severe 
financial  hardships,  because  of  the  difficulties 
that  would  be  encountered  jn  obtaining  tools, 
setting  up  production  lines,  and  working  out  the 
inevitable  production  and  quality-control  prob- 


lems for  all   their  vehicles  simultaneously,  con- 
trary to  the  normal  practice  in  the  industry. 

It  has  been  determined  that  these  petitions 
have  some  merit.  Materials  submitted  to  the 
docket  concerning  the  state  of  passive  restraint 
development  indicate  that  systems  now  available 
will  meet  the  requirements  of  Standard  208  for 
passive  frontal  crash  protection,  and  {perform 
satisfactorily  in  other  respects.  It  does  not  now 
appear,  however,  that  tooling  and  production 
leadtimes  will  permit  manufacturers  to  make 
large-scale  introductions  of  passive  systems  be- 
fore the  fall  of  1973.  This  agency  is  aware  of 
the  extreme  dislocations,  and  the  attendant  fi- 
nancial hardships,  that  would  be  caused  by  re- 
quiring the  world  industry  (to  the  extent  of  the 
vehicles  sold  in  this  country)  to  introduce  major 
new  systems  in  substantially  all  their  passenger 
cars  at  the  same  time. 

For  these  reasons,  it  has  been  determined  that 
manufacturers  should  be  allowed  additional  time 
to  introduce  passive  protection  systems.  To  that 
end,  a  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  is  pub- 
lished in  this  issue  of  the  Federal  Register  that 
would  allow  manufacturers  of  passenger  cars  the 
option  of  installing  seat  belt  systems  with  igni- 
tion interlocks  for  the  period  up  to  August  15, 
1975.  It  is  expected  that  this  added  leadtime 
will  enable  manufacturers  to  institute  an  orderly, 
phased  introduction  of  passive  systems  into  their 
vehicles,  installing  such  systems  in  their  various 
car  lines,  to  the  extent  feasible,  in  advance  of 
that  date. 

The  July  8  notice  indicated  that  the  standard 
would  be  republished  in  its  entirety  upon  publi- 
cation of  today's  action.  This  has  not  been  done, 
because  of  the  limited  number  of  amendments 
made  by  this  notice. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  208,  Occupant  Crash 
Protection,  in  §  571.21  of  Title  49,  Code  of  Fed- 
eral Regulations  is  am.ended  .... 

Effective  dates:  January  1,  1972,  with  addi- 
tional requirements  effective  at  later  dates,  as 
indicated  in  the  text  of  the  rule  published  March 
10,1971  (36F.R.4600). 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  15 


Effective:   January   I,    1972 

(Sees.  103,  108,  112,  114,  119,  National  Traffic 
and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act,  U.S.C.  1392,  1397, 
1401,  1403,  1407,  delegation  of  authority  at  49 
CFK  1.51) 

Issued  on  September  29,  1971. 

Douglas  W.   Toms 
Administrator 

36  F.R.  19254 
October  1,  1971 


< 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  16 


( 


Elhcfiva:  January   1,   1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  208 

Seat  Belt  Installations 
(Docket  No.  2-6;  Notice  5) 


The  purpose  of  this  amendment  to  Part  571 
of  Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  is  to 
add  a  new  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  216, 
(49  CFR  §  571.216)  that  sets  minimum  strength 
requirements  for  a  passenger  car  roof  to  reduce 
the  likelihood  of  roof  collapse  in  a  rollover  acci- 
dent. The  standard  provides  an  alternative  to 
conformity  with  the  rollover  test  of  Standard 
208. 

A  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  on  this  sub- 
ject was  issued  on  January  6,  1971  (36  F.R.  166). 
As  noted  in  that  proposal,  the  strength  of  a  ve- 
hicle roof  affects  the  integrity  of  the  passenger 
compartment  and  the  safety  of  the  occupants. 
A  few  comments  suggested  that  there  is  no  sig- 
nificant causal  relationship  between  roof  de- 
formation and  occupant  injuries  in  rollover 
accidents.  However,  available  data  have  shown 
that  for  non-ejected  front  seat  occupants  in  roll- 
over accidents,  serious  injuries  are  more  frequent 
when  the  roof  collapses. 

The  roof  crush  standard  will  provide  protec- 
tion in  rollover  accidents  by  improving  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  door,  side  window,  and  windshield 
retention  areas.  Preserving  the  overall  structure 
of  the  vehicle  in  a  crash  decreases  the  likelihood 
of  occupant  ejection,  reduces  the  hazard  of  occu- 
pant interior  impacts,  and  enhances  occupant 
egress  after  the  accident.  It  has  been  determined, 
therefore,  that  improved  roof  strength  will  in- 
crease occupant  protection  in  rollover  accidents. 

Standard  208  (49  CFR  §571.208),  Occupant 
Crash  Protection^  also  contains  a  rollover  test  re- 
quirement for  vehicles  that  conform  to  the  "first 
option"  of  providing  complete  passive  protection. 
The  new  Standard  216  issued  herewith  is  in- 
tended as  an  alternative  to  the  Standard  208 
rollover  test,  such  that  manufacturers  may  con- 


form to  either  requirement  as  they  choose.  Stand- 
ard 208  is  accordingly  amended  by  this  notice; 
the  effect  of  the  amendment,  together  with  the 
new  Standard  216,  is  as  follows: 

(1)  From  January  1,  1972,  to  August  14,  1973, 
a  manufacturer  may  substitute  Standard  216  for 
the  rollover  test  requirement  in  the  first  option  of 
Standard  208;  Standard  216  has  no  mandatory 
application. 

(2)  From  August  15,  1973,  to  August  14,  1977, 
Standard  216  is  in  effect  as  to  all  passenger  cars 
except  those  conforming  by  passive  means  to  the 
rollover  test  of  Standard  208,  but  it  may  continue 
to  be  substituted  for  that  rollover  test. 

(3)  After  August  15,  1977,  Standard  216  will 
no  longer  be  a  substitute  for  the  Standard  208 
rollover  test.  It  is  expected  that  as  of  that  date 
Standard  216  will  be  revoked,  at  least  with  re- 
spect to  its  application  to  passenger  cars. 

A  few  comments  stated  that  on  some  models 
the  strength  required  in  the  A  pillar  could  be 
produced  only  by  designs  that  impair  forward 
visibility.  After  review  of  strengthening  options 
available  to  manufacturers,  the  Administration 
has  concluded  that  a  satisfactory  increase  in 
strength  can  be  obtained  without  reducing  visi- 
bility. 

Some  comments  suggested  that  the  crush  lim- 
itation be  based  on  the  interior  deflection  of  the 
test  vehicle  rather  than  the  proposed  external 
criterion.  After  comparison  of  the  two  methods, 
it  has  been  concluded  that  a  test  based  on  interior 
deflection  would  produce  results  that  are  sig- 
nificantly less  uniform  and  more  difficult  to  meas- 
ure, and  therefore  the  requirement  based  on  ex- 
ternal movement  of  the  test  block  has  been 
retained. 

Several  changes  in  detail  have  been  made,  how- 
ever, in  the  test  procedure.    A  number  of  com- 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  17 


Effective:   January    1,    1972 


ments  stated  that  the  surface  area  of  the  proposed 
test  device  was  too  small,  that  the  lO-degree  pitch 
anjrle  was  too  severe,  and  that  the  5  inches  of 
padded  test  de\ice  displacement  was  not  enough 
to  measure  the  overall  roof  strength.  Later  data 
available  after  the  issuance  of  the  NPRM  (Notice 
4)  substantiated  these  comments.  Accordingly, 
the  dimensions  of  the  test  block  have  been 
changed  from  12  inches  square  to  30  inches  by 
72  inches,  the  face  padding  on  the  block  has 
been  eliminated,  and  the  pitch  angle  has  been 
changed  from  10  degrees  to  5  degrees. 

Several  manufacturers  asked  that  convertibles 
be  exempted  from  the  standard,  stating  that  it 
was  impracticable  for  those  vehicles  to  be  brought 
into  compliance.  The  Administration  has  deter- 
mined that  compliance  with  the  standard  would 
pose  extreme  difficulties  for  many  convertible 
models.  Accordingly,  manufacturers  of  con- 
vertibles need  not  comply  with  the  standard; 
however,  until  August  15,  1977,  they  may  comply 
with  the  standard  as  an  alternative  to  co)iform- 
ity  with  the  rollover  test  of  Standard  208. 

A  few  comments  objected  to  the  optional  5,000- 
poimd  ceiling  to  the  requirement  that  the  roof 
have  a  peak  resistance  of  IV2  times  the  unloaded 
vehicle  weight.  Such  objections  have  some  merit, 
if  the  energy  to  be  dissipated  during  a  rollover 
accident  must  be  absorbed  entirely  by  the  crash 
vehicle.  In  the  typical  rollover  accident,  how- 
ever, in  which  the  vehicle  rolls  onto  the  road 
shoulder,  significant  amounts  of  energy  are  ab- 
sorbed by  the  ground.  This  is  particularly  true 
in  heavier  vehicles.  Some  of  the  heavier  ve- 
hicles, moreover,  would  require  extensive  rede- 
sign, at  a  considerably  greater  cost  penalty  than 
in  the  case  of  lighter  vehicles,  to  meet  a  strength 
reqtiirement  of  I14  times  their  weight.  At  the 
same  time,  heavier  vehicles  generally  have  a  lower 
rollover  tendency  than  do  lighter  vehicles.  On 
the  basis  of  these  factors,  it  has  been  determined 
than  an  upper  limit  of  5,000  pounds  on  the 
strength  requirement  is  justified,  and  it  has  been 
retained. 

It  was  requested  that  the  requirement  of 
mounting  the  chassis  horizontally  be  deleted.  It 
has  been  determined  that  the  horizontal  mounting 
position  contributes  to  the  repeatability  of  the 
test  procedure  and  the  requirement  is  therefore 
retained. 


The  required  loading  rate  has  been  clarified  in  ■§ 
light  of  the  comments.  The  requirement  has  been 
changed  from  a  rate  not  to  exceed  200  pounds  per 
second  to  a  loading  device  travel  rate  not  exceed- 
ing one-half  inch  per  second,  with  completion  of 
the  test  within  120  seconds. 

A  number  of  manufacturers  requested  that 
repetition  of  the  test  on  the  opposite  front  comer 
of  the  roof  be  deleted.  It  has  been  determined 
that,  as  long  as  it  is  clear  that  both  the  left  and 
right  front  portions  of  the  vehicle's  roof  structure 
must  be  capable  of  meeting  the  requirements,  it 
is  not  necessary  that  a  given  vehicle  be  capable 
of  sustaining  successive  force  applications  at  the 
two  different  locations.  The  second  test  is  ac- 
cordingly deleted. 

PJffective  date :  August  15,  1973.  After  evalua- 
tion of  the  comments  and  other  information,  it 
has  been  determined  that  the  structural  changes 
required  by  the  standard  will  be  such  that  many 
manufacturers  would  be  unable  to  meet  the  re- 
quirements if  the  Jaiiiiary  1,  1973  effective  date 
were  retained.  It  has  therefore  been  found,  for 
good  cause  shown,  that  an  effective  date  more 
than  one  year  after  issuance  is  in  the  public 
interest.  On  or  after  January  1,  1972,  however,  a  f 
manufacturer  may  substitute  compliance  with 
this  standard  for  compliance  with  the  rollover 
test  requirement  of  Standard  208. 

In  consideration  of  the  above,  the  following 
changes  are  made  in  Part  571  of  Title  49,  Code 
of  Federal  Regulations: 

1.  Standard  No.  208,  49  CFR  §  571.208,  is 
amended  by  adding  the  following  sentence  at 
the  end  of  S5.3,  Rollover:  "However,  vehicles 
manufactured  before  August  15,  1977,  that  con- 
form to  the  requirements  of  Standard  No.  216 
(§571.216)  need  not  conform  to  this  rollover 
test  required." 

2.  A  new  §571.216,  Standard  No.  216,  Roof 
Crush  Resistance,  is  added,  as  set  forth  below. 

This  rule  is  issued  under  the  authority  of  sec- 
tions 103  and  119  of  the  National  Traffic  and 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407, 
and  the  delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51. 

Issued  on  December  3,  1971. 

Charles  H.  Hartman 
Acting  Administrator 
36  F.R.  23299 
December  8,  1971         . 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  18 


Efftctlva:   January    1,    1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  208 

Occupant  Crash  Protection 
(Docket  No.  69-7;  Notice   15) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  respond  to 
petitions  requesting  reconsideration  of  the 
amendments  to  the  seat  belt  requirements  of 
Standard  No.  208,  Occupant  Crash  Protection, 
issued  on  July  2,  1971  (36  F.R.  12858,  July  8, 
1971).  The  petitions  are  granted  in  part  and 
denied  in  part. 

The  Chrysler  Corporation  requested  an  amend- 
ment of  the  belt  warning  system  requirements 
in  S7.3,  to  provide  that  the  system  shall  operate 
only  when  the  vehicle's  engine  is  running.  Sec- 
tion S7.3.1  presently  requires  the  warning  to 
operate  whenever  the  ignition  is  "on",  the  trans- 
mission is  in  a  forward  gear,  and  seat  belts  are 
not  in  use  at  occupied  front  outboard  seats. 
Chrysler  stated  that  basing  the  warning  system 
operation  on  engine  operation  would  permit 
simplification  of  the  warning  system  circuitry. 
On  review,  the  NHTSA  has  concluded  that  the 
Chrysler  position  has  merit  and  that  requiring 
warning  system  operation  only  when  the  engine 
is  operating  will  satisfactorily  include  the  situa- 
tions in  which  the  vehicle  is  likely  to  be  in  mo- 
tion, and  thereby  satisfy  the  intent  of  the  warning 
system  requirement.  S7.3.1(a)  is  amended  ac- 
cordingly. 

It  should  be  noted  that  a  warning  system  that 
operates  whenever  the  ignition  switch  is  "on", 
in  accordance  with  the  prior  version  of  S7.3.1(a), 
will  continue  to  meet  the  requirement  as  amended, 
since  such  a  system  will  of  necessity  operate 
when  the  engine  is  running. 

Subsequent  to  the  adoption  of  the  passive  seat 
belt  requirement,  S4.5.3  (Notice  10,  36  F.R. 
12858,  July  8,  1971),  questions  have  been  raised 
by  Toyota,  Renault  and  Volkswagen  as  to  the 
configuration  required  of  passive  belts  used  in 
place  of  active  belts.  The  NHTSA's  intent  in 
adopting  S4.5.3  was  to  permit  manufacturers  to 


substitute  a  Type  2  passive  assembly  with  a 
detachable  or  nondetachable  shoulder  belt  for 
any  active  seat  belt  specified  under  an  option  of 
S4,  even  though  the  S4  option  specifies  a  Type  1 
assembly  or  a  Type  2  assembly  with  a  detachable 
shoulder  belt.  The  agency  also  intended  to  per- 
mit the  substitution  of  Type  1  passive  assemblies 
where  an  option  does  not  require  a  Type  2  as- 
sembly. Thus  a  passive  belt  used  at  the  front 
outboard  seating  positions  to  meet  the  third  op- 
tion in  the  period  beginning  January  1,  1972 
(S4.1.1.3.1(a))  would  have  to  be  a  Type  2  as- 
sembly. Although  no  formal  petitions  have  been 
received  on  these  points,  it  is  considered  advis- 
able to  amend  S4.5.3  to  clarify  its  intent. 

The  formal  petition  of  JAMA  with  respect  to 
S4.5.3  requested  deletion  of  the  requirement  that 
passive  seat  belt  assemblies  must  meet  the  as- 
sembly performance  and  webbing  requirements 
of  Standard  No.  209.  The  basis  for  the  request 
was  JAMA's  belief  that  the  manufacturer  should 
be  allowed  as  much  freedom  in  the  design  of  a 
passive  belt  system  to  fit  the  crash  characteristics 
of  a  particular  vehicle  as  he  would  have  in  the 
design  of  other  types  of  passive  restraints.  On 
reconsideration,  the  NHTSA  has  decided  that 
relief  from  Standard  No.  209  should  be  afforded 
if  a  passive  belt  is  capable  of  meeting  the  occu- 
pant crash  protection  requirements  of  S5.1  in  a 
frontal  perpendicular  impact  and  amends  S4.5.3 
accordingly. 

The  JAMA  petition  also  requested  the  NHTSA 
to  make  it  clear  that  the  anchorages  of  a  passive 
seat  belt  assembly  need  not  meet  the  requirements 
of  Standard  No.  210.  The  installation  of  anchor- 
ages is  required  by  Standard  No.  210,  regardless 
of  the  type  restraint  system  in  the  vehicle.  The 
NHTSA  does  not  consider  that  a  sufficient  need 
has  been  shown  at  this  time  for  amendment  of 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  19 


Effective:   January    1,    1972 


Standard  No.  210.  Anchorages  installed  pur- 
suant to  that  standard  are  ijermitted  to  elongate, 
so  long  as  they  sustain  the  maximum  required 
force,  and  such  anchorages  should  therefore  be 
usable  in  new  energy  absorbing  belt  systems. 

Ford  requested  an  increase  in  the  minimum 
warning  signal  duration  from  1  minute  to  5 
minutes.  The  NHTSA  has  considered  a  variety 
of  alternatives  in  arriving  at  the  1-minute  level, 
and  remains  persuaded  that  it  is  a  reasonable 
compromise  between  the  need  for  warning  and 
the  need  to  avoid  undue  annoyance  in  situations 
where  a  belt  must  be  temi^orarily  unfastened. 
The  petition  is  denied. 

JAMA  requested  an  amendment  to  S7.3.3  to 
provide  vehicles  with  automatic  transmissions 
the  option  of  shutting  off  the  warning  signal  by 
use  of  the  parking  brake.  Although  this  option 
is  provided  for  vehicles  with  manual  transmis- 
sion by  S7.3.4  as  a  concession  to  cost  and  lead- 
time  problems  of  certain  manufacturers,  there 
are  inconveniences  associated  with  its  use  on  ve- 
hicles with  automatic  transmissions,  whose 
drivers  may  often  prefer  to  use  the  "Park"'  posi- 
tion rather  than  the  parking  brake.  The  petition 
is  therefore  denied. 

General  Motors  petitioned  for  an  amendment 
of  S7.3.3  and  S7.3.4  to  allow  warning  system 
activation  when  the  ignition  is  in  the  "start" 
position.  The  notice  issued  September  29  pro- 
posed amendments  to  these  sections  that  would 
require  deactivation  only  when  the  ignition  is  in 
the  "on"  position.  This  would  permit  activation 
of  the  system  with  the  ignition  in  the  "start" 


position,  as  requested  by  General  Motors.  No 
adverse  comment  has  been  received  on  this  pro- 
posal, and  favorable  action  will  be  taken  in  the 
rule  to  be  issued  pursuant  to  the  notice  of  Sep- 
tember 29. 

In  another  request  concerning  S7.3.4(b), 
JAMA  suggested  an  amendment  to  permit  de- 
activation of  the  warning  system  whenever  the 
parking  brake  lamp  is  illuminated.  The  NHTSA 
considers  such  a  system  to  be  an  acceptable 
means  of  conforming  to  S7. 3.4(b)  under  the 
present  language.  Since  no  further  amendment 
is  necessary,  the  petition  for  amendment  is 
denied. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  IMotor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  208,  Occupant  Crash 
Protection,  §  571.208  of  Title  49,  Code  of  Federal 
Regulations  is  amended  .... 

This  notice  is  issued  under  the  authority  of 
sections  103  and  119  of  the  National  Traffic  and 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407, 
and  the  delegation  of  authority  by  the  Secretary 
of  Transportation  to  the  National  Highway 
Traffic  Safety  Administrator,  49  CFR  1.51. 

Issued  on  December  9, 1971. 


Charles  H.  Hartman 
Acting  Administrator 


36   F.R.  23725 
December   14,   1971 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  20 


Effective:   February   24,    1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  208 

Occupant  Crash  Protection  in  Passenger  Cars, 
Multipurpose  Passenger  Vehicles,  Trucks  and  Buses 

(Docket  69-7;  Notice   16) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  amend  Stand- 
ard No.  208,  Occupant  Crash  Protection,  as  pro- 
posed September  29,  1971  (36  F.R.  19266,  October 
1,  1971)  with  respect  to  the  occupant  protection 
options  available  between  August  15,  1973  and 
August  15,  1975.  The  amendments  proposed  on 
September  29  are  adopted  essentially  as  proposed, 
with  minor  modifications. 

The  notice  proposed  a  third  occupant  protec- 
tion option  (S4. 1.2.3)  for  passenger  cars  manu- 
factured between  August  15, 1973  and  August  15, 
1975.  The  salient  feature  of  the  new  option  was 
the  use  of  seat  belts  equipped  with  an  ignition 
interlock  system  that  would  prevent  the  engine 
from  starting  if  any  front  seat  occupant  did  not 
have  his  belt  fastened.  The  belts  at  the  front 
outboard  positions  would  have  to  meet  the  injury 
criteria  of  the  standard  in  a  30  m.p.h.  frontal 
barrier  crash,  and  any  lap  belt  in  the  center 
position  would  have  to  remain  intact  in  the  same 
crash.  If  shoulder  belts  were  provided  at  the 
front  positions,  they  would  have  to  be  nonde- 
tachable  and  have  emergency  locking  retractors. 
Additional  features  of  the  interlock  system  as 
specified  in  S7.3.5  included  an  antidefeat  measure 
that  would  require  the  belt  to  be  fastened  after 
the  occupant  is  seated,  a  requirement  that  un- 
fastening the  belt  would  not  stop  the  engine,  and 
a  provision  for  seat  belt  warning  system  opera- 
tion when  the  ignition  is  in  the  "start"  position 
and  a  belt  is  unfastened  at  an  occupied  front  seat 
position.  With  minor  exceptions  noted  in  the 
following  discussion,  the  option  is  adopted  as 
proposed. 

Several  comments  approved  of  the  interlock 
option.  Mr.  Ralph  Nader  and  the  Center  for 
Auto   Safety   raised   procedural   objections   con- 


cerning the  issue  of  placing  intragovernmental 
conmiunications  in  the  docket.  This  issue  is 
presently  the  subject  of  litigation  in  the  Federal 
Courts,  and  would  not  be  appropriate  for  dis- 
cussion herein.  The  Center  also  objected  that 
both  the  interlock  option,  to  begin  August  15, 
1973,  and  the  passive  restraint  requirement,  be- 
ginning August  15,  1975,  should  be  instituted 
one  year  earlier.  The  option  that  includes  the 
interlock  system  also  requires  emergency-locking 
shoulder  belt  retractors,  however,  and  the  agency 
has  determined  that  the  1974  model  year  is  the 
earliest  practicable  time  by  which  the  option  can 
be  eflfectuated.  As  for  the  passive  restraint  re- 
quirement to  become  eflfective  on  August  15, 
1975,  the  reasons  for  setting  that  effective  date 
were  discussed  at  length  in  Notice  12  (36  F.R. 
19254,  October  1,  1971),  and  need  not  be  restated 
here. 

There  were  differences  of  opinion  among  the 
comments  on  the  desirability  of  various  other 
aspects  of  S4.1.2.3.  The  requirement  of  greatest 
concern  appears  to  be  S4.1.2.3(b),  which  requires 
the  injury  criteria  to  be  met  at  the  front  out- 
board positions  in  a  30-mph  frontal  barrier  crash 
with  the  test  dummy  restrained  by  the  seat  belt. 
It  was  the  intent  of  the  proposal  to  allow  another 
means  of  providing  the  requisite  level  of  occu- 
pant protection,  not  to  lower  the  level  of  protec- 
tion. Present  information  indicates  that  systems 
meeting  the  injury  criteria  are  available  using 
current  seat  belt  technology,  and  the  agency 
therefore  adopts  the  requirement  as  proposed. 

To  allow  greater  diversity  in  belt  system  de- 
velopment, it  has  been  decided  to  accept  the 
suggestion  made  in  a  number  of  comments  that 
conformity  to  Standard  No.  209  should  not  be 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  21 


231-088  O  -  77  -  55 


EfFectlve:   February   24,    1972 


required  of  belt  systems  that  meet  the  injury 
criteria.  Accordingly,  those  options  that  require 
a  seat  belt  to  meet  the  injury  criteria  (S4.1.1.2, 
S4.1.2.2  and  S4.1.2.3)  are  amended  by  limiting 
the  application  of  Standard  No.  209  to  belts 
other  than  those  meeting  the  injury  criteria.  A 
belt  provided  at  a  center  front  position  is  not 
required  to  meet  the  injury  criteria  and  is  there- 
fore required  to  conform  to  Standard  No.  209. 

Related  requests  for  exemption  from  the  an- 
chorage requirements  of  Standard  No.  210  have 
not  been  adopted  in  that  they  appear  to  be  un- 
necessary. An  amendment  to  permit  anchorages 
that  absorb  energy  by  elongating  under  force  is 
not  necessary,  since  Standard  No.  210  expressly 
permits  deformation  so  long  as  the  maximum 
force  is  sustained.  In  the  absence  of  other  data 
indicating  a  need  to  amend  Standard  No.  210, 
no  change  is  proposed  in  that  standard. 

Chrysler's  suggestion  that  a  shoulder  belt 
shaped  as  an  inverted  Y  could  be  used  in  lieu  of 
a  nondetachable  upper  torso  belt  has  not  been 
adopted,  primarily  because  of  the  likelihood  that 
it  would  often  go  unused.  There  is  nothing  to 
prevent  a  manufacturer  from  installing  such  a 
belt  along  with  the  lap  belt,  so  long  as  the  lap 
belt  alone  is  capable  of  meeting  the  injury 
criteria. 

The  interlock  requirements  were  the  subject  of 
diverse  comments.  Some  generally  endorsed  the 
requirement  for  interlock  at  all  front  positions, 
some  stated  that  it  should  not  be  required  at  any 
position,  while  others  suggested  that  it  should  be 
installed  only  at  the  outboard  seats  or  only  at 
the  driver's  seat.  Several  comments  indicated 
doubts  as  to  the  system's  reliability  and  ex- 
pressed concern  about  its  possible  interference 
with  vehicle  operation. 

Upon  review  of  the  comments,  the  NHTSA 
has  decided  to  adopt  the  interlock  system  as  an 
option  applying  to  all  front  seating  positions. 
The  1973  options,  whether  active  or  passive,  are 
intended  to  set  minimum  protection  requirements 
for  all  front  seating  positions.  If  the  third  op- 
tion is  to  give  protection  better  than  that  of 
present  belt  systems,  belt  usage  must  be  increased. 
The  interlock  system  has  the  potential  to  in- 
crease belt  usage  and  is  therefore  adopted  as  part 
of  the  third  option.     Exemption  of  the  center 


front  seat,  as  proposed  by  several  comments,  could 
result  in  increased  occupancy  of  the  center  seat 
as  an  easy  means  of  avoiding  the  effects  of  the 
interlock  system.  The  effect  of  such  avoidance 
would  be  to  substantially  lessen  the  protection 
afforded  occupants,  and  the  requests  for  center 
seat  exemption  are  therefore  denied.  However, 
in  consideration  of  some  technical  problems  aris- 
ing from  the  placement  of  sensors  in  the  center 
seats,  it  has  been  decided  to  change  the  precondi- 
tions for  warning  system  and  interlock  system 
operation.  It  was  pointed  out  that  the  center 
seat  cushion  may  be  depressed  far  enough  to 
activate  the  warning  signal  by  the  weight  of  two 
large  men  in  the  outboard  positions.  To  alleviate 
this  problem,  S7.3.1(c),  S7.3.5.2(b),  and  S7.4.1 
(b)  are  changed  to  provide  for  activation  by  the 
weight  of  a  child  in  the  front  non-driver  posi- 
tions only  when  a  50th  percentile  adult  male  is 
seated  in  the  driver's  position. 

Other  problems  of  convenience  arising  from 
the  interlock  system  are  dealt  with  by  the  addi- 
tion of  two  new  subsections  to  S7.4.  As  a  con- 
venience in  situations  such  as  parking  garages  or 
vehicles  stalled  in  traffic,  a  new  S7.4.3  has  been 
adopted,  permitting  restarting  of  the  engine 
within  three  minutes  of  shutoff  without  interfer-  C. 
ence  by  the  interlock  system.  To  facilitate  repair 
and  maintenance  work,  a  new  S7.4.4  is  adopted 
to  permit  the  interlock  to  be  overridden  by  a 
switch  that  is  actuated  after  opening  the  cover 
of  the  engine  compartment.  To  reduce  the  pos- 
sibility that  the  engine  compartment  switch  will 
be  misused,  S7.4.4  provides  that  the  switch  will 
not  defeat  the  interlock  unless  it  is  operated 
after  each  period  of  engine  operation. 

The  requirements  of  S7.3.3  and  S7.3.4  have 
been  amended  by  adding  engine  operation  as  a 
necessary  condition  for  mandatory  warning  sys- 
tem shutoff.  This  limits  the  situation  in  which 
the  system  must  not  operate ;  it  may  now  operate 
when  the  ignition  is  in  the  "start"  position,  as 
requested  by  General  Motors. 

The  relationship  of  the  "start"  position  to 
system  operation  is  also  affected  by  the  interlock 
system  requirements.  S7. 3.5.4  requires  the  warn- 
ing system  to  operate  when  the  ignition  is  in  the 
start  position  to  tell  the  driver  of  a  vehicle  with 
unbelted  front  seat  occupants  why  the  engine 
fails  to  start. 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  22 


Effective:   February   24,    1972 


One  additional  feature  of  the  belts  used  in 
interlock  systems  attracted  considerable  comment. 
The  amendment  to  S7.1.1  that  would  require 
shoulder  belts  provided  under  S4.1.2.3  to  have 
emergency-locking  retractors  has  been  adopted 
as  proposed.  The  NHTSA  regards  the  conveni- 
ence of  an  emergency-locking  retractor  as  a 
significant  incentive  for  belt  usage.  In  response 
to  comments  requesting  an  interpretation  as  to 
the  number  of  retractors  required,  the  standard 
permits  a  system  with  a  single  emergency- 
locking  retractor  acting  on  both  lap  and  shoulder 
belts.  In  response  to  requests  for  allowance  of 
auxiliary  manual  adjustment  devices,  such  devices 
are  permissible  if  they  cannot  be  adjusted  so  as 
to  cause  the  belt  to  fail  the  automatic  adjustment 
requirements  of  Standard  No.  208. 

Greneral  Motors  raised  a  question  concerning 
the  number  of  test  devices  to  be  used  in  the 
frontal  barrier  crash  test  specified  in  S5.1.  The 
NHTSA  has  interpreted  the  section  as  requiring 
test  devices  only  in  those  seating  positions  for 
which  a  barrier  crash   test  is  specified  by  S4. 


The  question  is  of  general  interest  and  is  con- 
sidered significant  enough  to  warrant  a  clarify- 
ing amendment  to  S5.1  at  this  time. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  208,  Occupant  Crash 
Protection,  §  571.208  of  Title  49,  Code  of  Federal 
Regulations  is  amended.  The  standard  is  hereby 
amended  upon  publication  of  this  notice  in  the 
Federal  Register;  effective  dates  are  as  stated  in 
the  text  of  the  standard. 

This  notice  is  issued  under  the  authority  of 
sections  103  and  119  of  the  National  Traffic  and 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407, 
and  the  delegation  of  authority  by  the  Secretary 
of  Transportation  to  the  National  Highway 
Traffic  Safety  Administrator,  49  CFR  1.51. 

Issued  on  February  17, 1972. 

Douglas  W.  Toms 
Administrator 

37  F.R.  3911 
February  24,  1972 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  23-24 


( 


Effective:   June    13,    1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  208 

Occupant  Crash  Protection — Pressure  Vessels  and  Explosive  Materials 
(Docket  No.  69-7;  Notice  18) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  add  a  new 
section  to  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  208, 
Occupant  Crash  Protection,  49  CFR  §571.208, 
dealing  with  pressure  vessels  and  explosive 
devices. 

After  review  of  the  comments  to  the  notice  of 
proposed  rulemaking  (Docket  69-7,  Notice  14, 
October  9,  1971;  36  F.R.  19705),  the  agency  has 
concluded  that  its  original  assessment  of  the 
need  for  regulation  was  essentially  correct  and 
that  a  regulation  should  therefore  be  adopted. 
As  indicated  in  Notice  14,  the  NHTSA  sees  a 
regulation  of  restraint  systems  such  as  air  bags 
containing  explosive  materials  or  pressure  ves- 
sels as  having  two  primary  functions:  to  impose 
directly  on  manufacturers  the  obligation  to  con- 
form to  Federal  hazardous  materials  regulations, 
and  to  create  a  uniform  system  of  regulation 
that  will  override  any  conflicting  state  or  local 
regulation. 

The  approach  taken  in  the  notice  was  to  pro- 
pose a  general  incorporation  of  all  applicable 
portions  of  the  hazardous  materials  regulations 
as  found  in  49  CFR  Parts  170-189.  Most  of  the 
comments,  while  agreeing  with  the  general  in- 
tent of  the  proposal,  objected  to  the  breadth  of 
this  incorporation  as  too  vague  and  too  likely 
to  result  in  difficulties  of  interpretation.  There 
was  a  consensus  that  serious  problems  would 
arise  as  a  result  of  the  Hazardous  Materials 
Regulations  Board's  practice  of  issuing  special 
permits  that  allow  shipment  of  regulated  items 
that  do  not  conform  to  the  regulations.  The 
majority  of  devices  used  in  occupant  protection 
systems  vary  in  some  way  from  the  requirements 
of  the  regulations  and  have  been  shipped  under 
one  or  more  special  permits.  The  comments 
pointed   out   that   adoption   of   the   regulations 


without  some  adjustment  to  allow  for  the  exist- 
ence of  special  permits  would  effectively  prohibit 
most  of  these  devices. 

It  has  therefore  been  decided  to  limit  the 
incorporation  of  the  HMRB  regulations  by 
referencing  those  parts  of  the  regulations  from 
which  no  variances  have  been  granted.  Without 
exception,  the  pressure  vessels  used  in  air  bag 
systems  to  date  have  been  manufactured  in  basic 
conformity  with  the  recently  adopted  Specifica- 
tion 39  (49  CFR  178.65).  The  variances  which 
have  caused  the  manufacturers  to  obtain  special 
permits  have  been  variances  in  the  choice  of 
materials  and  in  the  method  of  fabrication.  All 
cylinders  have  been  able  to  conform  to  the  basic 
performance  requirements  of  the  specification,  so 
that  an  incorporation  into  Standard  208  of  the 
performance  requirements  of  Specification  39 
would  enable  manufacturers  to  continue  to  make 
their  present  systems. 

Taken  together,  the  performance  requirements 
are  considered  by  the  NHTSA  to  be  an  adequate 
regulation  of  the  safety  of  pressurized  contain- 
ers in  occupant  restra4nt  systems.  The  HMRB 
will  continue  to  exercise  its  jurisdiction  over  the 
shipment  of  the  systems,  so  that  a  manufacturer 
will  still  have  to  obtain  a  special  permit  in  order 
to  ship  systems  that  do  not  conform  to  the  speci- 
fication. The  adoption  of  section  S9  is  not  in- 
tended in  any  way  to  diminish  the  responsibili- 
ties of  a  manufacturer  under  the  applicable 
regulations  of  the  HMRB.  For  example,  evi- 
dence of  the  requisite  number  of  tests  and  in- 
spections will  continue  to  be  required  for  ship- 
ment under  the  HMRB  regulations,  even  though 
failure  to  test  and  inspect  will  not  be  a  violation 
of  Standard  208. 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  25 


Effactiv*:  Jun*   12,    1972 

As  adopted,  the  section  consists  of  two  sub- 
sections, the  first  dealing  with  pressure  vessels 
and  the  second  with  explosives.  The  pressure 
vessel  subsection  applies  to  vessels  that  are  de- 
signed to  be  continuously  pressurized,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  systems  that  are  pressurized 
only  during  actuation.  A  pressure  vessel  that 
contains  an  explosive  charge  as  well  as  gas  imder 
continuous  pressure  will  have  to  conform  to  both 
subsections. 

A  continuously  pressurized  vessel  is  required 
to  conform  to  the  requirements  of  Specification 
39  concerning  type,  size,  service  pressure,  and 
test  pressure  of  vessels  (paragraph  2  of  the 
Specification);  seams  (6(b));  wall  thickness 
(7);  openings  and  attachments  (9(a)  and  (b)); 
safety  devices  (10) ;  pressure  tests  (11) ;  and 
flattening  tests  (12).  The  reference  to  the  latter 
two  paragraphs  are  drafted  to  make  it  clear  that 
the  quality  control  aspects  of  those  paragraphs 
are  not  included  in  the  standard.  The  remaining 
portions  of  Specification  39,  including  the  in- 
spection requirements  of  paragraphs  3,  4,  and 
15,  the  material  specifications  of  paragraph  5, 
the  rejected  cylinder  procedure  of  paragraph  13, 
and  the  markings  requirement  of  paragraph  14, 
are  not  incorporated. 

Review  of  the  explosives  provisions  of  the 
hazardous  materials  regulations  showed  that 
some  of  the  requirements,  if  applied  literally, 
would  not  be  appropriate  for  automotive  instal- 
lations.   For  instance,  certain  types  of  pyrotech- 


nic inflators  are  categorized  as  explosive  power 
devices  and  are  required  to  be  shipped  in  fiber- 
board  or  wooden  containers.  Neither  of  these 
types  of  containers  would  be  proper  for  a  system 
designed  to  protect  occupants  in  a  vehicle  from 
the  eflFects  of  a  crash.  The  primary  needs  are 
for  a  requirement  that  sets  limits  on  the  sensi- 
tivity of  the  explosive  and  one  that  requires  it 
to  be  in  a  container  that  will  protect  the  occu- 
pants of  the  vehicle  from  the  effects  of  inad- 
vertent ignition.  These  requirements  are  hereby 
adopted,  in  accordance  with  comments  made  by 
General  Motors. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  208,  Occupant  Crash 
Protection,  49  CFR  §  571.208,  is  amended.  .  .  . 

Effective  date:  June  12,  1972.  Because  of  the 
immediate  need  to  establish  a  uniform  system 
of  regulation,  good  cause  is  found  for  an  effec- 
tive date  sooner  than  180  days  after  issuance. 

This  amendment  is  issued  under  the  authority 
of  sections  103  and  119  of  the  National  Traffic 
and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act,  15  U.S.C.  1392, 
1407  and  the  delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR 

1.51. 


Issued  on  May  3, 1972. 


Douglas  W.  Toms 
Administrator 

37  F.R.  9222 
May  6,  1972 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  26 


EfftcHva:  July  24,    1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  208 

Occupant  Crash  Protection 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  (1)  to  adopt  the 
method  of  calculating  head  injury  proposed  in 
Notice  17  of  Docket  69-7  (37  F.R.  5507)  as  an 
amendment  to  S6.2  of  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  208,  Occupant  Crash  Protection, 
49  CFR  §  571.208,  and  (2)  to  respond  in  part  to 
petitions  for  reconsideration  of  the  amendments 
to  the  standard  published  in  Notice  16,  February 
24,  1972  (37  F.R.  3911).  The  issue  involving 
Notice  16  addressed  by  this  notice  is  the  appli- 
cability of  the  head  injury  criterion  of  S6.2  to 
seat  belt  restraint  systems.  Action  on  the  re- 
maining issues  has  been  scheduled  for  completion 
not  later  than  July  1, 1972. 

I.  Calculation  of  head  injury  criterion. 

Some  substantive  objections  were  raised  to  the 
proposed  method  of  calculating  the  head  injury 
criterion.  Several  comments  questioned  the  use 
of  resultant  accelerations  rather  than  the  anterior- 
posterior  accelerations  used  in  the  original  de- 
velopment of  the  Wayne  State  University  Toler- 
ance Curve.  Although  the  curve  was  originally 
based  on  anterior-posterior  acceleration  data,  its 
validity  for  resultant  accelerations  appears  to  be 
confirmed  by  subsequent  tests  using  resultant  ac- 
celerations computed  from  biaxial  accelerometers. 
Resultant  accelerations  have  therefore  been  used 
in  the  amended  criterion. 

The  question  of  the  permissible  level  was  again 
raised,  with  some  commenters  supporting  a  level 
of  1500  even  under  the  revised  method  of  calcula- 
tion. This  agency's  position  is  that  adequate 
justification  has  not  been  demonstrated  for  a 
numerical  increase  in  the  severity  level,  altliough 
adjustments  in  the  metliod  of  calculation  adopted 
herein  may  have  the  effect  of  allowing  greater 
cumulative  accelerations  than  would  lia\e  been 
allowed 'under  the  Gadd  Severity  Index.     With 


(Docket  No.  69-7;  Notice   19) 

the  new  calculation,  the  higher  numerical  level  is 
less  supportable  than  before  and  it  is  accordingly 
rejected.  The  amendment  to  S6.2  is  adopted  as 
proposed. 


II.  Applicability  of  the  head  injury  criterion 
to  seat  belt  systems. 

The  decision  to  postpone  the  date  of  mandatory 
installation  of  passive  restraints  imtil  August  15, 
1975,  was  made  in  consideration  of  the  hardship 
that  would  have  been  imposed  on  many  manufac- 
turers by  a  requirement  to  provide  passive  re- 
straints by  the  original  date  of  August  15,  1973. 
The  injury  criteria  of  the  standard,  measured  in 
a  barrier  crash  with  instrumented  dummies,  were 
applied  to  belt  systems  as  well  as  passive  systems 
that  might  be  used  to  meet  the  requirements  of 
the  standard,  beginning  August  15,  1973. 

Several  manufacturers  have  petitioned  for  the 
removal  of  the  injury  criteria,  particularly  those 
for  head  injury,  from  the  belt  system  tests.  Their 
concern  arises  from  their  test  results  indicating 
that  in  many  vehicles  currently  available  belt 
systems  either  do  not  meet  or  only  marginally 
meet  the  head  injury  criteria.  They  have  argued 
that  much,  perhaps  most,  of  the  acceleration  that 
contributes  to  the  head  Severity  Index  measure- 
ment with  a  shoulder-belted  dummy  occurs  as 
the  head  flops  loosely  forward  without  striking 
anything  in  the  vehicle.  Actual  field  collision 
data,  they  maintain,  does  not  indicate  that  this 
type  of  head  movement  by  shoulder-belted  ve- 
hicle occupants  in  a  crash  is  a  serious  injury- 
producing  factor.  They  question  the  correlation 
between  results  of  the  d>immy  tests  and  the  actual 
protective  characteristics  of  the  belt  systems. 

The  NHTSA  recognizes  the  uncertainty  con- 
cerning the  significance  of  liead  movement  by  a 
shoulder  belted   occupant   whose  head  does  not 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  27 


EffMMv*:  July  24,   1973 

strike  the  forward  part  of  the  vehicle,  although 
it  considers  the  present  evidence  too  scanty  to 
be  conclusive  in  either  direction.  It  also  recog- 
nizes that  the  leadtime  for  any  major  design  or 
component  changes  for  the  1974  models  has  been 
virtually  exhausted.  Recent  materials  submitted 
to  the  docket  indicate  that  presently  existing 
inflatable  restraint  systems  can  meet  the  head 
injury  criteria  with  little  difficulty.  The  in- 
herent limitations  in  lap-and-shoulder-belt  sys- 
tems make  it  considerably  more  difficult  for  those 
systems  to  meet  these  criteria,  although  belt  sys- 
tems have  been  found  to  provide  protection  at 
moderate  speeds. 

For  these  reasons,  it  has  been  decided  that  a 
temporary  modification  in  the  head  injury  meas- 
urements for  belt  systems  is  justified.  The  amend- 
ment made  by  this  notice  in  response  to  the 
petitions  affects  vehicles  manufactured  before 
August  15,  1975,  and  provides  that  measurement 
of  head  acceleration  begins,  for  purposes  of  com- 
puting the  head  injury  criterion  for  belted  dum- 
mies, only  at  the  moment  at  which  the  head 
strikes  some  portion  of  the  vehicle  other  than  a 
belt.  The  measurement  will  thus  include  any 
contact  with  the  windshield  or  dashboard,  for 
example,  or  the  effects  of  rebound  against  the 
seat  back,  but  pre-impact  accelerations  of  the 
head  will  be  excluded. 

This  agency  will  examine  closely  the  accident 
data   bearing   on   the  traumatic   effect  of   uon- 


impactive  head  accelerations,  as  well  as  such 
laboratory  data  as  may  be  gathered,  for  example 
from  cadaver  studies.  Work  is  also  in  progress 
concerning  the  correlation  between  dummy  and 
human  behavior,  with  a  view  to  more  sophis- 
ticated instrumentation  and  measurement  of  ve- 
hicle performance,  and  to  continued  evaluation 
of  the  head  injury  criterion  for  the  entire  test 
crash  event. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  paragraph 
S6.2  of  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  208, 
Occupant  Crash  Protection,  49  CFR  §  571.208,  is 
amended.  .  .  . 

Eifective  date :  July  24,  1972. 

Because  this  amendment  modifies  an  existing 
rule  in  a  manner  that  imposes  no  additional  sub- 
stantive requirements,  it  is  found  for  good  cause 
shown  that  an  effective  date  less  than  180  days 
from  the  date  of  issuance  is  in  the  public  interest. 

Issued  under  the  authority  of  sections  103  and 
119  of  the  National  Traffic  and  Motor  "Vehicle 
Safety  Act,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407,  and  the  delega- 
tion of  authority  at  49  CFR  §  1.51. 

Issued  on  June  20,  1972. 

Douglas  W.  Toms 
Administrator 

37  F.R.   12393 
June  23,  1972 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  28 


Effectiva:   Januory    1,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   208 

Occupant  Crash  Protection   in  Passenger  Cars, 
Multipurpose  Passenger  Vehicles,  Trucks  and  Buses 

(Docket  No.  69-7;   Notice  20) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  respond  to 
petitions  for  reconsideration  of  the  seat  belt 
interlock  requirements  of  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  208,  Occupant  Crash  Protection, 
49  CFR  §571.208,  as  published  February  24, 
1972  (37  F.R.  3911).  The  issues  in  the  petitions 
relating  to  the  applicability  of  the  head  injury 
criterion  of  S6.2  to  seat  belt  systems  have  been 
answered  in  a  notice  published  June  24,  1972 
(37  F.R.  12393).  The  remaining  issues  are  dis- 
cussed herein. 

Several  petitions  raised  issues  which,  while  of 
considerable  importance,  lie  outside  of  the  im- 
mediate scope  of  the  notice  under  review.  Among 
these  are  requests  to  exempt  vehicles  that  meet 
the  injury  criteria  from  the  requirements  of 
Standards  Nos.  201,  203,  204,  and  212,  and  to 
waive  some  of  the  requirements  of  Standard  No. 
209  relating  to  the  width  and  elongation  of  web- 
bing. As  indicated  in  the  Program  Plan  for 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standards,  several  of  these 
matters  are  under  review  at  the  present  time. 
Their  resolution  will  await  the  issuance  of  rule- 
making notices  in  the  respective  dockets. 

General  Motors  reiterated  its  opposition  to  the 
requirements  for  rollover  protection  and  for  the 
protection  of  rear  seat  occupants  by  passive 
means.  Although  these  issues  may  be  affected 
by  the  receipt  of  additional  information,  the 
NHTSA  has  not  found  sufficient  cause  to  alter 
its  position. 

With  respect  to  the  interlock  option  itself,  the 
petitioners  objected  less  to  the  concept  of  such  a 
system  than  to  the  positions  at  which  it  would 
have  to  be  installed  and  to  the  level  of  protection 
required   of   it.     Some   requested   an   indefinite 


extension  of  the  interlock  requirements  beyond 
August  15,  1975,  as  a  more  or  less  permanent 
substitute  for  passive  protection.  Inasmuch  as 
the  NHTSA  continues  to  consider  the  1975  date 
to  be  a  reasonable  date  for  the  installation  of 
passive  systems,  it  must  again  deny  the  requested 
delay. 

The  application  of  the  interlock  and  belt 
warning  systems  to  the  center  front  seating  po- 
sition drew  a  number  of  adverse  comments.  It 
was  stated  that  the  center  seat  occupancy  rate 
was  too  low  to  justify  the  added  cost  of  installing 
the  system  and  that  the  system  would  be  prone 
to  inconvenient  activation,  as  when  two  large 
men  at  the  outboard  positions  depress  the  center 
seat  cushion.  On  the  question  of  cost  effective- 
ness, the  agency  has  found  that  the  available 
data  do  not  support  the  petitioners.  Despite  the 
relatively  low  occupancy  rate,  the  incremental 
cost  of  installing  the  system  is  low  enough  to 
create  a  fa\^orable  ratio.  The  requirement  for 
center  seat  installation  is  therefore  retained.  To 
avoid  the  problems  of  over-sensitivity,  it  has 
been  decided  to  raise  the  threshold  weight  at 
which  activation  is  required,  in  accordance  with 
a  suggestion  by  American  Motors.  The  relevant 
sections  (S7.3.5.2(b)  and  S7.4.1(b))  are  accord- 
ingly amended  to  refer  to  a  5th -percentile  adult 
female  rather  than  to  a  50th-percentile  6-year- 
old  child. 

The  petitions  directed  their  strongest  objec- 
tions to  the  application  of  the  injury  criteria  to 
belt  systems.  Partial  relief  has  been  granted  to 
belt  systems  with  respect  to  the  head  injury 
criterion.  The  chest  and  femur  criteria,  to  which 
a  lesser  amount  of  criticism  has  been  directed. 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  29 


Effective:   January    1,    1973 


are  not  considered  to  present  the  same  level  of 
difficulty  for  belt  systems  of  current  design  as 
the  head. 

However,  it  has  been  decided  to  make  an  in- 
terim adjustment  of  the  chest  injury  criterion 
with  respect  to  seat  belts  by  applying  to  them  a 
criterion  using  the  severity  index  formerly  ap- 
plied to  the  head.  The  effect  of  this  is  to  ease 
the  requirement  somewhat  without  permitting 
excessive  long  duration  accelerations.  A  well  de- 
signed belt  system  of  the  current  types  will  be 
capable  of  meeting  the  revised  criterion.  It  is 
expected  that  improvements  now  in  prospect  will 
allow  belt  systems  to  meet  the  60  "g's",  3  milli- 
second criterion  in  1975.  Femur  loads  are  not  a 
problem  for  seat  belt  systems  that  do  not  sepa- 
rate during  impact,  and  the  femur  criterion  is 
therefore  retained. 

Ford  stated  in  its  petition  that  two  barrier 
tests  would  be  required  under  S4.1.2.3(d)  and 
(e)  for  some  vehicles,  due  to  the  difficulty  of 
placing  three  50th-percentile  male  dummies  in 
the  front  seat.  Although  it  may  be  that  correct 
placement  cannot  be  made  in  Ford  vehicles,  Ford 
is  at  liberty  to  devise  a  method  of  testing  the 
center  position  which  imposes  a  stress  on  the 
belt  system  equivalent  to  that  of  a  50th-percentile 
adult  male.  It  does  not  appear  that  the  size  of 
the  dummies  will  prevent  most  cars  from  being 
tested  with  the  dummies  three  abreast,  if  the 
manufacturers  elect  to  conduct  S4.1.2.3.1  (d)  and 
(e)  as  a  single  test.  Ford's  petition  is  therefore 
denied. 

General  Motors,  alone  among  the  petitioners, 
suggested  the  use  of  a  sequenced  warning  system 
in  place  of  the  interlock  system.  In  part  the 
company's  position  was  grounded  on  the  belief 
that  the  standard  presently  requires  a  sequenced 
warning  and  that  the  interlock  is  therefore  a 
redundant  system.  In  fact,  the  opposite  is  true 
under  the  present  wording  of  the  standard,  in 
that  S7.3.2  states  that  the  warning  system  shall 
not  operate  when  the  belt  is  extended  to  a  speci- 
fied length  or,  alternatively,  when  the  belt  is 
buckled.  Because  a  sequential  warning  system 
would  necessarily  cause  the  signal  to  operate  in 
some  situations  despite  the  belt's  being  extended 
or  buckled,  it  would  not  be  allowed  under  S7.3.2. 


In  response  to  the  GM  request  to  substitute 
the  sequenced  warning  for  the  interlock,  the  ( 
NHTSA  has  concluded  that  the  interlock  coupled 
with  a  nonsequenced  warning  provides  a  some- 
what more  direct  incentive  to  belt  usage  with 
less  potential  for  causing  irritation  while  the 
vehicle  is  in  operation.  The  interlock  feature  is 
therefore  being  retained.  However,  in  the  light 
of  GM's  expressed  preference  for  a  sequential 
warning  and  in  response  to  a  petition  by  the 
Japan  Automobile  Manufacturers  Association  to 
permit  sequential  operation  of  the  warning,  it 
has  been  decided  to  amend  S7.3.2  to  permit 
manufacturers  to  use  a  sequenced  warning  in 
conjunction  with  the  interlock  system. 

The  Japan  Automobile  Manufacturers  Asso- 
ciation requested  the  addition  of  the  phrase 
"after  the  seat  has  been  occupied"  to  S7.3.2(a) 
and  (b).  Because  this  would  have  the  effect  of 
requiring  all  warning  systems  to  be  sequenced, 
paragraphs  (a)  and  (b)  are  not  being  amended. 
Instead,  a  new  paragraph  (c)  is  being  added 
as  a  third  mode  of  warning  system  shut  off.  Al- 
though by  its  terms  the  new  paragrapli  applies 
only  to  front  outboard  positions,  S7.3.5.3  will 
operate  on  it  as  on  the  other  paragraphs  to  apply 
it  to  the  center  front  position  as  well.  ( 

It  should  be  pointed  out  that  a  manufacturer 
adopting  the  sequential  option  will  be  free  to 
incorporate  anti-bounce  features  into  the  system 
to  prevent  its  being  knocked  out  of  sequence 
when  the  occupant  lifts  off  the  seat  momentarily. 
This  is  so  because  under  S7.3.1  the  warning  sys- 
tem is  required  to  operate  only  when  the  belts 
have  not  been  extended  or  buckled.  If  the  occu- 
pant, in  moving  about  on  the  seat,  does  not  un- 
buckle or  retract  the  belt,  the  warning  would  not 
be  required  to  operate  and  the  manufacturer 
could  therefore  provide  for  nonoperation  in  such 
situations. 

Toyota  has  requested  the  application  of  S7.4.3 
and  S7.4.4  to  the  warning  system  as  well  as  tlie 
interlock.  Because  of  the  possibility  that  such 
an  amendment  would  result  in  the  warning  sys- 
tem's activating  unexpectedly  while  the  vehicle 
is  in  motion,  the  petition  is  denied. 

Several  petitions  addressed  the  convenience 
features  of  the  interlock  system  in  S7.4.3  and 
S7.4.4.     Chrysler  stated  that  it  understood  the 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  30 


Effective:   January    I,    1973 


reference  in  S7.4.3  to  "after  the  engine  has  been 
stopped"  to  mean  after  the  ignition  has  been 
turned  off.  so  that  a  stalled  engine  could  be  re- 
started indefinitely  so  long  as  the  ignition  is  not 
turned  off.  This  interpretation  is  essentially 
correct.  The  quoted  phrase  refers  to  the  act  of 
stopping  the  engine,  rather  than  to  involuntary 
engine  stoppage.  However,  to  make  it  clear  that 
the  engine  may  be  restarted  indefinitely  if  the 
engine  has  not  been  turned  off,  the  section  is 
being  amended  to  make  its  intent  explicit. 

General  Motors  stated  that  it  would  be  desir- 
able for  the  engine  starting  system  to  be  operable 
indefinitely  without  interference  from  the  inter- 
lock system  after  the  engine  is  stopped  so  long 
as  the  driver  has  not  left  his  seated  position. 
Such  a  provision  would  be  an  alternate  means 
of  permitting  restarting  in  emergency  road  sit- 
uations and  it  is  therefore  being  adopted  as  part 
of  S7.4.3. 

As  amended  S7.4.3  continues  to  refer  to  start- 
ing after  the  engine  has  stopped,  to  make  it 
clear  that  the  features  of  S7.4.3  will  not  interfere 
with  the  primary  function  of  the  interlock  sys- 
tem. Although  it  is  not  necessary  for  the  engine 
to  operate  under  its  own  power,  the  engine  start- 
ing system  must  at  least  be  operated  in  a  manner 
that  would  start  a  functional  engine  in  order  for 
the  convenience  features  to  have  any  effect. 

A  related  issue  arises  in  the  context  of  S7.4.4, 
which  refers  to  restarting  "after  each  period  of 
engine  operation."  Chrysler  interprets  this  to 
mean  the  cycling  of  the  ignition  switch  from 
"off"  to  "on"  to  "off"  again.    Although  the  lan- 


guage does  not  support  this  meaning,  on  recon- 
sideration it  has  been  decided  that  there  are 
advantages  to  an  engine  compartment  switch  that 
does  not  require  the  engine  to  rotate  in  order  to 
be  reset.  The  section  is  therefore  being  amended 
to  refer  to  the  cycling  of  the  ignition  switch 
rather  than  to  engine  operation. 

The  requirement  that  the  switch  be  operated 
each  time  in  order  to  permit  engine  starting  is 
being  retained  despite  the  request  of  several  pe- 
titioners for  a  system  that  would  permit  unlim- 
ited restarting  so  long  as  the  hood  is  open.  The 
agency's  primary  objection  to  such  a  system  is 
that  it  is  too  easy  to  override  permanently.  The 
system  allowed  by  S7.4.4  may  be  somewhat  less 
convenient,  but  it  is  also  less  def eatable  and  is 
therefore  preferred.  The  switch  may  be  located 
so  that  it  will  be  operable  by  the  raising  of  the 
hood,  as  requested  by  several  petitioners. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  208,  Occupant  Crash 
Protection,  49  CFR  §  571.208,  is  amended.  .  .  . 

Effective  Date:  180  days  after  publication  in 
the  Federal  Register. 

Issued  under  the  authority  of  sections  103  and 
119  of  the  National  Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Act,  15  U.S.C.  §  1392,  1407,  and  the  dele- 
gation of  authority  at  49  CFR  §  1.51. 

Issued  on  June  30, 1972. 

Douglas  W.  Toms 
Administrator 

37  F.R.  13265 
July  6,  1972 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  31-32 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  208 

Occupant  Crash  Protection  in  Passenger  Cars, 
Multipurpose  Passenger  Vehicles,  Trucks  and  Buses 

(Docket  No.  69-7;  Notice  22) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  specify  the 
effective  date  for  the  amendment  to  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  208  published  July  6, 
1972,  (Notice  20;  37  F.R.  13265).  In  the  effec- 
tive date  provision  of  the  notice,  it  was  stated 
that  the  amendment  became  effective  180  days 
after  publication  in  the  Federal  Register.  Cal- 
culation of  180  days  from  July  6,  1972,  the  pub- 
lication date,  results  in  an  effective  date  of 
January  2,  1973.  For  reasons  of  consistency  and 
clarity,  it  has  been  found  preferable  to  establish 
January  1,  1973,  as  the  effective  date. 

The  amendment  to  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  208,  49  CFR  571.208,  published  at 


37  F.R.  13265  is  therefore  made  effective  January 
1,  1973. 

Issued  under  the  authority  of  sections  103  and 
119  of  the  National  Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Act,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407,  and  the  dele- 
gation of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51. 

Isfeued  on  August  3,  1972. 

Douglas  W.  Toms 
Administrator 

37  F.R.  16186 
August  11,  1972 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  33-34 


EfFecllve:   August    15,    1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   208 

Occupant  Crash  Protection  in  Passenger  Cars, 
Multipurpose  Passenger  Vehicles,  Trucks  and  Buses 

(Docket  No.   69-7;   Notice  23) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  reply  to  peti- 
tions filed  pursuant  to  49  CFR  553.35  requesting 
reconsideration  of  the  requirements  of  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  208  relating  to  seat 
belts  in  vehicles  manufactured  after  August  15, 
1973,  as  amended  by  Notices  19  and  20  of  Docket 
69-7  (37  F.R.  12393;  37  F.R.  13265). 

1.  Seat  belts  and  the  injury  criteria  of  S6. 
The  primary  objection  raised  by  petitioners  is 
that  Notices  19  and  20  did  not  altogether  revoke 
the  requirement  that  seat  belts  used  to  meet  the 
1973  interlock  option  must  be  capable  of  meeting 
the  injury  criteria  of  S6.  Although  review  of 
the  petitions  suggests  that  additional  modifica- 
tion of  the  head  injury  criterion  is  advisable, 
the  NHTSA  declines  to  grant  petitioners'  re- 
quest for  complete  relief  from  the  injury  criteria. 

Review  .of  the  petitions  for  reconsideration  of 
Notice  16  showed  that  belts  would  have  difficulty 
meeting  the  full  criteria.  Since  leadtime  was 
insufficient  for  major  design  changes  in  belts  be- 
fore 1973,  it  was  found  necessary  either  to  re- 
move the  injury  criteria  or  modify  them  so  that 
the  changes  needed  to  enable  belts  to  conform 
could  be  made  in  1973. 

Upon  review,  it  was  concluded  that  the  injury 
criteria,  even  in  modified  form,  would  have  the 
beneficial  effect  of  regulating  the  overall  protec- 
tion characteristics  of  the  occupant  compartment 
and  belt  system.  Regulation  of  the  seat  belt  as 
a  separate  component,  as  in  Standard  209,  does 
not  insure  that  the  belt  will  be  installed  in  a 
manner  calculated  to  insulate  the  occupant  from 
injurious  contact  with  the  interior  of  the  vehicle. 
It  was  therefore  depided  to  retain  the  injury 
criteria,  with  such  modifications  as  seemed  neces- 


sary   to    allow    manufacturers    to    conform    to 
S4.1.2.3  by  August  15,  1973. 

The  most  significant,  though  by  no  means  the 
only,  agent  of  head  injury  is  impact  with  the 
vehicle  interior.  In  reviewing  the  petitions  on 
Notice  16,  it  was  decided  that  no  interim  criteria 
would  be  acceptable  that  disregarded  any  impact- 
related  accelerations.  Notice  19  therefore  amended 
the  head  injury  criterion  in  a  manner  that  was 
intended  to  include  all  impact  accelerations  and 
to  disregard  the  effect  of  non-impact  accelera- 
tions. As  several  petitioners  point  out,  however, 
the  amendment  did  not  fully  carry  out  this  in- 
tent. S6.2,  as  amended,  would  have  disregarded 
only  those  accelerations  occurring  before  the 
head  impacted  the  vehicle  and  would  have 
counted  all  accelerations  after  that  point.  One 
effect  of  this  formula  was  that  a  glancing  impact, 
in  itself  insignificant,  would  cause  all  subsequent 
non-impact  accelerations  to  be  counted  even 
though  such  accelerations  would  not  be  distin- 
guishable in  kind  from  the  pre-impact  accelera- 
tion. To  avoid  this  result,  the  agency  has 
decided  to  include  in  the  calculation  of  the  head 
injury  criterion  only  those  accelerations  that  oc- 
cur while  the  head  is  in  contact  with  the  vehicle. 

Some  petitioners  suggested  that  even  while 
the  head  is  touching  the  vehicle,  a  significant 
part  of  the  head's  deceleration  is  due  to  the  re- 
straining action  of  the  belt  and  not  to  the  surface 
the  head  strikes.  Although  there  is  undeniably 
more  than  one  force  that  contributes  to  head 
deceleration,  the  force  produced  by  the  impacted 
surface  becomes  increasingly  important  as  the 
duration  of  the  impact  increases.  If  the  ac- 
celerations   during   an    impact    are   of   such   an 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  35 


Effective:   August    15,    1972 


amplitude  and  duration  that  a  HIC  value  of 
1,000  is  appi'oached,  the  acceleration  caused  by 
the  belt  is  generally  insignificant.  The  criterion 
therefore  counts  all  accelerations  during  the  im- 
pact phase. 

The  chest  injury  criterion  of  S6.2  was  modified 
for  seat  belts  by  Notice  20,  which  substituted  a 
severity  index  of  1,000  for  the  60g  3  millisecond 
criterion  applied  to  other  restraint  systems.  Al- 
though the  use  of  the  severity  index  as  an  indi- 
cator of  chest  injury  has  not  been  common 
practice,  the  agency  has  decided  that  it  provides 
a  reasonable  interim  measure  of  the  effectiveness 
of  the  belt  system.  The  severity  index  of  1,000 
is  therefore  retained  as  the  criterion  for  belt 
systems  imtil  August  15, 1975. 

2.  Passive  belts  and  injury  criteria  after 
August  15,  1975.  Several  petitioners  stated  that 
any  relief  granted  to  seat  belts  in  the  period 
1973-1975  should  be  extended  to  passive  belt 
systems  in  the  period  beyond  1975.  However, 
the  NHTSA  adopted  the  interim  criteria  out  of 
consideration  for  lead  time  problems,  not  be- 
cause it  considered  them  to  be  fully  satisfactory. 
The  agency  does  not  consider  any  criterion  to  be 
acceptable,  on  a  permanent  basis,  that  omits  po- 
tentially injury-causing  accelerations  from  its 
computation.  Even  though  impact  accelerations 
may  be  the  major  threat  to  belted  occupants,  the 
effects  of  non-impact  accelerations  are  not  neg- 
ligible and  should  not  be  ignored.  It  is  expected 
that  belts  will  be  able  to  meet  the  full  injury 
criteria  by  1975.  The  petitions  requesting  ex- 
tension of  the  modified  criteria  beyond  1975  are 
therefore  denied. 


3.  MPVs  and  tinicks  manufactured  hefore 
August  15,  1977.  The  adoption  of  the  interlock 
option  for  passenger  cars  under  S4.1.2.3  per- 
mitted multipurpose  passenger  vehicles  and 
trucks  of  less  than  10,000  pounds  GVWR  to 
continue  to  use  belt  systems  (with  interlocks) 
in  the  period  between  1976  and  1977.  The 
agency's  intent  was  to  permit  these  vehicles  to 
have  the  same  interlock  system  during  1975- 
1977  that  is  permitted  for  passenger  cars  during 
1973-1975.  In  response  to  several  petitioners, 
who  pointed  out  that  S6.2  and  S6.3  could  be 
understood  to  require  these  vehicles  to  meet  the 
full  injury  criteria  during  this  period,  the  sec- 
tions are  hereby  amended  to  extend  the  injury 
criteria  modifications  until  August  15,  1977,  for 
MPVs  and  trucks  of  less  than  10,000  pounds 
GVWR. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  208,  Occupant  Crash 
Protection,  49  CFR  571.208,  is  amended.  .  .  . 

Effective  date :  August  15, 1973. 

This  notice  is  issued  under  the  authority  of 
sections  103  and  119  of  the  National  Traffic  and 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407, 
and  the  delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR  §  1.51. 

Issued  on  October  18, 1972. 

Douglas  W.  Toms 
Administrator 

37  F.R.  22871 
October   26,    1972 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  36 


Effective:   November  23,    1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  208 

Occupant  Crash  Protection 
(Docket  No.  69-7;  Notice  25) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  amend  the 
injury  criteria  specified  for  the  chest  and  femur 
under  sections  S6.3  and  S6.4  of  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  208,  Occupant  Crash  Pro- 
tection, 49  CFR  571.208.  The  amendments 
adopted  hereby  are  those  proposed  in  a  notice  of 
proposed  rulemaking  published  on  October  28, 
1972  (Notice  24;  37  F.R.  23115). 

The  injury  criterion  for  the  chest  is  amended 
with  respect  to  all  vehicles  manufactured  before 
August  15,  1975,  by  substituting  a  severity  index 
value  of  1,000  as  the  measure  of  injury  potential 
in  place  of  the  criterion  of  60g's  for  3  milli- 
seconds. The  substitution  had  previously  been 
made  for  vehicles  equipped  with  seat  belt  systems 
manufactured  before  August  15,  1975.  The 
amendment  made  hereby  is  based  on  a  finding 
that  the  severity  index  is  an  acceptable  interim 
measure  for  restraint  systems  other  than  belt 
systems. 

Several  comments  noted  an  oversight  in  Notice 
24  concerning  the  application  of  the  modified 
chest  criterion  to  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles 
and  trucks  having  GVWR's  of  10,000  pounds  or 
less.  As  a  result  of  a  previous  notice  ( Notice  23 ; 
37  F.R.  22871,  October  26,  1972),  these  vehicles 
had  been  permitted  to  meet  the  modified  criterion 
until  August  15,  1977.  Notice  24  failed  to  reflect 
this  change.  The  omission  has  been  corrected  in 
the  amended  version  of  S6.3,  and  a  parallel  ex- 
tension has  been  made  for  vehicles  other  than 
passenger  cars  that  have  restraint  systems  other 
than  belts. 

The  injury  criterion  for  the  upper  legs  is 
amended  to  specify  a  maximum  force  of  1700 
pounds  on  each  femur  rather  than  the  previously 


specified  force  of  1400  pounds.  The  new  require- 
ment is  considered  to  provide  a  good  level  of 
protection  in  crashes  in  the  30  m.p.h.  range  and 
allows  manufacturers  greater  latitude  in  design- 
ing system.s  for  protection  at  higher  speeds. 

None  of  the  comments  disagreed  with  the  pro- 
posal for  an  increase  in  force  level,  although  the 
Ford  Motor  Company  suggested  a  further  amend- 
ment that  would  permit  higher  forces  for  a 
cumulative  interval  of  not  more  than  3  milli- 
seconds, thereby  disregarding  extremely  short 
period  acceleration  peaks  which  Ford  considers 
to  be  artificial  products  of  the  dummy's  metallic 
structure.  A  similar  request  has  been  made  by 
Greneral  Motors  in  a  recent  petition  for  rulemak- 
ing. The  agency  has  not  yet  completed  its  eval- 
uation of  this  issue.  If  favorable  action  is 
decided  upon,  a  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking 
will  be  issued  to  permit  additional  comment. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  208,  Occupant  Crash 
Protection,  49  CFR  571.208,  is  amended  .... 

Because  this  amendment  relieves  a  restriction 
and  imposes  no  additional  burden,  an  immediate 
effective  date  is  found  to  be  in  the  public  interest. 

Effective  date :  November  23,  1972. 

This  notice  is  issued  under  the  authority  of 
sections  103  and  119  of  the  National  Traffic  and 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407, 
and  the  delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51. 

Issued  on  November  20,  1972. 

Charles  H.  Hartman 
Acting  Administrator 

37  F.R.  24903 
November  23,   1972 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  37-38 


231-088  O  -  77  -  56 


EffecNve:  August   IS,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  208 

Seat  Belt  Interlock  Amendments 
(Docket  No.  69-7;  Notice  27) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  amend  the  seat 
belt  interlock  requirements  of  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  208  (49  CFR  §571.208). 
The  amendments  relate  to  the  performance  re- 
quirements applicable  to  the  belts,  the  positions 
at  which  the  interlock  is  to  be  provided,  and  the 
convenience  features  allowed  in  certain  driving 
situations. 

The  amendments  adopted  hereby  were  initially 
proposed  in  a  notice  published  April  20,  1973 
(Docket  69-7,  Notice  26;  38  F.R.  9830).  Some 
of  the  amendments  proposed  in  Notice  26  have 
been  adopted  in  revised  form  as  a  result  of  the 
comments.  One  proposal,  concerning  an  alterna- 
tive interlock  system,  is  not  adopted  by  this  no- 
tice and  awaits  further  rulemaking  action  as 
discussed  below. 

I.  Amendments.  In  Notice  26,  it  was  proposed 
to  amend  Section  S4.1.2.3,  the  section  establish- 
ing the  seat  belt  interlock  option,  by  deleting  the 
requirement  that  the  belts  in  the  front  outboard 
positions  meet  the  injury  criteria  of  S5.1  and  by 
deleting  the  requirement  that  the  belt  at  the 
center  front  position  meet  a  breakage  test  in  a 
barrier  crash.  It  was  also  proposed  to  delete  the 
requirement  for  an  interlock  at  the  center  front 
position. 

Subject  to  continuing  reservations  about  the 
interlock  system  itself,  the  comments  were  gen- 
erally favorable  to  the  proposed  amendments. 
The  mandatory  requirements  for  meeting  the 
injury  criteria  at  the  outboard  positions  and  the 
breakage  test  at  the  center  front  position  are 
hereby  deleted,  as  proposed. 

There  were  objections  to  certain  details  of  the 
proposal.  Under  the  injury  criteria  version  of 
S4.1.2.3,  manufacturers  were  allowed  to  install 
either  Type  2  seat  belts  (lap  and  shoulder  belt 


combinations)  or  Type  1  seat  belts  (lap  belt). 
Without  the  injury  criteria  as  a  control  on  the 
performance  of  the  lap  belt,  it  was  proposed  in 
Notice  26  to  delete  the  Type  1  belt  option  under 
S4.1.2.3.1(a).  Ford  Motor  Company  stated  that 
if  Type  1  belts  were  not  permitted,  evaluation 
of  systems  employing  lap  belts  in  conjunction 
with  passive  upper  torso  restraint  would  be  in- 
hibited. Although  belts  may  be  used  with  pas- 
sive restraints  under  the  second  restraint  option 
in  1973  (S4.1.2.2),  second  option  systems  must 
be  capable  of  providing  fully  passive  protection 
in  a  frontal  crash.  To  permit  evaluation  of 
systems  that  may  not  have  full  passive  capability, 
it  has  been  decided  to  continue  to  permit  T^'pe  1 
belts  under  the  third  option  (S4.1.2.3(a))  on  the 
condition  that  they  are  capable  of  meeting  the 
injury  criteria  of  S5.1  in  a  frontal  perpendicular 
crash. 

As  amended,  therefore,  S4.1.2.3.1(a)  provides 
that  at  (he  front  outboard  positions  a  manufac- 
turer may  install  either  a  Type  2  seat  belt  as- 
sembly that  conforms  to  Standard  No.  209,  or  a 
Type  1  ?eat  belt  assembly  that  meets  the  injury 
criteria  of  S5.1.  Insofar  as  the  injury  criteria 
themselves  are  contingent  upon  the  establishment 
of  an  adequate  method  of  measurement  through 
the  adoption  of  a  new  test  dummy,  a  manufac- 
turer who  intends  to  produce  vehicles  with  Type 
1  belts  at  the  front  outboard  positions  will  have 
to  await  the  adoption  of  the  new  dummy  regula- 
tion and  its  incorporation  into  the  options  under 
S4.1.2. 

The  proposed  deletion  of  the  interlock  require- 
ment for  the  center  front  position  (S4.1.2.3.1(b)) 
was  favorably  received,  and  the  requirement  is 
liereby  deleted.  It  was  stated  by  Ford,  Chrysler, 
and  American  Motors  that  the  warning  system 
at   that   position   should   also   be   deleted.     The 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  39 


E«Fective:  August   15,    1973 


merits  of  the  warning  system  at  the  center  posi- 
tion, in  the  form  of  increased  belt  usage,  are 
considered  by  NHTSA  to  outweigh  its  draw- 
backs. Although  it  is  fair  to  say  that  the  warn- 
ing system  will  be  somewhat  more  likely  to  fail 
with  three  sensors  in  the  system  than  with  two 
sensors,  the  agency  does  not  consider  the  incre- 
ment to  be  sufficient  to  justify  deleting  the  warn- 
ing system.  The  temporary  difficulties  that 
Chrysler  and  American  Motors  will  experience 
in  the  severance  of  the  interlock  from  the  warn- 
ing system  are  also  not  considered  sufficient 
grounds  for  deletion  of  the  warning  system. 
Section  S4.1.2.3.1(b)  is  therefore  adopted  as  pro- 
posed in  Notice  26.  The  remaining  provisions  of 
S4.1.2.3  were  not  objected  to,  and  are  also  adopted 
as  proposed. 

A  request  to  clarify  section  S7.4.1,  by  amend- 
ing the  second  sentence  of  the  section  to  refer  to 
"each  occupied  front  outboard  seating  position," 
has  been  favorably  considered  and  is  adopted 
hereby. 

An  amendment  to  S7.4.3  was  proposed  to  allow 
an  additional  "free-start"  mode,  whereby  the 
manufacturer  could  install  a  timer  that  would 
be  actuated  by  the  seat  switch  and  that  would 
allow  the  vehicle  to  be  started  without  belt  op- 
eration within  a  period  of  up  to  three  minutes 
after  tlie  driver  leaves  his  seat.  Reaction  to  the 
proposal  was  favorable.  In  particular,  the  Na- 
tional Parking  Association  indicated  that  such  a 
provision  would  alleviate  most  problems  in  the 
parking  of  cars  in  garages.  The  amendment  is 
being  adopted  as  proposed. 

The  proposed  addition  of  section  S7.4.5  proved 
unexpectedly  controversial,  due  to  an  apparent 
divergence  of  opinion  on  the  question  of  whether, 
without  S7.4.5,  a  seat  bounce  switch  would  be 
permitted  for  the  interlock  system.  It  has  been 
the  opinion  of  NHTSA  that  the  interlock  re- 
quirements do  not  permit  the  starter  to  operate 
in  the  event  that  a  person  who  has  operated  the 
belt  in  the  correct  sequence  gets  off  the  seat  and 
returns  to  it  before  attempting  to  start  the  car. 
The  majority  of  manufacturers  construed  the 
interlock  requirements  as  permitting  operation  in 
the  situation  just  described,  and  had  therefore 
designed  their  systems  with  seat  bounce  switches. 
Rather  than  appearing  permissive,  as  intended. 


the  10  second  bounce  switch  proposed  by  S7.4.5 
was  therefore  seen  by  most  manufacturers  as 
unduly  restrictive. 

Upon  consideration  of  the  comments,  the 
agency  has  concluded  that  the  predominant  va- 
rieties of  bounce  switch  described  by  the  com- 
ments can  be  accommodated  by  a  modest  revision 
of  the  section.  Two  main  types  of  switch  were 
described,  one  involving  a  timer  set  for  intervals 
of  from  ten  seconds  to  a  minute  and  a  half  or 
more,  and  the  other  involving  the  door  switches 
in  the  circuit,  so  that  after  being  correctly  se- 
quenced the  system  would  allow  the  car  to  be 
started  despite  "bounces"  of  any  duration,  so 
long  as  the  doors  have  not  been  opened.  As 
adopted,  the  section  permits  a  manufacturer  to 
choose  either  system.  If  he  chooses  a  timed  sys- 
tem, he  may  allow  any  time  up  to  three  minutes. 
Each  of  the  varying  time  periods  described  in 
the  comments  would  therefore  be  allowed. 

The  proposed  alternative  interlock  system, 
S7.5,  was  treated  favorably  or  neutrally  in  the 
comments,  although  none  indicated  plans  to  adopt 
such  a  system.  The  agency  continues  to  regard 
the  alternative  system  favorably,  but  on  review 
of  the  comments  has  concluded  that  there  is  merit 
to  the  suggestion  that  the  convenience  features 
established  for  the  primary  interlock  system 
should  also  be  applied  to  the  alternative  sj'stem. 
In  addition,  it  appears  desirable  to  incorporate  a 
requirement  for  warning  system  operation  similar 
to  that  of  S7.3.5.4  to  tell  a  driver  who  has  not 
operated  his  belt  why  the  car  cannot  be  moved. 
Final  action  on  the  proposed  S7.5  is  therefore 
being  delayed  in  order  to  obtain  comments  on 
additional  features  of  the  system  that  are  to  be 
proposed  in  an  upcoming  notice. 

II.  Other  related  matters.  After  the  publica- 
tion of  Notice  26,  several  comments  and  petitions 
were  received  on  the  subject  of  seat  belts  and  the 
seat  belt  options.  In  its  comment  to  Notice  26, 
Toyota  restated  its  earlier  request  for  amendment 
of  Standard  209  to  permit  narrower  webbing  for 
portions  of  the  belt  that  do  not  touch  the  occu- 
pant. Favorable  action  on  this  request  is  pro- 
posed in  a  notice  published  in  today's  edition  of 
t\i&  Federal,  Register  (38  F.R.  12414). 

In  a  petition  for  rulemaking  submitted  May  15, 
1973,     Nissan    Motor    Company    requested    an 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  40 


\  amendment  of  the  seat  belt  option  that  is  in 
')  effect  until  August  15,  1973  (S4.1.1.3).  The  op- 
tion presently  requires  all  front  outboard  seat 
belts  to  meet  a  breakage  test  in  a  30  mph  barrier 
crash  (S4.1. 1.3(c) ).  Nissan  stated  that  the  find- 
ing in  Notice  26  that  the  breakage  test  does  not 
contribute  significantly  to  the  strength  of  the 
belt  should  be  extended  to  belts  in  vehicles  manu- 
factured before  August  15,  1973,  as  well  as  to 
belts  in  vehicles  manufactured  after  that  date, 
and  that  S4.1. 1.3(c)  should  be  deleted  accord- 
ingly. The  agency  agrees  with  Nissan  that  that 
finding  in  Notice  26  is  equally  applicable  to  pre- 
August  vehicles,  but  it  does  not  consider  an 
amendment  of  the  standard  necessary  to  afford 
the  relief  Nissan  requests.  Although  the  opinions 
in  Chrysler  v.  DOT,  474  F.2d  659  (6th  Circuit 
1972)  and  Ford  v.  NETS  A,  473  F.2d  1241  (6th 
Circuit,  1973),  did  not  deal  directly  with  the 
non-passive  options  in  effect  before  August  15, 
1973,  a  i-ide  effect  of  the  court's  invalidation  of 
the  test  dummy  specifications  of  S8.1.8  is  to 
leave  the  belt  breakage  test  of  S4.1.1.3(c)  with- 
out a  means  of  measurement. 

The  agency  has  concluded  that  the  belt  break- 
I  age  test  of  S4.1. 1.3(c)  is  without  effect  in  the 
absence  of  a  test  dummy.  It  will  therefore  not 
seek  to  enforce  the  requirement.  In  view  of  the 
short  time  remaining  before  S4.1.1.3  and  other 
current  options  lapse  in  favor  of  the  August  15, 
1973  options,  this  interpretation  will  have  a 
marginal  effect  on  currently  produced  veliicles, 
all  of  which  have  been  certified  as  complying 
with  the  breakage  test.  It  may,  however,  be  of 
benefit  to  manufacturers  who  plan  to  introduce 
their  1974  models  prior  to  August  15,  1973. 

Several  comments  stated  that  the  passive  re- 
straint requirement  for  August  15,  1975,  and 
August  15,  1977,  should  be  deleted  from  the  text 
of  the  standard  as  a  result  of  Chrysler  v.  DOT, 
supra,  and  reinstated  only  after  issuance  of  the 
dummy  regulation.  A  petition  filed  by  the  Center 
for  Auto  Safety,  in  contrast,  seeks  to  have  the 
August  15,  1975,  date  established  as  promptly  as 
possible.  The  NHTSA  position  is  that  the  deci- 
sion in  Chrysler  v.  DOT  suspends  the  mandatory 
passive  restraint  requirements,  regardless  of 
whether  they  remain  in  the  text  of  the  rule,  and 
that  their  deletion  at  this  time  would  have  no 


Effective:  August   15,    1973 

effect  other  than  to  require  additional  work  at  a 
later  date. 

Rulemaking,  in  addition  to  that  now  in  prog- 
ress with  respect  to  the  optional  passive  require- 
ments, will  be  necessary  in  order  to  reestablish 
the  date  when  passive  restraints  will  be  required. 
Before  such  rulemaking  can  be  initiated,  NHTSA 
is  obliged  to  consider  the  comments  it  receives  on 
tlie  proposed  test  dummy  regulation. 

There  has  been  some  residual  uncertainty  as  to 
the  effect  of  the  denial  in  Notice  26  of  the  peti- 
tions requesting  restraint  options  in  place  of,  or 
in  addition  to,  the  interlock  system.  The  agency 
denied  the  petitions  "to  the  extent  that  the  peti- 
tions seek  removal  of  the  interlock  requirement 
from  the  front  outboard  seats.  .  .  ."  It  intended 
thereby  to  deny  those  petitions  that  would  have 
added  a  fourth  restraint  option  in  addition  to  the 
interlock  as  well  as  to  deny  those  that  sought 
deletion  of  the  interlock,  and  the  language  of 
denial  in  Notice  26  should  be  so  construed. 

The  alternative  interlock  system  proposed  by 
Mr.  Jesse  R.  Hollins,  which  was  not  discussed 
in  detail  in  Notice  26,  had  been  reviewed  at  the 
time  of  Notice  26  and  was  intended  to  be  denied. 
The  agency  has  again  reviewed  Mr.  Hollins'  peti- 
tion and  has  again  concluded  that  the  benefits  of 
his  proposed  system  do  not  warrant  the  creation 
of  such  an  alternative  interlock  system.  His  pe- 
tition is  accordingly  denied. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  208,  49  CFR  §  571.208, 
is  amended  in  pertinent  part  as  set  forth  below. 
Because  this  amendment  imposes  no  additional 
burdens  an  effective  date  earlier  than  180  days 
after  issuance  of  this  notice  is  found  to  be  in  the 
public  interest. 

Effective  date :  August  15, 1973. 

Issued  under  the  authority  of  sections  103  and 
119  of  the  National  Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Act,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407 ;  delegations  of 
authority  at  38  F.R.  12147. 

Issued  on  June  15, 1973. 

James  E.  Wilson 
Associate  Administrator 
Traffic   Safety    Programs 

38  F.R.  16072 
June  20,  1973 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  41-42 


EfFccllve:   August    15,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  208 

Occupant  Crash  Protection 
(Docket  No.   73-8;   Notice  2) 


The  purposes  of  this  notice  are  (1)  to  adopt  a 
regulation  that  specifies  a  test  dummy  to  measure 
the  performance  of  vehicles  in  crashes,  and  (2)  to 
incorporate  the  dummy  into  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  208  (49  CFR  §571.208), 
for  the  limited  purpose  of  evaluating  vehicles 
with  jiassive  restraint  systems  manufactured 
under  the  first  and  second  restraint  options  be- 
tween August  15,  1973,  and  August  15,  1975. 
The  question  of  the  restraint  system  require- 
ments to  be  in  effect  after  August  15,  1975,  is 
not  addressed  by  this  notice  and  will  be  the  sub- 
ject of  future  rulemaking  action. 

The  test  dummy  regulation  (49  CFR  Part 
572)  and  the  accompanying  amendment  to 
Standard  No.  208  were  proposed  in  a  notice 
published  April  2,  197.3  (38  F.R.  8455).  The 
diunmy  described  in  the  regulation  is  to  be  used 
to  evaluate  vehicles  manufactured  under  sec- 
tions S4.1.2.1  and  S4.1.2.2,  (the  first  and  second 
options  in  the  period  from  August  15,  1973,  to 
August  15,  1975),  and  the  section  incorporating 
the  dummy  is  accordingly  limited  to  those  sec- 
tions. The  dummy  has  not  been  specified  for 
use  with  any  protection  systems  after  August  15, 
1975,  nor  with  active  belt  systems  under  the 
third  restraint  option  (S4.1.2.3).  The  recent 
decision  in  Ford  v.  NETS  A,  473  F.  2d  1241 
(6th  Cir.  1973),  removed  the  injury  criteria 
from  such  systems.  To  make  the  dummy  ap- 
plicable to  belts  under  the  third  option,  the 
agency  would  have  to  provide  additional  notice 
and  opportunity   for  comment. 

By  invalidating  the  former  test  dummy 
specification,  the  decision  in  Chrysler  v.  DOT, 
472  F.  2d  659  (6th  Cir.  1972),  affected  the  re- 
straint options  in  effect  before  August  15,  1975, 
as  well   as  the  mandatory  passive   restraint   re- 


quirements that  were  to  be  effective  after  that 
date.  A  manufacturer  who  built  cars  with 
passive  restraints  under  one  of  the  options  would 
tlierefore  be  unable  to  certify  the  cars  as  com- 
plying with  the  standard,  as  illustrated  by  the 
necessity  for  General  Motors  to  obtain  a  limited 
exemption  from  the  standard  in  order  to  com- 
plete the  remainder  of  a  run  of  1,000  air-bag 
equipped  cars. 

Tlie  immediate  purpose  of  this  rulemaking  is 
to  reconstitute  those  portions  of  the  standard 
that  will  enable  manufacturers  to  build  passive 
I'estraint  vehicles  during  the  period  when  they 
are  optional.  The  test  dummy  selected  by  the 
agency  is  the  "GM  Hybird  II",  a  composite 
developed  by  General  Motors  largely  from  com- 
mercially available  components.  GM  had  re- 
quested NHTSA  to  adopt  the  Hybrid  II  on  the 
grounds  that  it  had  been  successfully  used  in 
vehicle  tests  with  passive  restraint  systems,  and 
was  as  good  as,  or  better  than,  any  other  im- 
mediately available  dummy  system.  On  con- 
sideration of  all  available  evidence,  the  NHTSA 
concurs  in  this  judgment.  One  fact  weighing 
in  favor  of  the  decision  is  that  General  Motors 
has  used  this  dummy  to  measure  the  conformity 
of  its  vehicles  to  the  passive  protection  require- 
ments of  Standard  208,  in  preparation  for  the 
announced  introduction  of  up  to  100,000  air- 
bag-equipped  vehicles  during  the  1974  mojlel 
year. 

No  other  \elHcle  manufacturer  has  announced 
plans  for  the  production  of  passive  restraint 
systems  during  the  optional  phase,  nor  has  any 
other  vehicle  manufacturer  come  forward  with 
suggestions  for  alternatives  to  Hybrid  II.  The 
NHTSA  would  have  considered  other  dummies 
had  some  other  manufacturer  indicated  that  it 


PART  571 ;  S  208— PRE  43 


Effective:   August    15,    1973 


was  planning  to  produce  passive  restraint  ve- 
hicles dnriiif^  the  option  period  and  that  some 
other  dummy  had  to  be  selected  in  order  to 
allow  them  to  proceed  with  their  plans.  If  there 
had  been  any  such  plans,  XHTSA  would  have 
made  every  effort  to  insure  that  a  test  device 
satisfactory  to  said  manufacturer  would  have 
been  selected. 

This  agency  recognizes  that  since  various  types 
of  dummy  systems  have  been  in  use  under  the 
previous  specification,  any  selection  of  one 
dummy,  as  is  required  by  the  Chrysler  decision, 
will  necessitate  readjustments  by  some  manu- 
facturers. However,  considering  the  quantity  of 
Gil"s  production,  the  scope  and  advanced  state 
of  its  i^assive  restraint  development  program, 
and  the  fact  that  the  Hybrid  II  does  not  differ 
radically  from  other  dummies  currently  in  use, 
in  the  NHTSA's  judgment  that  dummy  repre- 
sents the  best  and  least  costly  choice.  That 
conclusion  has  not  been  contradicted  by  the 
conunents  to  the  docket. 

Tlie  agency  will  not  make  any  final  decision 
regarding  reinstatement  of  mandatory  passive 
restraint  requirements  without  further  notice  and 
opportunity  for  comment.  Should  the  agency 
propose  mandatory  passive  restraint  require- 
ments, tlie  question  of  the  conformity  of  the 
dummy  tiiat  is  cliosen  with  the  instructions  of 
tlie  court  in  Cliiynler  will  again  be  open  for 
comment.  The  NHTSA  strongly  encourages  the 
continuance  of  the  dummy  test  programs  men- 
tioned in  the  comments,  in  the  hope  that  any 
problems  that  may  arise  can  be  identified  and 
resolved  before  the  dummy  specifications  for 
later  periods  are  issued. 

The  Hybrid  II  dunmiy  has  been  found  by 
NHTSA  to  be  a  satisfactory  and  objective  test 
instrument.  In  sled  and  barrier  tests  conducted 
l)y  GM  with  tlie  GM  restraint  systems  and  in 
sled  tests  conducted  by  Calspan  Corp.  on  behalf 
of  NHTSA,  the  Hybrid  II  has  produced  results 
that  are  consistent  and  repeatable.  This  is  not 
to  say  that  each  test  at  the  same  nominal  speed 
and  deceleration  lias  produced  identical   values. 

In  testing  with  impact  sleds,  and  to  an  even 
greater  extent  witii  crash-tested  vehicles,  the 
test  environment  itself  is  complex  and  neces- 
sarily subject  to  variations  that  aiuf*  the  results. 
The  test  data  show,  however,  that  the  variance 


from   dummy   to  dummy   in  these  tests  is  suf-      ^ 
ficiently  small  that  a  manufacturer  would  have      fl 
no    difficulty    in    deciding    whether    his    vehicle      ^ 
would  be  likely  to  fail  if  tested  by  NHTSA. 

The  provisions  of  the  dummy  regulation  have 
been  modified  somewhat  from  those  proposed  in 
the  notice  of  i)roposed  rulemaking,  largely  as  a 
result  of  comments  from  GM.  Minor  corrections 
liave  been  made  in  the  drawings  and  materials 
specifications  as  a  result  of  comments  by  GM  and 
the  principal  dummy  suppliers.  The  dummy 
specification,  as  finally  adopted,  rei)roduces  the 
Hybrid  II  in  each  detail  of  its  design  and  pro- 
vides, as  a  calibration  check,  a  series  of  perform- 
ance criteria  based  on  tlie  observed  performance 
of  normally  functioning  Hybrid  II  components. 
The  performance  criteria  are  wholly  derivative 
and  are  intended  to  filter  out  dummy  aberrations 
tiiat  escai)e  detection  in  the  manufacturing 
process  or  that  occur  as  a  result  of  impact 
damage.  ■  The  re\isions  in  the  performance 
criteria,  as  discussed  hereafter,  are  intended  to 
eliminate  potential  variances  in  the  test  pro- 
cedures and  to  hold  the  performance  of  the 
Hybrid  II  within  the  narrowest  possible  range. 

General  Motors  suggested  the  abandonment  of 
the  definition  of  "upright  position"  in  section  / 
572.4(c),  and  tlie  substitution  of  a  set-up  pro- 
cedure in  section  572.11  to  serve  both  as  a  posi- 
tioning method  for  the  performance  tests  and 
as  a  meansurement  method  for  the  dummy's 
dimensions  as  shown  in  the  drawings.  The 
NHTSA  does  not  object  to  the  use  of  an  ex- 
panded set-up  procedure,  but  has  decided  to 
retain  the  term  "ujjright  position"  with  appro- 
priate   reference    to    tiie   new    section    572.11(1). 

Tlie  structural  properties  test  of  section 
572.5(c).  which  had  i)roposed  that  the  dummy 
keej)  its  properties  after  being  subjected  to  tests 
producing  readings  25  percent  above  the  injury 
criteria  of  Standard  No.  208,  has  been  revised 
to  pi-ovide  instead  that  the  properties  must  be 
retained  after  \ehicle  tests  in  accordance  with 
Standard  No.  208. 

The  head  performance  criteria  are  adopted  as 
])roposed.  Tlie  procedures  have  been  amended 
to  insure  that  the  forehead  will  be  oriented  be- 
low the  nose  prior  to  the  drop,  to  avoid  inter- 
ference from  the  nose.  In  response  to  comments 
by    the    Road    Research    Laboratory,    American 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  44 


Effective:   August    15,    1973 


Motors,  an(l  (tM,  tin  interval  of  at  least  2  hours 
between  te^ts  is  specified  to  allow  full  restoration 
of  compressed  areas  of  the  head  skin. 

The  necjv  performance  criteria  are  revised  in 
several  respects,  in  keeping  with  GM's  recom- 
mendations. Tlie  pendulum  impact  surface, 
siiown  in  Figure  4,  has  been  modified  in  ac- 
cordance with  GM's  design.  The  zero  time 
point  has  been  specified  as  the  instant  the 
pendulum  contacts  the  honeycomb,  the  instruc- 
tions for  determining  chordal  displacement  have 
l)een  modified,  and  the  pulse  shaj^e  of  the 
pendulum  deceleration  curve  has  been  differently 
specified.  The  maximum  allowable  deceleration 
for  the  head  has  been  increased  slightly  to  26g. 
In  response  to  suggestions  by  the  Koad  Research 
Laboratory  and  the  Japan  Automobile  Manu- 
facturers Association  (JAMA),  as  well  as  GM, 
a  tolerance  has  been  specified  for  the  pendulum's 
impact  velocity  to  allow  for  minor  variances  in 
the  honeycomb  material. 

AVith  respect  to  the  thorax  test,  each  of  the 
minor  procedural  changes  requested  by  GM  has 
been  adopted.  As  with  the  head,  a  minimum 
recovery  time  is  specified  for  the  thorax.  The 
seating  surface  is  specified  in  greater  detail,  and 
the  test  probe  orientation  has  been  revised  to 
refer  to  its  height  above  the  seating  surface. 
The  test  probe  itself  is  expressly  stated  to  have 
a  rigid  face,  by  amendment  to  section  572.11, 
thereby  reflecting  the  probes  actually  used  by 
XHTSA  and  GM.  A  rigid  face  for  the  probe 
was  also  requested  by  Mercedes  Benz. 

The  test  procedures  for  the  spine  and  abdomen 
tests  are  specified  in  much  greater  detail  than 
before,  on  the  basis  of  suggestions  by  G^I  and 
otiiers  that  tiie  former  procedures  left  too  much 
room  for  variance.  The  test  fixtures  for  the 
spinal  test  orientation  proposed  by  GM.  and 
its  proposed  method  of  load  application  have 
been  adopted.  The  i)arts  of  the  dummy  to  be 
assembled  for  tliese  tests  are  specifically  recited, 
and  an  initial  50°  fle.xion  of  the  dummy  is  also 
specified.  The  rates  of  load  application  and 
removal,  and  the  method  of  taking  force  read- 
ings are  each  s[)ecified.  The  direction  of  force 
application  is  clarified  in  response  to  a  comment 
by  Volvo. 

The  abdomen  test  is  amended  with  respect  to 
tiie   initial    point   of   force   measurement,  to   re- 


solve a  particular  source  of  disagreement  be- 
tween GM's  data  and  NHTSA's.  The  boundaries 
of  the  abdominal  force-deflection  curve  are 
modified  to  accord  with  the  measurements  taken 
by  GM  subsequent  to  the  issuance  of  the  notice. 
Tiie  rate  of  force  application  is  specified  as  not 
more  than  0.1  inch  per  second,  in  response  to 
comments  by  Mercedes  Benz,  JAMA,  and  GM. 

Tlie  test  i)rocedures  for  the  knee  tests  are  re- 
vised to  specify  the  type  of  seating  surface  used 
and  to  control  the  angle  of  the  lower  legs  in 
accordance  with  suggestions  by  JAMA,  the  Road 
Research  Laboratory,  and  GM.  The  instru- 
mentation specifications  of  section  572.11  are 
amended  to  clarify  the  method  of  attachment 
and  orientation  of  the  thorax  acceleroineters  and 
to  specify  the  channel  classes  for  the  chest 
potentiometer,  the  pendulum  accelerometer,  and 
the  test  probe  accelerometer,  as  requested  by 
several  comments. 

The  design  and  assembly  drawings  for  the 
test  dummy  are  too  cumbersome  to  publish  in 
the  Federal  Reghter.  During  the  comment 
period  on  the  April  2  notice,  the  agency  main- 
tained master  copies  of  the  drawings  in  the 
docket  and  jilaced  the  reproducible  mylar 
masters  from  which  the  copies  were  made  with  a 
commercial  blueprint  facility  from  whom  in- 
terested i)arties  could  obtain  copies.  The 
XHTSA  has  decided  to  continue  this  practice 
and  is  accordingly  placing  a  master  set  of 
drawings  in  the  docket  and  the  reproducible 
masters  for  these  drawings  with  a  blueprint 
facility. 

The  drawings  as  adopted  by  this  notice  differ 
only  in  minor  detail  from  those  that  accompanied 
the  .\prii  2  notice.  The  majority  of  the  changes, 
incorporated  into  corrected  drawings,  have 
already  been  given  to  those  ))ersons  who  ordered 
coi)ies.  The  letter  of  June  13,  1973,  that  ac- 
companied the  corrected  drawings  lias  been 
placed  in  the  docket.  The  June  corrections  are 
incorporated  into  the  final  drawing  package. 
Additional  adjustments  are  made  hereby  to  re- 
flect better  tlie  weight  distribution  of  separated 
segments  of  the  dummy,  to  allow  other  materials 
to  be  used  for  head  ballast,  and  to  specify  the 
instrument  for  measuring  skin  thickness.  The 
details  of  these  changes  are  recited  in  a  memo- 
liuidum  incorporated  into  the  drawing  package. 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  45 


Effective:   August    15,    1973 


E:icl>  of  the  final  drawings  is  designated  by 
the  legend  "NHTSA  Kelease  8/1/73".  Each 
drawing  so  designated  is  hereby  incorporated  as 
part  of  the  test  dummy  specifications  of  49  CFR 
Part  572.  Subsequent  changes  in  the  drawings 
will  not  be  made  without  notice  and  opportunity 
for  comment. 

The  incorporation  of  the  Part  572  test  dummy 
into  Standard  No.  208  makes  obsolete  several 
test  conditions  of  the  standard  that  had  been 
adopted  to  supplement  the  former  test  dummy 
specifications.  The  location,  orientation,  and 
sensitivity  of  test  instrumentation  formerly 
specified  by  sections  S8.1.15  through  S8.1.18  are 
now  controlled  by  Part  572  and  are  no  longer 
necessary  within  Standard  No.  208.  Similarly, 
the  use  of  rubber  components  for  the  head,  neck 
and  torso  joints  as  specified  in  Part  572,  supplant 
the  joint  setting  specifications  for  those  joints 
in  section  S8.1.10  of  the  standard.  The  NHTSA 
has  determined  that  the  deletion  of  the  above 
portions  of  the  Standard  No.  208  will  have  no 
effect  on  the  substantive  requirements  of  the 
standard  and  that  notice  and  public  procedure 
thereon  are  unnecessary. 


In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Title  49, 
Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  is  amended  by  the 
revision  of  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No. 
208  (49  CFR  §571.208).  .  .  . 

In  view  of  the  pressing  need  for  a  test  dummy 
to  permit  the  continued  development  of  passive 
restraint  systems,  and  the  fact  that  it  presently 
only  relates  to  a  new  option  for  compliance,  the 
NHTSA  finds  that  there  is  good  cause  to  adopt 
an  immediate  effective  date.  Accordingly,  Part 
572  is  effective  August  1,  1973,  and  the  amend- 
ment to  Standard  208  is  effective  August  15,  1973. 

Issued  under  the  authority  of  sections  103  and 
119  of  the  National  Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Act,  P.L.  89-563,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407, 
and  the  delegation  of  authority  at  38  F.R.  12147. 

Issued  on  July  26,  1973. 

James  E.  Wilson 
Associate  Administrator 
Traffic  Safety  Programs 

38   F.R.  20449 
August   1,   1973 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  46 


Effective:    September    1,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  208 

Occupant  Crash  Protection 
(Docket  No.  69-7;  Notice  29) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  postpone  the 
effective  date  of  the  requirements  of  Standards 
No.  208,  Occupant  Crash  Protection,  and  216, 
Roof  Crush  Resistance,  applicable  to  the  upcom- 
ing model  year,  from  August  15,  1973  to  Sep- 
tember 1,  1973. 

The  amendment  of  the  effective  date  was  pro- 
posed in  a  notice  published  July  17,  1973  (38 
F.R.  19049),  in  response  to  a  petition  filed  by 
Chrysler  Corporation.  Chrysler  had  stated  that 
the  build-out  of  their  1973  models  was  in  danger 
of  running  beyond  the  August  15  date,  due  to  a 
variety  of  factors  beyond  the  company's  control. 
In  proposing  the  postponement  of  the  date,  the 
NHTSA  noted  that  the  August  15  date  had  been 
chosen  to  coincide  with  the  normal  changeover 
date  and  that  a  delay  would  not  appear  to  have 
any  effect  beyond  allowing  a  slightly  prolonged 
build-out. 

The  two  comments  submitted  in  response  to 
the  proposal  were  both  favorable.  The  agency 
has  not  discovered  any  adverse  consequences  of 
a  delay  which  would  make  it  inadvisable,  and 


has  therefore  decided  to  postpone  the  effective 
date  as  proposed. 

In  light  of  the  foregoing,  49  CFR  571.208, 
Standard  No.  208,  Occupant  Crash  Protection, 
is  amended  by  changing  the  date  of  August  14, 
1973,  appearing  in  S4.1.1  to  August  31,  1973, 
and  by  changing  the  date  of  August  15,  1973, 
appearing  in  84.1.2  to  September  1,  1973.  The 
effective  date  of  49  CFR  571.216,  Standard  No. 
216,  Roof  Crush  Resistance,  is  changed  from 
August  15,  1973,  to  September  1,  1973. 

Because  this  amendment  relieves  a  restriction 
and  imposes  no  additional  burden,  an  effective 
date  of  less  than  30  days  from  the  date  of  issu- 
ance is  found  to  be  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  10, 1973. 

James  B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

38  F.R.  21930 
August  14,  1973 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  47-48 


Effective:   January    10,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  208 

Occupant  Crash  Protection 
(Docket  No.  73-24;   Notice  2) 


This  notice  amends  Standard  No.  208,  Occu- 
pant crash  protection,  49  CFR  571.208,  to  permit 
determination  of  the  maintenance  schedule  for 
crash  deployed  occupant  protection  systems  by 
reference  to  vehicle  mileage  and  year  and  date 
of  vehicle  manufacture.  The  amendment  re- 
sponds to  a  rulemaking  petition  submitted  by 
General  Motors  on  May  21,  1973. 

The  present  procedure  for  determining  main- 
tenance necessitates  a  change  in  labels  each 
month.  The  two  new  methods  published  in  a 
notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  on  October  24, 
1973  (38  F.R.  29341),  avoid  the  label  change  and 
are  phrased  in  typical  warranty  terms  familiar 
to  consumers.  All  comments  received  were  in 
favor  of  the  proi^osal  and  the  standard  is  being 
amended  accordingly. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  S4.5.1  of 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  208,  Occu- 


pant   crash    protection,    49     CFR     571.208,    is 

amended 

Effective  date:  January  10,  1974.  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. 

(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  3, 1974. 


James  B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

39  F.R.  1513 
January  10  1974 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  49-50 


Effective:  May  27,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  208 

Occupant  Crash  Protection 
(Docket  No.  74-4;  Notice  2) 


This  notice  amends  Standard  No.  208,  Occu- 
pant crash  protection,  49  CFR  571.208,  by  speci- 
fying emergency  and  special  release  requirements 
for  seat  belt  assemblies  that  require  no  action  by 
vehicle  occupants  (passive  belts).  This  notice 
also  sets  out  procedures  for  determination  of 
whether  a  belt  assembly  qualities  as  a  passive 
restraint  system  in  accordance  with  an  interpre- 
tation published  May  4,  1971  (36  F.R.  4600). 

The  passive  belt  release  mechanism  was  pro- 
posed to  grant  a  petition  for  rulemaking  by 
Volkswagenwerk  Aktiengesellschaft  and  Volks- 
wagen of  America,  Inc.  directed  toward  intro- 
duction of  its  passive  belt  system  in  its  1975 
model  cars  (39  F.R.  3834,  January  30,  1974). 
The  proposed  release  mechanism,  which  reflects 
comments  to  an  earlier  proposal  on  release  from 
passive  belt  systems  (36  F.R.  12866,  July  8. 
1971)  consists  of  a  push-button  latch  release, 
guarded  by  a  warning  buzzer  and  interlock. 

With  the  exception  of  Britax,  Ltd.,  all  com- 
ments favored  a  requirement  for  a  manual  re- 
lease mechanism  in  passive  belt  systems,  although 
most  comments  suggested  changes  in  the  pro- 
posal. One  comment  addressed  to  the  adequacy 
of  the  Volkswagen  belt  system  apparently  did 
not  understand  that  any  passive  belt  system  must 
meet  the  same  injury  criteria  as  any  other  pas- 
sive system. 

Britax  pointed  out  the  possibility  of  abuse  of 
the  manual  release  mechanism,  but  the  NHTSA 
has  concluded  that  the  advantages  of  a  release 
mechanism,  as  discussed  in  Notice  1,  outweigh 
the  disadvantages  of  possible  abuse.  The  temp- 
tation to  defeat  the  passive  belt  is  less  than  it  is 
with  active  belts,  because  tlie  veliicle  starts  with 
the  least  inconvenience  when  the  belt  is  i^ermitted 
to  work  correctly. 


The  American  Safety  Equipment  Corporation 
suggested  that  lever  or  pull-knob  action  would 
be  a  more  satisfactory  release  mechanism  than 
the  push-button  for  occupants  who  only  use  the 
release  infrequently  and  in  emergency  situations. 
There  is  a  considerable  advantage  in  uniformity, 
however,  for  those  who  do  not  normally  use  pas- 
sive belt  systems.  The  NHTSA  specifies  push- 
button action  for  all  belt  systems  so  that  persons 
familiar  with  any  belt  system  in  any  vehicle  can 
operate  the  belt  system  of  an  unfamiliar  vehicle. 
A  person  who  operates  typical  3-point  active 
belts  in  his  own  car  should  be  able  to  use  the 
same  push-button  release  action  when  he  is  a 
guest  in  a  passive-belt  equipped  vehicle. 

Manufacturers  suggested  several  changes  in 
the  specifications  for  the  warning  buzzer  and 
interlock  guarding  mechanism.  American  Mo- 
tors recommended  that  the  manufacturer  be  able 
to  select  either  a  starter  interlock  or  the  alterna- 
tive power  train  interlock  which  has  been  pro- 
posed by  the  NHTSA.  While  there  appear  to 
be  no  disadvantages  in  such  an  option,  the  inter- 
lock requirements  need  not  be  changed  until  the 
NHTSA  has  acted  on  the  alternative  interlock 
proposal. 

As  proposed,  the  guarding  features  would  op- 
erate if  the  release  mechanism  were  unfastened. 
The  Japan  Automobile  Manufacturers  Associa- 
tion suggested  addition  of  the  option  available 
in  sequential  interlocks,  which  operates  the  fea- 
tures if  the  belt  length  on  the  retractor  indicates 
that  the  belt  is  not  properly  deployed.  Such  an 
option  would  be  inappropriate,  however,  where 
there  were  no  sequential  system,  because  it  would 
permit  easy  and  permanent  defeat  of  the  system 
by  knotting  the  belt  after  it  had  once  been  drawn 
from  the  retractor. 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  51 


EffecHve:   May   27,    1974 


The  proposal  would  have  added  a  reference  in 
S4.1.2.2  to  the  84.5.3  passive  belt  exception  in 
order  to  clarify  their  relationship.  General 
Motors  stated  that,  in  actuality,  the  reference 
confused  the  relationship  of  S4  and  S4.5.3  by 
implying  that  the  S4.5.3  exception  is  limited  to 
S4.1.2.2.  The  proposed  addition  will  not  be 
made. 

Volkswagen  suggested  a  clarification  of  the 
S7.2(b)  latch  mechanism  requirement  to  remove 
the  implication  that  a  lap  belt  is  required  with 
the  upper  torso  restraint,  and  this  change  has 
been  made. 

Volkswagen,  in  a  ]\Iarch  8,  1974,  letter  request 
for  interpretation,  and  General  ^Motors  in  its 
comments,  addressed  the  broad  question  of  what 
constitutes  a  "passive"  restraint  system — one 
that  requires  "no  action  by  vehicle  occupants" — 
as  those  concepts  are  used  in  Standard  No.  208. 
The  NHTSA  published  an  interpretation  of 
what  constitutes  a  "passive"  restraint  system  on 
May  4,  1971  (36  F.R.  4600)  : 

The  concept  of  an  occupant  protection 
system  that  requires  "no  action  by  ve- 
hicle occupants"  as  used  in  Standard  No. 
208  is  intended  to  designate  a  system 
that  requires  no  action  other  than  would 
be  required  if  the  protective  system  were 
not  present  in  the  vehicle. 

The  NHTSA  responded  to  Volkswagen's  re- 
quest with  a  letter  further  interpreting  this 
concept  as  follows: 

The  question  of  what  constitutes  "no  action  by 
vehicle  occupants"  in  a  vehicle  equipped  with 
(presumptively)  passive  belts  is  best  considered 
in  two  stages:  (1)  entry  and  exit  from  the  ve- 
hicle, and  (2)  positioning  of  the  belt  for  safety 
and  comfort. 

Entry  and  exit  action  "that  requires  no  action 
other  than  would  be  required  if  the  protective 
system  were  not  present  in  the  vehicle"  means 
that  a  person  is  not  hampered  in  his  normal 
movements  by  the  presence  of  the  belt  system. 
A  test  of  this  is  whether  a  human  occupant  of 
approximately  the  dimensions  of  the  oOth  percen- 
tile adult  male  finds  it  necessary  to  take  addi- 
tional actions  to  displace  the  belt  or  associated 
components  in  order  to  enter  or  leave  the  seating 


position  in  question.  An  example  of  impermis- 
sible action  would  be  the  necessity  of  manually 
pushing  a  belt  out  of  the  way  to  gain  access  to 
the  seat.  Displacement  of  the  components  inci- 
dental to  entry  and  exit,  or  merely  for  the  con- 
venience of  the  occupant  would  not  be  prohibited. 
Examples  of  permissible  displacement  would  be 
brushing  against  the  upper  torso  i-estraint  during 
seating,  or  grasping  the  torso  restraint  to  close 
the  door. 

The  second  question  relates  to  the  usefulness 
of  the  system  once  the  occupant  lias  been  seated. 
The  essence  of  a  passive  restraint  is  that  it  pro- 
vides at  least  the  minimum  level  of  protection 
without  relying  on  occupant  action  to  deploy  the 
restraint.  At  this  stage,  then,  the  question  is 
whether  an  occupant  who  has  seated  himself 
without  taking  any  "additional  action"  is  in  fact 
protected  in  a  30  mi/h  impact.  This  can  be 
measured  by  conducting  the  impact  tests  with 
the  belt  positioned  on  the  test  dummy  in  the 
orientation  that  results  when  a  human  occupant 
enters  the  vehicle  according  to  the  first  test  de- 
scribed above.  It  would  not  be  required  that  the 
belt  position  itself  for  maximum  comfort  of  the 
human  occupant,  if  it  met  the  safety  require- 
ments. For  example,  if  the  belt  were  to  fall 
across  the  upper  arm  instead  of  the  clavicle,  but 
still  passed  the  test,  the  system  would  be  consid- 
ered conforming. 

The  procedure  for  conducting  this  evaluation 
would  be  to  have  a  human  occupant  enter  the 
vehicle  without  taking  any  "additional  actions" 
to  displace  the  belt,  to  note  the  location  of  the 
belt  on  him  before  he  exits,  to  position  the  test 
dummy  in  accordance  with  S8.1  of  Standard  208, 
to  position  the  belt  as  it  positioned  itself  on  the 
sample  occupant,  and  then  to  conduct  the  impact 
tests.  The  exit  evaluation  would  require  the 
human  occupant  to  be  seated  with  the  restraint 
normally  deployed  and  then  exit  the  vehicle 
without  needing  to  take  any  separate  actions  to 
displace  the  belt. 

In  light  of  this  interpretation,  the  NHTSA 
does  not  believe  additional  specification  is  re- 
quired in  the  standard  as  requested  by  General 
Motors. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Standard 
No.  208  (49  CFR  571.208)  is  amended.  .  .  . 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  52 


Effective:   May   27,    1974 

Effective  date:  May  27,  1974.    On  the  basis  of  (Sees.  103,  119,  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80  Stat.  718, 

a  determination  that  it  is  in  the  public  interest  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407;  delegation  of  authority  at 

to  permit  the  introduction  of  a  passive  belt  sys-  49  CFR  1.51.) 

tem   concurrently   with   the    1975   passenger   car  Issued  on  April  22,  1974. 

model  changes,  it  is  found  for  good  cause  shown  James   B.  Gregory 

that  an  effective  date  earlier  than  180  days  fol-  Administrator 

lowing  the  date  of  issuance  of  this  amendment  39  F.R.  14593 

is  in  the  public  interest.  April  25,  1974 


I 


\ 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  53-54 

231-083   O  -  17  -  57 


Effective:   October   29,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR   VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   208 

Occupant  Crash   Protection 
(Docket  No.  74-39;   Notice   1) 


This  notice  amends  Standard  No.  208,  Occu- 
pant crash  protection,  49  CFR  .571.208,  by  elim- 
inating the  ignition  interlock.  Parallel  changes 
are  made  to  tlie  passive  seat  belt  provisions 
(S4.5.3)  and  the  .seat  belt  assembly  requirements 
(S7.)  of  the  standard. 

This  amendment  is  responsive  to  recently-en- 
acted legislation  whicli  prohibits,  after  February 
25,  1975,  any  Fedei'al  motor  vehicle  safety  stand- 
ard that  requires  or  provides  for  use  of  a  safety 
belt  interlock  system  or  a  "continuous  buzzer" 
warning.  Pub.  L.  93-492;  §  109  (Oct.  28,  1974). 
The  legislation  further  specifies  that  lap  and 
shoulder  belt  assemblies  .shall  be  installed  until 
the  NHTSA  undertakes  further  rulemaking  on 
alternative  systems.  The  NHTSA  concludes  that 
inunediate  action  to  delete  the  interlock  option 
conforms  to  the  intent  of  the  legislation.  Ac- 
cordingly, S4.1.2..3,  S4.5.3,  and  S7.4  have  been 
modified  as  necessary  to  specify  seat  belt  assem- 
blies without  an  interlock  that  inhibits  operation 
of  the  vehicle  engine. 

The  legislation  does  not  list  the  exact  specifi- 
cations of  the  warning  system  which  will  replace 
the  "continuous  buzzer"  after  120  days,  but  it 
restricts  tlie  buzzer  portion  of  any  future  warn- 
ing to  an  8-second  period  following  operation 
of  the  ignition.  Because  the  legislation  leaves 
considerable  regulatory  discretion  concerning 
warning  systems,  and  a  new  system  may  require 


components  not  presently  in  manufacturers'  in- 
ventories, the  NHTSA  finds  it  necessary  and 
desirable  to  proijose  the  new  requirements  in  a 
separate  notice,  permitting  opportunity  for  con- 
sideration and  submission  of  comments  by  in- 
terested jsersons.  Final  action  will  be  taken  by 
December  27,  1974,  to  specify  a  new  warning 
system  as  required  by  the  statute. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Standard 
No.  208  (49  CFE  571.208)  is  amended 

Effective  date:  October  29,  1974.  Because 
this  amendment  relieves  a  restriction  and  re- 
sponds to  a  Congressional  mandate  expressed  in 
the  Motor  Vehicle  and  Schoolbus  Safety  Amend- 
ments of  1974.  tlie  National  Highway  Traffic 
Safety  Administration  finds,  for  good  cause 
siiown,  that  notice  and  public  procedure  hereon 
are  impracticable  and  unnecessary,  and  tliat  an 
immediate  eft'ective  date  is  in  the  public  interest. 

(Sec.  103,  119,  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80  Stat.  718 
(15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407);  Sec.  109,  111  Pub.  L. 
9.3-492;  delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51.) 

Issued  on  October  29,  1974. 

James   B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

39  F.R.  38380 
October  31,  1974 


PART  571:  S  208— PRE  55-56 


Effective:   December   3,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO   MOTOR   VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   208 

Occupant  Crash   Protection 
(Docket  No.  74-39;   Notice   3) 


This  notice  amends  Standard  No.  208,  Occu- 
pant crash  protection,  49  CFK  571.208,  to  estab- 
lish a  new  warning  system  for  seat  belt  assemblies 
to  replace  the  present  warning  system  after  Fel)- 
ruary  24,  1975.  The  new  system  is  permitted 
as  an  alternative  to  the  present  requirements 
until   P'ebruary  24,  1975. 

Tliis  amendment  responds  to  recently-enacted 
legislation  which  prohibits,  after  February  24, 
1975,  any  Federal  motor  ^-ehicle  safety  standard 
that  requires  or  provides  for  use  of  a  safety  belt 
interlock  or  a  "continuous  buzzer"  warning. 
Pub.  L.  93-492;  §109,  October  27.  1974  (15 
U.S.C.  §  1410(b)).  An  earlier  amendment  of 
the  standard  revoked  the  interlock  option  (09 
F.E.  38380,  October  31,  1974).  In  prohibiting 
the  "continuous  buzzer",  the  legislation  states 
that  an  acceptable  buzzer  would  ojDerate  onlj- 
during  an  8-second  period  after  the  ignition  is 
turned  to  the  "start"  or  "on"  position.  The 
legislation  placed  no  restriction  on  warning 
lights.  The  present  warning  system  provisions 
in  Standard  No.  208  do  not  comply  with  the 
legislative  limit  on  "continuous  buzzers'". 

On  October  29,  1974,  the  NHTSA  proposed  a 
modified  warning  that  would  consist  of  a  con- 
tinuous or  flashing  reminder  light  that  operates 
only  during  the  4-  to  8-second  period  after  the 
ignition  is  operated,  and  a  continuous  or  inter- 
mittent audible  warning  signal  which  operates 
only  during  the  4-  to  8-second  period  after  the 
ignition  is  operated  if  the  driver's  lap  belt  is 
not  in  use  (39  F.E.  38391,  October  31,  1974). 
The  light  would  operate  independently  of  belt 
use,  so  that  the  "Fasten  Seat  Belt"  reminder 
would  remain  effective  even  if  the  belt  were  dis- 
abled to  silence  the  audible  warning.  With  a 
view  to  cost-effectiveness,  the  NHTSA  proposed 
two   other   alternative   courses   of   action.     The 


first  would  require  only  a  visual  reminder  signal 
as  described  above  and  the  second  would  elim- 
inate entirely  requirements  for  belt-use  warning 
or  reminder  systems. 

The  notice  proposed  that  the  new  system  be 
optional  until  February  25,  1975,  so  that  a  manu- 
facturer could  effectuate  the  transition  on  an 
ordei-ly  basis. 

The  comments  received  varied  greatly  in  their 
recommendations  on  the  piuncipal  proposal,  the 
visual-only  alternative,  and  the  iwssibility  of  no 
warning  system  requirements  at  all.  Ford  be- 
lieved that  the  limited  duration  of  the  warning 
would  make  it  relatively  ineffective,  and  that 
deleting  tiie  belt  warning  requirements  would 
have  the  best  overall  effect  on  public  acceptance 
of  seat  belts.  General  Motors  supported  a  visual- 
only  reminder,  and  proposed  an  optional  means 
of  providing  that  visual  reminder.  Chrysler 
Corporation  argued  for  a  more  complex  warning 
system  that  would  sense  belt  use  at  the  right 
front  passenger  position  as  well  as  the  driver's 
position,  and  would  include  a  continuous  warn- 
ing light  in  place  of  the  4-  to  8-second  visual 
reminder.  Volkswagen  supported  the  audible- 
\'isual  combination  but  recommended  that  both 
signals  act  as  a  reminder  and  function  inde- 
pendently of  belt  use. 

Smiths  Industries  Limited,  a  manufacturer  of 
interlock  units.  Economics  and  Science  Planning, 
and  Switches.  Inc.,  recommended  that  the  sequen- 
tial warning  feature  remain  as  an  added  incen- 
tive to  operate  the  belt  system.  Other  comments 
completely  supported  or  opposed  the  proposal 
and  in  some  cases  offered  totally  new  suggestions. 

The  NHTSA  has  carefully  weighed  the  com- 
ments submitted  in  order  to  specify  the  most 
reasonable    belt    warning    system    requirements 


PART  571;  S  208— PEE  57 


EfFeclive:   December   3,    1974 


available.  NHTSA  studies  show  that  belt  usage 
by  front  seat  occupants  of  interlock-equipped 
cars  currently  is  about  .']8  percent.  If  from  tliis 
percentage  is  subtracted  the  percentage  of  per- 
sons who  would  fasten  tlieir  seat  belts  regard- 
less of  forcing  systems,  it  can  be  seen  that  the 
fraction  of  the  population  whose  behavior  will 
be  affected  by  any  warning  system  is  quite  small. 
Because  of  the  limited  benefit,  the  reminder 
should  be  provided  at  as  low  a  cost  as  feasible. 

Because  an  irritating  light  can  be  easily  ig- 
nored or  disabled,  a  visual  signal  can  effectively 
serve  only  a  reminder  function,  and  as  such,  it 
should  be  as  simple  as  possible.  The  NHTSA 
concludes  that  a  4-  to  8-second  reminder  is  best 
calculated  to  accomplish  the  advisory   function. 

Chrysler  recommended  that  the  warning  and 
reminder  system  be  installed  at  the  right  front 
jjassenger  position,  which  would  add  significant 
retractor  or  buckle  switch,  wiring,  and  seat  sen- 
sor costs.  The  NHTSA  calculates  that  the 
drivers  warning  system  (or  belt  use)  will  offer 
substantially  the  same  rem'inder  to  a  front  seat 
passenger  as  a  limited-duration  signal  at  the 
passenger  position. 

The  Administration  has  determined  that  an 
audible-visual  combination  will  provide  the  best 
reminder  at  a  cost  commensurate  with  the  bene- 
fits achievable  in  a  limited-duration  signal.  Com- 
ments on  the  alternative  proposals  and  on  manu- 
facturer-suggested options  did  not  establish  tluit 
variations  on  the  principal  proposal  offered  sig- 
nificantly greater  safety  benefit  in  the  short  or 
long  term.  Accordingly,  Standard  No.  208  is 
amended  as  proposed  to  adojit  a  new  belt  warn- 
ing system,  as  an  alternative  to  the  present  sys- 
tem until  February  24.  197.5,  and  as  the  only 
permissible  belt  warning  system  thereafter. 

With  regai'd  to  the  warnings  duration,  Ford 
suggested  that  the  range  of  signal  duration  be 
expanded  to  a  longer  2-  to  8-second  duration  to 
permit  use  of  a  more  economical  timer.  Tiiis 
request  is  denied.  The  4-second  minimum  dura- 
tion was  selected  as  the  best  compromise  between 
the  necessary  manufacturer's  tolerance  and  tlie 
duration  necessary  to  alert  the  occupants  fully. 


Some  manufacturers,  such  as  American  Motors 
Corporation,  have  considered  the  use  of  thermal 
timer  mechanisms,  which  can  be  affected  by  ex- 
tremes of  ambient  temperature  and  battery 
voltage,  and  by  repeated  cycling.  Standard  No. 
208  does  not  presently  specify  an  ambient  tem- 
perature for  testing.  Because  no  temperature 
was  proi)osed,  and  in  view  of  the  necessity  of 
specifying  a  warning  system  to  comply  with  the 
legislation  by  December  26,  1974,  the  NHTSA 
will  issue  the  present  amendment  without  an 
ambient  temperature  test  condition.  Until  the 
question  of  the  need  for  a  temperatui'e  specifica- 
tion is  resoh-ed,  this  agency  will  consider  that 
compliance  with  the  requirements  is  required  at 
moderate  ambient  temperatures.  Performance  of 
these  systems  will  be  oljserved  with  a  view  to 
further  rulemaking  on  temperature,  cycling,  and 
other  criteria. 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  February  25,  1975, 
date  proposed  for  numdatory  use  of  the  new 
system  was  calculated  on  an  October  28,  1974, 
enactment  of  the  "Motor  Vehicle  and  Schoolbus 
Safety  Amendments  of  1974".  In  fact  these 
amendments  were  enacted  on  October  27,  1974, 
and  accordingly  the  "continuous  buzzer"  systems 
must  be  deleted  by  February  24,  1975,  as  is  now 
reflected  in  tlie  wording  of  this  amendment. 

In  another  area,  White  Motor  Company  has 
pointed  out  that  the  amendatory  language  in 
both  notices  of  Docket  No.  74-39  inadvertently 
included  motor  vehicles  other  than  j^assenger 
cars  in  the  belt  warning  requirement.  The  word- 
ing of  this  amendment  corrects  this  error  as  to 
vehicles  manufactured  in  the  future.  The  re- 
quirements of  S7.3  published  in  the  Federal 
Kegister  on  October  31,  1974  (39  F.E.  38380) 
were  intended  to  apply,  and  will  be  ti-eated  by 
this  agency  as  a23plying,  only  to  motor  vehicles 
manufactured  in  accordance  with  S4.1.2  and 
S4.1.3. 

In  a  matter  related  to  seat  belt  modifications, 
the  NHTSA  hereby  terminates  rulemaking  on 
a  proposal  to  amend  Standard  No.  208  that 
would  have  permitted  use  of  a  drive  train  inter- 
lock   mode    in    place    of    the    ignition    interlock 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  58 


Effective:   December   3,    1974 


mode  to  meet  the  "third  option"  belt  interlock  Effective  date:  December  3,  1974. 

requirements   of   S4.1.2.3.     A    proposal   on   this  (ggp_   ^03^  119^  p^,b_  l.  89-563,  80  Stat.  718 

alternative  interlock  was  published  January  23,        ^g  ^.S-C.  1392,  1407) ;  Sec.  109,  Pub.  L.  93-492, 
1974    (39    F.R.    2G10).      As    noted    earlier,    the        88  Stat.  1470  (15  U.S.C.  1410(b)) ;  delegation  of 
NHTSA   has   already   modified   S4.1.2.3   of   the        authority  at  (49  CFR  1.51). 
standard  to  specify  seat  belt  assemblies  without 

an  interlock  that  inhibits  operation  of  tlie  vehicle  Issued  on  December  2,  19*4. 

engine.     For   this   reason,   it   is   appropriate   to 

terminate  further  rulemaking  on  tlie  alternative  James   B.   Greo-ory 

interlock  mode.     No  further  acti"5n  in  this  area  Administrator 

will  be  taken  without  further  notice  and  oppor- 
tunity for  comment. 

In  consideration  of   the   foregoing.  Standard  3'  ^■''-  42692 

No.  208    (49  CFR  571.208)    is  amended.  .  .  .  December   6,    1974 


% 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  59-60 


f 


Effective:   July   9,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   208 

Occupant  Crash  Protection 
(Docket  No.  75-14;   Notice  2) 


This  notice  amends  Standard  No.  208,  Oceu- 
pant  crash  protection,  49  CFK  571.208,  to  permit 
until  January  1,  1976,  the  installation  of  current 
seat  belt  assemblies  in  trucks  and  multipurpose 
passenger  vehicles  (MPV)  with  a  gross  vehicle 
weight  rating  of  10,000  pounds  or  less.  This 
amendment  was  proposed  (40  F.R.  23897,  June 
3,  1975)  in  response  to  petitions  from  Chrysler 
Corporation  and  Jeep  Corporation. 

In  both  the  Jeep  and  Chrysler  petitions  and 
in  comments  on  the  proposal,  vehicle  manufac- 
turers stated  that  the  current  economic  situation 
may  cause  the  continued  production  of  1975- 
model  vehicles  beyond  August  15,  1975,  after 
their  production  would  normally  have  been 
terminated.  Significant  cost  in  obsolete  material 
and  in  running  changes  would  be  involved  in  the 
introduction  of  the  new  3-point  belt  systems  in 
vehicles  which  are  designed  to  accept  lap  belts 
only. 

Ford  Motor  Company  concurred  in  the  pro- 
posal in  view  of  obsolescence  costs  which  might 
be  avoided  by  the  4-month  option.  General 
Motors  Corporation  only  indicated  that  it  did 
not  object  to  the  proposal.  The  American  Safety 
Belt  Council  emphasized  the  readiness  of  seat 
belt  manufacturers  to  supply  the  new  systems 
and  the  importance  of  a  swift  decision.  They 
expressed  support  for  the  introduction  of  3-point 
systems  as  soon  as  possible.  The  Recreational 
Vehicle  Industry  Association  sought  confirma- 
tion of  its  understanding  that  the  proposal  did 
not  modify  requirements  for  motor  homes  and 
forward  control  vehicles  under  S4.2.  (RVIA's 
understanding  is  correct.)  Chrysler  and  Jeep 
supported  the  proposal,  and  Jeep  supplied  pro- 
duction and  retail  cost  information  for  which  it 
requested  confidentiality. 


It  is  apparent  from  the  nature  of  data  sub- 
mitted by  manufacturers  that  the  20-day  com- 
ment period  did  not  allow  adequate  time  for 
collection  and  development  of  the  items  enu- 
merated in  the  preamble  to  the  proposal.  "V^Tiile 
it  would  be  preferable  to  provide  manufacturers 
more  time  to  develop  additional  data,  the 
NHTSA  recognizes  that  virtually  no  time  re- 
mains in  which  to  make  decisions  for  August 
1975  production.  The  cost  data  already  sub- 
mitted by  Jeep  and  the  engineering  changes 
submitted  by  Chrysler  do  permit  an  NHTSA 
judgment  on  cost  objections  of  manufacturers 
under  §  113  and  on  the  advisability  of  the  pro- 
posed modification. 

Using  the  Chrysler  submission  as  representa- 
tive of  the  production  changes  to  be  undertaken 
by  &ny  manufacturer  in  effecting  a  running 
change  to  the  seat  belt  systems  of  the  1975-model 
vehicles  built  after  August  14,  1975,  it  is  con- 
cluded that  the  total  cost  implications  of  these 
changes  would  be  substantial  if  undertaken. 
The  Jeep  itemized  cost  information  on  produc- 
tion changes  bore  out  this  conclusion.  In  terms 
of  obsolescence,  it  is  confirmed  by  Ford  that  the 
decreased  sales  will  i-esult  in  obsolescence  due  to 
inability  to  balance  out  stocks  of  seat  belts  and 
other  components  in  1975-model  vehicles. 

Pursuant  to  §  113(b)  (1)  of  the  National  Traf- 
fic and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  (15  U.S.C. 
§  1402(b)(1),  the  information  on  which  this 
evaluation  is  based  is  available  in  the  NHTSA 
public  docket  (Docket  No.  75-14,  Notice  1; 
PRM  #208-000022;  PRM  #105-000019)  except 
for  the  Jeep  submission.  The  NHTSA  is  pres- 
ently determining  whether  the  submission  is  en- 
titled to  confidential  treatment.  If  it  is  not,  the 
submission  will  be  placed  in  Docket  No.  75-14, 
Notice  1. 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  61 


Effective:   July   9,    1975 


In  all,  the  information  submitted  by  manufac- 
turers, particularly  Chrysler,  indicates  that  a 
substantial  number  of  changes  would  be  required 
to  effect  a  running  change  to  the  vehicles  in 
question  after  August  15,  1975.  The  cost  data 
submitted  by  Jeep  indicate  that  these  changes 
will  result  in  significant  cost  increases.  The 
NHTSA  has  decided  that  the  significant  costs 
of  the  running  changes  in  1975-model  vehicles 
whose  production  may  be  continued  after  August 
15,  1975,  are  not  justified  for  the  numbers  of 
vehicles  that  might  be  affected. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Standard 
No.  208  (49  CFR  571.208)  is  amended.  .  .  . 

Effective  date:  July  9,  1975.  Because  this 
amendment   concerns   production   decisions  that 


must  be  made  immediately  for  the  model  changes 
in  September  1975,  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  July  3,  1975. 

James  B.  Gregory 
Administrator 

40  F.R.  28805 
July  9,  1975 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  62 


Effective:    August    13,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   208 

Occupant  Crash  Protection 
(Docket  No.  74-14;   Notice  4) 


This  notice  amends  Standard  No.  208,  Occu- 
pant crash  protection,  49  CFR  571.208,  to  con- 
tinue until  August  31,  1976,  the  present  three 
options  av'ailable  for  occupant  crash  protection 
in  passenger  cars.  This  amendment  replaces 
provisions  of  the  standard  which  were  to  have 
come  into  effect  on  August  15,  1975,  but  were 
suspended  as  a  result  of  the  decision  of  the  U.S. 
Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Sixth  Circuit  in 
Chrysler  v.  DOT,  472  F2d  659  (6th  Cir.  1972). 

This  extension  of  the  present  occupant  crash 
protection  options  was  proposed  April  10,  1975 
(40  F.R.  21617).  Vehicle  manufacturers  and  the 
American  Safety  Belt  Council  (ASBC)  sup- 
ported the  proposal,  but  requested  that  the 
modifications  apply  indefinitely  instead  of  being 
limited  to  a  1-year  extension.  Ford  Motor 
Company,  Chrysler  Corporation,  and  Volks- 
wagen of  America  also  asked  that  the  future 
provisions  for  light  trucks  and  multipurpose 
passenger  vehicles  (MPV)  (S4.2.3)  be  similarly 
modified.  The  California  Traffic  Safety  Foun- 
dation and  the  Vehicle  Equipment  Safety  Com- 
mission supported  the  proposal  but  only  for  the 
1-year  period  for  which  it  was  proposed. 

While  the  NHTSA  recognizes  that  the  present 
crash  protection  options  will  in  all  likelihood  be 
in  effect  for  some  period  after  August  31,  1976, 
the  agency  has  not  proposed  more  than  the 
1-year  extension.  The  Administrative  Proce- 
dures Act  specifies,  with  limited  exceptions,  that 


notice  and  opportunity  to  comment  be  providetl 
interested  persons  in  the  case  of  agency  rule- 
making proceedings  (§  553(b)).  The  NHTSA 
intends  to  propose  the  long-term  requirements 
for  occupant  crash  protection,  both  for  passenger 
cars  and  for  light  trucks  and  MPV's,  as  soon  as 
possible. 

Until  that  time,  the  XHTSA  finds  that  manu- 
facturers must  be  assured  of  the  regulations  for 
occupant  crash  protection  as  thej^  a^pply  to  up- 
coming production.  In  consideration  of  the 
foregoing.  Standard  No.  208  (49  CFR  §  571.208) 
is  amended.  .  .  . 

Effective  date:  August  13,  1975.  Because  the 
present  requirements  for  occupant  crash  protec- 
tion terminate  in  less  than  30  days  and  manu- 
facturers need  to  be  advised  of  the  continuation 
of  the  requirements  as  soon  as  possible,  it  is 
found  for  good  cause  shown  that  an  effective 
date  sooner  than  30  days  following  the  date  of 
publication  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  August  8, 1975. 

James  B.  Gregory 
Administrator 

40  F.R.  33977 
August  13,  1975 


PART  571;  S  208— PRE  63-64 


Effective:   January    1,    1972 

September    1,    1973 

August    15,    1975 

August    IS,    1977 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   208 

Occupant  Crash  Protection  in  Passenger  Cars,  Multipurpose  Passenger 
Vehicles,  Trucks  and  Buses 

(Docket  No.   69-7;   Notice  No.   9) 


51.  Scope.  This  standard  specifies  perform- 
ance requirements  for  the  protection  of  vehicle 
occupants  in  crashes. 

52.  Purpose.  Tlie  purpose  of  this  standard  is 
to  reduce  the  number  of  deaths  of  vehicle  oc- 
cupants, and  the  severity  of  injuries,  by  specify- 
ing vehicle  crashworthiness  requirements  in  terms 
of  forces  and  accelerations  measured  on  anthro- 
pomorphic dummies  in  test  crashes,  and  by 
specifying  equipment  requirements  for  active 
and  passive  restraint  systems. 

53.  Application.  [This  standard  applies  to 
passenger  cars,  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles, 
trucks,  and  buses.  In  addition,  S9,  Pressure 
vessels  and  explosive  devices,  applies  to  vessels 
designed  to  contain  a  pressurized  fluid  or  gas, 
and  to  explosive  devices,  for  use  in  the  above 
types  of  motor  vehicles  as  part  of  a  system  de- 
signed to  provide  protection  to  occupants  in  the 
event  of  a  crash.  (37  F.R.  9222— May  6,  1972. 
Effective:  6/2/72)] 

54.  General  requirements. 
S4.1    Passenger  cars. 

[S4.1.1  Passenger  cars  manufactured  from  Jan- 
uary 1,  1972,  to  August  31,  1973.  Each  passenger 
car  manufactured  from  January  1,  1972,  to 
August  31,  1973,  inclusive,  shall  meet  the  require- 
ments of  S4.1.1.1,  S4.1.1.2,  or  S4.1.1.3.  A  pro- 
tection system  that  meets  the  requirements  of 
S4.1.1.1  or  S4.1.1.2  may  be  installed  at  one  or 
more  designated  seating  positions  of  a  vehicle 
that  otlierwise  meets  the  requirements  of 
S4.1.1.3.  (38  F.R.  21930— August  14,  1973.  Ef- 
fective: 8/31/73)] 

54.1.1.1  First  option — complete  passive  protec- 
tion   system.      The   vehicle  shall   meet   the   crash 


protection  requiremehts  of  S5  by  means  that  re- 
quire no  action  by  vehicle  occupants. 

54.1.1.2  Second  option — lap  belt  protection 
system  with  belt  warning.     The  vehicle  shall — 

(a)  [At  each  designated  seating  position  have 
a  Type  1  seat  belt  assembly  or  a  Type  2  seat  belt 
assembly  with  a  detachable  upper  torso  portion 
that  conforms  to  S7.1  and  S7.2  of  this  standard. 
(37  F.R.  3911— February  24,  1972.  Effective: 
2/24/72)3 

(b)  At  each  front  outboard  designated  seating 
position  have  a  seat  belt  warning  system  that 
conforms  to  S7.3;  and 

(c)  Meet  the  frontal  crash  protection  require- 
ments of  S5.1,  in  a  perpendicular  impact,  with 
respect  to  anthropomorphic  test  de\'ices  in  each 
front  outboard  designated  seating  position  re- 
strained only  by  Type  1  seat  belt  assemblies. 

54.1.1.3  Third  option — lap  and  shoulder  belt 
protection   system   with    belt  warning. 

S4. 1.1. 3.1  Except  for  convertibles  and  open- 
body  vehicles,  the  vehicle  shall — 

(a)  At  each  front  outboard  designated  seat- 
ing position  have  a  Type  2  seatbelt  assembly 
that  conforms  to  Standard  No.  209  and  S7.1  and 
S7.2  of  this  standard,  with  either  an  integral  or 
detachable  upper  torso  portion,  and  a  seatbelt 
warning  system  that  conforms  to  S7.3; 

(b)  At  each  designated  seating  position  other 
than  the  front  outboard  positions,  have  a  Type  1 
or  Type  2  seat  belt  assembly  that  conforms  to 
Standard  No.  209  and  to  S7.1  and  S7.2  of  this 
standard;  and 

(c)  "When  it  perpendicularly  impacts  a  fixed 
collision    barrier,    while    moving    longitudinally 


(Rev.    8/10/731 


PART  571;  S  208-1 


Effective:      1/1/72;    9/1/73; 
8/15/75;    BI\SI77 

forward  at  any  speed  up  to  and  including  30 
m.p.h.,  under  the  test  conditions  of  SS.l  with 
anthropomorphic  test  devices  at  each  front  out- 
board position  restrained  by  Type  2  seatbelt  as- 
semblies, experience  no  comi)lete  separation  of 
any  load-bearing  element  of  a  seatbelt  assembly 
or  anchorage. 

S4. 1.1. 3.2  Convertibles  and  open-body  type 
vehicles  shall  at  each  designated  seating  position 
have  a  Type  1  or  Type  2  seatbelt  assembly  that 
conforms  to  Standard  No.  209  and  to  S7.1  and 
S7.2  of  this  standard,  and  at  each  front  outboard 
designated  seating  position  have  a  seatbelt  warn- 
ing system  that  conforms  to  S7.3. 

S4.1.2  [Passenger  cars  manufactured  from 
September  1,  1973,  to  August  31,  1976.  Pas- 
senger cars  manufactured  from  September  1, 
1973,  to  August  31,  1976,  inclusive,  shall  meet 
the  requirements  of  S4.1.2.1,  S4.1.2.2,  or  S4.1.2.3. 
A  protection  system  that  meets  the  requirements 
of  S4.1.2.1  or  S4.1.2.2  may  be  installed  at  one  or 
more  designated  seating  positions  of  a  vehicle 
that  otherwise  meets  the  requirements  of  S4.1.2.3. 
(40  F.R.  33977— August  13,  1975.  Effective: 
8/13/75] 

54. 1.2.1  First  option — complete  passive  protec- 
tion system.  The  vehicle  shall  meet  the  crash 
protection  requirements  of  S5  by  means  that  re- 
quire no  action  by  vehicle  occupants. 

54.1.2.2  Second  option — head-on  passive  pro- 
tection system.    The  vehicle  shall — 

[(a)  At  each  designated  seating  position  have 
a  Type  1  seat  belt  assembly  or  a  Type  2  seat  belt 
assembly  with  a  detachable  upper  torso  portion 
that  conforms  to  S7.1  and  S7.2  of  this  standard. 
(37  F.R.  3911— February  24,  1972.  Effective: 
2/24/72)] 

(b)  At  each  front  designated  seating  position, 
meet  the  frontal  crash  protection  requirements 
of  SS.l,  in  a  perpendicular  impact,  by  means  that 
require  no  action  by  vehicle  occupants ; 

(c)  At  each  front  designated  seating  position, 
meet  the  frontal  crash  protection  requirements  of 
S5.1,  in  a  perpendicular  impact,  with  a  test  de- 
vice restrained  by  a  Type  1  seatbelt  assembly; 
and 


(d)  At  each  front  outboard  designated  seating 
position,  have  a  seatbelt  warning  system  tliat 
conforms  to  S7.3. 

S4. 1.2.3  Third  option — lap  and  shoulder  belt 
protection   system   with    belt  warning. 

54.1 .2.3.1  [Except  for  convertibles  and  open- 
body  vehicles,  the  vehicle  shall — 

(a)  At  each  front  outboard  designated  seat- 
ing position  have  a  seat  belt  assembly  that  con- 
forms to  S7.1  and  S7.2  of  this  standard,  and  a 
seat  belt  warning  system  that  conforms  to  S7.3. 
The  belt  assembly  shall  be  either  a  Tyi^e  2  seat 
belt  assembly  with  a  nondetachable  shoulder  belt 
that  conforms  to  Standard  No.  209  (§571.209), 
or  a  Type  1  seat  belt  assembly  such  that  with  a 
test  device  restrained  by  the  assembly  the  ve- 
hicle meets  the  frontal  crash  pi-otection  require- 
ments of  S5.1  in  a  perpendicular  impact. 

(b)  At  any  center  front  designated  seating 
position,  have  a  Type  1  or  Type  2  seat  belt  as- 
sembly that  conforms  to  Standard  No.  209 
(§  571.209)  and  to  S7.1  and  S7.2  of  this  standard, 
and  a  seat  belt  warning  system  that  conforms  to 
S7.3;  and 

(c)  At  each  other  designated  seating  position, 
have  a  Type  1  or  Type  2  seat  belt  assembly  that 
conforms  to  Standard  No.  209  (§571.209)  and 
S7.1  and  S7.2  of  this  standard.  (39  F.R.  38380— 
October  31,  1974.     Effective:  10/29/74)] 

54. 1.2.3.2  [Convertibles  and  open-body  type 
vehicles  shall  at  each  designated  seating  position 
have  a  Type  1  or  Type  2  seat  belt  assembly  that 
conforms  to  Standard  No.  209  (§571.209)  and 
to  S7.1  and  S7.2  of  this  standard,  and  at  each 
front  designated  seating  position  liave  a  seat  belt 
warning  system  that  conforms  to  S7.3.  (39  F.R. 
38380— October  31,  1974.     Effective:  10/29/74)] 

S4.1 .3  [Reserved.  (40  F.R.  33977— August  13, 
1975.    Effective:  8/13/75)] 

S4.2  Trucks  and  multipurpose  passenger  ve- 
hicles with  GVWR  of  10,000  pounds  or  less. 

S4.2.1  [Trucks  and  multipurpose  passenger 
vehicles,  with  GVWR  of  10,000  pounds  or  less, 
manufactured  from  January  1,  1972,  to  December 
31,  1975.  Each  truck  and  multipurpose  pas- 
senger vehicle  with  a  gross  vehicle  weight  rating 


(Rev.   8/8/75) 


PART  571;  S  208-2 


of  10,000  pounds  or  less,  manufactured  from 
January  1,  1J)72,  to  December  31,  1975,  inclusive, 
shall  meet  the  requirements  of  S4.2.1.1  or  S4.2.1.2, 
or  at  the  option  of  the  manufacturer,  the  re- 
quirements of  S4.2.2.  A  protection  system  that 
meets  the  requirement  of  S4.2.1.1  may  be  in- 
stalled at  one  or  more  desijjnated  seatinji  posi- 
tions of  a  vehicle  that  otherwise  meets  the 
requirements  of  S4.2.1.2.  (40  F.E.  28805— July 
9,1975.    Effective:  7/9/75)] 

54.2.1.1  First  option — complete  passive  pro- 
tection system.  The  vehicle  shall  meet  the  crash 
protection  requirements  of  S5  by  means  that  re- 
quire no  action  bj'  vehicle  occupants. 

54.2.1.2  Second  option — belt  system.  The  ve- 
hicle shall  have  seat  belt  assemblies  that  conform 
to  Standard  209  installed  as  follows: 

(a)  A  Type  1  or  Type  2  seat  belt  assembly 
shall  be  installed  for  each  designated  seating  posi- 
tion in  convertibles,  open-body  type  vehicles,  and 
walk-in  van -type  trucks. 

(b)  In  all  vehicles  except  those  for  which  re- 
quirements are  specified  in  S4.2.1.2(a),  a  Type 
2  seat  belt  assembly  shall  be  installed  for  each 
outboard  designated  seating  position  that  in- 
cludes the  windshield  header  within  the  head 
impact  area,  and  a  Type  1  or  Type  2  seat  belt 
assembly  shall  be  installed  for  each  other  desig- 
nated seating  position. 

54.2.2  [Trucks  and  multipurpose  passenger  ve- 
hicles, with  GVWR  of  10,000  pounds  or  less, 
manufactured  from  January  1,  1976,  to  August  14, 
1977.  Each  truck  and  multipurpose  passenger 
vehicle,  with  a  gross  vehicle  weight  rating  of 
10,000  pounds  or  less,  manufactured  from  Jan- 
uary 1,  1976,  to  August  14,  1977,  inclusive,  shall 
meet  the  requirements  of  S4.1.2  (as  specified  for 
passenger  cars),  except  that  forward  control  ve- 
hicles, convertibles,  open-body  type  vehicles, 
walk-in  van-type  trucks,  motor  homes,  and  ve- 
hicles carrying  chassis-mount  campers  may  in- 
stead meet  the  requirements  of  S4.2.1.2.  (40 
F.R.  2880.5— July  9,  1975.    Effective:  7/9/75)] 

54.2.3  Trucks  and  multipurpose  passenger  ve- 
hicles, with  GVWR  of  10,000  pounds  or  less, 
manufactured  on  or  after  August  15,  1977.  Each 
truck  and  multipurpose  passenger  vehicle,  with 
a  gross  vehicle  weight  rating  of  10,000  pounds 


Effective:      1/1/72;    8/15/73; 
8/15/75;    8/15/77 

or  less,  manufactured  on  or  after  August  15,  1977, 
shall  meet  the  occupant  crash  protection  require- 
ments of  S5  by  means  that  require  no  action  by 
vehicle  occupants,  except  that  forward  control 
veliicles  may  instead  meet  the  requirements  of 
S4.2.1.2,  and  convertibles,  open-body  vehicles, 
walk-in  van-type  trucks,  motor  homes,  and  ve- 
hicles carrying  chassis-mounted  campers  may  in- 
stead meet  the  requirements  of  S4.1.2.2. 

54.3  Trucks  and  multipurpose  passenger  ve- 
hicles, with  GVWR  of  more  than  10,000  pounds. 
Each  truck  and  multipurpose  passenger  vehicle, 
with  a  gross  vehicle  weight  rating  of  more  than 
10,000  pounds,  manufactured  on  or  after  Janu- 
ary 1,  1972,  shall  meet  the  requirements  of 
S4.3.1  or  S4.3.2.  A  protection  system  that  meets 
the  requirements  of  S4.3.1  may  be  installed  at  one 
or  more  designated  seating  positions  of  a  vehicle 
that  otherwise  meets  the  requirements  of  S4.3.2. 

54.3.1  First  option — complete  passive  protec- 
tion system.  The  vehicle  shall  meet  the  crash 
protection  requirements  of  S5  by  means  that  re- 
quire no  action  by  vehicle  occupants. 

54.3.2  Second  option — belt  system.  The  ve- 
hicle shall,  at  each  designated  seating  position, 
have  eitlier  a  Type  1  or  a  Type  2  seatbelt  as- 
sembly that  conforms  to  Standard  No.  209. 

54.4  Buses.  Each  bus  manufactured  on  or 
after  January  1,  1972,  shall  meet  the  require- 
ments of  S4.4.1  or  S4.4.2. 

54.4.1  First  option — complete  passive  protec- 
tion system — driver  only.  The  vehicle  shall  meet 
the  crash  protection  requirements  of  S5,  with  re- 
spect to  an  anthropomorphic  test  device  in  the 
driver's  designated  seating  position,  by  means 
that  require  no  action  by  veliicle  occupants. 

54.4.2  Second  option — belt  system — driver  only. 
The  vehicle  shall,  at  the  driver's  designated  seat- 
ing position,  have  either  a  Type  1  or  a  Type  2 
seatbelt  assembly  that  conforms  to  Standard  No. 
209. 

54.5  Other  general  requirements. 

S4.5.1  Labeling  and  driver's  manual  informa- 
tion. [Each  vehicle  shall  have  a  label  setting 
forth  the  manufacturer's  recommended  schedule 
for  the  maintenance  or  replacement,  necessary 
to  retain  the  performance  required  by  this  stand- 
ard, of  any  crash  deployed  occupant  protection 
system.    The  schedule  shall  be  specified  by  month 


(Rev.   7/3/75) 


PART  571;  S  208-3 


Effective:      }  H  177;    8/15/73; 
8/15/75;    8/15/77 

and  year,  or  in  terms  of  vehicle  mileage,  or  by 
intervals  measured  from  the  date  appearing  on 
the  vehicle  certification  label  provided  pursuant 
to  49  CFR  Part  567.  The  label  shall  be  perma- 
nently affixed  to  the  vehicle  within  the  passenger 
compartment  and  lettered  in  English  in  block 
capitals  and  numerals  not  less  than  three  thirty- 
seconds  of  an  inch  high.  Instructions  concern- 
ing maintenance  or  replacement  of  a  system  and 
a  descrijjtion  of  the  functional  operation  of  the 
system  shall  be  provided  with  each  vehicle,  with 
an  appropriate  reference  on  the  label.  If  a 
vehicle  owner's  manual  is  provided,  this  infor- 
mation shall  be  included  in  the  manual. 
(39  F.R.  1513— January  10,  1974.  Effective: 
1/10/74)3 

S4.5.2  Readiness  indicator.  [An  occupant 
protection  system  that  deploys  in  the  event  of  a 
crash  shall  have  a  monitoring  system  with  a 
readiness  indicator.  The  indicator  shall  monitor 
its  own  readiness  and  shall  be  clearly  ^asible 
from  the  driver's  designated  seating  position. 
A  list  of  the  elements  of  the  system  being  moni- 
tored by  the  indicator  shall  be  included  with  the 
information  furnished  in  accordance  with  S4.5.1 
but  need  not  be  included  on  the  label.  (36  F.R. 
19254— October  1,  1971.     Effective:  1/1/72)] 

[S4.5.3  Passive  belts.  Except  as  provided  in 
S4.5.3.1,  a  seat  belt  assembly  that  requires  no 
action  by  vehicle  occupants  (hereinafter  referred 
to  as  a  "passive  belt")  may  be  used  to  meet  the 
crash  protection  requirements  of  any  option  un- 
der S4  and  in  place  of  any  seat  belt  assembly 
otherwise  required  by  that  option. 

54.5.3.1  A  passive  belt  that  provides  only 
pelvic  restraint  may  not  be  used  pursuant  to 
S4.5.3  to  meet  the  requirements  of  an  oi:>tion  that 
requires  a  Tyi^e  2  seat  belt  assembly. 

54.5.3.2  A  passive  belt,  furnished  pursuant  to 
S4.5.3,  that  provides  both  pelvic  and  upper  torso 
restraint  may  have  either  a  detachable  or  non- 
detachable  upper  torso  portion,  notwithstanding 
provisions  of  the  option  under  which  it  is  fur- 
nished. 

54. 5.3.3  [A  passive  belt  furnished  pursuant 
to  S4.5.3  shall— 

(a)  Conform  to  S7.1  and  S7.2  of  this  stand- 
ard; and 


(b)  In  place  of  a  warning  system  that  con- 
forms to  S7.3  or  S7.3a  of  this  standard,  be 
equipped  with  a  warning  system  as  specified  in 
subparagraph  (1),  except  that  a  seat  belt  as- 
sembly provided  in  a  vehicle  that  is  manufac- 
tured prior  to  February  24,  1975,  may,  at  the 
option  of  the  manufacturer,  be  equipped  with  a 
warning  system  as  specified  in  subparagraph  (1) 
or  as  specified  in  subparagraph   (2)  : 

(1)  At  the  left  front  designated  seating  posi- 
tion (drivers  position),  be  equipped  with  a  warn- 
ing system  that  activates,  for  a  period  of  not 
less  than  4  seconds  and  not  more  than  8  seconds 
(beginning  w4ien  the  vehicle  ignition  switch  is 
moved  to  the  "on"  or  the  "start"  position),  a 
continuous  or  flashing  warning  light,  visible  to 
the  driver,  displaying  the  words  "Fasten  Seat 
Belts"  or  "Fasten  Belts"  when  condition  (A) 
exists,  and  a  continuous  or  intermittent  audible 
signal  when  condition  (A)  exists  simultaneously 
with  condition  (B). 

(A)  The  vehicle's  ignition  switch  is  moved 
to  the  "on"  position  or  to  the  "start"  position. 

(B)  The  driver's  lap  belt  is  not  in  use,  as  de- 
termined by  the  belt  latch  mechanism  not  being 
fastened. 

(2)  Be  equipped  with  a  warning  system  that 
activates,  for  at  least  one  minute,  a  continuous 
or  intermittent  audible  signal  and  a  continuous 
or  flashing  warning  light,  visible  to  the  driver, 
displaying  the  words  "Fasten  Seat  Belts"  or 
"Fasten  Belts",  whenever  the  ignition  switch  is 
in  the  "start"  position  and  the  latch  mechanism 
is  not  fastened,  and  whenever  the  vehicle  engine 
is  running,  the  transmission  gear  selector  is 
placed  in  any  forward  position,  and  the  latch 
mechanism  is  not  fastened.  (39  F.R.  42692 — 
December  6,  1974.    Effective:  12/3/74)] 

S4.5.3.4  A  passive  belt  furnished  pursuant  to 
S4.5.3  that  is  not  required  to  meet  the  perpen- 
dicular frontal  crash  protection  requirements  of 
S5.1  shall  conform  to  the  webbing,  attachment 
hardware,  and  assembly  performance  require- 
ments of  Standard  No.  "209.  (36  F.R.  23725— 
December  14,  1971.    Effective:  1/1/72)] 

S5.   Occupant  crash  protection  requirements. 

S5.1  Frontal  barrier  crash.  [When  the  vehicle, 
traveling  longitudinally  forward  at  any  speed 
up  to  and  including  30  m.p.h.,  impacts  a  fixed 


(Rev.    12/2/74) 


PART  571;  S  208^ 


collision  barrier  that  is  perpendicular  to  the  line 
of  travel  of  the  vehicle,  or  at  any  angle  up  to 
30°  in  either  direction  from  the  perpendicular 
to  the  line  of  travel  of  the  vehicle,  under  the 
applicable  conditions  of  S8,  with  anthropo- 
morphic test  devices  at  each  designated  seating 
position  for  which  a  barrier  crash  test  is  re- 
quired under  S4,  it  shall  meet  the  injury  criteria 
of  S6.  (37  F.K.  3911— February  24,  1972.  Ef- 
fective: 2/24/72)3 

55.2  Lateral  moving  barrier  crash.  When  the 
vehicle  is  impacted  Uaterally  on  either  side  by 
a  barrier  moving  at  20  m.p.h.,  with  test  devices 
at  the  outboard  designated  seating  positions  ad- 
jacent to  the  impacted  side,  under  the  applicable 
conditions  of  S8,  it  shall  meet  the  injury  criteria 
of  S6. 

55.3  Rollover.  When  the  vehicle  is  subjected 
to  a  rollover  test  in  either  lateral  direction  at 
30  m.p.h.  with  test  devices  in  the  outboard  desig- 
nated seating  positions  on  its  lower  side  as 
mounted  on  the  test  platform,  vmder  the  appli- 
cable conditions  of  S8,  it  shall  meet  the  injury 
criteria  of  S6.1.  [However,  vehicles  manufac- 
tured before  August  15,  1977,  that  conform  to 
the  requirements  of  Standard  No.  216  (§  571.216) 
need  not  conform  to  this  rollover  test  require- 
ment (36  F.R.  23299— December  8,  1971.  Effec- 
tive: 1/1/72)] 

S.6  Injury  criteria. 

56.1  All  portions  of  the  test  device  shall  be 
contained  within  the  outer  surfaces  of  the  ve- 
hicle passenger  compartment  throughout  the  test. 

56.2  [The  resultant  acceleration  at  the  center 
of  gravity  of  the  head  shall  be  such  that  the 
expression : 


[-t:^  f'  '''J''' 


t.) 


shall  not  exceed  1,000,  where  a  is  the  resultant 
acceleration  expressed  as  a  multiple  of  g  (the 
acceleration  of  gravity),  and  ti  and  ta  are  any 
two  points  in  time  during  the  crash.  However, 
in  the  case  of  a  passenger  car  manufactured  be- 
fore August  31,  1976,  or  a  truck  or  multipurpose 
passenger  vehicle  with  a  GVWR  of  10,000  pounds 
or   less   manufactured   before   August   15,    1977, 


Effective:      1/1/72;    8/15/73; 
8/15/75;    8/15/77 

when  the  dummy  is  restrained  by  a  seat  belt 
system,  ti  and  ta  are  any  two  points  in  time  dur- 
ing any  interval  in  which  the  head  is  in  con- 
tinuous contact  with  a  part  of  the  vehicle  other 
than  the  belt  system.  (40  F.R.  33977— August 
13,  1975.    Effective:  8/13/75)] 

56.3  [The  resultant  acceleration  at  the  center 
of  gravity  of  the  upper  thorax  shall  not  exceed 
60g,  except  for  intervals  whose  cumulative  dura- 
tion is  not  more  than  3  milliseconds.  However, 
in  the  case  of  a  passenger  car  manufactured 
before  August  31,  1976,  or  a  truck  or  multipur- 
pose passenger  vehicle  with  a  GVIVR  of  10,000 
pounds  or  less  manufactured  before  August  15, 
1977,  the  resultant  acceleration  at  the  center  of 
gravity  of  the  upper  thorax  shall  be  such  that 
the  severity  index  calculated  by  the  method  de- 
scribed in  SAE  Information  Report  J885a, 
October,  1966,  shall  not  exceed  1,000.  (40  F.R. 
33977— August  13,  1975.    Effective:  8/13/75)] 

56.4  [The  force  transmitted  axially  through 
each  upper  leg  shall  not  exceed  1,700  pounds. 
(37  F.R.  24903— November  23,  1972.  Effective: 
11/23/72)] 

S7.  Seat  belt  assembly  requirements — passenger 
cars. 

S7.1    Adjustment. 

S7.1.1  Except  as  specified  in  S7.1.1.1  and 
S7.1.1.2,  the  lap  belt  of  any  seat  belt  assembly 
furnished  in  accordance  with  S4.1.1  and  S4.1.2 
sliaJl  adjust  by  means  of  an  emergency-locking 
or  automatic-locking  retractor  that  conforms  to 
Standard  No.  209  to  fit  persons  whose  dimen- 
sions range  from  those  of  a  50th-percentile  6- 
year-old  child  to  those  of  a  95th-percentile  adult 
male  and  the  upper  torso  restraint  shall  adjust 
by  means  of  an  emergency-locking  retractor  or 
a  manual  adjusting  device  that  conforms  to 
Standard  No.  209  to  fit  persons  whose  dimensions 
range  from  those  of  a  5th-percentile  adult  female 
to  those  of  a  95lh-percentile  adult  male,  with 
the  seat  in  any  position  and  the  seat  back  in  the 
manufacturer's  nominal  design  riding  position. 
[However,  an  upper  torso  restraint  furnished  in 
accordance  with  S4.1.2.3.1(a)  shall  adjust  by 
means  of  an  emergency-locking  retractor  that 
conforms  to  Standard  No.  209.  (37  F.R.  3911— 
February  24,  1972.    Effective:  2/24/72)] 


(Rev.    8/8/75) 


PART  571:  S  208-5 


231-088    O  -  77 


Effective:      1/1/77;    8/15/73; 
8/15/75;    8/15/77 


57.1.1.1  A  seat  belt  assembly  installed  at  the 
driver's  seatin<j  position  shall  adjust  to  fit  per- 
sons whose  dimensions  ranjje  from  those  of  a 
5th-percentile  adult  female  to  those  of  a  95th- 
percentile  adult  male. 

57.1.1.2  A  seat  belt  assembly  installed  at  any 
designated  seating  position  other  than  the  out- 
board positions  of  the  front  and  second  seats 
shall  adjust  either  by  a  retractor  as  specified  in 
S7.1.1  or  by  a  manual  adjusting  device  that  con- 
forms to  Standard  No.  209. 

$7.1.2  The  intersection  of  the  upper  torso  belt 
with  the  lap  belt  in  any  Type  2  seat  belt  assembly 


furnished  in  accordance  with  S4.1.1  or  S4.1.2, 
with  the  upper  torso  manual  adjusting  device, 
if  provided,  adjusted  in  accordance  with  the 
manufacturer's  instructions,  shall  be  at  least  6 
inches  from  the  front  vertical  centerline  of  a 
50th-percentile  adult  male  occupant,  measured 
along  the  centerline  of  the  lap  belt,  with  the  seat 
in  its  rearmost  and  lowest  adjustable  position  and 
with  the  seat  back  in  the  manufacturer's  nomi- 
nal design  riding  position. 

S7.1.3  The  weights  and  dimensions  of  the  ve- 
hicle occupants  specified  in  this  standard  are  as 
follows : 


50th-percentile 
6-year-old  child 


5th-percentile 
adult  female 


50th-percentile 
adult  male 


95th-percentile 
adult  male 


Weight 

Erect  sitting  height 

Hip  breadth  (sitting) 

Hip  circumference  (sitting) 

Waist  circumference  (sitting). 

Chest  depth 

Chest  circumference: 

(nipple) 

(upper) 

(lower) 


47.  3  pounds 102  pounds 164  pounds 215  pounds. 

25.  4  inches 30.  9  inches 35.  7  inches 38  inches. 

8.  4  inches 12.  8  inches 14.  5  inches 16.  5  inches. 

23.  9  inches 36.  4  inches 42  inches 47. 2  inches. 

20.  8  inches 23.  6  inches 33  inches 42.  5  inches. 

7.  5  inches 9  inches 10.  5  inches. 


30.  5  inches 

29.8  inches [37.7  inches. 

26.  6  inches 


44.  5  inches. 


57.2  Latch  mechanism.  A  seat  belt  assembly 
installed  in  a  passenger  car  shall  have  a  latch 
mechanism — 

(a)  Whose  components  are  accessible  to  a 
seated  occupant  in  both  the  stowed  and  opera- 
tional positions; 

[(b)  That  releases  both  the  upper  torso  re- 
straint and  the  lap  belt  simultaneously,  if  the 
assembly  has  a  lap  belt  and  an  upper  torso  re- 
straint that  require  unlatching  for  release  of  the 
occupant;  and  (39  F.R.  14593— April  25,  1974. 
Effective:  5/27/74)] 

(c)  That  releases  at  a  single  point  by  a  push- 
button action. 

57.3  Seat  belt  warning  system.  [A  seat  belt 
assembly  provided  in  accordance  with  S4.1  shall 
be  equipped  with  a  seat  belt  warning  as  specified 
in  S7.3a,  except  that  a  seat  belt  assembly  pro- 
vided in  accordance  with  S4.1  in  a  vehicle  manu- 
factured prior  to  February  24,  1975,  may,  at  the 
option  of  the  manufacturer,  be  equipped  with 
either  a  seat  belt  warning  as  specified  in  S7.3.1 
through  S7.3.5  or  a  seat  belt  warning  as  specified 
in  S7.3a.  (39  F.R.  42692— December  6,  1974. 
Effective:  12/3/74)] 


S7.3.1  [Seat  belt  assemblies  provided  at  the 
front  outboard  seating  positions  in  accordance 
with  S4.1.1  or  S4.1.2  shall  have  a  warning  system 
that  activates,  for  at  least  one  minute,  a  con- 
tinuous or  intermittent  audible  signal  and  con- 
tinuous or  flashing  warning  light,  visible  to  the 
driver,  displaying  the  words  "Fasten  Seat  Belts" 
or  "Fasten  Belts"  when  condition  (a)  exists 
simultaneously  with  either  of  conditions  (b)  or 
(c). 

[(a)  The  vehicle's  engine  is  operating  and  the 
transmission  gear  selector  is  in  any  forward  po- 
sition. (36  F.R.  23725— December  14,  1971. 
Effective:  1/1/72)] 

(b)  [The  driver's  lap  belt  is  not  in  use,  as 
determined,  at  the  manufacturer's  option,  either 
by  the  belt  latch  mechanism  being  fastened  or 
by  the  belt  being  extended  at  least  4  inches  from 
its  stowed  position.  (37  F.R.  3911 — February 
24,1972.    Effective:  2/24/72)] 

(c)  [A  person  of  at  least  the  weight  of  a  50th 
percentile  adult  male  is  seated  with  the  belt  fast- 
ened at  the  driver's  position,  and  a  person  of  at 
least  the  weight  of  a  50th  percentile  6-year-old 
child  is  seated  in  the  right  front  designated  seat- 


(Rev.    12/2/74) 


PART  571;  S  208-6 


Effective:      1/1/72;    8/15/73; 
8/15/75;    8/15/77 


ing  position  and  tlie  lap  belt  for  tliat  i)o.sition 
is  not  in  use,  as  detennined,  at  tiie  manufacturer's 
option,  eitlier  by  tlie  belt  latch  mechanism  beino- 
fastened  or  by  the  belt  being  extended  at  least 
4  inches  from  its  stowed  position.  (37  F.R. 
3911— February  24,  1972.     Elfective:  2/24/72)] 

57.3.2  The    warning   system   shall   either — 
[(a)   Not  activate  when  the  lap  belt  at  each 

occupied  front  outboard  seating  position  is  ex- 
tended to  an}-  length  greater  than  the  length 
necessary  to  tit  a  50th-percentile  6-year-old  child 
when  the  seat  is  in  the  rearmost  and  lowest  ad- 
justment position; 

(b)  Not  activate  when  the  lap  belt  at  each 
occupied  front  outboard  position  is  buckled;  or 

(c)  Not  activate  when  the  operation  specified 
in  (a)  or  (b)  is  performed  at  each  occupied 
front  outboard  seating  position  after  tlie  occu- 
pant is  seated.  (37  F.R.  132065— July  6,  1972. 
Effective:  1/1/73)] 

57.3.3  [The  warning  systems  shall  not  acti- 
vate if  the  vehicle  has  an  automatic  transmission, 
the  engine  is  operating,  and  the  gear  selector  is 
in  the  "Park"  position.  (37  F.R.  3911— Feb- 
ruary 24,  1972.    Effective:  2/24/72)] 

57.3.4  [Notwithstanding  the  provisions  of 
S7.3.1  and  S7.3.5.2,  when  the  engine  of  a  vehicle 
with  a  manual  transmission  is  operating,  the 
warning  system  shall  either — 

(a)  Not  activate  when  the  transmission  is  in 
neutral;  or 

(b)  Not  activate  when  the  parking  brake  is 
engaged. 

57.3.5  [The  above  provisions  of  S7.3  shall 
apply  to  seat  belt  assemblies  furnished  in  accord- 
ance with  S4.1.2.3,  with  the  following  exceptions : 
(39   F.R.    38380— October   31,    1974.     Effective: 

10/29/74)] 

57.3.5.1  The  warning  system  shall  also  be  pro- 
\dded  for  the  center  front  seating  position,  if  any. 

57.3.5.2  In  addition  to  the  conditions  specified 
in  S7.3.1,  the  warning  system  shall  activate  if — 

(a)  The  vehicle's  engine  is  operating  and  the 
transmission  gear  selector  is  in  any  forward  po- 
sition, and 

(b)  A  person  of  at  least  the  weight  of  a  50th 
percentile  adult  male  is  seated  with  the  belt  fast- 
ened at  the  driver's  position,  and  a  person  of  at 
least  the  weight  of  a  5th  percentile  adult  female 


is  seated  in  a  center  front  designated  seating 
position  and  the  lap  belt  for  the  center  front 
position  is  not  in  use,  as  determined,  at  the  manu- 
facturer's option,  either  by  the  belt  latch  mech- 
anism being  fastened  or  the  belt  being  extended 
at  least  4  inches  from  its  stowed  position. 

57.3.5.3  The  provisions  of  S7.3.2  shall  apply 
to  all  front  seating  positions. 

57.3.5.4  [Notwithstanding  the  other  provi- 
sions of  87.3.  the  warning  system  shall  activate 
whenever  the  ignition  switch  is  in  the  "start'* 
position  and  the  operation  of  the  belt  sj'stem 
at  each  occupied  front  outboard  designated  seat- 
ing position  has  not  been  performed  after  the 
occupant  is  seated  and  condition  (a)  or  (b) 
exists.  Belt  operation  for  the  purpose  of  this 
requirement  shall  be,  at  the  manufacturer's  op- 
tion, either  the  extension  of  the  belt  assemblj' 
at  least  4  inches  from  its  stowed  position,  or  the 
fastening  of  the  belt  latch  mechanism. 

(a)  A  person  of  at  least  the  weight  of  a  5th- 
percentile  adult  female  is  seated  at  the  driver's 
seating  position. 

(b)  A  person  of  at  least  the  weight  of  a  50th- 
percentile  adult  male  is  seated  at  the  driver's 
seating  position  and  a  person  of  at  least  the 
weight  of  a  50th-percentile  6-year-old  child  is 
seated  at  the  right  front  seating  position.  (39 
F.R.  38380— October  31,  1974.  Effective:  10/ 
29/74)] 

[S7.3a  A  seat  belt  assembly  provided  at  the 
driver's  seating  position  shall  be  equipped  with 
a  warning  system  that  activates,  for  a  period  of 
not  less  than  4  seconds  and  not  more  than  8 
seconds  (beginning  when  the  vehicle  ignition 
switch  is  moved  to  the  "on"  or  the  "start"  posi- 
tion), a  continuous  or  flashing  warning  light, 
visible  to  the  driver,  displaying  the  words 
"Fasten  Seat  Belts"  or  "Fasten  Belts"  when 
condition  (a)  exists,  and  a  continuous  or  inter- 
mittent audible  signal  when  condition  (a)  exists 
simultaneously  with  condition   (b). 

(a)  The  vehicle's  ignition  switch  is  moved  to 
the  "on"  position  or  to  the  "start"'  position. 

(b)  The  driver's  lap  belt  is  not  in  use,  as  de- 
termined, at  the  option  of  the  manufacturers, 
either  by  the  belt  latch  mechanism  not  being- 
fastened,  or  by  the  belt  not  being  extended  at 
least  4  inches  from  its  stowed  position.  (39  F.R. 
42692— Deceml)er  6,  1974.     Effective:  12/3/74)] 


(Rev.    12/2/74) 


PART  571;  S  208-7 


Effective:      \  P  177;    8/15/73; 
8/15/75;    8/15/77 


S7.4  Belt  interlock  system.  [Revoked.  (39 
F.R.    3S:i80— October   31,    1974.     Effective:    10/ 

29/74)] 

S8.  Test  conditions. 

S8.1  General  conditions.  Tlie  following-  con- 
ditions apply  to  the  frontal,  lateral,  and  rollover 
tests. 

S8.1.1  The  vehicle,  including:  test  devices  and 
instrumentation,  is  loaded  as  follows: 

(a)  Passenger  cars.  A  passenger  car  is  loaded 
to  its  unloaded  xehicle  weight  plus  its  rated 
cargo  and  luggage  capacity  weight,  secured  in 
the  luggage  area,  plus  the  weight  of  the  neces- 
sary anthropomorphic  test  de\'ices. 

(b)  Multipurpose  passenger  vehicles.,  tmc'ks^ 
and  buses.  [A  multipurpose  passenger  vehicle, 
trvick,  or  bus  is  loaded  to  its  unloaded  vehicle 
weight  plus  300  pounds  or  its  rated  cargo  and 
luggage  capacity  weight,  whiche\er  is  less,  se- 
cured in  the  load  carrying  area  and  distributed 
as  nearly  as  possible  in  proportion  to  its  gross 
axle  weight  ratings,  plus  the  weight  of  the  neces- 
sary anthropomorphic  test  devices.  (36  F.R. 
19254— October  1,  1971.     Effective:  1/1/72)] 

SB. 1.2  Adjustable  seats  are  in  the  adjustment 
l^osition  midway  between  the  forwardmost  and 
rearmost  positions,  and  if  separately  adjustable 
in  a  vertical  direction,  are  at  the  lowest  position. 

SB. 1.3  Adjustable  seat  backs  are  in  the  manu- 
facturer's nominal  design  riding  position. 

SB. 1.4  Adjustable  steering  controls  are  ad- 
justed so  that  the  steering  wheel  hub  is  at  the 
geometric  center  of  the  locus  it  describes  when  it 
is  moved  through  its  full  range  of  driving  posi- 
tions. 

SB. 1.5  Movable  vehicle  windows  and  vents  are 
in  the  fully  closed  position. 

SB. 1.6  Convertibles  and  open-body  type  ve- 
hicles have  the  top,  if  any,  in  place  in  the  closed 
passenger  compartment  configuration. 

SB. 1.7  Doors  are  fully  closed  and  latched  but 
not  locked. 

SB. 1.8  [Anthi'opomorphic  test  devices  used  for 
the  evaluation  of  restraint  systems  manufactured 
pursuant  to  sections   S4.1.2.1   and   S4.1.2.2  con- 


form to  the  requirements  of  Part  572  of  this 
title.  (38  F.R.  20449— August  1,  1973.  Effec- 
tive: 8/15/73)] 

SB.  1.9  Each  test  device  is  clothed  in  form- 
fitting  cotton  stretch  garments. 

SB. 1.10  [Limb  joints  are  set  at  Ig,  barely 
lestraiuing  the  weight  of  the  limb  when  extended 
horizontiiily.  Leg  joints  are  adjusted  with  the 
torso  in  the  supine  position.  (38  F.R.  20449 — 
August   1,   1973.     Effective:   8/15/73)] 

SB. 1.11  Each  test  device  is  finnly  placed  in  a 
designated  seating  position  in  the  following 
manner : 

(a)  The  head  is  aligned  by  placing  the  test 
device  on  its  back  on  a  rigid,  level  surface  and 
by  adjusting  the  head  so  that  it  touches  the  level 
surface  and  is  laterally  centered  with  respect  to 
the  device's  axis  of  symmetry. 

(b)  The  test  device  is  placed  in  the  vehicle  in 
the  normal  upright  sitting  position  and  a  rigid 
roller,  6  inches  in  diameter  and  24  inches  long, 
is  placed  transversely  as  low  as  possible  against 
the  front  of  the  torso. 

(c)  The  roller  is  pressed  horizontally  against 
the  torso  with  a  force  of  50  pounds. 

(d)  Force  is  applied  at  the  shoulder  level  to 
bend  the  torso  forward  over  the  roller,  flexing 
the  lower  back,  and  to  return  the  test  device  to 
the  upright  sitting  posture. 

(e)  The  roller  is  slowly  released. 

S8.1.12  Except  as  otherwise  herein  specified, 
the  test  devices  are  not  restrained  during  im.pacts 
by  any  means  that  require  occupant  action. 

SB. 1.1 3  [The  hands  of  the  test  device  in  the 
driver's  designated  seating  position  are  on  the 
steering  wheel  rim  at  the  horizontal  centerline. 
The  right  foot  rests  on  the  undepressed  accele- 
rator pedal,  with  the  heel  in  contact  with  the 
jjoint  where  the  centerline  of  the  upper  surface 
of  the  undepressed  accelerator  pedal  intersects 
the  upper  surface  of  the  floor  covering.  The 
left  leg  is  placed  as  in  S8.1.14.  (36  F.R.  19254— 
October  1,  1971.    Effective:  1/1/72)] 

SB.l  .14  The  hands  of  each  other  test  device  are 
resting  on  the  seat  with  the  palms  touching  the 
legs,  and  the  upper  arms  are  resting  against  the 
seat  back  and  flush  with  the  body.  Wliere  pos- 
sible, the  legs  are  outstretched,  with  the  thighs 


(Rev.    10/29/74) 


PART  571;  S  208-8 


on  the  seat  and  the  heels  touching  tlie  floor  with 
the  foot  at  90°  to  the  tibia.  Otherwise,  the  tibia 
are  vertical  with  the  feet  resting  on  tlie  floor. 
The  left  leg  of  a  test  device  in  the  center  front 
designated  seating  position  is  on  the  vehicle 
centerline,  and  the  right  leg  is  in  the  right  foot- 
well.  The  left  and  right  legs  of  a  test  device  in 
the  center  rear  designated  seating  position  are 
in  the  left  and  right  footwells,  respectively. 

S8.1.15  Instrumentation  does  not  affect  the 
motion  of  test  devices  during  impact  or  rollover. 

S8.2  Lateral  moving  barrier  crash  test  condi- 
tions. The  following  conditions  apply  to  the 
lateral  moving  barrier  crash  test : 

S8.2.1  The  moving  barrier,  including  the  im- 
pact surface,  supporting  structure,  and  carriage, 
weighs  4,000  pounds. 

SB. 2. 2  The  impact  surface  of  the  barrier  is  a 
vertical,  rigid,  flat  rectangle,  78  inches  wide  and 
60  inches  high,  perpendicular  to  its  direction  of 
movement,  with  its  lower  edge  horizontal  and 
5  inches  above  the  ground  surface. 

58.2.3  During  the  entire  impact  sequence  the 
barrier  undergoes  no  significant  amount  of 
dynamic  or  static  deformation,  and  absorbs  no 
significant  portion  of  the  energy  resulting  from 
the  impact,  except  for  energy  that  results  in 
translaticnal   rebound  movem.ent  of  the  barrier. 

58.2.4  During  the  entire  impact  sequence  the 
barrier  is  guided  so  that  it  travels  in  a  straight 
line,  with  no  significant  lateral,  vertical  or  rota- 
tional movement. 

58.2.5  The  concrete  surface  upon  which  the  ve- 
hicle is  tested  is  level,  rigid  and  of  uniform  con- 
struction, with  a  skid  number  of  75  when  meas- 
ured in  accordance  with  American  Society  for 
Testing  and  Materials  Method  E-274-65T  at  40 
m.p.h.,  omitting  water  delivery  as  specified  in 
paragraph  7.1  of  that  method. 

58.2.6  The  tested  vehicle's  brakes  are  disen- 
gaged and  the  transmission  is  in  neutral. 

58.2.7  The  barrier  and  the  test  vehicle  are 
positioned  so  that  at  impact — 

(a)  The  vehicle  is  at  rest  in  its  normal  atti- 
tude; 

(b)  The  barrier  is  traveling  in  a  direction 
perpendicular  to  the  longitudinal  axis  of  the  ve- 
hicle at  20  m.p.h. ;  and 


EffecHve:      1/1/72;    8/15/73; 
8/15/75;    8/15/77 

(c)  A  vertical  plane  through  the  geometric 
center  of  the  barrier  impact  surface  and  perpen- 
dicular to  that  surface  passes  through  the  driver's 
seating  reference   point  in  the  tested  vehicle. 

S8.3  Rollover  test  conditions.  The  following 
conditions  apply  to  the  rollover  test: 

58.3.1  The  tested  vehicle's  brakes  are  disen- 
gaged and  the  transmission  is  in  neutral. 

58.3.2  The  concrete  surface  on  which  the  test 
is  conducted  is  level,  rigid,  of  uniform  construc- 
tion, and  of  a  sufficient  size  that  the  vehicle  re- 
mains on  it  throughout  the  entire  rollover  cycle. 
It  has  a  skid  number  of  75  when  measured  in 
accordance  with  American  Society  of  Testing 
and  Materials  Method  E-274-65T  at  40  m.p.h. 
omitting  water  delivery  as  specified  in  paragraph 
7.1  of  that  method. 

58.3.3  The  vehicle  is  placed  on  a  device, 
similar  to  tliat  illustrated  in  Figure  1,  having  a 
platform  in  the  form  of  a  flat,  rigid  plane  at  an 
angle  of  23°  from  the  horizontal.  At  the  lower 
edge  of  the  platform  is  an  unyielding  flange,  per- 
pendicular to  the  platform  with  a  height  of  4 
inches  and  a  length  sufficient  to  hold  in  place  the 
tires  that  rest  against  it.  The  intersection  of  the 
inner  face  of  the  flange  with  the  upper  face  of 
the  platform  is  9  inches  above  the  rollover  sur- 
face. No  other  restraints  are  used  to  hold  the 
vehicle  in  position  during  the  deceleration  of  the 
platform  and  the  departure  of  the  vehicle. 

58.3.4  With  the  vehicle  on  the  test  platform, 
the  test  devices  remain  as  nearly  as  possible  in 
the  posture  specified  in  S8.1. 

58.3.5  Before  the  deceleration  pulse,  the  plat- 
form is  moving  horizontally,  and  perpendicularly 
to  the  longitudinal  axis  of  the  vehicle,  at  a  con- 
stant speed  of  30  m.p.h.  for  a  sufficient  period  of 
time  for  the  vehicle  to  become  motionless  relative 
to  the  platform. 

58.3.6  The  platform  is  decelerated  from  30  to 
0  m.p.h.  in  a  distance  of  not  more  than  3  feet, 
without  change  of  direction  and  without 
transverse  or  rotational  movement  during  the 
deceleration  of  the  platform  and  the  departure 
of  the  vehicle.  The  deceleration  rate  is  at  least 
20g  for  a  minimum  of  0.04  seconds. 


(Rev.  May   19721 


PART  571;  S  208-9 


Eff»cflv«:      1/1/72;    8/15/73; 
8/15/75;    e/M/77 


FIGURE  1     TYPICAL  DEVICE  FOR  ROLLOVER  TEST 


[S9.   Pressure  vessels  and  explosive  devices. 

S9.1  Pressure  vessels.  A  pressure  vessel  that 
is  continuously  pressurized  shall  conform  to  the 
requirements  of  49  CFR  §178.65-2,  -6(b),  -7, 
-9(a)  and  (b),  and  -10.  It  shall  not  leak  or 
evidence  visible  distortion  when  tested  in  accord- 
ance with  §178.65-11  (a)  and  shall  not  fail  in 
any  of  the  ways  enumerated  in  §  178.65-11  (b) 
when  hydrostatically  tested  to  destruction.  It 
shall  not  crack  when  flattened  in  accordance  with 
§178.65-I2(a)  to  the  limit  specified  in  §178.65- 
12(a)(4).  (37  F.R.  9222— May  6,  1972.  Effec- 
tive: 6/2/72)3 

[S9.2  Explosive  devices.  An  explosive  device 
shall  not  exhibit  any  of  the  characteristics  pro- 
hibited by  49  CFR  §  173.51.  All  explosive  ma- 
terial shall  be  enclosed  in  a  structure  that  is 
capable  of  containing  the  explosive  energy  with- 
out sudden  release  of  pressure  except  through 
overpressure  relief  devices  or  parts  designed  to 
release  the  pressure  during  actuation.  (37  F.R. 
9222— May  6,  1972.    Effective:  6/2/72)3 


[interpretation 

Several  persons  have  raised  questions  as  to 
what  constitutes  a  "passive"  restraint  system — 
one  that  requires  "no  action  by  vehicle  occu- 
pants"— as  those  concepts  are  used  in  Standard 
No.  208,  Occupant  Crash  Protection  (36  F.R. 
4600,  March  10,  1971),  effective  January  1,  1972. 
Specifically,  it  has  been  asked  whether  occupant 
protection  systems  that  require  occupants  to  take 
protective  action  as  a  prerequisite  to  entering, 
seating  themselves  in,  or  operating  a  vehicle  can 
qualify  as  a  system  that  requires  "no  action." 
One  commonly  discussed  example  of  such  "forced 
action"  systems  is  a  seatbelt  interlock,  which  re- 
quires a  seat  belt  to  be  fastened  before  the  vehicle 
ignition  system  is  operative. 

The  concept  of  an  occupant  protection  system 
that  requires  "no  action  by  vehicle  occupants"  as 
used  in  Standard  No.  208  is  intended  to  designate 
a  system  that  requires  no  action  other  than  would 
be  required  if  the  protective  system  were  not 
present  in  the  vehicle.  Under  this  interpretation 
the  concept  does  not  include  "forced  action"  sys- 
tems as  described  above. 

This  interpretation  is  not  intended  to  rule  out 
the  possibility  that  further  rulemaking  action 
may  be  taken  in  the  future  to  permit  such  systems 
in  certain  cases.  (36  F.R.  8296— May  4,  1971. 
Effective:  5/4/71)3 

36   F.R.   4600 
March  10,  1971 


(lev.   May    1972) 


PART  571;  S  208-10 


Effective:  January  4,   1969 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  209 

Seat  Be':  Assemblies — Passenger  Cars,   Multipurpose  Passenger  Vehicles,  Trucks, 

and  Buses 


Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  209  (32 
F.R.  2415,  as  amended  32  F.R.  3310),  specifies 
requirements  for  seat  belt  assemblies  for  use  in 
passenger  cars,  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles, 
trucks  and  buses,  incorporating  by  reference  the 
requirements  of  Department  of  Commerce,  Na- 
tional Bureau  of  Standards,  Standards  for  Seat 
Belts  for  Use  in  Motor  Vehicles  (15  C.F.R.  Part 
9;  31  F.R.  11528). 

The  Administrator  of  the  Federal  Highway 
Administration  has  determined  in  the  interests 
of  clarity  and  ease  of  reference  that  the  require- 
ments specified  by  15  C.F.R.  Part  9  should  be 
incorporated  into  Standard  No.  209  where  it  is 
presently  incorporated  only  by  reference.  There- 
fore Standard  No.  209  is  hereby  amended  by 
deleting  present  paragraph  S3  and  adding  new 
paragraphs  S3,  S4,  and  S5,  so  as  to  incorporate 
the  requirements  of  15  C.F.R.  Part  9.  Accord- 
ingly 15  C.F.R.  Part  9  is  hereby  deleted. 

Since  this  amendment  imposes  no  additional 
burden  on  any  person  and  involves  no  substantive 
change  in  the  requirements  of  Standard  No.  209, 
notice  and  public  procedure  hereon  are  unneces- 
sary and  good  cause  is  shown  that  an  effective 


date  earlier  than  180  days  after  issuance  is  in 
the  public  interest  and  the  amendment  may  be 
made  effective  less  than  30  days  after  publication 
in  the  Federal  Register.  The  requirement  of 
former  Paragraph  S3  of  Standard  No.  209  that 
seat  belt  assemblies  shall  use  the  attachment 
hardware  specified  in  15  C.F.R.  §  9.3(f)  "or 
approved  equivalent  hardware"  has  been  incor- 
porated into  new  Paragraph  S4.1(f)  of  Standard 
No.  209. 

This  amendment  is  made  under  the  authority 
of  sections  103,  117(c)  and  119  of  the  National 
Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966 
(15  U.S.C.  sees.  1392,  1405(c),  and  1407)  and 
the  delegation  of  authority  contained  in  the 
Regulations  of  the  Office  of  the  Secretary  (49 
C.F.R.  §  1(c)),  and  is  effective  upon  publication 
in  the  Federal  Register. 

Issued  in  Washington,  D.C.,  on  December  24, 
1968. 

Lowell  K.  Bridwell, 

Federal  Highway  Administrator 

34  F.R.   115 
January  4,  1969 


PART  571;  S  209— PRE  1-2 


^ 


^ 


^ 


Effective:   September   1,    1971 


PREAMBLE  TO   AMENDMENT  TO   MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  209 

Seat  Belt  Assemblies  In  Passenger  Cars,  Multipurpose  Passenger  Vehicles,  Trucks  and  Buses 

(Docket  No.  69-23;   Notice  No.   2) 


This  notice  amends  Federal  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  209  in  §  571.21  of  Title  49 
of  the  Code  of  Federal  Eegulations,  to  upgrade 
the  requirements  for  seatbelt  assemblies  for  use 
in  passenger  cars,  multipurpose  passenger  ve- 
hicles, trucks,  and  buses.  As  amended,  the 
standard  is  both  an  equipment  and  a  vehicle 
standard.  The  equipment  aspect  applies  to  a 
seatbelt  assembly  manufactured  on  or  after  the 
effective  date.  The  vehicle  aspect  applies  to  an 
assembly  installed  in  a  vehicle  manufactured  on 
or  after  the  effective  date,  regardless  of  when 
the  assembly  was  manufactured. 

During  the  period  since  the  original  issuance 
of  Standard  No.  209,  laboratory  tests  and  ex- 
perience with  actual  seatbelt  usage  have  disclosed 
areas  where  improvements  in  performance  re- 
quirements are  necessary.  Consequently,  a  notice 
of  proposed  amendments  to  the  standard  was 
published  on  March  17,  1970  (35  F.R.  4641)  to 
upgrade  the  performance  requirements  for  seat- 
belt  assemblies.  Interested  persons  were  given 
an  opportunity  to  conmient  on  the  contents  of 
the  proposed  rule.  These  comments,  and  other 
available  data,  have  been  carefully  considered 
in  the  development  of  these  amendments. 

Paragraph  S4.1(f)  of  the  standard  is  amended 
to  make  it  clear  that  a  manufacturer  may  use 
bolts  other  than  the  specified  bolts  if  the  substi- 
tuted bolts  are  equivalent. 

The  standard  formerly  required  a  Type  1  or 
Type  2  seatbelt  assembly  to  be  adjustable  to  fit 
an  occupant  with  the  weight  and  dimensions  of 
a  95th-percentile  adult  male.  To  insure  that  belt 
assemblies  can  be  adjusted  to  fit  the  range  of 
occupants  who  may  use  them,  paragraph  S4.1(g) 
is  amended  to  require  each  Type  1  or  Type  2 


seatbelt  assembly  to  be  adjustable  to  fit  occupants 
whose  weight  and  dimensions  range  from  those 
of  a  5th-percentile  adult  female  to  those  of  a 
95th-percentile  adult  male.  A  belt  assembly 
installed  for  an  adjustable  seat  must  conform 
to  the  requirements  regardless  of  seat  position. 
Several  comments  noted  that  no  dimensions  were 
specified  in  the  notice  for  the  various  occupants 
which  a  belt  assembly  must  fit.  To  remedy  the 
problem,  the  standard  provides  a  table  of  weights 
and  dimensions  for  5th-percentile  adult  females 
and  95th-percentile  adult  males. 

In  the  notice,  it  was  proposed  to  reduce  the 
force  required  to  release  seat  belt  buckles  from 
30  to  22.5  pounds  and  to  require  that  the  release 
fotce  for  pushbutton-type  buckles  be  applied 
no  closer  than  0.125  inch  from  the  edge  of  the 
pushbutton  access  opening.  In  light  of  comments 
received,  and  other  available  information,  the 
value  of  30  poimds  has  been  retained.  The  pro- 
cedure for  testing  the  buckle  release  force  of  a 
pushbutton-type  buckle  has  been  amended  as  pro- 
posed, however,  to  insure  that  the  release  force 
will  not  be  applied  so  close  to  the  edge  of  the 
access  opening  that  the  button  might  tilt  in  a 
manner  unrepresentative  of  actual  use  conditions 
and  thereby  exaggerate  the  release  force. 

The  buckle  crush  release  requirements  are 
amended  to  extend  the  standard's  crush  release 
requirements  to  all  Type  1  and  Type  2  seatbelt 
buckles,  and  to  require  application  of  the  test 
load  to  areas  of  a  buckle  other  than  directly  over 
the  center  of  the  release  mechanism.  Experience 
has  indicated  that  non-pushbutton  buckle  release 
mechanisms  are  also  subject  to  impairment  when 
compressed,  and  occupants  using  such  buckles 
are  therefore  provided  equivalent  protection  by 
the  extension  of  the  buckle  crush  release  require- 


PAET  571;  S  209— PRE  3 


Effective:   September   1,    1971 


ments.  In  laboratory  tests  on  pushbutton-type 
buckles,  buckle  release  or  malfunction  occurred 
when  a  compressive  force  as  low  as  275  pounds 
was  applied  to  a  surface  area  other  than  the 
area  directly  over  the  pushbutton.  The  amended 
test  will  tend  to  eliminate  buckle  designs  that 
are  prone  to  accidental  damage,  or  that  release 
during  the  initial  phase  of  the  accident. 

The  notice  proposed  a  new  buckle  latch  test 
procedure  in  which  a  specified  tensile  load  was 
to  be  applied  at  30°  to  the  buckle.  In  the  light 
of  comments  received  and  other  information  that 
has  become  available  indicating  that  the  require- 
ment was  not  justified,  the  procedure  has  not 
been  adopted. 

In  response  to  comments  that  the  acceleration 
levels  proposed  in  the  notice  were  too  high,  the 
acceleration  level  above  which  an  emergency- 
locking  retractor  must  lock  has  been  reduced 
from  2g,  as  proposed,  to  0.7g,  and  the  accelera- 
tion level  below  which  the  retractor  must  not 
lock  has  been  reduced  from  Ig  to  0.3g.  For 
reasons  of  occupant  convenience,  the  notice  pro- 
posed that  the  required  upper  limit  on  accelera- 
tion had  to  be  met  only  when  the  webbing  was 
extended  to  the  length  necessary  to  fit  a  5th- 
percentile  adult  female.  Upon  review  it  has  been 
determined  that  the  proposed  free  travel  distance 
could  make  a  belt  unsafe  for  use  by  a  child,  and, 


further,  that  an  adequate  measure  of  convenience 
is  provided  by  the  requirement  that  a  belt  not 
lock  at  accelerations  of  less  than  0.3g.  Accord- 
ingly, the  standard  does  not  limit  the  belt  with- 
drawal range  within  which  the  acceleration  levels 
must  be  met.  For  similar  reasons,  the  retraction 
force  requirements  are  required  to  be  met  regard- 
less of  the  amount  of  belt  withdrawal. 

As  stated  in  the  notice,  the  hex -bar  abrasion 
test  does  not  adequately  simulate  the  type  of 
webbing  abrasion  caused  by  some  buckles.  The 
standard  as  amended  retains  the  hex-bar  test, 
but  supplements  it  with  an  additional  abrasion 
requirement,  under  which  webbing  is  required  to 
retain  at  least  75  percent  of  its  breaking  strength 
after  being  repeatedly  passed  through  the  as- 
sembly buckle  or  manual  adjustment  device. 

Effective  date:  September  1,  1971. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  209  in  §571.21  of 
Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  is 
amended.  .  .  . 


Issued  on  March  3,  1971. 


Douglas  W.  Toms, 
Acting    Administrator. 

36   F.R.  4607 
March    10,    1971 


PART  571;  S  209— PRE  4 


Effective:   April    I,    1971 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO   MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  209 


Seat  Belt  Assemblies  for  Passenger  Cars,  Multipurpose  Passenger  Vehicles,  Trucks  and  Buses 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  amend  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  209,  in  §  571.21  of 
Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  to  clarify 
the  method  in  which  the  buckle  release  force  of 
a  Type  3  seat  belt  assembly  is  measured. 

The  standard  provides  (S4.3(d)(l),  S5.2(d) 
(1))  that  the  force  required  to  release  a  Type  3 
assembly  buckle  is  measured  following  the  as- 
sembly test  of  85.3,  with  a  force  of  45±5 
pounds  applied  to  a  torso  block  restrained  by  the 
Type  3  assembly.  The  test  procedure  was  in- 
tended to  represent  the  situation  in  which  the 
vehicle  is  inverted  and  the  child  is  held  by  the 
harness.  The  force  applied  along  the  line  of  the 
belt  is  of  primary  significance,  but  it  appears 
that  the  release  force  of  some  buckles  is  signifi- 
cantly increased  by  the  pressure  of  the  torso 
block  on  the  back  of  the  buckle.  This  pressure 
is  not  regarded  as  representative  of  actual  condi- 
tions, in  that  the  hard  surface  of  the  torso  block 
offers  much  more  resistance  than  would  a  child's 
body.  To  eliminate  the  effects  of  such  pressure 
by  the  torso  block,  section  S5.3  (c)(1)  of  the 
standard  is  amended  to  read  as  set  forth  below. 

Since  this  amendment  is  interpretative  and 
clarifying  in  intent  and  imposes  no  additional 


burden  on  any  person,  notice  and  public  pro- 
cedure thereon  are  unnecessary. 

Effective  date:  April   1,  1971. 

The  major  usage  of  Type  3  seat  belt  assembly 
buckles  will  be  on  child  seating  systems  that 
comply  with  Standard  No.  213,  effective  April  1, 
1971.  So  that  the  amendment  to  Standard  No. 
209  will  have  maximum  effect,  good  cause  is 
found  for  establishing  an  effective  date  sooner 
than  180  days  after  issuance.  Since  the  amend- 
ment is  interpretative  in  nature  and  relieves  a  re- 
striction, there  is  also  good  cause  for  establish- 
ing an  effective  date  sooner  than  30  days  after 
issuance. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  209,  in  §571.21  of 
Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  is 
amended.  .  .  . 


Issued  on  March  23,  1971. 


Douglas  W.  Toms, 
Acting   Administrator. 

36  F.R.  5973 
Msrch  27,   1971 


PART  571;  S  209— PRE  5-6 


f 


Effective:  January    1,    1972 
(Except  as  noted  in  the  Rule) 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO   MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  209 
Seat  Belt  Assemblies  in  Passenger  Cars,  Multipurpose  Passenger  Vehicles,  Trucks  and  Buses 


(Docket  No.  69-: 


Reconsideration   and  Amendment 

The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  respond  to 
petitions  filed  pursuant  to  §  553.35  of  Title  49, 
Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  requesting  recon- 
sideration of  various  amendments  to  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  209,  Seat  Belt 
Assemblies,  that  were  published  March  10,  1971 
(36  F.R.  4607).  The  petitions  are  granted  in 
part  and  denied  in  part.  Requests  not  expressly 
discussed  in  this  notice  should  be  considered 
denied. 

1.  One  of  the  results  of  the  March  10  amend- 
ments was  that  as  of  September  1,  1971,  the 
standard  would  have  become  a  vehicle  standard 
as  well  as  an  equipment  standard,  i.e.,  vehicles 
manufactured  after  the  effective  date  would  have 
liad  to  have  equipment  conforming  to  the  new 
requirements.  The  amendments  relating  to  emer- 
gency-locking retractors  are  such,  however,  that 
with  normal  production  tolerances  it  would  be 
difficult  to  manufacture  retractors  that  conform 
to  the  currently  applicable  requirements  so  that 
they  would  also  conform  to  the  post-September  1 
requirements,  and  ince-versa.  This  creates  an 
awkward  situation,  in  which  retractors  supplied 
to  vehicle  manufacturei-s  for  use  on  September  1 
would  have  to  be  made  on  September  1  and  not 
before. 

The  vehicle  aspect  of  the  standard  is  therefore 
being  deleted,  and  the  date  on  which  the 
amended  requirements  become  mandatory  is  post- 
poned to  January  1,  1972,  to  coincide  with  the 
effective  date  of  the  new  Standard  No.  208.  To 
allow  for  efficient  changeover,  manufacturers  are 
permitted  to  manufacture  belts  to  either  the  cur- 
rent or  the  amended  requirements  between 
September  1,  1971,  and  January  1,  1972. 

2.  With  respect  to  the  technical  amendments 
to    the    attachment    hardware    requirements    in 


23;   Notice  No.  3) 

S4.1(f),  American  Safety  Equipment  Corpora- 
tion requested  that  the  reference  to  Standard 
No.  210  be  omitted,  so  that  anchorage  nuts,  plates, 
and  washers  would  not  have  to  be  supplied  if 
the  vehicle  has  an  anchorage  that  does  not  re- 
quire them.  The  request  has  been  found  reason- 
able, and  the  standard  is  amended  accordingly. 

3.  The  National  Highway  Traffic  Safety  Ad- 
ministration has  also  evaluated  requests  by  the 
American  Safety  Equipment  Corporation  con- 
cerning the  range  of  occupants  that  a  be.lt  must 
adjust  to  fit,  the  test  buckle  release  force  test 
procedure,  and  the  buckle  crush  resistance  test 
procedure.  The  amended  adjustment  require- 
ments (S4.1(g)(l)  and  (2))  specify  more  ex- 
actly the  range  of  occupants  that  was  intended 
by  the  original  standard.  The  importance  of 
having  installed  belts  of  proper  length  for  the 
normal  range  of  occupants  outweighs,  in  the 
agency's  judgment,  the  effort  involved  in  ascer- 
taining vehicle  dimensions.  The  adjustment  re- 
quirements are  therefore  not  changed.  With 
respect  to  tlie  buckle  test  procedures,  the  peti- 
tioner's requests  relating  to  the  clarity  of  the 
buckle  release  procedure  and  to  the  need  for  an 
explanatory  diagram  to  accompany  the  crush  test 
are  also  denied.  Although  the  buckle  release 
test  no  longer  refers  to  a  method  for  testing  lever 
action  buckles,  the  method  was  little  more  than 
a  suggestion  and  may  in  some  cases  have  con- 
flicted with  the  intent  of  the  procedure  that  the 
force  shall  be  applied  so  as  to  produce  maximum 
releasing  effect.  The  diagram  requested  to  show 
the  buckle  crush  procedure  is  not  regarded  as 
essential  to  understanding  the  procedure  and  has 
not  been  adopted. 

4.  Although  no  petition  was  received  directly 
relating  to  the  subject,  the  Swedish  Trade  Com- 
mission, on  behalf  of  the  Swedish  manufactur- 


PART  571;  S  209— PRE  7 


Effective:  January    1,    1972 
(Except  as  noted  in  the  Rule) 


ers,  has  expressed  uncertainty  as  to  how  the 
crush  test  is  to  be  applied  to  seat  belt  assemblies 
that  have  a  buckle  mounted  on  a  rigid  or  semi- 
rigid bracket  between  the  front  seats.  As  de- 
scribed by  the  Commission,  one  design  would 
tend  to  bend  downwards  under  the  pressure  of 
the  test  device  long  before  the  required  force  of 
400  pounds  could  be  reached.  In  this  case,  the 
buckle  will  have  to  be  supjwrted  from  beneath, 
just  as  the  conventional  lap  belt  has  to  have  some 
rigid  backing  in  order  to  reach  the  400-pound 
level.  It  is  anticipated  that  if  additional  ques- 
tions are  raised  concerning  the  method  of  force 
application  to  specific  buckles,  such  questions  can 
be  answered  through  administrative  interpreta- 
tion. 

5.  Several  petitions  questioned  the  need  to 
test  a  vehicle-sensitive  emergency-locking  re- 
tractor by  accelerating  it  "in  three  directions 
normal  to  each  other  with  its  central  axis 
oriented  horizontally".  The  pendulum  device 
used  in  most  vehicle-sensitive  retractors  can  sense 
lateral  accelerations  and  sense  the  tilt  of  the 
vehicle,  but  it  cannot  readily  sense  upward  or 
downward  accelerations  of  the  type  required  by 
the  three-direction  test  when  the  retractor  is 
oriented  horizontally.  It  was  suggested  by 
Volvo  that  a  retractor  that  locks  when  tilted  to 
35°  in  any  direction  should  be  exempt  from  the 
acceleration  requirement.  Volkswagen  recom- 
mended accelerating  the  retractor  in  the  hori- 
zontal plane  in  two  directions  normal  to  each 
other.  On  reconsideration,  the  National  High- 
way Traffic  Safety  Administration  has  concluded 
that  it  is  appropriate  to  relieve  such  a  retractor 
from  the  vertical  acceleration  requirement  when 
it  is  oriented  horizontally  and  to  establish  an 
alternative  to  the  requirement  that  it  lock  when 
accelerated  in  directions  out  of  the  horizontal 
plane,  but  that  accelerations  within  the  hori- 
zontal plane  should  continue  to  be  required. 

Accordingly,  S5.2(j)  is  amended  to  require  a 
vehicle-sensitive  retractor  to  be  accelerated  in  the 
horizontal  plane  in  two  directions  normal  to 
each  other.  During  these  accelerations,  the  re- 
tractor will  be  oriented  at  the  angle  in  which  it 
is  installed  in  the  vehicle.  In  addition,  the  re- 
tractor must  either  lock  when  accelerated  in 
orientations  out  of  the  horizontal  as  prescribed 
in  the  March  10  rule  or  lock  by  gravity  when 


tilted  in  any  direction  to  any  angle  greater  tlian 

45°. 

6.  One  petitioner  questioned  the  correctness  of 
requiring  webbing-sensitive  retractore  to  be  ac- 
celerated in  the  direction  of  webbing  retraction, 
rather  than  in  the  direction  of  webbing  with- 
drawal. The  usage  is  necessary  because  under 
the  test  procedures  of  S5.2(j)  it  is  the  retractor^ 
and  not  the  webbing,  that  is  accelerated.  The 
acceleration  must  be  in  the  direction  that  will 
reel  the  webbing  out  of  the  retractor — e.g.,  the 
direction  in  which  the  webbing  moves  when  re- 
tracting. 

7.  An  additional  question  on  retractor  ac- 
celeration levels  concerns  the  distance  which  a 
belt  must  be  withdrawn  in  determining  compli- 
ance with  the  requirement  that  the  retractor  shall 
not  lock  at  0.3g  or  less  (S4.3(j)  (ii) ).  The 
Hamill  Manufacturing  Company  has  requested 
an  amendment  to  S4.3(j)(ii)  to  provide  that  the 
retractor  shall  not  lock  before  the  webbing  ex- 
tends a  short  distance  at  an  acceleration  of  0.3g. 
The  National  Highway  Traffic  Safety  Adminis- 
tration recognizes  that  many  retractors  may  be 
velocity-sensitive  to  some  degree  as  well  as 
acceleration-sensitive.  Although  a  retractor  that 
locks  at  too  low  a  x^elocity  would  be  an  incon- 
venience, the  NHTSA  recognizes  that  an  occu- 
pant does  not  ordinarily  accelerate  the  belt  after 
an  initial  pull  and  that  the  usual  velocity  in- 
volved in  withdrawing  tlie  belt  is  low.  On  re- 
consideration, the  NHTSA  has  therefore  decided 
to  amend  S4.3(j)(ii)  to  provide  that  the  re- 
tractor shall  not  lock  before  the  webbing  extends 
2  inches  at  0.3g. 

8.  Several  petitioners  pointed  out  that  the  re- 
quirements for  retractor  force  specified  in 
S4.3(j)(iii)  and  (iv)  were  not  appropriate  for 
systems  in  which  a  single  length  of  webbing  is 
used  to  provide  both  lap  and  shoulder  restraint. 
In  a  typical  installation  of  this  sort,  the  webbing 
passes  from  a  floor-mounted  retractor  up  to  a 
fitting  on  the  B-pillar,  then  down  across  the 
shoulder  to  a  slip  joint  on  the  buckle  connector, 
and  from  there  back  across  the  lap  to  an  out- 
board floor  attachment.  Although  such  a  system 
may  provide  satisfactory  restraint,  it  cannot 
simultaneously  exceed  a  retractive  force  of  1.5 
pounds  on  the  lap  belt  and  have  a  retractive 


PART  671;  S  209— PRE  8 


force  on  the  shoulder  belt  of  between  0.45  and 
1.1  pounds,  and  it  would  therefore  fail  to  con- 
form to  the  standard  as  published  March  10. 

Upon  reconsideration,  the  National  Highway 
Traffic  Safety  Administration  has  decided  to 
amend  S4.3(j)  by  establishing  retraction  forces 
for  3-point  systems  that  employ  a  single  length 
of  webbing.  A  new  subsection  (v)  is  added  that 
requires  such  a  system  to  have  a  retraction  force 
falling  within  the  range  0.45  pounds-1.50  pounds, 
and  (iii)  and  (iv)  are  amended  so  that  they  do 
not  apply  to  retractors  in  such  systems.  This 
range  was  suggested  by  Volkswagen,  Volvo,  and 
Klippan,  and  is  considered  to  be  a  reasonable 
compromise  between  the  need  to  provide  com- 
plete retraction  of  the  belt  when  not  in  use  and 


Effacllv*:   January    1,    1972 
(Except  as  noted  In  the  Rule) 

the  need  to  limit  the  force  so  that  it  will  not  be 
uncomfortable  to  occupants. 

Effective  date:  January  1,  1972,  except  that 
seat  belt  assemblies  manufactured  on  or  after 
September  1,  1971  and  before  January  1,  1972, 
may  conform  either  to  the  current  requirements 
of  Standard  No.  209  in  49  CFR  571.21  or  to  the 
requirements  of  Standard  No.  209  as  amended 
by  this  notice  and  the  notice  of  March  10,  1971 
(36  F.R.  4607). 

Issued  on  August  26, 1971. 

Charles  H.  Hartman 
Acting  Administrator 

36   F.R.    17430 
August  31,   1971 


PART  571;  S  209— PRE  9-10 


(' 


EfFeclive:   August  28,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   209 

Seat  Belt  Assemblies 


(Docket  No.  73-16;   Notice  2) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  amend  certain 
requirements  of  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard 
No.  209  (49  CFR  571.209),  Seat  belt  assemblies, 
relating  to  the  width  of  belt  webbing  and  to  the 
performance  of  seat  belt  retractors.  The  amend- 
ments were  proposed  in  a  notice  published  June 
20,  1973  (38  FR  16084). 

In  the  June  20  notice,  the  agency  proposed  to 
allow  the  width  of  those  portions  of  a  combina- 
tion lap  and  shoulder  belt  that  do  not  touch  the 
occupant  to  be  less  than  the  1.8  inches  formerly 
required  by  the  standard.  The  Chrysler  Cor- 
poration, in  its  comment,  suggested  that  nar- 
rower webbing  should  also  be  permitted  for  the 
type  of  lap  belt  that  is  used  by  itself.  The 
agency  agrees  that  a  lap  belt  in  combination  with 
a  shoulder  belt  (known  as  Type  2  assembly)  is 
indistinguishable  from  an  independent  lap  belt 
(Type  1  assembly),  as  far  as  the  width  of  its 
webbing  is  concerned,  and  is  therefore  amending 
the  standard  to  permit  narrower  webbing  for 
non-contact  portions  of  Type  1  belts  as  well  as 
Type  2  belts. 

Chrysler  also  requested  narrower  webbing  for 
non-contact  portions  of  children's  harnesses 
(Type  3  assemblies).  In  view  of  the  close-fit- 
ting design  of  Type  3  assemblies,  the  agency  has 
not  found  a  benefit  to  be  gained  from  the  use 
of  narrower  webbing  in  the  few  areas  of  non- 
contact.  The  Type  3  requirements  are  not  being 
amended  at  this  time.  The  American  Safety 
Equipment  Corporation  requested  that  the  con- 
tactability  of  the  webbing  with  occupants  be 
determined  with  a  range  of  occupants.  The 
agency  remains  persuaded  that  the  use  of  a  95th 
percentile  adult  male  occupant  will  be  sufficient 
to  insure  that  the  narrower  webbing  will  not 
touch    any    occupant    who    uses    the    seat.      The 


agency    therefore    declines    to    adopt    American 
Safety's  suggestion. 

The  proposed  amendment  of  the  emergency- 
locking  retractor  requirements  of  S4.3  drew  sev- 
eral comments,  not  all  of  them  relating  to  the 
parts  of  S4.3  that  were  proposed  to  be  changed. 
Mercedes  Benz  requested  revision  of  the  require- 
ment of  S4.3(j)(2)  that  the  retractor  must  not 
lock  before  the  webbing  extends  2  inches  under 
an  acceleration  of  0.3g  or  less.  The  0.3g  require- 
ment had  been  carried  over  without  change  from 
the  previous  version  of  S4.3  and  was  thought  to 
be  a  reasonable  means  of  preventing  retractors 
from  being  inconveniently  sensitive.  The 
NHTSA  does  not  find  sufficient  cause  at  this 
time  to  alter  its  conclusion  concerning  the  most_ 
appropriate  minimum  level  and  is  therefore  re- 
taining the  minimum  level  of  0.3g. 

A  second  issue  raised  by  Mercedes  Benz  con- 
cerns the  treatment  under  section  S4.3(j)  of  a 
retractor  having  both  vehicle  sensitive  and 
webbing  sensitive  features.  It  has  been  the 
NHTSA's  position  that  with  respect  to  the  maxi- 
mum permissible  locking  level,  a  dual-action  re- 
tractor would  conform  if  it  met  either  of  the 
applicable  requirements.  Thus,  a  dual -action 
retractor  whose  webbing-sensitive  mechanism 
locks  within  1  inch  at  an  acceleration  of  0.7g 
will  conform,  even  though  its  vehicle-sensitive 
mechanism  is  not  capable  of  locking  at  its  re- 
quired level.  With  respect  to  the  minimum 
locking  level,  however,  different  considerations 
apply.  The  agency's  intent  in  providing  a  mini- 
mum level  below  which  the  retractor  must  not 
lock  is  to  enhance  the  convenience  of  the  system. 
The  webbing-sensitive  mex-hanism  that  locks  be- 
low 0.3g  wovdd  be  no  less  inconvenient  if  coupled 
with  a  vehicle  sensitive  mechanism  than  it  would 


PART  571;  S  209— PRE  11 


EfFecllve:   August   28,    1973 


be  if  used  by  itself.  The  agency  has  there- 
fore concluded  that  a  dual-action  retractor  may 
conform  to  the  maximum  locking  acceleration 
level  of  0.7g  (S4.3(i)(l))  with  either  mech- 
anism, but  that  it  must  conform  to  both  mini- 
mum locking  level  requirements  (S4.3(j)(2) 
and  (3)). 

The  tilt  angle  of  17°  proposed  as  the  minimum 
locking  level  for  vehicle  sensitive  retractors  was 
stated  by  several  comments  to  be  too  high.  Al- 
though there  was  general  agreement  as  to  the 
advisability  of  using  a  tilt  test  rather  than  an 
acceleration  test,  lower  tilt  angles  were  suggested, 
ranging  downward  to  11°.  After  considering 
the  comments,  tlie  NHTSA  has  concluded  that 
a  moderate  downward  revision  to  15°  will  pre- 
vent retractor  lockup  in  normal  road  operation 
and  has  adopted  that  angle  in  S4.3(j)(3).  The 
suggestion  by  Ford  and  American  Motors  that 
the  "retractor  drum's  central  axis"  may  be  diffi- 
cult to  determine  in  complicated  mechanisms 
has  been  found  to  have  merit  and  the  require- 
ment as  adopted  refers  to  the  orientation  at 
which  the  retractor  is  installed  in  the  vehicle. 

The  proposed  revisions  to  the  minimum  re- 
traction force  requirements  for  retractors  at- 
tached to  upper  torso  restraints  encountered 
several  objections,  the  principal  one  being  that 
no  one  was  certain  about  the  meaning  of  the 
proposed  requirement  that  the  retractor  should 
"retract  the  webbing  fully."  The  quoted  lan- 
guage had  been  proposed  in  response  to  a  peti- 
tion by  General  Motors  requesting  amendment  of 
the  requirement  that  the  retractor  exert  a  re- 
tractive force  of  not  less  than  0.45  pound.  The 
GM  petition  had  requested  a  force  of  0.2  pound, 
but  the  agency's  initial  intent,  as  reflected  in  the 
notice,  was  to  grant  a  potentially  greater  relief 
by  deleting  reference  to  a  specific  minimum 
force.  It  appears  from  the  confusion  in  the  com- 
ments that  a  contrary  result  might  be  produced 
in  some  cases,  and  the  agency  has  flierefore  con- 
cluded that  a  simple  reduction  in  the  force  level 
to  the  level  requested  by  GM  is  the  least  com- 
plicated and  most  readily  enforceable  means  of 
lowering  thfe  minimum  force  level.  The  sugges- 
tion by  Ford,  that  the  ability  to  retract  is  im- 
plicit in  the  definition  of  retractor  and  that  no 


minimum  force  level  is  required,  has  some  merit,     (\^ 
but  the  agency   prefers  to  retain  a  measurable 
minimum  level. 

There  were  several  questions  of  interpretation 
concerning  the  point  at  which  the  retraction 
force  is  to  be  measured.  The  test  procedures 
of  S5.2  provide  that  the  webbing  is  to  be  fully 
extended,  passing  over  any  hardware  or  other 
material  specified  for  use  with  the  webbing,  and 
that  it  is  then  to  be  retracted  and  the  retraction 
force  measured  as  the  lowest  force  within  plus 
or  minus  2  inches  of  75  percent  extension.  The 
procedure  is  intended  to  measure  the  ability  of 
the  retractor  to  retract  the  webbing  as  installed 
in  the  vehicle,  and  the  point  of  measurement 
most  consistent  with  this  intent  is  the  most  dis- 
tant point  of  the  webbing  from  the  retractor. 
The  NHTSA  intends  to  conduct  its  measure- 
ments in  this  fashion. 

The  proposed  amendment  to  S5.2  that  would 
amend  the  test  procedures  to  reflect  the  limita- 
tion of  the  0.3g  acceleration  level  to  webbing- 
sensitive  retractors  was  not  objected  to  and  is 
adopted  as  proposed. 

In    consideration    of    the    foregoing,    S4.2(a), 
S4.3(j),  and   S5.2(j)    of  Motor  Vehicle  Safety       ^ 
Standard     No.     209,    49     CFE     §571.209,    are 
amended.  .  .  . 

Effective  date:  August  28,  1973.  The  NHTSA 
finds  it  desirable  to  allow  manufacturers  to  pro- 
duce seat  belt  assemblies  under  the  requirements 
as  hereby  amended  (which  generally  are  relaxed 
relative  to  previous  requirements)  prior  to  the 
effective  date  of  the  next  phase  of  Standard  No. 
208  (49  CFR  571.208).  It  is  therefore  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  August  23,  1973. 

James    B.    Gregory 
Administrator 

38   F.R.  22958 
August  28,  1973 


PART  571;  S  209— PRE  12 


Effective:   January   24,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  209 

Seat  Belt  Assemblies 
(Docket  No.  73-16;   Notice  4) 


This  notice  amends  Standard  No.  209,  Seat 
belt  assemblies,  49  CFR  571.209,  to  reduce  the 
minimum  retraction  force  required  of  emergency- 
locking  retractors  attached  to  lap  belts  from  1.5 
pounds  to  0.6  pounds.  This  amendment  to  S4.3 
(j)  (4)  responds  to  a  rulemaking  petition  submit- 
ted by  Toyo  Kogyo. 

A  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  published 
October  2,  1973  (38  F.R.  27303),  proposed  the 
modification  because  the  1.5-pound  force  could 
prove  excessive  for  occupant  comfort,  and  ex- 
perience witli  the  0.6-pound  level  in  automatic- 
locking  retractors  has  been  satisfactory.  Their 
performance  at  0.6  pounds  does  not  support  an 
assertion  in  one  comment  to  the  docket  that 
degradation  of  the  retractor  elements  over  time 
would  result  in  almost  total  loss  of  retractive 
force.  All  other  comments  to  the  docket  were 
favorable. 


In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  S4.3(j)(4) 
of  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  209,  Seat 
belt  assemblies,  49  CFR  571.209,  is  amended 

Effective  date:  January  24,  1974.  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. 

(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  18,  1974. 


James  B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

39  F.R.  2771 
January  24,  1974 


PART  571;  S  209— PRE  13-14 


^ 


t 


(( 


Effactlva:   March   1,    1967 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   209 

Seat  Belt  Assemblies — Passenger  Cars,   Multipurpose  Passenger  Vehicles,  Trucks, 

and   Buses 

(Docket  No.  69-23) 


51.  Purpose  and  Scope. 

This  standard  specifies  requirements  for  seat- 
belt  assemblies. 

52.  Application. 

[This  standard  applies  to  seat  belt  assemblies 
for  use  in  passenger  cars,  multipurpose  passen- 
ger vehicles,  trucks,  and  buses.  (36  F.R.  17430 — 
August  31,  1971.    Effective:  1/1/72)] 

53.  Definitions. 

"Seat  belt  assembly"  means  any  strap,  web- 
bing, or  similar  device  designed  to  secure  a  person 
in  a  motor  vehicle  in  order  to  mitigate  the  results 
of  any  accident,  including  all  necessary  buckles 
and  other  fasteners,  and  all  hardware  designed 
for  installing  such  seat  belt  assembly  in  a  motor 
vehicle. 

"Pelvic  restraint"'  means  a  seat  belt  assembly 
or  portion  thereof  intended  to  restrain  movement 
of  the  pelvis. 

"Upper  torso  restraint"  means  a  portion  of  a 
seat  belt  assembly  intended  to  restrain  movement 
of  the  chest  and  shoulder  regions. 

"Hardware"  means  any  metal  or  rigid  plastic 
part  of  a  seat  belt  assembly. 

"Buckle"  means  a  quick  release  connector 
which  fastens  a  person  in  a  seat  belt  assembly. 

"Attachment  hardware"  means  any  or  all 
hardware  designed  for  securing  the  webbing  of 
a  seat  belt  assembly  to  a  motor  \ehicle. 

"Adjustment  hardware"  means  any  or  all 
hardware  designed  for  adjusting  the  size  of  a 
seat  belt  assembly  to  fit  the  user;  including  such 
hardware  that  may  be  integral  with  a  buckle, 
attachment  hardware,  or  retractor. 

"Retractor"  means  a  device  for  storing  part 
or  all  of  the  webbing  in  a  seat  belt  assembly. 


"Nonlocking  retractor"  means  a  retractor  from 
which  the  webbing  is  extended  to  essentially  its 
full  length  by  a  small  external  force,  which  pro- 
vides no  adjustment  for  assembly  length,  and 
which  may  or  may  not  be  capable  of  sustaining 
restraint  forces  at  maximum  webbing  extension. 

"Automatic-locking  retractor"  means  a  re- 
tractor incorporating  adjustment  hardware  by 
means  of  a  positive  self-locking  mechanism 
which  is  capable  when  locked  of  withstanding 
restraint  forces. 

"Emergency-locking  retractor"  means  a  re- 
tractor incorporating  adjustment  hardware  by 
means  of  a  locking  mechanism  that  is  activated 
by  vehicle  acceleration,  webbing  movement  rela- 
tive to  the  vehicle,  or  other  automatic  action 
during  an  emergency  and  is  capable  when  locked 
of  withstanding  restraint  forces. 

"Seat  back  retainer"  means  -the  portion  of 
some  seat  belt  assemblies  designed  to  restrict 
forward  movement  of  a  seat  back. 

"Webbing"  means  a  narrow  fabric  woven  with 
continuous  filling  yarns  and  finished  selvages. 

"Strap"  means  a  narrow  non-woven  material 
used  in  a  seat  belt  assembly  in  place  of  webbing. 

"Type  1  seat  belt  assembly"  is  a  lap  belt  for 
pelvic  restraint. 

"Type  2  seat  belt  assembly"  is  a  combination 
of  pelvic  and  upper  torso  restraints. 

"Type  2a  shoulder  belt"  is  an  upper  torso  re- 
straint for  use  only  in  conjunction  with  a  lap 
belt  as  a  Type  2  seat  belt  assembly. 

"Type  3  seat  belt  assembly"  is  a  combination 
pelvic  and  upper  torso  restraint  for  persons 
weighing  not  more  than  50  pounds  or  23  kilo- 
grams and  capable  of  sitting  upright  by  them- 
selves, that  is  children  in  the  approximate  age 
range  of  8  months  to  6  years. 


(Rev.   Aug.    19711 


PART  571 ;  S  209-1 


Effective:    Morch    1,    1967 


S4.   Requirements. 

S4.1  (a)  Single  occupancy.  A  seat  belt  as- 
sembly shall  be  desi^  led  for  use  by  one,  and 
only  one,  person  at  any  one  time. 

(b)  Pelvic  restraint.  A  seat  belt  assembly 
shall  provide  pelvic  restraint  whether  or  not 
upper  torso  restraint  is  provided,  and  the  pelvic 
restraint  shall  be  designed  to  remain  on  the  pelvis 
under  all  conditions,  including  collision  or  roll- 
over of  the  motor  vehicle.  Pelvic  restraint  of  a 
Type  2  seat  belt  assembly  that  can  be  used  with- 
out upper  torso  restraint  shall  comply  with  re- 
quirements for  Type  1  seat  belt  assembly  in 
S4.1  to  S4.4. 

(c)  Upper  torso  restraint.  A  Type  2  or  Type 
3  seat  belt  assembly  shall  provide  upper  torso 
restraint  without  shifting  the  pelvic  restraint 
into  the  abdominal  region.  An  upper  torso  re- 
straint .shall  be  designed  to  minimize  vertical 
forces  on  the  shoulders  and  spine.  Hardware 
for  upper  torso  restraint  shall  be  so  designed 
and  located  in  the  seat  belt  assembly  that  the 
possibility  of  injury  to  the  occupants  is  mini- 
mized. 

A   Type  2a   shoulder  belt  shall   comply   with 
applicable  requirements  for  a  Type  2  seat  bel 
assembly  in  S4.1  to  S4.4,  inclusive. 

(d)  Hardware.  All  hardware  parts  which 
contact  under  normal  usage  a  person,  clothing. 
or  webbing  shall  be  free  from  burrs  and  sharp 
edges. 

(e)  Release.  A  Type  1  or  Type  2  .seat  belt 
assembly  shall  be  provided  with  a  buckle  or 
buckles  readily  accessible  to  the  occupant  to  per- 
mit his  easy  and  rapid  removal  from  the  as- 
sembly. A  Type  3  seat  belt  assembly  shall  be 
provided  with  a  quickly  recognizable  and  easily 
operated  release  arrangement,  readily  accessible 
to  an  adult.  Buckle  release  mechanism  shall  be 
designed  to  minimize  the  possibility  of  acci- 
dental release.  A  buckle  with  release  mechanism 
in  the  latched  position  shall  have  only  one  open- 
ing in  which  the  tongue  can  be  inserted  on  the 
end  of  the  buckle  designed  to  receive  and  latch 
the  tongue. 

(f)  Attachment  hardware.  [A  seat  belt  as- 
sembly shall  include  all  hardware  necessary  for 
installation  in  a  motor  vehicle  in  accordance  with 
SAE  Recommended  Practice  J800B,  Motor  Ve- 


hicle Seat  Belt  Installations,  September  1965.  /^ 
However,  seat  belt  assemblies  designed  for  in-  (^ 
stallation  in  motor  vehicles  equipped  with  seat 
belt  assembly  anchorages  tiiat  do  not  require 
anchorage  nuts,  plates,  or  washers,  need  not  have 
such  hardware,  but  shall  have  7/16-20  UXF-2A 
or  1/2-13  UNC-2A  attachment  bolts  or  equiv- 
alent hardware.  The  hardware  shall  be  designed 
to  pi-event  attachment  bolts  and  other  parts  from 
becoming  disengaged  from  the  vehicle  while  in 
.service.  Reinforcing  plates  or  washers  furnished 
for  universal  floor  installations  shall  be  of  steel, 
free  from  burrs  and  sliarp  edges  on  the  periph- 
eral edges  adjacent  to  the  vehicle,  at  least  .06 
incli  in  thickness  and  at  least  4  square  inches  in 
projected  area.  The  distance  between  any  edge 
of  the  plate  and  the  edge  of  the  bolt  hole  shall 
be  at  least  0.6  inch.  Any  corner  shall  be  rounded 
to  a  radius  of  not  less  than  0.25  inch  or  cut  so 
that  no  corner  angle  is  less  than  135°  and  no 
side  in  less  than  0.25  inch  in  length.  (36  F.R. 
17430— August  31,  1971.     Effective:  1/1/72)] 

(g)  Adjustment. 

[(1)  A  Type  1  or  Type  2  seat  belt  assembly 
shall  be  capable  of  adjustment  to  fit  occupants 
whose  dimensions  and  weight  range  from  / 
those  of  a  5th-percentile  adult  female  to  ' 
those  of  a  95th-percentile  adult  male.  The 
seat  belt  assemblj-  .sliall  have  either  an  auto- 
matic-locking retractor,  an  emergency-locking 
retractor,  or  an  adjusting  device  that  is  within 
the  reach  of  the  occupant.  A  Type  3  seat  belt 
assembly  shall  be  capable  of  adjustment  to  fit 
any  child  capable  of  sitting  upright  and 
weighing  not  more  than  50  pounds,  unless  it  is 
specifically  labeled  for  use  on  a  child  in  a 
smaller  weight  range. 

(2)  A  Type  1  or  Type  2  seat  belt  assembly 
for  use  in  a  vehicle  having  seats  that  are  ad- 
justable shall  conform  to  the  requirements  of 
S4.1  (g)(1)  regardless  of  seat  position.  How- 
ever, if  a  seat  has  a  back  that  is  separately 
adjustable,  the  requirements  of  S4.1  (g)(1) 
need  be  met  only  with  the  seat  back  in  the 
manufacturer's  nominal  design  riding  position. 

(3)  The  adult  occupants  referred  to  in 
S4.1  (g)(1)  shall  have  the  following  measure- 
ments : 


(Rev.   Aug.    1971) 


PART  571;  S  209-2 


Effactiv*:   March    1,    1967 


5th-percentile    95th-percentile 
adult  female         adult  male 


Weight 102  pounds 215  pounds. 

Erect  sitting  height 30.9  inches 38  inches. 

Hip  breadth  (sitting) 12.8  inches 16.4  inches. 

Hip  circumference  36.  4  inches 47.2  inches. 

(sitting). 

Waist  circumference  23.6  inches 42.5  inches. 

(sitting). 

Chest  depth 7.5  inches 10.5  inches. 

Chest  circumference: 

(nipple) 30.5  inches "l 

(upper)-.   29.8  inches 44.  5  inches. 

(lower) 26.6  inches 

(36    F.R.    4607— March    10,    1971.      Effective: 

9/1/71)] 

(h)  Seat  haek  retainer.  A  Type  3  seat  belt 
assembly  designed  for  attachment  to  a  seat  back 
or  for  use  in  a  seat  with  a  hinged  back  shall 
include  a  seat  back  retainer  unless  such  assembly 
is  designed  and  labeled  for  use  in  specific  models 
of  motor  vehicles  in  which  the  vehicle  manufac- 
turer has  provided  other  adequate  restraint  for 
the  seat  back. 

(i)  Wehiiyig.  The  ends  of  webbing  in  a  seat 
belt  assembly  shall  be  protected  or  treated  to 
prevent  raveling.  The  end  of  webbing  in  a  seat 
belt  assembly  having  a  metal-to-metal  buckle 
that  is  used  by  the  occupant  to  adjust  the  size  of 
the  assemblv  shall  not  pull  out  of  the  adjustment 
hardware  at  maximum  size  adjustment.  Provi- 
sion shall  be  made  for  essentially  unimpeded 
movement  of  webbing  routed  between  a  seat  back 
and  seat  cushion  and  attached  to  a  retractor  lo- 
cated behind  the  seat. 

(j)  Strap.  A  strap  used  in  a  seat  belt  as- 
sembly to  sustain  restraint  forces  shall  comply 
with  the  requirements  for  webbing  in  §  4.2,  and 
if  the  strap  is  made  from  a  rigid  material,  it 
shall  'comply  with  applicable  requirements  in 
S4.2,  S4.3  and  S4.4. 

(k)  MarJcing.  Each  seat  belt  assembly  shall 
be  permanently  and  legibly  marked  or  labeled 
with  year  of  manufacture,  model,  and  name  or 
trademark  of  manufacturer  or  distributor,  or  of 
importer  if  manufactured  outside  the  United 
States.  A  model  shall  consist  of  a  single  combi- 
nation of  webbing  having  a  specific  type  of  fiber 
weave  and  construction,  and  hardware  having  a 
specific  design.  Webbings  of  various  colors  may 
be  included  under  the  same  model,  but  webbing 


of  each  color  shall  comply  with  the  requirements 
for  webbing  in  S4.2. 

(1)  hxxtallation.  instructions.  A  seat  belt  as- 
sembly or  retractor  shall  be  accompanied  by  an 
instruction  sheet  providing  sufficient  information 
for  installing  the  assembly  in  a  motor  vehicle 
except  for  a  seat  belt  assembly  installed  in  a 
motor  vehicle  by  an  automobile  manufacturer. 
The  installation  instructions  shall  state  whether 
the  assembly  is  for  universal  installation  or  for 
inst.allation  only  in  specifically  stated  motor  ve- 
hicles, and  shall  include  at  least  those  items  in 
SAE  Recommended  Practice,  Motor  Vehicle  Seat 
Belt  Installations— SAE  J800b,  published  by  the 
Society  of  Automotive  Engineers. 

(m)  Usage  and  maintenance  instructions.  A 
seat  belt  assembly  or  retractor  shall  be  accom- 
panied by  written  instructions  for  the  proper 
use  of  the  assembly,  stressing  particularly  the 
importance  of  wearing  the  assembly  snugly  and 
properly  located  on  the  body,  and  on  the  main- 
tenance of  the  assembly  and  periodic  inspection 
of  all  components.  The  instructions  shall  show 
the  proper  manner  of  threading  webbing  in  the 
hardware  of  seat  belt  assemblies  in  which  the 
webbing  is  not  permanently  fastened.  Instruc- 
tions for  a  nonlocking  retractor  shall  include  a 
caution  that  the  webbing  must  be  fully  extended 
from  the  retractor  during  use  of  the  seat  belt 
assembly  unless  the  retractor  is  attached  to  the 
free  end  of  webbing  which  is  not  subjected  to 
any  tension  during  restraint  of  an  occupant  by 
the  assembly.  Instructions  for  Type  2a  shoulder 
belt  shall  include  a  warning  that  the  shoulder 
belt  is  not  to  be  used  without  a  lap  belt. 

(n)  Workmanship.  Seat  belt  assemblies  shall 
have  good  workmanship  in  accordance  with  good 
commercial  practice. 

S4.2   Requirements  for  webbing. 

(a)  Width.  [The  width  of  the  webbing  in  a 
seat  belt  assembly  shall  be  not  less  than  the  fol- 
lowing when  measured  under  the  conditions  pre- 
scribed in  S5.1(a)  : 

(1)  Type  1  and  Type  2  assemblies— 1.8 
inches,  except  for  portions  that  do  not  touch 
a  95th  percentile  adult  male  with  the  seat  in 
any  adjustment  position  and  the  seat  back  in 
the  manufacturer's  nominal  design  riding 
position. 


(Rev.    8/23/73) 


PART  571;  S  209-3 


Effective:   March    1,    1967 


(2)  Type    3    seat    belt    assembly — 0.9    inch. 
(38  F.R.  22958— August  28,  1973.     Effective: 

8/28/73)] 

(b)  Breaking  strength.  The  webbing  in  a 
seat  belt  assembly  shall  have  not  less  than  the 
following  breaking  strength  when  tested  by  the 
procedures  specified  in  S5.1(b)  :  Type  Iseat  belt 
assembly — 6,000  pounds  or  2,720  kilograms ;  Type 
2  seat  belt  assembly — 5,000  pounds  or  2,270  kilo- 
grams for  webbing  in  pelvic  restraint  and  4,000 
pounds  or  1,810  kilograms  for  webbing  in  upper 
torso  restraint;  Type  3  seat  belt  assembly — 1,500 
pounds  or  680  kilograms  for  webbing  in  pelvic 
and  upper  torso  restraints,  4,000  pounds  or  1,810 
kilograms  for  webbing  in  seat  back  retainer  and 
for  webbing  connecting  pelvic  and  upper  torso 
restraints  to  attachment  hardware  when  assembly 
has  single  webbing  connection,  or  3,000  pounds 
or  1,360  kilograms  for  webbing  connecting  pelvic 
and  upper  torso  restraint  to  attachment  hard- 
ware when  assembly  has  two  or  more  webbing 
connections. 

(c)  Elongation.  The  webbing  in  a  seat  belt 
assembly  shall  not  be  extended  to  more  than  the 
following  elongations  when  subjected  to  the 
specified  forces  in  accordance  with  the  procedure 
specified  in  S5.1(c)  :  Type  1  seat  belt  assembly — 
20  percent  at  2,500  pounds  or  1,130  kilograms; 
Type  2  seat  belt  assembly — 30  percent  at  2,500 
pounds  or  1,130  kilograms  for  webbing  in  pelvic 
restraint  and  40  percent  at  2,500  pounds  or  1,130 
kilograms  for  webbing  in  upper  torso  restraint; 
Type  3  seat  belt  assembly — 20  percent  at  700 
pounds  or  320  kilograms  for  webbing  in  pelvic 
and  upper  torso  restraints,  and  25  percent  at 
2,500  pounds  or  1,130  kilograms  for  webbing  in 
seat  back  retainer  and  for  webbing  connecting 
pelvic  and  upper  torso  restraints  to  attachment 
hardware  when  assembly  has  single  webbing  con- 
nection, or  25  percent  at  1,800  pounds  or  820 
kilograms  for  webbing  connecting  pelvic  and 
upper  torso  restraints  to  attachment  hardware 
when  assembly  has  two  or  more  webbing  con- 
nections. 

(d)  Resistance  to  abrasio7i.  [The  webbing  of 
a  seatbelt  assembly,  after  being  subjected  to 
abrasion  as  specified  in  either  S5.1(d)  or  S5.3(d), 
shall  have  a  breaking  strength  of  not  less  than  75 
percent  of  the  breaking  strength  listed  in  S4.2(b) 


for  that  type  of  belt  assembly.  (36  F.R.  4607— 
March  10,  1971.     Effective:  9/1/71)]  f 

(e)  Resistance   to   light.     The   webbing   in   a       ^^ 
seat  belt  assembly  after  exposure  to  the  light  of 

a  carbon  arc  and  tested  by  the  procedure  speci- 
fied in  S5.1(e)  shall  have  a  breaking  strength 
not  less  than  60  percent  of  the  strength  before 
exposure  to  the  carbon  arc  and  shall  have  a 
color  retention  not  less  than  No.  2  on  the  Geo- 
metric Gray  Scale  published  by  the  American 
Association  of  Textile  Chemists  and  Colorists, 
Post  Office  Box  886,  Durham,  N.  C. 

(f)  Resistance  to  micro-organisms.  The  web- 
bing in  a  seat  belt  assembly  after  being  subjected 
to  micro-organisms  and  tested  by  the  procedures 
specified  in  S5.1  (f )  shall  have  a  breaking  strength 
not  less  than  85  percent  of  the  strength  before 
subjection  to  micro-organisms. 

(g)  Colorfastness  to  crocking.  The  webbing 
in  a  seat  belt  assembly  shall  not  transfer  color  to 
a  crock  cloth  either  wet  or  dry  to  a  greater  de- 
gree than  class  3  on  the  AATCC  Chart  for 
Measuring  Transference  of  Color  published  by 
the  American  Association  of  Textile  Chemists 
and  Colorists,  when  tested  by  the  procedure 
specified  in  S5.1(g).  /' 

(h)  ColorfastTiess  to  staining.  The  webbing  T 
in  a  seat  belt  assembly  shall  not  stain  to  a  greater 
degree  than  class  3  on  the  AATCC  Chart  for 
Measuring  Transference  of  Color  published  by 
the  American  Association  of  Textile  Chemists 
and  Colorists,  when  tested  by  the  procedure 
specified  in  S5.1(h). 

S4.3   Requirements  for  hardware. 

(a)   Corrosion  resistance. 

(1)  Attachment  hardware  of  a  seat  belt  as- 
sembly after  being  subjected  to  the  conditions 
specified  in  S5.2(a)  shall  be  free  of  ferrous 
corrosion  on  significant  surfaces  except  for 
permissible  ferrous  corrosion  at  peripheral 
edges  or  edges  of  holes  on  underfloor  reinforc- 
ing plates  and  washers.  Alternatively,  such 
hardware  at  or  near  the  floor  shall  be  pro- 
tected against  corrosion  by  at  least  a  Type 
KS  electrodeposited  coating  of  nickel,  or 
copi^er  and  nickel,  and  other  attachment  hard- 
ware shall  be  protected  by  a  Type  QS  electro- 
deposited    coating    of    nickel    or    copper    and 


(Rev.    8/23/73) 


PART  571;  S  209-^ 


EfFeclive:   March    1,    1967 


nickel,  in  accordance  with  Tentative  Specifica- 
tions for  Electrodeposited  Coatings  of  Nickel 
and  Chromium  on  Steel,  ASTM  Designation: 
A166-61T,  published  by  the  American  Society 
for  Testing  and  Materials,  1916  Race  Street, 
Philadelphia,  Pa.  19103,  but  such  hardware 
shall  not  be  racked  for  electroplating  in  loca- 
tions subjected  to  maximum  stresses. 

(2)  Surfaces  of  buckles,  retractors  and  me- 
tallic parts,  other  than  attachment  hardware, 
of  a  seat  belt  assembly  after  subjection  to  the 
conditions  specified  in  S5.2(a)  shall  be  free  of 
ferrous  or  nonferrous  corrosion  which  may  be 
transferred,  either  directly  or  by  means  of  the 
webbing,  to  the  occupant  or  his  clothing  when 
the  assembly  is  worn.  After  test,  buckles  shall 
conform  to  applicable  requirements  in  para- 
graphs (d)  to  (g)  of  this  section. 

(b)  Temperature  resistatice.  Plastic  or  other 
nonmetallic  hardware  parts  of  a  seat  belt  as- 
sembly when  subjected  to  the  conditions  specified 
in  S5.2(b)  shall  not  warp  or  otherwise  deteri- 
orate to  cause  the  assembly  to  operate  improperly 
or  fail  to  comply  with  applicable  requirements 
in  this  section  and  S4.4. 

(c)  Attachment  hardware. 

(1)  Eye  bolts,  shoulder  bolts,  or  other  bolts 
used  to  secure  the  pelvic  restraint  of  a  seat 
belt  assembly  to  a  motor  vehicle  shall  with- 
stand a  force  of  9,000  pounds  or  4,080  kilo- 
grams when  tested  by  the  procedure  specified 
in  S5. 2(c)(1),  except  that  attachment  bolts  of 
a  seat  belt  assembly  designed  for  installation 
in  specific  models  of  motor  vehicles  in  which 
the  ends  of  two  or  more  seat  belt  assemblies 
can  not  be  attached  to  the  vehicle  by  a  single 
bolt  shall  have  a  breaking  strength  of  not  less 
than  5,000  pounds  or  2,270  kilograms. 

(2)  Other  attachment  hardware  designed  to 
receive  the  ends  of  two  seat  belt  assemblies 
shall  withstand  a  tensile  force  of  at  least  6,000 
pounds  or  2,270  kilograms  without  fracture  of 
any  section  when  tested  by  the  procedure 
specified  in  S5.2(c)(2). 

(3)  A  seat  belt  assembly  having  single  at- 
tachment hooks  of  the  quick-disconnect  type 
for  connecting  webbing  to  an  eye  bolt  shall  be 
provided  with  a  retaining  latch  or  keeper 
which  shall  not  move  more  than  0.08  inch  or 


2  millimeters  in  either  the  vertical  or  hori- 
zontal direction  when  tested  by  the  procedure 
specified  in  S5.2(c)(3). 

(d)  BncMe  release. 

(1)  The  buckle  of  a  Type  1  or  Type  2  seat 
belt  assembly  shall  release  when  a  force  of  not 
more  than  30  pounds  or  14  kilograms  is  ap- 
plied, and  the  buckle  of  a  Type  3  seat  belt 
assembly  shall  release  when  a  force  of  not 
more  than  20  pounds  or  9  kilograms  is  ap- 
plied as  prescribed  in  S5.2. 

(2)  A  buckle  designed  for  pushbutton  ap- 
plication of  buckle  release  force  shall  have  a 
minimum  area  of  0.7  square  inch  or  4.5  square 
centimeters  with  a  minimum  linear  dimension 
of  0.4  inch  or  10  millimeters  for  applying  the 
release  force,  or  a  buckle  designed  for  lever 
application  of  buckle  release  force  shall  permit 
the  insertion  of  a  cylinder  0.4  inch  or  10  milli- 
meters in  diameter  and  1.5  inches  or  38  milli- 
meters in  length  to  at  least  the  midpoint  of 
the  cylinder  along  the  cylinder's  entire  length 
in  the  actuation  portion  of  the  buckle  release. 
A  buckle  having  other  design  for  release  shall 
have  adequate  access  for  two  or  more  fingers 
to  actuate  release.  (32  F.R.  2415— Feb.  3, 
1967;  34  F.R.  115— Jan.  4,  1969) 

(3)  [The  buckle  of  a  Type  1  or  Type  2  seat 
belt  assembly  shall  not  release  under  a  com- 
pressive force  of  400  pounds  applied  as  pre- 
scribed in  paragraph  S5.2 (d)(3).  The  buckle 
shall  be  operable  and  shall  meet  the  applicable 
requirements  of  paragraph  S4.4  after  the  com- 
pressive force  has  been  removed.  (36  F.R. 
4607— March  10,  1971.     Effective:  9/1/71)] 

(e)  Adjustment  force.  The  force  required  to 
decrease  the  size  of  a  seat  belt  assembly  shall  not 
exceed  11  pounds  or  5  kilograms  when  measured 
by  the  procedure  specified  in  S5.2(e). 

(f)  Tilt-lock  adjustment.  The  buckle  of  a 
seat  belt  assembly  having  tilt-lock  adjustment 
shall  lock  the  webbing  when  tested  by  the  pro- 
cedure specified  in  S5.2(f)  at  an  angle  of  not 
less  than  30  degrees  between  the  base  of  the 
buckle  and  the  anchor  webbing. 

(g)  Buckle  latch.  The  buckle  latch  of  a  seat 
belt  assembly  when  tested  by  the  procedure 
specified  in  S5.2(g)  shall  not  fail,  nor  gall  or 
wear  to  an  extent  that  normal  latching  and  un- 


IRev.  Aug.    1971) 


PART  571;  S  209-5 


Effective:   March    1,    1967 


latching  is  impaired,  and  a  metal-to-metal  buckle 
shall  separate  when  in  any  position  of  partial 
engagement  by  a  force  of  not  more  than  5  pounds 
or  2.3  kilograms. 

(h)  Nonlochmg  retractor.  The  webbing  of  a 
seat  belt  assembly  shall  extend  from  a  nonlock- 
ing retractor  within  0.25  inch  or  6  millimeters 
of  maximum  length  when  a  tension  is  applied 
as  prescribed  in  S5.2(h).  A  nonlocking  retractor 
on  upper-torso  restraint  shall  be  attached  to  the 
nonadjustable  end  of  the  assembly,  the  reel  of 
the  retractor  shall  be  easily  visible  to  an  occu- 
pant while  wearing  the  assembly,  and  the  maxi- 
mum retraction  force  shall  not  exceed  1.1  pounds 
or  0.5  kilogram  in  any  strap  or  webbing  that 
contacts  the  shoulder  when  measured  by  the  pro- 
cedure specified  in  S5.2(h),  unless  the  retractor 
is  attached  to  the  free  end  of  webbing  which  is 
not  subjected  to  any  tension  during  restraint  of 
an  occupant  by  the  assembly. 

(i)  Automat ic-locliing  retractor.  The  webbing 
of  a  seat  belt  assembly  equipped  with  an  auto- 
matic-locking retractor,  when  tested  by  the  pro- 
cedure specified  in  S5.2(i),  shall  not  move  more 
than  1  inch  or  25  millimeters  between  locking 
positions  of  the  retractor,  and  shall  be  retracted 
with  a  force  under  zero  acceleration  of  not  less 
than  0.6  pound  or  0.27  kilogram  when  attached 
to  pelvic  restraint,  and  not  less  than  0.45  pound 
or  0.2  kilogram  nor  more  than  1.1  pounds  or  0.5 
kilogram  in  any  strap  or  webbing  that  contacts 
the  shoulders  of  an  occupant  when  the  retractor 
is  attached  to  upper  torso  restraint.  An  auto- 
matic locking  retractor  attached  to  upper  torso 
restraint  shall  not  increase  the  restraint  on  the 
occupant  of  the  seat  belt  assembly  during  use  in 
a  vehicle  traveling  over  rough  roads  as  prescribed 
in  S5.2(i). 

(j)  Emergency -locking  retractor.  [An  emer- 
gency-locking retractor  of  a  Type  1  or  Type  2 
seat  belt  assembly,  when  tested  in  accordance 
with  the  procedures  specified  in  paragraph 
S5.2(j)- 

(1)  Shall  lock  before  the  webbing  extends 
1  inch  when  the  retractor  is  subjected  to  an 
acceleration  of  0.7g; 

(2)  Shall  not  lock,  if  the  retractor  is  sensi- 
tive to  webbing  withdrawal,  before  the  web- 
bing extends  2  inches  when  the  retractor  is 
subjected  to  an  acceleration  of  0.3g  or  less; 


(3)  Shall  not  lock,  if  the  retractor  is  sensi-     /^ 
tive  to  vehicle  acceleration,  when  the  retractor     Vl 
is  rotated  in  any  direction  to  any  angle  of  15° 

or  less  from  its  orientation  in  the  vehicle; 

(4)  [Shall  exert  a  retractive  force  of  at 
least  0.6  pound  under  zero  acceleration  when 
attached  only  to  the  pelvic  restraint.  (39  F.R. 
2771— January  24,  1974.    Effective:  1/24/74)] 

(5)  Shall  exert  a  retractive  force  of  not  less 
than  0.2  pound  and  not  more  than  1.1  pounds 
under  zero  acceleration  when  attached  only 
to  an  upper  torso  restraint; 

(6)  Shall  exert  a  retractive  force  of  not  less 
than  0.2  pound  and  not  more  than  1.5  pounds 
under  zero  acceleration  when  attached  to  a 
strap  or  webbing  that  restrains  both  the  upper 
torso  and  the  pelvis.  (38  F.R.  22958— August 
28,  1973.     Effective:  8/28/73)] 

(k)  Performance  of  retractor.  A  retractor 
used  on  a  seat  belt  assembly  after  subjection  to 
the  tests  specified  in  S5.2(k)  shall  comply  with 
applicable  requirements  in  paragraphs  (h)  to 
(j)  of  this  section  and  S4.4,  except  that  the  re- 
traction force  shall  be  not  less  than  50  percent 
of  its  original  retraction  force. 

S4.4   Requirements  for  assembly  performance.  ;/ 

(a)  Type  1  seat  belt  assembly.  The  complete  *^ 
seat  belt  assembly  including  webbing,  straps, 
buckles,  adjustment  and  attachment  hardware, 
and  retractors  shall  comply  with  the  following 
requirements  when  tested  by  the  procedures 
specified  in  S5.3(a)  : 

(1)  The  assembly  loop  shall  withstand  a 
force  of  not  less  than  5,000  pounds  or  2,270 
kilograms;  that  is,  each  structural  component 
of  the  assembly  shall  withstand  a  force  of  not 
less  than  2,500  pounds  or  1,130  kilograms. 

(2)  The  assembly  loop  shall  extend  not 
more  than  7  inches  or  18  centimeters  when 
subjected  to  a  force  of  5,000  pounds  or  2,270 
kilograms;  that  is,  the  length  of  the  assembly 
between  anchorages  shall  not  increase  more 
than  14  inches  or  36  centimeters. 

(3)  Any  webbing  cut  by  the  hardware  dur- 
ing test  shall  have  a  breaking  strength  at  the 
cut  of  not  less  than  4,200  pounds  or  1,910 
kilograms. 

(4)  Complete  fracture  through  any  solid 
section  of  metal  attachment  hardware  shall 
not  occur  during  test. 


(Rev.    1/18/74) 


PART  571 ;  S  209-6 


Eff«ctiv»:    March    1,    1967 


(b)  Type  2  seat  belt  assembly.  The  compo- 
nents of  a  Type  2  seat  belt  assembly  including 
webbing,  straps,  buckles,  adjustment  and  attach- 
ment hardware,  and  retractors  shall  comply  with 
the  following  requirements  when  tested  by  the 
procedure  specified  in  S5.3(b)  : 

(Ij  The  structural  components  in  the  pelvic 
restraint  shall  withstand  a  force  of  not  less 
than  2,500  pounds  or  1,130  kilograms. 

(2)  The  structural  components  in  the  upper 
torso  restraint  shall  withstand  a  force  of  not 
less  than  1,500  pounds  or  680  kilograms. 

(3)  The  structural  components  in  the  as- 
sembly that  are  common  to  pelvic  and  upper 
torso  restraints  shall  withstand  a  force  of  not 
less  than  3,000  pounds  or  1,360  kilograms. 

(4)  The  length  of  the  pelvic  restraint  be- 
tween anchorages  shall  not  increase  more  than 
20  inches  or  50  centimeters  when  subjected  to 
a  force  of  2,500  pounds  or  1,130  kilograms. 

(5)  The  length  of  the  upper  torso  restraint 
between  anchorages  shall  not  increase  more 
than  20  inches  or  50  centimeters  when  subjected 
to  a  force  of  1,500  pounds  or  680  kilograms. 

(6)  Any  webbing  cut  by  the  hardware  dur- 
ing test  shall  have  a  breaking  strength  of  not 
less  than  3,500  pounds  or  1,590  kilograms  at 
a  cut  in  webbing  of  the  pelvic  restraint,  or 
not  less  than  2,800  pounds  or  1,270  kilograms 
at  a  cut  in  webbing  of  the  upper  torso  restraint. 

(7)  Complete  fracture  through  any  solid 
section  of  metal  attachment  hardware  shall  not 
occur  during  test. 

(c)  Type  3  seat  belt  assembly.  The  complete 
seat  belt  assembly  including  webbing,  straps, 
buckles,  adjustment  and  attachment  hardware, 
and  retractors  shall  comply  with  the  following 
requirements  when  tested  by  the  procedures 
specified  in  S5.3(c)  : 

(1)  The  complete  assembly  shall  withstand 
a  force  of  2,000  pounds  or  900  kilograms. 

(2)  The  complete  assembly  shall  extend  not 
more  than  12  inches  or  30  centimeters  when 
subjected  to  a  force  of  2,000  pounds  or  900 
kilograms. 

(3)  Any  webbing  cut  by  the  hardware  dur- 
ing test  shall  have  a  breaking  strength  of  not 
less  than  1,050  pounds  or  480  kilograms  at  a 
cut  in  webbing  of  pelvic  or  upper  torso  re- 
straints, or  not  less  than  2,800  pounds  or  1,270 


kilograms  at  a  cut  in  webbing  of  seat  back 
retainer  or  in  webbing  connecting  pelvic  and 
upper  torso  restraint  at  attachment  hardware. 
(4)  Complete  fracture  through  any  solid 
section  of  metal  attachment  hardware  shall 
not  occur  during  test. 


T:  :z-* 


A 
B 


WEBBING 


1  TO  2  INCHES  OR  2.5  TO  5  CENTIMETERS 
A  MINUS  0.06  INCH  0.15  CENTIMETER 

FIGURE  1 


S5.   Demonstration   Procedures. 
S5.1    Webbing. 

(a)  Width.  The  width  of  webbing  from  three 
seat  belt  assemblies  shall  be  measured  after  con- 
ditioning for  at  least  24  hours  in  an  atmosphere 
having  relative  humidity  between  48  and  67  per- 
cent and  a  temperature  of  23±2  degrees  Celsius 
or    73.4±3.6    degree    Fahrenheit.      The    tension 


PART  571;  S  209-7 


Effective:    March    1,    1967 


during  measurement  of  width  shall  be  not  more 
than  5  pounds  or  2  kilograms  on  webbing  from 
a  Type  1  or  Type  3  seat  belt  assembly,  and 
2,200±100  pounds  or  1,000±50  kilograms  on 
webbing  from  a  Type  2  seat  belt  assembly.  The 
width  of  webbing  from  a  Type  2  seat  belt  as- 
sembly may  be  measured  during  the  breaking 
strength  test  described  in  paragraph  (b)  of  this 
section. 

(b)  Breaking  strength.  "Webbing  from  three 
seat  belt  assemblies  shall  be  conditioned  in  ac- 
cordance with  paragraph  (a)  of  this  section  and 
tested  for  breaking  strengtli  in  a  testing  machine 
of  suitable  capacity  verified  to  have  an  error  of 
not  more  than  1  percent  in  the  range  of  the 
breaking  strength  of  the  webbing  by  the  Tenta- 
tive Methods  of  Verification  of  Testing  Machines, 
ASTM  Designation:  E4-64,  published  by  the 
American  Society  for  Testing  and  Materials,  1916 
Race  Street,  Philadelphia,  Pa.  19103. 

The  machine  sliall  be  equipped  with  split 
drum  grips  illustrated  in  Figure  1,  having  a 
diameter  between  2  and  4  inches  or  5  and  10 
centimeters.  The  rate  of  grip  separation  shall 
be  between  2  and  4  inches  per  minute  or  5  and 
10  centimeters  per  minute.  The  distance  between 
the  centers  of  the  grips  at  the  start  of  the  test 
shall  be  between  4  and  10  inches  or  10  and  25 
centimeters.  After  placing  the  specimen  in  the 
grips,  the  webbing  sliall  be  stretched  continuously 
at  a  uniform  rate  to  failure.  Each  value  shall 
be  not  less  than  the  applicable  breaking  strength 
requirements  in  S4.2(b),  but  the  median  value 
shall  be  used  for  determining  the  retention  of 
breaking  strength  in  paragraphs  (d),  (e),  and 
(f)  of  this  section. 

(c)  Elongation.  Elongation  shall  be  measured 
during  the  breaking  strength  test  described  in 
paragraph  (b)  of  this  section  by  the  following 
procedure:  A  preload  between  44  and  55  pounds 
or  20  and  25  kilograms  shall  be  placed  on  the 
webbing  mounted  in  the  grips  of  the  testing 
machine  and  the  needle  points  of  an  extensometer, 
in  which  the  points  remain  parallel  during  test, 
are  inserted  in  the  center  of  the  specimen.  Ini- 
tially the  points  shall  be  set  at  a  known  distance 
apart  between  4  and  8  inches  or  10  and  20  centi- 
meters. When  the  force  on  the  webbing  reaches 
the  value  specified  in  S4.2(c),  the  increase  in 
separation  of  the  points  of  the  extensometer  shall 


be  measured  and  the  percent  elongation  shall  be 
calculated  to  the  nearest  0.5  percent.  Each  value 
shall  be  not  more  than  the  appropriate  elonga- 
tion requirement  in  S4.2(c). 

(d)  Resistance  to  abrasion.  The  webbing 
from  three  seat  belt  assemblies  shall  be  tested 
for  resistance  to  abrasion  by  rubbing  over  the 
hexagon  bar  prescribed  in  Figure  2  in  the  fol- 
lowing manner:  The  webbing  shall  be  mounted 
in  the  apparatus  shown  schematically  in  Figure 
2.  One  end  of  the  webbing  (A)  shall  be  attached 
to  a  weight   (B)    which  has  a  mass  of  5.2ih0.1 


A -WEBBING 

B- WEIGHT 

C  -  HEXAGONAL   ROD 

STEEL -SAE  51416 

ROCKWELL   HARDNESS -B-97  TO   B-101 

SURFACE -COLD   DRAWN    FINISH 

SIZE  -  0.250  ±  0.001    INCH   OR 
6.35  ±  0.03   MILLIMETER 

RADIUS  ON    EDGES  -  0.020  ±  0.004   INCH   OR 
0.5  ±  0.1    MILLIMETER 
D-DRUM    DIAMETER -16   INCHES  OR 

40  CENTIMETERS 
E  — CRANK 
F  — CRANK  ARM 
G- ANGLE   BETWEEN  WEBBING  -  85  ±  2   DEGS. 


FIGURE  2 

pounds  or  2.35  ±05  kilograms,  except  that  a  mass 
of  3.3±:0.1  pounds  or  1.50±0.05  kilograms  shall 
be  used  for  webbing  in  pelvic  and  upper  torso 
restraint  of  Type  3  seat  belt  assembly.  The 
webbing  shall  be  passed  over  the  two  new  abrad- 
ing edges  of  the  hexagon  bar  (C)  and  the  other 
end  attached  to  an  oscillating  drum  (D)  which 
has   a   stroke   of   13   inches   or   33   centimeters. 


PART  571;  S  209-8 


Effective:    March    1,    1967 


k  Suitable  guides  shall  be  used  to  prevent  move- 
f  ment  of  the  webbin<r  along  the  axis  of  hexagonal 
bar  C.  Drum  D  shall  be  oscillated  for  5.000 
strokes  or  2,500  cycles  at  a  rate  of  60±2  strokes 
per  minute  or  30±1  cycles  per  minute.  The 
abraded  webbing  shall  be  conditioned  as  pre- 
scribed in  paragraph  (a)  of  this  section  and 
tested  for  breaking  strength  by  the  procedure  de- 
scribed in  paragraph  (b)  of  this  section.  The 
median  values  for  the  breaking  strengths  deter- 
mined on  abraded  and  unabraded  specimens  shall 
be  used  to  calculate  the  percentage  of  braking 
strength  retained. 

(e)  Resistance  to  light.  Webbing  at  least  20 
inches  or  50  centimeters  in  length  from  three 
seat  belt  assemblies  shall  be  suspended  vertically 
on  the  inside  of  the  specimen  rack  in  a  Type  E 
carbon-arc  light-exposure  apparatus  described  in 
Recommended  Practice  for  Operation  of  Light- 
and  Water-Exposure  Apparatus  (Carbon- Arc 
Type)  for  Artificial  Weathering  Test,  ASTM 
Designation:  E42-64,  published  by  the  American 
Society  for  Testing  and  Materials.  The  appa- 
ratus shall  be  operated  without  water  spray  at 
an  air  temperature  of  60±2  degrees  Celsius  or 
140±3.6  degrees  Fahrenheit  measured  at  a  point 
1.0±0.2  inch  or  25±5  millimeters  outside  the 
specimen  rack  and  midway  in  height.  The  tem- 
perature sensing  element  shall  be  shielded  from 
radiation.  The  specimens  shall  be  exposed  to 
the  light  from  the  carbon  arc  for  100  hours  and 
then  conditioned  as  prescribed  in  paragraph  (a) 
of  this  section.  The  colorfastness  of  the  exposed 
and  conditioned  specimens  shall  be  determined 
on  the  Geometric  Gray  Scale  issued  by  the 
American  Association  of  Textile  Chemists  and 
Colorists.  The  breaking  strength  of  the  speci- 
mens shall  be  determined  by  the  procedure  pre- 
scribed in  paragraph  (b)  of  this  section.  The 
median  values  for  the  breaking  strengths  deter- 
mined on  exposed  and  unexposed  specimens  shall 
be  used  to  calculate  the  percentage  of  breaking 
strength  retained. 

(f)  Resistance  to  micro-organisms.  Webbing 
at  least  20  inches  or  50  centimeters  in  length 
from  three  seat  belt  assemblies  shall  be  subjected 
successively  to  the  procedures  prescribed  in  Sec- 
tion ICI — Water  Leaching,  Section  1C2 — Vola- 
tilization, and  Section  1B3 — Soil  Burial  Test  of 
AATCC     Tentative     Test     Method     30— 1057T, 


Fungicides,  Evaluation  of  Textiles;  Mildew  and 
Rot  Resistance  of  Textiles,  published  by  Ameri- 
can Association  of  Textile  Chemists  and  Color- 
ists. After  soil-burial  for  a  period  of  2  weeks, 
the  specimen  shall  be  washed  in  water,  dried  and 
conditioned  as  prescribed  in  paragraph  (a)  of 
this  section.  The  breaking  strengths  of  the  speci- 
mens shall  be  determined  by  the  procedure  pre- 
scribed in  paragraph  (b)  of  this  section.  The 
median  values  for  the  breaking  strengths  deter- 
mined on  exposed  and  unexposed  specimens  shall 
be  used  to  calculate  the  percentage  of  breaking 
strength  retained. 

Note. — This  test  shall  not  be  required  on  webbing 

made   from    material    which    is   inherently   resistant 

to  micro-organisms. 

(g)  Color fa.stness  to  crocking.  Webbing  from 
three  seat  belt  assemblies  shall  be  tested  by  the 
procedure  specified  in  Standard  Test  Method  8 — 
1961,  Colorfastness  to  Crocking  (Rubbing)  pub- 
lished by  the  American  Association  of  Textile 
Chemists  and  Colorists. 

(h)  Colorfastness  hy  staining.  Webbing  from 
three  seat  belt  assemblies  shall  be  tested  by  the 
procedure  specified  in  Standard  Test  Method 
107 — 1962,  Colorfastness  to  Water,  published  by 
the  American  Association  of  Textile  Chemists, 
and  Colorists,  with  the  following  modifications: 
Distilled  water  shall  be  used,  perspiration  tester 
shall  be  used,  the  drying  time  in  paragraph  4 
of  procedures  shall  be  4  hours,  and  section  en- 
titled "Evaluation  Method  for  Staining  (3)" 
shall  be  used  to  determine  colorfastness  to  stain- 
ing on  the  AATCC  Chart  for  Measuring  Trans- 
ference of  Colors. 

S5.2   Hardware 

(a)  Corrosion  resistance.  Three  seat  belt  as- 
semblies shall  be  tested  by  Standard  Method  of 
Salt  Spray  (Fog)  Testing,  ASTM  Designation: 
B  117-64,  published  by  the  American  Society  for 
Testing  and  Materials.  The  period  of  test  shall 
be  50  hours  for  all  attachment  hardware  at  or 
near  the  floor,  consisting  of  two  periods  of  24 
hours  exposure  to  salt  spray  followed  by  1  hour 
drying  and  25  hours  for  all  other  hardware, 
consisting  of  one  period  of  24  hours  exposure  to 
salt  spray  followed  by  1  hour  drying.  In  the 
salt  spray  test  chamber,  the  parts  from  the  three 
assemblies  shall  be  oriented  differently,  selecting 
those  orientations  most  likely  to  develop  corro- 


PART  571;  S  209-9 


Effective:   March    1,    1967 


sion  on  the  larger  areas.  At  the  end  of  test,  the 
seat  belt  assembly  shall  be  washed  thoroughly 
with  water  to  remove  the  salt.  After  drying  for 
at  least  24  hours  under  standard  laboratory  con- 
ditions specified  in  S5.1(a)  attachment  hardware 
shall  be  examined  for  ferrous  corrosion  on  sig- 
nificant surfaces,  that  is,  all  surfaces  that  can  be 
contacted  by  a  sphere  0.75  inch  or  2  centimeters 
in  diameter,  and  other  hardware  shall  be  ex- 
amined for  ferrous  and  nonferrous  corrosion 
which  may  be  transferred,  either  directly  or  by 
means  of  the  webbing,  to  a  person  or  his  clothing 
during  use  of  a  seat  belt  assembly  incorporating 
the  hardware. 

Note. — When  attachment  and  other  hardware  are 
permanently  fa-stened,  by  sewing  or  other  means,  to 
the  same  piece  of  webbing,  separate  assemblies  shall 
be  used  to  test  the  two  types  of  hardware.  The  test 
for  corrosion  resistance  shall  not  be  required  for 
attachment  hardware  made  from  corrosion-resistant 
steel  containing  at  least  11.5  percent  chromium  or 
for  attachment  hardware  protected  with  an  electro- 
deposited  coating  of  nicl<el,  or  copper  and  nicltel,  as 
prescribed  in  S4.3(a).  The  assembly  that  has  been 
used  to  test  the  corrosion  resistance  of  the  buckle 
shall  be  used  to  measure  adjustment  force,  tilt-lock 
adjustment,  and  buckle  latch  in  paragraphs  (e),  (f) 
and  (g),  respectively,  of  this  section,  assembly  per- 
formance in  S5.3  and  buckle  release  force  in  para- 
graph (d)  of  this  section. 


A- 2    FULL    THREADS 
B->0  4   INCH  (I  CM) 


BELT    SECTIONS 

OR 

OTHER    CONNECTION 


FULL    THREADED    BOLT 

ATTACHMENT    HARDWARE 
OR 
SIMULATED    FIXTURE 


■20    NF    OR 
I/2-I3NC 
THREADS 


SHOULDER   BOLT 
EYE    BOLT 


BOLT    ANCHORAGE 


FIGURE  3 


(b)  Temperature  resistance.  Three  seat  belt 
assemblies  having  plastic  or  nonmetallic  hard- 
ware or  having  retractors  shall  be  subjected  to 
the  conditions  prescribed  in  Procedure  IV  of 
Standard  Methods  of  Test  for  Resi-stance  of 
Plastics  to  Accelerated  Service  Conditions  pub- 
lished by  the  American  Society  for  Testing  and 
Materials,  under  designation  D  756-56.  The  di- 
mension and  weight  measurement  shall  be  omit- 
ted. Buckles  shall  be  unlatched  and  retractors 
shall  be  fully  retracted  during  conditioning.  The 
hardware  parts  after  conditioning  shall  be  used 
for  all  applicable  tests  in  S4.3  and  84.4. 

(c)  Attachment  hardware. 

(1)  Attachment  bolts  used  to  secure  the 
pelvic  restraint  of  a  seat  belt  assembly  to  a 
motor  vehicle  shall  be  tested  in  a  manner 
similar  to  that  shown  in  Figure  3.  The  load 
shall  be  applied  at  an  angle  of  45  degrees  to 
the  axis  of  the  bolt  through  attachment  hard- 

.ware  from  the  seat  belt  assembly,  or  through 
a  special  fixture  which  simulates  the  loading 
applied  by  the  attachment  hardware.  The 
attachment  hardware  or  simulated  fixture  shall 
be  fastened  by  the  bolt  to  the  anchorage  shown 
in  Figure  3,  which  has  a  standard  7/16-20 
UNF-2B  or  1/2-13  UNC-2B  threaded  hole 
in  a  hardened  steel  plate  at  least  0.4  inch  or 
1  centimeter  in  thickness.  The  bolt  shall  be 
installed  with  2  full  threads  exposed  from  the 
fully  seated  position.  The  appropriate  force 
required  by  S4. 3(c)(1)  shall  be  applied.  A 
bolt  from  each  of  three  seat  belt  assemblies 
shall  be  tested. 

(2)  Attachment  hardware,  other  than  bolts, 
designed  to  receive  the  ends  of  two  seat  belt 
assemblies  shall  be  subjected  to  a  tensile  force 
of  6,000  pounds  or  2,720  kilograms  in  a  manner 
simulating  use.  The  hardware  shall  be  ex- 
amined for  fracture  after  the  force  is  released. 
Attachment  hardware  from  three  seat  belt  as- 
semblies shall  be  tested. 

(3)  Single  attachment  hook  for  connecting 
webbing  to  any  eye  bolt  shall  be  tested  in  the 
following  manner:  The  hook  shall  be  held 
rigidly  so  that  the  retainer  latch  or  keeper, 
with  cotter  pin  or  other  locking  device  in  place, 
is  in  a  horizontal  position  as  shown  in  Figure 
4.  A  force  of  150±2  pounds  or  68±1  kilo- 
grams shall  be  applied  vertically  as  near  as 


(Rev.   3/10/71) 


PART  571:  S  209-10 


Effective:   March    1,    1967 


possible  to  the  free  end  of  the  retainer  latch, 
and  the  movement  of  the  latch  by  this  force 
at  the  point  of  application  shall  be  measured. 
The  vertical  force  shall  be  released,  and  a 
force  of  150±2  pounds  or  68dzl  kilograms 
shall  be  applied  horizontally  as  near  as  pos- 
sible to  the  free  end  of  the  retainer  latch.  The 
movement  of  the  latch  by  this  force  at  the 
point  of  load  application  shall  be  measured. 
Alternatively,  the  hook  may  be  held  in  other 
positions,  provided  the  forces  are  applied  and 
the  movements  of  the  latch  are  measured  at 
the  points  indicated  in  Figure  4.  A  single 
attachment  hook  from  each  of  three  seat  belt 
assemblies  shall  be  tested.  (32  F.R.  2415— 
Feb.  3,  1967;  34  F.R.  115— Jan.  4,  1969)] 
(d)  Buckle  release. 

[(1)  Three  seatbelt  assemblies  shall  be 
tested  to  determine  compliance  with  the  maxi- 
mum buckle  release  force  requirements,  follow- 
ing the  assembly  test  in  S5.3.  After  subjec- 
tion to  the  force  applicable  for  the  assembly 
being  tested,  the  force  shall  be  reduced  and 
maintained  at  150  pounds  on  the  assembly 
loop  of  a  Type  1  seatbelt  assembly,  75  pounds 
on  the  components  of  a  Type  2  seatbelt  as- 
sembly, or  45  pounds  on  a  Type  3  seatbelt  as- 
sembly. The  buckle  release  force  shall  be  meas- 
ured by  applying  a  force  on  the  buckle  in  a 
manner  and  direction  typical  of  those  which 
would  be  employed  by  a  seatbelt  occupant. 
For  pushbotton-release  buckles,  the  force  shall 
be  applied  at  least  0.125  inch  from  the  edge 
of  the  push-botton  access  opening  of  the  buckle 
in  a  direction  that  produces  maximum  releas- 
ing effect.    For  lever-release  buckles,  the  force 

PORCE    VERTICAL 

1 


FORCE    VERTICAL 


HORIZONTAL 


FORCE 
HORIZONTAL 


irr/if/rirrrr/rnn/ii/)}}f}Jfff}?f?}^??7 


FIXTURE 


^ 


FIGURE  4 

SINGLE  ATTACHMENT   HOOK 


shall  be  applied  on  the  centerline  of  the  buckle 
level  or  finger  tab  in  a  direction  that  produces 
maximum  releasing  effect.  (36  F.R.  4607 — 
March  10,  1971.    Effective:  9/1/71)] 

(2)  The  area  for  application  of  release  force 
on  pushbutton  actuated  buckle  shall  be  meas- 
ured to  the  nearest  0.05  square  inch  or  0.3 
square  centimeter.  The  cylinder  specified  in 
S4.3(d)  shall  be  inserted  in  the  actuation  por- 
tion of  a  lever  release  buckle  for  determination 
of  compliance  with  the  requirement.  A  buckle 
with  other  release  actuation  shall  be  examined 
for  access  of  release  by  fingers. 

(3)  [The  buckle  of  a  Type  1  or  Type  2  seat- 
belt  assembly  shall  be  subjected  to  a  compres- 
sive force  of  400  pounds  applied  anywhere  on 
a  test  line  that  is  coincident  with  the  centerline 
of  the  belt  extended  through  the  buckle  or  on 
any  line  that  extends  over  the  center  of  the 
release  mechanism  and  intersects  the  extended 
centerline  of  the  belt  at  an  angle  of  60°.  The 
load  shall  be  applied  by  using  a  curved 
cylindrical  bar  having  a  cross  section  diameter 
of  0.75  inch  and  a  radius  of  curvature  of  6 
inches,  placed  with  its  longitudinal  centerline 
along  the  test  line  and  its  center  directly  above 
the  point  on  the  buckle  to  which  the  load  will 
be  applied.  The  buckle  shall  be  latched,  and 
a  tensile  force  of  75  pounds  shall  be  applied  to 
the  connected  webbing  during  the  application 
of  the  compressive  force.  Buckles  from  three 
seatbelt  assemblies  shall  be  tested  to  determine 
compliance  with  paragraph  S4.3(d)(3).  (36 
F.R.  4607— March  10,  1971.  Effective: 
9/1/71)] 

(e)  Adjustment  force.  Three  seat  belt  assem- 
blies shall  be  tested  for  adjustment  force  on  the 
webbing  at  the  buckle,  or  other  manual  adjusting 
device  normally  used  to  adjust  the  size  of  the 
assembly.  With  no  load  on  the  anchor  end,  the 
webbing  shall  be  drawn  through  the  adjusting 
device  at  a  rate  of  20±2  inches  per  minute  or 
50±5  centimeters  per  minute  and  the  maximum 
force  shall  be  measured  to  the  nearest  0.25  pound 
or  0.1  kilogram  after  the  first  1.0  inch  or  25 
millimeters  of  webbing  movement.  The  webbing 
shall  be  precycled  10  times  prior  to  measurement. 

(f)  Tilt-lock  adjustment.  This  test  shall  be 
made  on  buckles  or  other  manual  adjusting  de- 
vices having  tilt-lock  adjustment  normally  used 


(Rev.   3/10/71) 


PART  571;  S  209-11 


Effective:    March    1,    1967 


to  adjust  the  size  of  the  assembly.  Three  buckles 
or  devices  shall  be  tested.  The  base  of  the  ad- 
justment mechanism  and  the  anchor  end  of  the 
webbing  shall  be  oriented  in  planes  normal  to 
each  other.  The  webbing  shall  be  drawn  through 
the  adjustment  mechanism  in  a  direction  to  in- 
crease belt  length  at  a  rate  of  20±2  inches  per 
minute  or  50±5  centimeters  per  minute  while 
the  plane  of  the  base  is  slowly  rotated  in  a  di- 
rection to  lock  the  webbing.  Rotation  shall  be 
stopped  when  the  webbing  locks,  but  the  pull  on 
the  webbing  shall  be  continued  until  there  is  a 
resistance  of  at  least  20  pounds  or  9  kilograms. 
The  locking  angle  between  the  anchor  end  of  the 
webbing  and  the  base  of  the  adjustment  mech- 
anism shall  be  measured  to  the  nearest  degree. 
The  webbing  shall  be  precycled  10  times  prior 
to  measurement. 

(g)  Buckle  latch.  The  buckles  from  three 
seat  belt  assemblies  shall  be  opened  fully  and 
closed  at  least  10  times.  Then  the  buckles  shall 
be  clamped  or  firmly  held  against  a  flat  surface 
so  as  to  permit  normal  movement  of  buckle  parts, 
but  with  the  metal  mating  plate  (metal-to-metal 
buckles)  or  webbing  end  (metal-to- webbing 
buckles)  withdrawn  from  the  buckle.  The  re- 
lease mechanism  shall  be  moved  200  times  through 
the  maximum  possible  travel  against  its  stop 
with  a  force  of  30±3  pounds  or  Mdrl  kilograms 
at  a  rate  not  to  exceed  30  cycles  per  minute.  The 
buckle  shall  be  examined  to  determine  compliance 
with  the  performance  requirements  of  S4.3(g). 
A  metal-to-metal  buckle  shall  be  examined  to 
determine  whether  partial  engagement  is  possible 
by  means  of  any  technique  representative  of  ac- 
tual use.  If  partial  engagement  is  possible,  the 
maximum  force  of  separation  when  in  such  par- 
tial engagement  shall  be  determined. 

(h)  Nonlocking  retractor.  After  the  retractor 
is  cycled  10  times  by  full  extension  and  retraction 
of  the  webbing,  the  retractor  and  webbing  shall 
be  suspended  vertically  and  a  force  of  4  pounds 
or  1.8  kilograms  shall  be  applied  to  extend  the 
webbing  from  the  retractor.  The  force  shall  be 
reduced  to  3  pounds  or  1.4  kilograms  when  at- 
tached to  a  pelvic  restraint,  or  to  1.1  pounds  or 
0.5  kilogram  per  strap  or  webbing  that  contacts 
the  shoulder  of  an  occupant  when  retractor  is 
attached  to  an  upper  torso  restraint.  The  resid- 
ual extension  of  the  webbing  shall  be  measured 


by  manual  rotation  of  the  retractor  drum  or  by      ^ 
disengaging  the  retraction  mechanism.    Measure-      L, 
ments  shall  be  made  on  three  retractors.     The 
location  of  the  retractor  attached  to  upper  torso 
restraint  shall  be  examined  for  visibility  of  reel 
during  use  of  seat  belt  assembly  in  a  vehicle. 

Note. — This  te.st  shall  not  be  required  on  a  non- 
locking retractor  attached  to  the  free-end  of  web- 
bing which  is  not  subjected  to  any  tension  during 
restraint  of  an  occupant  by  the  assembly. 

(i)  Automatic-locking  retractor.  Three  re- 
tractors shall  be  tested  in  a  manner  to  permit  the 
retraction  force  to  be  determined  exclusive  of 
the  gravitational  forces  on  hardware  or  webbing 
being  retracted.  The  webbing  shall  be  fully  ex- 
tended from  the  retractor.  While  the  webbing 
is  being  retracted,  the  average  force  of  retraction 
within  plus  or  minus  2  inches  or  5  centimeters 
of  75  percent  extension  (25  percent  retraction) 
shall  be  determined  and  the  webbing  movement 
between  adjacent  locking  segments  shall  be  meas- 
ured in  the  same  region  of  extension.  A  seat 
belt  assembly  with  automatic  locking  retractor 
in  upper  torso  restraint  shall  be  tested  in  a  ve- 
hicle in  a  manner  prescribed  by  the  installation 
and  usage  instructions.  The  retraction  force  on  ^ 
the  occupant  of  the  seat  belt  assembly  shall  be  f 
determined  before  and  after  traveling  for  10 
minutes  at  a  speed  of  15  miles  per  hour  or  24 
kilometers  per  hour  or  more  over  a  rough  road 
(e.g.,  Belgian  block  road)  where  the  occupant  is 
subjected  to  displacement  with  respect  to  the 
vehicle  in  both  horizontal  and  vertical  directions. 
Measurements  shall  be  made  with  the  vehicle 
stopped  and  the  occupant  in  the  normal  seated 
position. 

(j)  Emergency-locking  retractor.  [A  retrac- 
tor shall  be  tested  in  a  manner  that  permits  the 
retraction  force  to  be  determined  exclusive  of 
the  gravitational  forces  on  hardware  or  webbing 
being  retracted.  The  webbing  shall  be  fully  ex- 
tended from  the  retractor,  joassing  over  or 
through  any  hardware  or  other  material  speci- 
fied in  the  installation  instructions.  While  the 
webbing  is  being  retracted,  the  lowest  force  of 
retraction  within  plus  or  minus  2  inches  of  75 
percent  extension  sliall  be  determined.  A  re- 
tractor that  is  sensitive  to  webbing  withdrawal 
shall  be  subjected  to  an  acceleration  of  0..3g 
within  a  period  of  50  ms.  while  the  webbing  is 


(Rev.    8/23/73) 


PART  571;  S  209-12 


Effacllvc   March    1,    1967 


at  75  percent  extension,  to  determine  compliance 
with  S4.3(j)  (2).  The  retractor  shall  be  subjected 
to  an  acceleration  of  0.7 g  within  a  period  of  50 
milliseconds,  while  the  webbing  is  at  75  percent 
extension,  and  the  webbing  movement  before 
locking  shall  be  measured  under  the  following 
conditions :  For  a  retractor  sensitive  to  webbing 
withdrawal,  the  retractor  shall  be  accelerated  in 
the  direction  of  webbing  retraction  while  the  re- 
tractor drum's  central  axis  is  oriented  hori- 
zontally and  at  angles  of  45°,  90°,  135°,  and  180° 
to  the  horizontal  plane.  For  a  retractor  sensi- 
tive to  vehicle  acceleration,  the  retractor  shall 
be— (38  F.R.  22958— August  28,  1973.  Effective: 
8/28/73)3 

(1)  accelerated  in  the  horizontal  plane  in 
two  directions  normal  to  each  other,  while  the 
retractor  drum's  central  axis  is  oriented  at  the 
angle  at  which  it  is  installed  in  the  vehicle; 
and, 

(2)  accelerated    in    three   directions   normal 
to  each  other  while  the  retractor  drum's  central 
axis   is  oriented   at  angles  of  45°,  90°,  135°, 
and    180°    from   the  angle  at  which   it  is  in- 
stalled in  the  vehicle,  unless  the  retractor  locks 
by  gravitational  force  when  tilted  in  any  di- 
rection to  any  angle  greater  than  45°  from  the 
angle  at  which  it  is  installed  in  the  vehicle, 
(k)  Performance  of  retractor.    After  comple- 
tion of  the  corrosion-resistance  test  described  in 
paragraph  (a)  of  this  section,  the  webbing  shall 
be  fully  extended  and  allowed  to  dry  for  at  least 

24  hours  under  standard  laboratory  conditions 
specified  in  S5.1(a).  The  retractor  shall  be 
examined  for  ferrous  and  nonferrous  corrosion 
which  may  be  transferred,  either  directly  or  by 
means  of  the  webbing,  to  a  person  or  his  clothing 
during  use  of  a  seat  belt  assembly  incorporating 
the  retractor,  and  for  ferrous  cori'osion  on  sig- 
nificant surfaces  if  the  retractor  is  part  of  the 
attachment  hardware.  The  webbing  shall  be 
withdrawn  manually  and  allowed  to  retract  for 

25  cycles.  The  retractor  shall  be  mounted  in  an 
apparatus  capable  of  extending  the  webbing 
fully,  applying  a  force  of  20  pounds  or  9  kilo- 
grams at  full  extension,  and  allowing  the  web- 
bing to  retract  freely  and  completely.  The  web- 
bing shall  be  withdrawn  from  the  retractor  and 
allowed  to  retract  repeatedly  in  this  apparatus 
until  2,500  cycles  are  completed.    The  retractor 


and  webbing  shall  then  be  subjected  to  the  tem- 
perature resistance  test  prescribed  in  paragraph 
(b)  of  this  section.  The  retractor  shall  be  sub- 
jected to  2,500  additional  cycles  of  webbing 
withdrawal  and  retraction.  Then,  the  retractor 
and  webbing  shall  be  subjected  to  dust  in  a 
chamber  similar  to  one  illustrated  in  Figure  8 
containing  about  2  pounds  or  0.9  kilogram  of 
coarse  grade  dust  conforming  to  the  specification 
given  in  SAE  Recommended  Practice,  Air 
Cleaner  Test  Code— SAE  J726a,  published  by 
the  Society  of  Automotive  Engineers.  The  dust 
shall  be  agitated  every  20  minutes  for  5  seconds 
by  compressed  air,  free  of  oil  and  moisture,  at  a 
gage  pressure  of  80±8  pounds  per  square  inch  or 
5.6±0.6  kilograms  per  square  centimeter  entering 
through  an  orifice  0.0r)0±0.004  inch  or  1.5±0.1 
millimeters  in  diameter.     The  webbing  shall  be 


RETRACTOR 


CYCLING  ATTACHMENT 


DUST 
COLLECTOR 


RETRACTOR 


A -20  INCHES  OR 
50  CENTIMETERS 

B-  10  INCHES  OR 
25  CENTIMETERS 


DUST 


FIGURE  8 


VALVE    a  FILTER 
• — AIR 


r34F.R.  115       "I 
LJanuary  4,  1969] 


(Rev.  8/33/73) 


PART  571;  S  209-13 


231-088   O  -  77  -  60 


Effective:   March    1,    1967 


extended  to  the  top  of  the  chamber  and  kept 
extended  at  all  times  except  that  the  webbing 
shall  be  subjected  to  10  cycles  of  complete  retrac- 
tion and  extension  within  1  to  2  minutes  after 
each  agitation  of  the  dust.  At  the  end  of  5 
hours,  the  assembly  shall  be  removed  from  the 
chamber.  The  webbing  shall  be  fully  withdrawn 
from  the  retractor  manually  and  allowed  to  re- 
tract completely  for  25  cycles.  An  automatic- 
locking  retractor  or  a  nonlocking  retractor  at- 
tached to  pelvic  restraint  shall  be  subjected  to 
5,000  additional  cycles  of  webbing  withdrawal 
and  retraction.  An  emergency-locking  retractor 
or  a  nonlocking  retractor  attached  to  upper  torso 
restraint  shall  be  subjected  to  45,000  additional 
cycles  of  webbing  withdrawal  and  retractions 
between  50  and  100  percent  extension.  The  lock- 
ing mechanism  of  an  emergency  locking  retractor 
shall  be  actuated  at  least  10,000  times  within  50 
to  100  percent  extension  of  webbing  during  the 
50,000  cycles.  At  the  end  of  test,  compliance  of 
the  retractors  with  applicable  requirements  in 
S4.3  (h),  (i),  and  (j)  shall  be  determined.  Three 
retractors  shall  be  tested  for  i^erformance. 

S5.3  Assembly  Performance 

(a)  Type  1  seat  belt  assembly.  Three  complete 
seat  belt  assemblies,  including  webbing,  straps, 
buckles,  adjustment  and  attachment  hardware, 
and  retractors,  arranged  in  the  form  of  a  looj 
as  shown  in  Figure  5,  shall  be  tested  in  the  fol- 
lowing manner: 

(1)  The  testing  machine  shall  conform  to 
the  requirements  specified  in  S5.1(b).  A 
double- roller  block  shall  be  attached  to  one 
head  of  the  testing  machine.  This  block  shall 
consist  of  2  rollers  4  inches  or  10  centimeters  in 
diameter  and  sufficiently  long  so  that  no  part 
of  the  seat  belt  assembly  touches  parts  of  the 
block  other  than  the  rollers  during  test.  The 
rollers  shall  be  mounted  on  anti-friction  bear- 
ings and  spaced  12  inches  or  30  centimeters 
between  centers,  and  shall  have  sufficient  ca- 
pacity so  that  there  is  no  brinelling,  bending 
or  other  distortion  of  parts  which  may  affect 
the  results.  An  anchorage  bar  shall  be  fast- 
ened to  the  other  head  of  the  testing  machine. 

(2)  The  attachment  hardware  furnished 
with  the  seat  belt  assembly  shall  be  attached 
to  the  anchorage  b^r.    The  anchor  points  shall 


be  spaced  so  that  the  webbing  is  parallel  in 
the  two  sides  of  the  loop.  The  attaching  bolts 
shall  be  parallel  to,  or  at  an  angle  of  45  to  90 
degrees  to  the  webbing,  whichever  results  in 
an  angle  nearest  to  90  degrees  between  web- 
bing and  attachment  hardware  except  that  eye 
bolts  shall  be  vertical,  and  attaching  bolts  or 
nonthreaded  anchorages  of  a  seat  belt  assembly 
designed  for  use  in  specific  models  of  motor 
vehicles  shall  be  installed  to  produce  the  maxi- 
mum angle  in  use  indicated  by  the  installation 
instructions,  utilizing  special  fixtures  if  neces- 
sary to  simulate  installation  in  the  motor  ve- 
hicle. Rigid  adapters  between  anchorage  bar 
and  attachment  hardware  shall  be  used  if 
necessary  to  locate  and  orient  the  adjustment 
hardware.  The  adapters  shall  have  a  flat  sup- 
port face  perpendicular  to  the  threaded  hole 
for  the  attaching  bolt  and  adequate  in  area 


-RIGID   SPACER 
(IF    NEEDED) 


ANCHORAGE    BAR 


SISTER  HOOKS 


ErE    BOLT- 


"\ 


i. 


ANCHORAGE 
BAR 


-2   INCHES   OR 
5    CENTIMETERS 
12   INCHES   OR 
30    CENTIMETERS 

FIGURE  5 


(Rev.   Aug.    1971) 


PART  571;  S  209-14 


Effective:   March    1,    1967 


to  provide  full  support  for  the  base  of  the 
attachment  hardware  connected  to  the  web- 
bing. If  necessary,  a  washer  shall  be  used 
under  a  swivel  plate  or  other  attachment  hard- 
ware to  prevent  the  webbing  from  being  dam- 
aged as  the  attaching  bolt  is  tightened. 

(3)  The  length  of  the  assembly  loop  from 
attaching  bolt  to  attaching  bolt  shall  be  ad- 
justed to  about  51  inches  or  130  centimeters, 
or  as  near  thereto  as  possible.  A  force  of  55 
pounds  or  25  kilograms  shall  be  applied  to  the 
loop  to  remove  any  slack  in  webbing  at  hard- 
ware. The  force  shall  be  removed  and  the 
heads  of  the  testing  machine  shall  be  adjusted 
for  an  assembly  loop  between  48  and  50  inches 
or  122  and  127  centimeters  in  length.  The 
length  of  the  assembly  loop  shall  then  be  ad- 
justed by  applying  a  force  between  20  and  22 
pounds  or  9  and  10  kilograms  to  the  free  end 
of  the  webbing  at  the  buckle,  or  by  the  retrac- 
tion force  of  an  automatic-locking  or  emer- 
gency-locking retractor.  A  seat  belt  assembly 
that  cannot  be  adjusted  to  this  length  shall  be 
adjusted  as  closely  as  possible.  An  automatic- 
locking  or  emergency-locking  retractor  when 
included  in  a  seat  belt  assembly  shall  be  locked 
at  the  start  of  the  test  with  a  tension  on  the 
webbing  slightly  in  excess  of  the  retractive 
force  in  order  to  keep  the  retractor  locked. 
The  buckle  shall  be  in  a  location  so  that  it 
does  not  touch  the  rollers  during  test,  but  to 
facilitate  making  the  buckle  release  test  in 
S5.2(d)  the  buckle  should  be  between  the  roll- 
ers or  near  a  roller  in  one  leg. 

(4)  The  heads  of  the  testing  machine  shall 
be  separated  at  a  rate  between  2  and  4  inches 
per  minute  or  5  and  10  centimeters  per  minute 
until  a  force  of  5,000±50  pounds  or  2,270±20 
kilograms  is  applied  to  the  assembly  loop.  The 
extension  of  the  loop  shall  be  determined  from 
measurements  of  head  separation  before  and 
after  the  force  is  applied.  The  force  shall  be 
decreased  to  150ztlO  pounds  or  68±4  kilo- 
grams and  the  buckle  release  force  measured 
as  prescribed  in  S5.2(d). 

(5)  After  the  buckle  is  released,  the  web- 
bing shall  be  examined  for  cutting  by  the 
hardware.  If  the  yarns  are  partially  or  com- 
pletely severed  in  a  line  for  a  distance  of  10 
percent  or  more  of  the  webbing  width,  the  cut 


webbing  shall  be  tested  for  breaking  strength 
as  specified  in  S5.1(b)  locating  the  cut  in  the 
free  length  between  grips.  If  there  is  insuf- 
ficient webbing  on  either  side  of  the  cut  to 
make  such  a  test  for  breaking  strength,  another 
seat  belt  assembly  shall  be  used  with  the  web- 
bing repositioned  in  the  hardware.  A  tensile 
force  of  2,500±25  pounds  or  1,135"±10  kilo- 
grams shall  be  applied  to  the  components  or 
a  force  of  5,000±50  pounds  or  2,270±20  kilo- 
grams shall  be  applied  to  an  assembly  loop. 
After  the  force  is  removed,  the  breaking 
strength  of  the  cut  webbing  shall  be  determined 
as  prescribed  above. 

(6)  If  a  Type  1  seat  belt  assembly  includes 
an  automatic-locking  retractor  or  an  emergency- 
locking  retractor,  the  webbing  and  retractor 
shall  be  subjected  to  a  tensile  force  of  2,500±25 
pounds  or  1,135±10  kilograms  with  the  web- 
bing fully  extended  from  the  retractor. 

(7)  If  a  seat  belt  assembly  has  a  buckle  in 
which  the  tongue  is  capable  of  inverted  inser- 
tion, one  of  the  three  assemblies  shall  be  tested 
with  the  tongue  inverted. 

(b)  Type  2  seat  ielt  assembly.  Components 
of  three  seat  belt  assemblies  shall  be  tested  in  the 
following  manner:, 

(1)  The  pelvic  restraint  between  anchorages 
shall  be  adjusted  to  a  length  between  48  and 
50  inches  or  122  and  127  centimeters,  or  as  near 
this  length  as  possible  if  the  design  of  the 
pelvic  restraint  does  not  permit  its  adjustment 
to  this  length.  An  automatic-locking  or  emer- 
gency-locking retractor  when  included  in  a 
seat  belt  assembly  shall  be  locked  at  the  start 
of  the  test  with  a  tension  on  the  webbing 
slightly  in  excess  of  the  retractive  force  in 
order  to  keep  the  retractor  locked.  The  at- 
tachment hardware  shall  be  oriented  to  the 
webbing  as  specified  in  paragraph  (a)  (2)  of 
this  section  and  illustrated  in  Figure  5.  A 
tensile  force  of  2,500±25  pounds  or  1,135±10 
kilograms  shall  be  applied  on  the  components 
in  any  convenient  manner  and  the  extension 
between  anchorages  under  this  force  shall  be 
measured.  The  force  shall  be  reduced  to  75 ±5 
pounds  or  34±2  kilograms  and  the  buckle  re- 
lease force  measured  as  prescribed  in  S5.2(d). 


(Rev.   Aug.    19711 


PART  571;  S  209-15 


Effective:    Morch    1,    1967 


(2)  The  components  of  the  upper  torso  re- 
straint shall  be  subjected  to  a  tensile  force  of 
1,500±15  pounds  or  680=b5  kilograms  follow- 
ing the  procedure  prescribed  above  for  testing 
pelvic  restraint  and  the  extension  between 
anchorages  under  this  force  shall  be  measured. 
If  the  testing  apparatus  permits,  the  pelvic 
and  upper  torso  restraints  may  be  tested 
simultaneously.  The  force  shall  be  reduced  to 
75±5  pounds  or  34±2  kilograms  and  the 
buckle  release  force  measured  as  prescribed  in 
S5.2(d). 

(3)  Any  component  of  the  seat  belt  assembly 
conmion  to  both  pelvic  and  upper  torso  restraint 
shall  be  subjected  to  a  tensile  force  of  3,000±30 
pounds  or  1,360±15  kilograms. 

(4)  After  the  buckle  is  released  in  tests  of 
pelvic  and  upper  torso  restraints,  the  webbing 
shall  be  examined  for  cutting  by  the  hardware. 
If  the  yarns  are  partially  or  completely  sev- 
ered in  a  line  for  a  distance  of  10  percent  or 
more  of  the  webbing  width,  the  cut  webbing 
shall  be  tested  for  breaking  strength  as  speci- 
fied in  S5.1(b)  locating  the  cut  in  the  free 
length  between  grips.  If  there  is  insufficient 
webbing  on  either  side  of  the  cut  to  make  such 
a  test  for  breaking  strength,  another  seat  belt 
assembly  shall  be  used  with  the  webbing  repo- 


sitioned in  the  hardware.  The  force  applied 
shall  be  2,500±25  pounds  or  l,135zbl0  kilo- 
grams for  components  of  pelvic  restraint,  and 
1,500±15  pounds  or  6S0±:5  kilograms  for  com- 
ponents of  upper  torso  restraint.  After  the 
force  is  removed,  the  breaking  strength  of  the 
cut  webbing  shall  be  determined  as  prescribed 
above. 

(5)  If  a  Type  2  seat  belt  assembly  includes 
an  automatic-locking  retractor  or  an  emergency- 
locking  retractor,  the  webbing  and  retractor 
shall  be  subjected  to  a  tensile  force  of  2,500±25 
pounds  or  l,135zhl0  kilograms  with  the  web- 
bing fully  extended  from  the  retractor,  or  to  a 
tensile  force  of  1,500±15  pounds  or  680±5 
kilograms  with  the  webbing  fully  extended 
from  the  retractor  if  the  design  of  the  assembly 
permits  only  upper  torso  restraint  forces  on 
the  retractor. 

(6)  If  a  seat  belt  assembly  has  a  buckle  in 
which  the  tongue  is  capable  of  inverted  inser- 


ANCHOR 
HOLE 


INCH 
12 

CENTIMETER 

A 

30 

B 

6 

15 

C 

28 

7 

D 

5  2 

13 

E 

2 

5 

F 

4 

10 

G 

7 

18 

FIGURE 

7 

A 

e     C 

DEFGHI       JKL 

INCH         15 

8    56 

2.3  29    9     6  8  6  4  0.6    73  4  2   1.3 

CENTIMETER  38 

20  14  5 

5  6  73    23     17     16     15  18  5  107  33 

FIGURE  6 


tion,  one  of  tne  three  assemblies  shall  be  tested 
with  the  tongue  inverted. 

(c)    Type  3  seat  belt  assembly.    Three  seat  belt 
assemblies    including    webbing,    straps,    buckles. 


(Rev.   Aug.    1971) 


PART  571;  S  209-16 


Effective:    March    1,    1967 


adjustment    and    attachment    liardware   and    re- 
tractors shall  be  tested  in  the  following  manner: 

[(1)  The  testing  niacliine  shall  conform  to 
the  requirements  specified  in  S5.1(b).  A  torso 
having  the  dimensions  shown  in  Figure  6,  con- 
figured so  that  it  does  not  contact  a  buckle 
in  such  a  way  as  to  affect  the  buckle  release 
force,  shall  be  attached  to  one  head  of  tlie  test- 
ing machine  through  a  universal  joint  which  is 
guided  in  essentially  a  frictionless  manner  to 
minimize  lateral  forces  on  the  testing  machine. 
An  anchorage  and  simulated  seat  back  shall 
be  attached  to  the  other  head  as  shown  in 
Figure  7.  (36  F.R.  5793— March  27,  1971. 
Effective:  9/1/71)] 

(2)  Attachment  hardware  for  an  assembly 
having  single  webbing  connection  shall  be  fast- 
ened at  the  anchor  hole  shown  in  Figure  7 
which  is  centered  along  the  length  of  the 
anchorage  bar.  Attachment  hardware  for  an 
assembly  having  two  webbing  connectors  shall 
be  fastened  at  anchor  holes  16  inches  or  40 
centimeters  apart  on  the  anchorage  bar,  equi- 
distant from  tlie  center.  Attachment  hardware 
for  an  assembly  whose  design  precludes  such 
attachment  shall  be  fastened  in  accordance 
with  the  installation  instructions.  The  back 
of  the  torso  shall  be  positioned  in  a  plane 
parallel  to  and  at  a  distance  of  4  inches  or  10 
centimeters  from  the  plane  of  the  simulated 
seat  back.  The  seat  belt  assembly  shall  be 
installed  on  the  torso  in  accordance  with  in- 
stallation instructions  and  the  webbing  to  the 
attachment  hardware  shall  be  adjusted  with 
effectively  no  slack.  The  heads  of  the  testing 
machine  shall  be  separated  at  a  rate  of  between 
2  and  4  inches  per  minute  or  5  and  10  centi- 
meters per  minute  until  a  force  of  2,000  pounds 
or  900  kilograms  is  applied.  The  extension  of 
the  seat  belt  assembly  shall  be  determined 
from  measurement  of  head  separation  in  the 
testing  machine  before  and  after  the  force  is 
applied.  The  force  shall  be  reduced  to  45±5 
pounds  or  20±2  kilograms  and  the  release 
force  of  the  buckle  or  buckles  measured  as 
prescribed  in  S5.2(d).  A  seat  back  retainer 
not  connected  to  a  pelvic  or  upper  torso  re- 
straint shall  be  subjected  separately  to  a  force 
of  2.000  pounds  or  900  kilograms. 


(3)  After  the  buckle  is  released,  the  web- 
bing shall  be  examined  for  cutting  by  the 
hardware.  If  the  yarns  are  partially  or  com- 
pletely severed  in  a  line  for  a  distance  of  10 
percent  or  more  of  the  webbing  width,  the  cut 
webbing  shall  be  tested  for  breaking  strength 
as  specified  in  S5.1(b)  locating  the  cut  in  the 
free  length  between  grips.  If  there  is  insuf- 
ficient webbing  on  either  side  of  the  cut  to 
make  such  a  test  for  l)reaking  strength,  another 
seat  belt  assembly  shall  be  used  with  the  web- 
bing repositioned  in  the  hardware.  A  tensile 
force  shall  be  applied  to  the  components  as 
follows:  Webbing  in  pelvic  or  upper  torso  re- 
straint— 700±7  pounds  or  320±3  kilograms; 
webbing  in  seat  back  retainer  or  webbing  con- 
necting pelvic  and  upper  torso  restraint  to 
attachment  hardware — 1,500±15  pounds  or 
680±7  kilograms.  After  the  force  is  removed, 
the  breaking  strength  of  the  cut  webbing  shall 
be  determined  as  prescribed  above. 


SHORTENING  STROKE 


BUCKLE     (C) 


NO  TENSION  • 


BUCKLE  (C) 


WEBBING    (A) 


3  LB   WEIGHT    (B) 


LENGTHENING  STROKE 


NO  TENSION 


HINGE  STOP    (E) 


3  LB   WEIGHT    (B) 


(Rev.    Aug.    1971) 


PART  571;  S  209-17 


EffacHve:  March    1,    1967 


(4)  If  a  seat  belt  assembly  has  a  buckle  in 
which  the  tongue  is  capable  of  inverted  inser- 
tion, one  of  the  three  assemblies  shall  be  tested 
with  the  tongue  inverted. 

[(d)  Resistance  to  buckle  abrasion.  Seatbelt 
assemblies  shall  be  tested  for  resistance  to  abra- 
sion by  each  buckle  or  manual  adjusting  device 
normally  used  to  adjust  the  size  of  the  assembly. 
The  webbing  of  the  assembly  to  be  used  in  this 
test  shall  be  exposed  for  4  hours  to  an  atmosphere 
having  relative  humidity  of  65  percent  and 
temperature  of  70°  F.  The  webbing  shall  be 
pulled  back  and  forth  through  the  buckle  or 
manual  adjusting  device  as  shown  schematically 
in  Figure  9.  The  anchor  end  of  the  webbing  (A) 
shall  be  attached  to  a  weight  (B)  of  3  pounds. 
The  webbing  shall  pass  through  the  buckle  (C), 
and  the  other  end  (D)  shall  be  attached  to  a 
reciprocating  device  so  that  the  webbing  forms 
an  angle  of  8°  with  the  hinge  stop  (E).  The 
reciprocating  device  shall  be  operated  for  2,500 
cycles  at  a  rate  of  18  cycles  per  minute  with  a 
stroke  length  of  8  inches.  (See  correction  in  34 
F.R.  5490— March  24,  1971).  The  abraded  web- 
bing shall  be  tested  for  breaking  strength  by  the 
procedure  described  in  paragraph  S5.1(b). 


(36    F.R.    4607— March    10,    1971. 
9/1/71)] 


Effective : 


Interpretation 

This  Standard  applies  to  seat  belt  assemblies 
manufactured  after  February  28,  1967,  for  use  in 
passenger  cars,  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles, 
trucks  and  buses.  Since  the  effective  date  of 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  208,  which 
provides  that  a  Type  1  or  Type  2  seat  belt  as- 
sembly that  conforms  to  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  209  shall  be  installed  in  each  pas- 
senger car  seat  position,  is  January  1,  1968,  seat 
belt  assemblies  installed  in  passenger  cars  until 
that  date  need  not  conform  to  Standard  No.  209 
unless  the  seat  belt  assemblies  have  been  manu- 
factured after  February  28,  1967.  (32  F.R. 
3390— March  1,  1967) 

32  F.R.  2415 
February    3,    1967 

34  F.R.  115* 
January   4,    1969 


*  The  Rule  as  published  February  3,  19G7  incorporated 
the  Dept.  of  f'onimerce  .seatbelt  .standard  by  reference. 
The  notice  of  .January  4,  1969,  simply  pulilished  the 
full  text  of  that  standard  without  amending  it. 


(Rev.  Aug.    19711 


PART  571;  S  209-18 


Effective:   January    1,    1972 


PREAMBLE   TO   AMENDMENT  TO   MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  210 

Seat  Belt  Assembly  Anchorages — Passenger  Cars,  Multipurpose 
Passenger  Vehicles,  Trucks  and  Buses 

(Docket  No.   2-14;   Notice  No.  4) 


An  amendment  to  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  210,  Seat  Belt  Assembly  Anchor- 
ages, was  published  on  October  1,  1970  (35  F.R. 
15293).  Thereafter,  pursuant  to  §553.35  of  the 
procedural  rules  (49  CFR  553.35,  35  F.R.  5119), 
petitions  for  reconsideration  were  filed  by  Rolls 
Royce,  Ltd.,  International  Harvester  Co.,  Chrys- 
ler Corp.,  Ford  Motor  Co.,  General  Motors 
Corp.,  the  Automobile  IManufacturers  Associa- 
tion, Toyota  Motor  Co.,  Ltd.,  American  Motors, 
Jeep  Corp.,  Chrysler  United  Kingdom,  Ltd.,  and 
Checker  Motors  Corp. 

In  response  to  information  contained  in  the 
petitions,  and  other  considerations,  certain  re- 
quirements of  the  standard  are  hereby  amended 
and  the  effective  date  of  the  standard  with  re- 
spect to  passenger  cars  is  postponed  until  Janu- 
ary 1,  1972.  The  petitions  for  relief  from  cer- 
tain other  requirements  of  the  standard  are 
denied. 

1.  The  effective  date  of  the  amended  standard 
with  respect  to  passenger  cars  was  to  have  been 
January  1,  1971.  Each  petitioner  claimed  to  be 
unable  to  produce  vehicles  conforming  to  the 
amended  standard  by  that  date.  Those  who  pro- 
vided lead  time  information  indicated  that 
several  months  would  be  needed,  with  estimates 
ranging  from  March  31,  1971,  for  Rolls  Royce,  to 
January  1,  1972,  for  a  number  of  manufacturers. 
A  January  1972  effective  date  would  have  the  ad- 
vantage of  coinciding  with  the  effective  date  pro- 
posed for  the  closely  related  interim  standard  on 
occupant  crash  protection  (Docket  69-7,  Notice 
6,  35  F.R.  14941).  Since  the  amendments  with 
respect  to  passenger  cars  are  intended  primarily 
to  enhance  the  enforceability  of  the  standard 
rather  than  to  provide  new  levels  of  safety,  it 


has  been  determined  that  good  cause  has  been 
shown  for  establishing  an  effective  date  for  pas- 
senger cars  of  January  1,  1972. 

AVith  a  single  exception,  the  requests  for  post- 
ponement of  the  effective  date  of  the  standard 
with  respect  to  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles, 
trucks,  and  buses,  are  denied.  One  of  the  pri- 
mary reasons  for  amending  the  standard  was  to 
extend  the  protection  afforded  by  seat  belts  to 
occupants  of  these  types  of  vehicles.  A  post- 
ponement of  effective  date  would  leave  these  ve- 
hicles completely  without  anchorage  requirements 
for  an  additional  6  months.  Although  manu- 
facturers who  have  been  installing  anchorages 
may  find  it  necessary  to  reexamine  the  strength 
and  location  of  their  anchorages,  this  is  not  con- 
sidered a  sufficient  ground  for  postponing  the 
effective  date. 

International  Harvester  requested  a  postpone- 
ment until  January  1,  1972,  in  the  date  on  which 
upper  torso  restraint  anchorages  will  be  revjuired 
on  seats  other  than  front  seats  in  multipurpose 
passenger  vehicles.  On  consideration  of  the  lead 
time  difficulties  that  have  been  demonstrated  by 
this  manufacturer,  the  Director  regards  the  re- 
quest as  reasonable  and  has  decided  to  grant  the 
requested  postponement. 

2.  A  number  of  petitions  requested  reconsid- 
eration of  the  sections  dealing  with  anchorage 
location.  Section  S4.3.1.4  of  the  standard  states 
that  "Anchorages  for  an  individual  seat  belt  as- 
sembly shall  be  located  at  least  13.75  inches  apart 
laterally  for  outboard  seats  and  at  least  6.75 
mches  apart  laterally  for  other  seats." 

General  Motors  stated  that  several  of  its  ve- 
hicles have  anchorages  for  the  center  seating 
position  that  are  6.50  inches  apart,  that  some  of 


PART  571;  S  210— PRE  1 


Effecliva:  January   1,    1972 


the  anchorages  for  outboard  seats  are  less  than 
13.75  inches  apart,  and  that  there  is  no  basis 
either  for  setting  a  minimum  spacing,  or  for 
setting  different  minimum  spacings  for  different 
seating  positions.  Similar  comments  were  made 
by  AMA,  Chrysler,  Ford  and  American  Motors. 

As  originally  issued.  Standard  No.  210  had  re- 
quired anchorages  to  be  "as  near  as  practicable, 
15  inches  apart  laterally."  To  make  the  stand- 
ard more  precise  and  more  easily  enforceable, 
the  notice  of  September  20,  1969  (34  F.R.  14658), 
proposed  to  delete  the  qualifying  language  and 
to  require  that  anchorages  be  15  inches  apart 
laterally.  The  comments  indicated  that  anchor- 
ages for  center  seating  positions,  particularly  the 
front  positions,  would  require  complete  reloca- 
tion. The  available  data  on  the  effects  of  anchor- 
age spacing  were  not  regarded  as  conclusive 
enough  to  justify  imposing  this  burden  on  the 
manufacturers,  and  the  spacing  for  anchorages 
for  inboard  locations  was  accordingly  reduced 
to  6.75  inches  in  the  amended  standard.  With- 
out clearer  biomechanical  data,  the  intent  was  to 
adopt  the  prevailing  industry  minimum  as  the 
standard.  The  same  rationale  applied  to  out- 
board seating  position,  where  the  15-inch  spac- 
ing was  reduced  to  13.75  inches. 

It  now  appears  that  botli  spacing  employed  in 
the  amended  standard  failed  to  reflect  prevailing 
locations.  The  Director  is  accordingly  amending 
section  S4.3.1.4  to  establish  a  minimum  spacing 
of  6.50  inches. 

A  further  problem  with  the  spacing  require- 
ment arises  from  the  use  of  "anchorage"  as  the 
reference  point  for  measurement.  As  long  as  the 
standard  used  the  qualifying  language  "as  near 
as  practicable,"  there  was  no  difficulty.  Removal 
of  that  phrase  by  the  notice  of  September  20, 
1969,  created  a  problem  of  interpretation  that 
escaped  comment  until  after  issuance  of  the 
amended  standard.  Several  petitioners  com- 
mented that  they  do  not  know  what  point  to  use 
for  measurement.  The  director  concedes  the  de- 
ficiency, and  accordingly  amends  section  S4.3.1.4 
to  specify  that  the  spacing  is  "measured  between 
the  vertical  centerlines  of  the  bolt  holes." 

In  conjunction  with  its  request  for  a  reduction 
of  the  spacing  requirement.  General  Motors 
stated  that  where  structural  members  between  the 


anchorage  and  the  seating  position  have  the  ef- 
fect of  spreading  the  seat  belt  loop  apart,  the  % 
spacing  should  be  measured  between  the  widest 
contact  points  on  the  structure.  Since  the 
strength  of  these  structural  members  is  not  reg- 
ulated, there  is  no  assurance  that  their  perform- 
ance in  a  crash  will  be  equal  to  that  of  properly 
spaced  anchorages.  The  request  offers  no  im- 
provement in  occupant  crash  protection,  and 
may,  in  fact,  diminish  such  protection.  The  re- 
quest is  therefore  denied. 

3.  The  amended  standard's  other  location  re- 
quirements concern  the  placement  of  ancliorages 
to  achieve  desirable  seat  belt  angles.  Sections 
S4.3.1.1  and  S4.3.1.3  each  use  the  "nearest  belt 
contact  point  on  the  anchorage"  as  the  lower 
point  defining  the  line  whose  angle  is  to  be 
measured.  Several  petitions  expressed  uncer- 
tainty as  to  the  point  described,  and  on  recon- 
sideration the  Director  agrees  that  clarification 
is  needed. 

In  the  notice  of  proposed  rule  making  that 
preceded  the  amended  standard  (34  F.R.  14658, 
Sept.  20,  1969)  the  line  had  been  run  to  the 
"anchorage".  This  usage  lacked  precision,  as 
stated  by  several  comments.  In  an  attempt  to  , 
define  a  line  that  would  closely  approximate  the  ( 
actual  belt  angle,  the  language  in  question  was 
adopted.  The  problem  lies  in  the  use  of  the  word 
"anchorage",  since  in  most  installations  the  belt 
does  not  actually  contact  the  anchorage.  The 
point  intended  was,  in  fact,  the  nearest  contact 
point  of  the  belt  webbing  with  the  hardware 
that  attaches  it  to  the  anchorage.  In  the  typical 
installation,  this  point  would  be  on  an  angle  plate 
bolted  to  the  anchorage.  Sections  S4.3.1.1  and 
S4.3.1.3  are  accordingly  amended  to  use  the 
phrase  "the  nearest  contact  point  of  the  belt  with 
the  hardware  attaching  it  to  the  anchorage." 

4.  The  test  procedures  of  S5.1  and  S5.2  were 
the  subject  of  several  requests  for  reconsidera- 
tion. ]\Iost  petitioners  stated  that  the  test  was 
not  representative  of  crash  conditions,  and 
several  suggested  that  it  should  be  displaced  by 
a  dynamic  test.  Times  suggested  for  such  a 
dynamic  test  ranged  from  0.1  second  to  1.0  sec- 
ond, and  were  said  to  be  the  tests  used  by  the 
petitioners,  or  by  one  or  another  of  the  interna- 
tional standards  organizations.  The  require- 
ment for  a  10-second  hold  period  at  ma.ximum 


PART  571;  S  210— PRE  2 


Effective:  January   1,    1972 


k     load   attracted  the  most  strongly  adverse  com- 

f     ment. 

From  its  inception,  Standard  No.  210  has  con- 
templated a  static  test.  The  notice  of  proposed 
rule  making  of  September  20,  1969,  proposed  a 
test  that  was  clearly  static,  in  that  it  involved 
a  slow  rate  of  load  application  (2  to  4  inches  per 
minute).  In  response  to  comments  that  the  rate 
was  too  slow,  and  to  avoid  problems  of  inter- 
pretation as  to  where  the  rate  of  pull  was  to  be 
measured,  the  procedures  were  amended  to 
specify  the  rate  of  load  application  in  time  rather 
than  distance,  with  the  full  load  reached  in  a 
period  of  from  0.1  to  30  seconds.  It  should  be 
noted  that  the  vehicle  must  be  capable  of  meeting 
the  requirements  when  tested  at  any  rate  within 
this  range.  To  insure  that  the  basic  strength  of 
the  structure  would  be  measured  whatever  the 
shape  of  the  load  application  curve,  a  hold  period 
of  10  seconds  was  specified.  The  procedures  of 
the  air;cr»ded  standard  do  no  more  than  give  more 
specific  form  to  the  test  contemplated  in  the 
original   standard. 

The  postponement  of  the  effective  date  of  the 
amended  standard  will  provide  additional  time 

,       for  passenger  car  manufacturers  to  assure  them- 

'  selves  of  compliance  with  the  standard.  After 
consideration  of  the  issues  raised  in  the  petitions 
for  reconsideration,  the  Director  has  concluded 
that  the  tests  prescribed  by  the  standard  are  rea- 
sonable, practicable,  and  appropriate  for  the  af- 
fected motor  v^ehicles.  The  petitions  for  recon- 
sideration of  sections  S5.1  and  S5.2  are  therefore 
denied. 

5.  Two  petitioners.  Rolls  Royce  and  General 
Motors,  stated  that  it  was  not  practicable  to  use 
the  "seat  back"  in  determining  the  angle  of  the 
torso  line  in  S4.3.2,  in  that  the  seat  back  angle 
may  vary  according  to  which  of  its  surfaces  is 
measured.  Although  there  may  be  instances 
where  the  angle  of  the  seat  back  is  difficult  to 
determine,  questions  arising  from  such  instances 
can  be  resolved,  if  necessary,  by  administrative 
interpretation,  and  it  has  been  decided  to  retain 
the  reference  to  "seat  back"  in  section  S4.3.2. 

6.  Several  petitioners  stated  that  the  sub- 
stitution of  the  word  "device"  for  "provision"  in 
the  definition  of  seat  belt  anchorage  appeared  to 
change  the  meaning  of  that  term.     No  substan- 


tive change  was  intended,  and  since  the  reword- 
ing has  caused  some  misunderstanding,  the  Di- 
rector has  decided  to  return  to  the  original 
wording. 

7.  General  Motors  also  petitioned  to  reinstate 
the  provision  in  section  S4.3.2  that  would  allow 
the  upper  torso  restraint  angle  to  be  measured 
from  the  shoulder  to  the  anchorage  "or  to  a 
structure  between  the  shoulder  point  and  the 
anchorage".  The  phrase  rendered  uncertain  the 
effective  angle  of  the  belt  under  stress.  The 
quoted  language  was  deleted  in  the  notice  of 
September  20,  1969,  and  no  sufficient  reason  has 
been  given  for  reinstating  it.  The  request  is 
therefore  denied. 

8.  Toyota  Motor  Co.  requested  that  sections 
S5.1  and  S5.2  be  amended  to  allow  use  of  body 
blocks  equivalent  to  those  specified.  Although 
the  standard  provides  that  an  anchorage  must 
meet  the  strength  requirements  when  tested  with 
the  specified  blocks,  manufacturers  may  use 
whatever  methods  they  wish  to  ascertain  that 
their  products  meet  these  requirements  when  so 
tested,  as  long  as  their  methods  constitute  due 
care.  If  the  Toyota  procedures  are,  in  fact, 
equivalent,  there  is  no  need  to  amend  the  stand- 
ard to  accommodate  them.  The  request  is  there- 
fore denied. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  210,  in  §571.21  of 
Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations  is 
amended.  .  .  . 

Effective  date.  For  the  reasons  given  above, 
it  has  been  determined  that  the  effective  date  of 
the  amended  standard  shall  be  January  1,  1972, 
for  passenger  cars.  The  effective  date  for  multi- 
purpose passenger  vehicles,  trucks,  and  buses 
shall  be  July  1,  1971,  except  that  the  effective 
date  for  installation  of  anchorages  for  upper 
torso  restraints  for  seating  positions  other  than 
front  outboard  designated  seating  positions  shall 
be  January  1,  1972. 

Issued  on  November  20, 1970. 

Charles     H.     Hartman, 
Acting  Director. 

35    F.R.    18116 
Nov.  26,  1970 


PART  571;  S  210— PRE  3-4 


r 


Effective:  July   1,    1971 

January   1,    1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   210 

Seat  Belt  Assembly  Anchorages  and  Seat  Belt  Installations; 
Reconsideration  and  Amendment 

(Docket  No.   2-14;  Notice  No.  4) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  amend  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standards  No.  208  and  210,  with 
respect  to  the  installation  of  shoulder  belts  in 
multipurpose  passenger  vehicles  exceeding  10,000 
pounds  GVWR  and  the  provision  of  anchorages 
for  shoulder  belts  in  vehicles  other  than  passen- 
ger cars. 

The  seat  belt  installation  standard  was  amended 
on  September  30,  1970,  to  require  installation  of 
seat  belts  in  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles, 
trucks,  and  buses  manufactured  after  July  1, 
1971  (35  F.R.  15222).  Exemptions  from  the 
requirement  for  shoulder  belt  installation  were 
provided  for  certain  types  and  weights  of  ve- 
hicles. 

During  the  course  of  the  subsequent  rulemak- 
ing activity  which  led  to  the  issuance  of  the 
occupant  crash  protection  standard,  it  was  de- 
termined that  the  larger  weight  classes  of  trucks 
and  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles  should  not 
be  required  to  install  shoulder  belts  (35  F.R. 
14941,  35  F.R.  16937,  36  F.R.  4600).  The  stand- 
ard therefore  required  lap  belts,  but  not  shoulder 
belts,  for  vehicles  over  10,000  pounds  GVWR, 
effective  January  1,  1972.  The  September  30 
amendment,  which  is  to  become  effective  six 
months  earlier  than  the  occupant  crash  protection 
rule,  had  provided  a  similar  exemption  for  large 
trucks  but  not  for  multipurpose  passenger  ve- 
hicles, with  the  result  that  shoulder  belts  would 
have  been  required  for  many  large  multipurpose 
passenger  vehicles  during  the  period  July  1, 1971- 
January  1,  1972,  but  not  afterward.  To  correct 
this  inconsistency,  the  seat  belt  installation  stand- 
ard is  amended,  effective  July  1,  1971,  to  exempt 
multipurpose   passenger   vehicles  of   more   than 


10,000   pounds   GWVR   from  the  shoulder  belt 
requirement. 

In  accordance  with  the  foregoing,  section  S3.1 
of  Standard  No.  208,  as  published  September  30, 
1970  (35  F.R.  15222)  is  amended  effective  July  1, 
1971 

Standard  No.  210,  Seat  Belt  Assembly  Anchor- 
ages, presently  requires  vehicles  other  than  pas- 
senger cars  to  have  shoulder  belt  anchorages 
installed  at  front  outboard  seating  positions  by 
July  1,  1971,  and  at  rear  outboard  seating  posi- 
tions by  January  1,  1972  (35  F.R.  15293,  35  F.R. 
18116,  36  F.R.  4291).  The  Recreational  Vehicle 
Institute  has  petitioned  for  an  amendment  of  the 
standard,  to  delete  the  requirement  for  shoulder 
belt  anchorages  at  positions  where  shoulder  belt 
installation  is  not  required  by  Standard  No.  208. 

It  has  been  found  that  this  petition  has  merit. 
The  probability  of  shoulder  belt  installation  by 
the  owners  of  these  vehicles  is  very  small,  and 
the  difficulty  of  anchorage  installation,  particu- 
larly in  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles,  is  often 
greater  than  in  passenger  cars.  The  amendment 
is  therefore  considered  to  be  in  the  public  interest. 

The  request  by  RVI  for  a  postponement  of  the 
July  1,  1971,  effective  date  for  installation  of 
shoulder  belt  anchorages  has  not  been  found  jus- 
tified, and  the  petition  is  in  that  respect  denied. 

In  accordance  with  the  foregoing,  section  S4.1.1 
of  the  present  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard 
No.  210  (effective  July  1,  1971),  and  the  amended 
Standard  No.  210  as  published  November  26, 
1970  (35  F.R.  18116,  effective  January  1,  1972), 
in  49  CFR  571.21,  are  both  amended 


PART  571;  S  210— PRE  5 


Effactiva:  July    1,    1971 

January    1,    1972 

The  effective  dates  of  the  amendments  made  by  be  unnecessary,  and  it  is  found,  for  good  cause    % 

this  notice  are  as  indicated  above.    Because  the  shown,   that  an  effective  date  earlier  than   180 

amendments  relieve  restrictions  and  impose  no  days  af  tei^  issuance  is  in  the  public  interest, 
additional  burden  on  any  person,  notice  and  re-  36  F.R.  9869 

quest  for  comments  on  such  notice  are  found  to  May  29,  1971 


i 


PAKT  571;  S  210— PRE  6 


EfFactlva:  Januofy  1,    1972 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  210 

Seat  Belt  Assembly  Anchorages — Passenger  Cars,  Multipurpose 
-  Passenger  Vehicles,  Trucks,  and  Buses 

(Docket  No.  2-14;  Notice  No.  4) 


51.  Purpose  and  scope.  This  standard  estab- 
lishes requirements  for  seat  belt  assembly  anchor- 
ages to  insure  their  proper  location  for  effective 
occupant  restraint  and  to  reduce  the  likelihood 
of  their  failure. 

52.  Application.  This  standard  applies  to  pas- 
senger cars,  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles, 
trucks,  and  buses. 

53.  Definition.  "Seat  belt  anchorage"  means 
the  provision  for  transferring  seat  belt  assembly 
loads  to  the  vehicle  structure. 

54.  Requirements. 

54.1  Type. 

[S4.1.1  Seat  belt  anchorages  for  a  Type  2  seat 
belt  assembly  shall  be  installei  for  each  forward- 
facing  outboard  designated  seating  position  in 
passenger  cars,  other  than  convertibles  and  for 
each  designated  seating  position  for  which  a 
Type  2  seat  belt  assembly  is  required  by  Stand- 
ard No.  208  in  vehicles  other  than  passenger 
car.  (36  F.R.  9869— May  29,  1971.  Effective: 
1/1/72)3 

S4.1.2  Seat  belt  anchorages  for  a  Type  1  or  a 
Type  2  seat  belt  assembly  shall  be  installed  for 
each  designated  seating  position,  except  a  pas- 
senger seat  in  a  bus  or  a  designated  seating  posi- 
tion for  which  seat  belt  anchorages  for  a  Type  2 
seat  belt  assembly  are  required  by  S4.1.1. 

54.2  Strength. 

54.2.1  Except  for  side-facing  seats,  the  anchor- 
age for  a  Type  1  seat  belt  assembly  or  the  pelvic 
portion  of  a  Type  2  seat  belt  assembly  shall 
withstand  a  5,000-pound  force  when  tested  in 
accordance  with  S5.1. 

54.2.2  The  anchorage  for  a  Type  2  seat  belt 
assembly  shall  withstand  3,000-pound  forces 
when  tested  in  accordance  with  S5.2. 


54.2.3  Permanent  deformation  or  rupture  of 
a  seat  belt  anchorage  or  its  surrounding  area  is 
not  considered  to  be  a  failure,  if  the  required 
force  is  sustained  for  the  specified  time. 

54.2.4  Except  for  common  seat  belt  anchorages 
for  forward-facing  and  rearward-facing  seats, 
floor-mounted  seat  belt  anchorages  for  adjacent 
designated  seating  positions  shall  be  tested  by 
simultaneously  loading  the  seat  belt  assemblies 
attached  to  those  anchorages. 

S4.3  Location.  As  used  in  this  section,  "for- 
ward" means  in  the  direction  in  which  the  seat 
faces,  and  other  directional  references  are  to  be 
interpreted  accordingly. 

S4.3.1  Seat  belt  anchorages  for  Type  1  seat  belt 
assemblies  and  the  pelvic  portion  of  Type  2  seat 
belt  assemblies. 

54.3.1.1  In  an  installation  in  which  the  seat 
belt  does  not  bear  upon  the  seat  frame,  a  line 
from  the  seating  reference  point  to  the  nearest 
contact  point  of  the  belt  with  the  hardware  at- 
taching it  to  the  anchorage  for  a  nonadjustable 
seat,  or  from  a  point  2.50  inches  forward  of  and 
0.375  inch  above  the  seating  reference  point  to 
the  nearest  contact  point  of  the  belt  with  the 
hardware  attaching  it  to  the  anchorage  for  an 
adjustable  seat  in  its  rearmost  position,  shall  ex- 
tend forward  from  the  anchorage  at  an  angle 
with  the  horizontal  of  not  less  than  20°  and  not 
more  than  75°. 

54.3.1.2  In  an  installation  in  which  the  belt 
bears  upon  the  seat  frame,  the  seat  belt  anchor- 
age, if  not  on  the  seat  structure,  shall  be  aft  of 
the  rearmost  belt  contact  point  on  the  seat  frame 
with  the  seat  in  the  rearmost  position.  The  line 
from  the  seating  reference  point  to  the  nearest 
belt  contact  point  on  the  seat  frame  shall  extend 


PART  571 ;  S  210-1 


Effacllv*:  January   1,    1972 


forward  from  that  contact  point  at  an  angle  with 
the  horizontal  of  not  less  than  20°  and  not  more 
than  75°. 

54.3.1.3  In  an  installation  in  which  the  seat 
belt  anchorage  is  on  the  seat  structure,  the  line 
from  the  seating  reference  point  to  the  nearest 
contact  point  of  the  belt  with  the  hardware  at- 
taching it  to  the  anchorage  shall  extend  forward 
from  that  contact  point  at  an  angle  with  the 
horizontal  of  not  less  than  20°  and  not  more  than 
75°. 

54.3.1.4  Anchorages  for  an  individual  seat 
belt  assembly  shall  be  located  at  least  6.50  inches 
apart  laterally,  measured  between  the  vertical 
centerlines  of  the  bolt  holes. 

S4.3.2  Seat  belt  anchorages  for  the  upper  torso 
portion  of  Type  2  seat  belt  assemblies.  With  the 
seat  in  its  full  rearward  and  downward  position 
and  the  seat  back  in  its  most  upright  position, 
the  seat  belt  anchorage  for  the  upper  end  of  the 
upper  torso  restraint  shall  be  located  within  the 
acceptable  range  shown  in  Figure  1,  with  refer- 


SHOULDER  REFERENCE  POINT, 

HORIZONTAL 
LINE 

SAE  TWO  DIMENSIONAL  ]?J^c°  ' 
MANIKIN 
SEATING  REFERENCE  POINT 


ACCEPTABLE 
RANGE 


FIGURE  1     LOCATION  OF  ANCHORAGE  FOR  UPPER  TORSO  RESTRAINT 

ence  to  a  two  dimensional  manikin  described  in 
SAE  Standard  J826  (November  1962)  whose 
"H"  point  is  at  the  seating  reference  point  and 
whose  torso  line  is  at  the  same  angle  from  the 
vertical  as  the  seat  back. 

S5.  Test  procedures.  Each  vehicle  shall  meet 
the  requirements  of  S4.2  when  tested  according 
to  the  following  procedures.  Where  a  range  of 
values  is  specified,  the  vehicle  shall  be  able  to 
meet  the  requirements  at  all  points  within  the 
range. 

S5.1  Seats  with  Type  1  or  Type  2  seat  belt 
anchorages.  With  the  seat  in  its  rearmost  posi- 
tion, apply  a  force  of  5,000  pounds  in  the  direc- 
tion in  which  the  seat  faces  to  a  pelvic  body 
block  as  described  in  Figure  2,  restrained  by  a 


Type  1  or  the  pelvic  portion  of  a  Type  2  seat 
belt  assembly,  as  aprlicable,  in  a  plane  parallel 
to  the  longitudinal  centerline  of  the  vehicle,  with 
an  initial  force  application  angle  of  not  less  than 
5°  nor  more  than  15°  above  the  horizontal. 
Apply  the  force  at  the  onset  rate  of  not  more 
than  50,000  pounds  per  second.  Attain  the 
5,000-pound  force  in  not  more  than  30  seconds 
and  maintain  it  for  10  seconds. 


20.5  R 


( 


1.94  R 


TYP 


2,00  R 


0.75  DIA.  HOLE 
5.00 


2.00 -H  h-— 


'^JL 


6.00  R 


2.00 


^t?" 


R  TYP 


-20.00- 


4.34 

1  DOMED   DENSITY 

CANVAS  COVERED 
T  FOAM  RUBBER 
9.00 


5.26 


FIGURE  2    BODY  BLOCK  FOR  LAP  BELT  ANCHORAGE 

S5.2  Seats  with   Type   2  seat  belt  anchorages. 

With  the  seat  in  its  rearmost  position,  apply 
forces  of  3,000  pounds  in  the  direction  in  which 
the  seat  faces  simultaneously  to  pelvic  and  upper 
torso  body  blocks  as  described  in  Figures  2  and 
3,  restrained  by  a  Type  2  seat  belt  assembly,  in 


{ 


0.22  R 


8.00  R 


1.00  OPTIONAL 
BUCKLE  CUTOUT 


bt— 1 .50  R 

■LOOMED   DENSITY 
FOAM  RUBBER  OVER  BLOCK 


4.00- 


FIGURE  3    BODY  BLOCK  FOR  COMBINATION  SHOULDER 
AND  LAP  BELT  ANCHORAGE 

a  plane  parallel  to  the  longitudinal  centerline  of 
the  vehicle,  with  an  initial  force  application  angle 
of  not  less  than  5°  nor  more  than  15°  above  the 
horizontal.  Apply  the  forces  at  the  onset  rate 
of  not  more  than  30,000  pounds  per  second. 
Attain  the  3,000-pound  forces  in  not  more  than 
30  seconds  and  maintain  them  for  10  seconds. 

35  F.R.  18116 
November  26,  1970 


PAKT  571 ;  S  210-2 


Effactlva:  January  1,   1968 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  211 

Wheel  Nuts,  Wheel  Discs,  and  Hub  Caps — Passenger  Cars  and  Multipurpose 

Passenger  Vehicles 


SI.  Purpose  and  scope.  This  standard  pre- 
cludes the  use  of  wheel  nuts,  wheel  discs,  and 
hub  caps  that  constitute  a  hazard  to  pedestrians 
and  cyclists. 

$2.  Application.  This  standard  applies  to  pas- 
senger cars,  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles,  and 
passenger  cars  and  multipurpose  passenger  ve- 
hicle equipment. 

S3.  Requirements.  Wheel  nuts,  hub  caps,  and 
wheel  discs  for  use  on  passenger  cars  and  multi- 
purpose passenger  vehicles  shall  not  incorporate 
winged  projections. 

[INTERPRETATION 

A  clarification  of  the  term  "wheel  nut"  as  used 
in  the  requirements  section  S3  of  Standard  No. 
211  has  been  requested.    This  section  states  that 


"wheel  nuts,  hub  caps,  and  wheel  discs  for  use  on 
passenger  cars  and  multipurpose  passenger  ve- 
hicles shall  not  incorporate  winged  projections." 
A  "wheel  nut"  is  an  exposed  nut  that  is  mounted 
at  the  center  or  hub  of  a  wheel,  and  not  the  ordi- 
nary small  hexagonal  nut,  one  of  several  which 
secures  a  wheel  to  an  axle,  and  which  is  normally 
covered  by  a  hub  cap  or  wheel  disc. 

Issued  on  July  22,   1969.      (34  F.R.   12283— 
July  25, 1969) 

F.  C.  Turner 

Federal  Highway  Administrator] 

32  F.R.  2416 
February  3,   1967 


(Rav.   7/25/69) 


PART  571;  S  211-1 


EffacHva:  January   1,   1970 


PREAMBLE  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   212 
Windshield  Mounting — Passenger  Cars 


A  proposal  to  amend  Part  371  of  the  Federal 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standards  by  adding  a 
Standard  No.  212,  Windshield  Mounting— Pas- 
senger Cars,  was  published  as  an  advance  notice 
of  proposed  rule  making  an  October  14,  1967 
(32  F.R.  14281)  and  a  notice  of  proposed  rule 
making  on  December  28,  1967  (32  F.R.  20866). 

Interested  persons  have  been  given  the  oppor- 
tunity to  participate  in  the  making  of  this  amend- 
ment, and  careful  consideration  has  been  given 
to  all  relevant  matter  presented. 

This  new  standard  requires  that,  when  tested 
as  prescribed,  each  passenger  car  windshield 
mounting  must  retain  either:  (1)  not  less  than 
75%  of  the  windshield  periphery;  or  (2)  not  less 
than  50%  of  that  portion  of  the  windshield 
periphery  on  each  side  of  the  vehicle  longitudinal 
centerline,  if  an  unrestrained  95th  percentile  adult 
male  manikin  is  seated  in  each  outboard  front 
seating  position. 

Several  comments  objected  to  the  proposed 
standard  and  in  some  cases  urged  that  more  re- 
search should  be  done  before  any  type  of  wind- 
shield mounting  is  required.  The  standard,  is 
however,  part  of  an  integrated  program  aimed 
at  accomplishing  the  widely  accepted  safety  goal 
of  keeping  occupants  within  the  confines  of  the 
passenger  compartment  during  a  crash.  One 
major  step  in  this  program  is  the  utilization  of 
the  laminated  glazing  material  prescribed  in 
Federal  motor  vehicle  safety  standard  No.  205, 
which  has  resulted  in  a  marked  reduction  in 
serious  head  injury  to  occupants  known  to  have 
struck  the  windshield.  The  windshield  mounting 
retention  requirement  prescribed  in  this  standard 
takes  advantage  of  this  improved  glazing  ma- 
terial and  will  further  minimize  the  likelihood 


of  occupants  being  thrown  from  the  vehicle 
during  a  crash. 

Several  comments  requested  reduction  of  the 
75%  retention  requirement  to  50%.  The  Admin- 
istrator concludes  that,  as  an  alternative,  50% 
retention  is  acceptable  if:  (1)  an  unrestrained 
95%  percentile  adult  male  manikin  is  seated  in 
each  outboard  front  seating  position  when  the 
test  procedure  is  performed,  and  (2)  at  least 
50%  of  that  portion  of  the  windshield  periphery 
on  each  side  of  the  vehicle  longitudinal  centerline 
is  retained. 

Several  comments  requested  that  the  phrase 
"or  approved  equivalent"  be  added  to  the  "Dem- 
onstration procedures'"  provision.  §  371.11  of  the 
Federal  motor  vehicle  safety  standards  provides 
that  "an  approved  equivalent  may  be  substituted 
for  any  required  destructi\e  demonstration  pro- 
cedure."' Consequently,  inclusion  of  the  phrase 
requested  is  not  necessary. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  §  371.21,  of 
Part  371  of  the  Federal  motor  vehicle  safety 
standards  is  amended  by  adding  Standard  No. 
212,  "Windshield  Mounting — Passenger  Cars,"  as 
set  forth  below,  effective  January  1,  1970. 

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 
(P.I>  89-563,  15  U.S.C.  §§1392  and  1407)  and 
the  delegation  of  authority  contained  in  Part  1 
of  the  Regulations  of  the  Office  of  the  Secretary 
of  Transportation  (49  CFR  Part  1). 

Issued  in  Washington,  D.C.  on  August  13, 1968. 

John  R.  Jamieson,  Deputy 
Federal  Highway  Administrator 

33  F.R.  11652 
August  16,   1968 


PART  571;  S  212— PRE  1-2 


231-088   O  -  77  -  61 


r 


Effective:  January    1,    1970 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  212 
Windshield  Mounting — Passenger  Cars 

ST.  Purpose  and  scope.     This  standard  estab-  (b)   Not  less  than  50%  of  that  portion  of  the 

lishes     windshield     retention     requirements     for        windshield  periphery  on  each  side  of  the  vehicle 
windshield  mountings.  longitudinal  centerline,  if  an  unrestrained  95th 

percentile  adult  male  manikin  is  seated  in  each 

52.  Application.    This  standard  applies  to  pas-        outboard  front  seating  position. 

senger  cars.  5^    Demonstration    procecJures.      [Impact    the 

53.  Requirements.  When  tested  in  accordance  ^'«^"<^le  perpendicularly  into  a  fixed  collision 
with  S4,  each  windshield  mounting  must  retain  Earner  at  a  forward  longitudinal  velocity  of  30 
either—  "^i^^s  per  hour.     (35  F.R.  11242— July  14,  1970. 

Effective:  9/1/70)] 
(a)  Not    less    than    75%    of    the    windshield  33  F.R.  11652 

periphery;  or  August  16,  1968 


(Rev.  7/14/70)  PART  571;  S  212-1 


ERkNv*:  Januory   1,   1971 


PREAMBLE  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  213 

Child  Seating  Systems 


Many  young  children  are  killed  and  injured 
needlessly  in  motor  vehicle  accidents  each  year. 
By  a  conservative  estimate,  the  use  of  child  seat- 
ing systems  designed  and  built  with  safety  in 
mind  can  produce  a  substantial  reduction  in 
fatalities  and  injuries. 

One  difficulty  with  achieving  this  goal  is  that 
child  seating  systems  on  the  market  today  run 
the  gamut  from  those  that  oflFer  excellent  crash 
protection  to  devices  which  do  little  to  protect 
a.  child  in  the  event  of  accident  and,  indeed,  may 
actually  increase  the  severity  of  his  injuries.  In 
this  latter  category  are  systems  which,  though 
advertised  and  promoted  as  safety  seats,  are  little 
more  than  child  positioning  devices.  The  parent 
who  buys  and  installs  one  of  these  devices  may 
be  lulled  into  believing  he  has  thereby  assured 
the  safety  of  his  child.  However,  some  of  these 
systems  are  in  fact  hazardous  to  the  child  who 
occupies  them.  Many  have  sharp  edges,  hard 
unyielding  surfaces,  and  low  resistance  to 
collapse. 

Consequently,  the  Director  has  concluded  that 
the  interests  of  motor  vehicle  safety  would  be 
served  by  requiring  all  child  seating  systems  to 
meet  minimum  performance  standards.  He  an- 
ticipates that  improvements  in  the  safety  per- 
formance of  child  seating  systems  will  reduce 
deaths  and  injuries  in  two  principal  ways:  First, 
children  occupying  the  systems  will  be  better 
protected  against  injury  and  death ;  second,  more 
small  children  will  be  carried  in  the  improved 
systems  instead  of  being  allowed  to  go  unre- 
strained in  moving  motor  vehicles. 

It  should  be  emphasized  that  the  performance 
criteria  established  in  this  standard  are  minimum 
ones.  Many  seating  systems  now  available  exceed 
the  requirements  of  the  standard,  and  there  are 
some  which  have  safety  features  that  the  stand- 
ard— because  of  its  universal  application — does 
not  require.  Additional  research  activities  are 
underway  to  evaluate  child  restraint  systems  for 


the  purpose  of  identifying  further  performance 
criteria  suitable  for  inclusion  in  the  standard. 

A  notice  of  proposed  rule  making  relating  to 
child  seating  systems  was  issued  on  January  17, 
1969  (34  F.R.  1172).  At  the  request  of  a  number 
of  interested  persons,  the  time  to  file  comments 
on  the  contents  of  the  proposed  rule  was  twice 
extended  (34  F.R.  2564;  34  F.R.  7032).  In  gen- 
eral, the  responses  to  the  notice  were  both  con- 
structive and  helpful.  A  trade  association  com- 
posed of  manufacturers  of  child  seating  systems 
and  other  products  employed  a  consulting  firm 
to  evaluate  the  proposed  standard  and  to  conduct 
a  survey  of  users  of  child  seating  systems.  Its 
reports  were  extremely  valuable  in  formulating 
the  final  rule.  In  general,  persons  who  filed  com- 
ments agreed  on  the  need  for  a  motor  vehicle 
safety  standard  covering  child  seating  systems. 
There  was  also  general  agreement  on  the  features 
of  the  various  systems  that  should  be  regulated 
and  required.  Naturally,  differing  views  were 
expressed  on  the  details  of  the  proposed  standard 
as  well  as  the  performance  levels  to  be  specified. 

These  comments,  and  other  available  data,  have 
been  carefully  considered.  They  have  convinced 
the  Director  that  it  is  practicable  to  produce  and 
market  child  seating  systems  of  various  designs 
that  will  provide  much-needed  crash  protection 
to  their  young  occupants  and,  at  the  same  time, 
be  within  the  means  of  parents  and  others  who 
are  concerned  about  the  safety  of  infant  pas- 
sengers. 

The  standard  defines  a  child  seating  system  as 
an  item  of  motor  vehicle  equipment  for  seating 
and  restraining  a  child  being  transported  in  a 
passenger  car,  multipurpose  passenger  vehicle, 
truck,  or  bus.  Devices  for  seating  a  child,  which 
utilize  the  vehicle  restraint  system  or  a  restraint 
system  incorporated  as  part  of  the  device,  or  both, 
are  covered.  Excluded  from  the  coverage  of  the 
standard  are  devices  solely  for  use  on  motorcycles 
and  Type  3  seat  belt  assemblies  which,  while  they 


PART  571;  S  213— PRE  1 


E4f*criv«:  Januaiy   1,    1971 


provide  restraint,  do  not  provide  seating  for  the 
child.  (Performance  standards  for  Type  3  seat 
belt  assemblies  are  included  in  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  209.)  Also  excluded  are 
devices,  such  as  "car  beds,"  for  use  by  recumbent 
and  semirecumbent  children.  It  is  anticipated 
that  these  devices  will  be  the  subject  of  rule 
making  after  completion  of  research  into  criteria 
for  maximizing  their  safety. 

Under  the  standard,  manufacturers  will  be  re- 
quired to  provide  purchasers  of  seating  systems 
with  information  relating  to  their  proper  installa- 
tion and  use.  The  safe  performance  of  a  child 
seating  system  depends,  in  large  measure,  on  its 
proper  installation  and  use.  However,  the  juris- 
diction of  the  Department  does  not  extend  to  the 
persons  who  install  the  systems  and  position 
children  in  them.  Therefore,  it  is  essential  for 
system  manufacturers  to  provide  consumers  with 
clear  guidance  on  these  points.  In  a  major 
change  from  the  labeling  requirement  in  the 
notice  of  proposed  rule  making,  the  Director  has 
decided  to  permit  each  manufacture^  to  specify 
recommended  height  and  weight  limits  for  chil- 
dren who  can  safely  occupy  his  systems,  without 
requiring  all  systems  to  be  recommended  for  chil- 
dren having  any  specific  height  or  weight.  The 
purpose  of  the  change  is  to  permit  maximum 
design  flexibility,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  some 
systems  cannot  afford  the  same  level  of  safety 
for  a  wide  size  range  of  children.  In  addition, 
the  Director  has  changed  the  location  of  the 
mandatory  installation  instructions,  permitting 
them  to  appear  on  a  separate  sheet  of  paper 
rather  than  requiring  them  to  be  on  the  label 
which  must  be  attached  to  each  system.  The 
object  of  the  change  was  to  reduce  the  quantity 
of  information  on  the  label  and  thereby  to  insure 
that  more  users  will  read  it. 

The  method  used  to  attach  a  restraint  device 
to  the  motor  vehicle  is  obviously  critical  to  its 
safe  performance.  Because  seat  belts  are  engi- 
neered, manufactured,  and  installed  foj-  the 
specific  purpose  of  restraining  vehicle  occupants, 
and  their  value  for  that  purpose  has  been  estab- 
lished, the  Director  has  retained  the  requirement 
that  each  child  seating  system  must  be  designed 
and  constructed  so  that  it  will  be  restrained  by  a 
seat  belt  assembly  when  the  system  is  properly 
installed.    In  addition,  the  proposed  rule  sought 


to  eliminate  the  bail-type  of  attachment  device,  / 
which  uses  hooks  fitting  over  the  top  of  the  ve-  ' 
hide  seat  back,  on  the  ground  that  that  design  is 
not  crashworthy  and  also  poses  a  hazard  to  rear 
seat  occupants.  In  the  standard,  the  prohibition 
of  rigid  components  for  attaching  the  system  to 
a  seat  back  is  retained.  Other  devices,  such  as 
straps,  for  attaching  the  system  to  a  seat  back 
are  also  prohibited.  Use  of  these  attachment 
methods  can  subject  seat  backs  to  greater  loads 
than  they  can  withstand  in  crash  situations. 
However,  the  requirement  has  been  revised  to 
permit  attachment  by  means  of  components  that 
fit  between  the  vehicle  seat  back  and  the  seat 
cushion.  This  means  of  attaching  the  child  seat 
to  the  vehicle  seat  does  not  subject  the  vehicle  seat 
back  to  excessive  loading  and  can  improve  the 
stability  of  the  child  seating  system  in  the  event 
of  a  crash. 

Because  it  is  not  fully  developed,  the  body  of 
a  young  child  cannot  safely  tolerat*  the  concen- 
trated loads  that  an  adult's  body  can.  Therefore, 
it  is  not  medically  sound  to  restrain  a  child  so 
that  restraint  loads  are  concentrated  solely  on  his 
pelvis  or  his  thorax.  The  widest  possible  dis- 
tribution of  those  loads  is  desirable.  As  one  . 
respondent  pointed  out,  the  available  information  ' 
does  not  disclose  in  what  proportion  the  loads 
should  be  distributed.  Nevertheless,  the  Director 
had  decided  to  retain  the  requirement  that  child 
seating  systems  must  distribute  restraint  forces 
on  both  the  pelvis  and  thorax  of  their  occupants. 
In  the  circumstances,  a  requirement  for  distribu- 
tion of  restraint  forces,  even  if  the  extent  of 
distribution  is  unspecified,  seems  preferable  to 
no  requirements  at  all. 

Paragraph  84.5,  which  deals  with  distribution 
of  restraint  forces,  has  been  changed  to  make  it 
clear  that  when  a  child  seating  system's  installa- 
tion instructions  call  for  using  a  vehicle  seat  belt 
assembly  to  restrain  a  child,  the  requisite  dis- 
tribution of  restraint  forces  may  be  provided  by 
that  seat  belt  assembly  as  well  as  by  components 
of  the  child  seating  system. 

In  order  to  protect  children  against  "whiplash" 
injury  during  rear-end  crashes,  paragraph  S4.6 
of  the  standard  requires  each  child  seating  system 
either  to  have  a  seat  back  that  is  at  least  21  inches 
higher  than  its  seating  surface  or  to  be  recom- 
mended for  use  only  in  locations  where  the  ve- 


PART  571;  S  213— PRE  2 


EffMtIv*:  January   I,    1971 


i  hide  seat  back  or  head  restraint  furnishes 
'  comparable  protection.  The  21-inch  height  re- 
quirement is  5  inches  less  than  the  minimum 
specified  in  the  proposed  rule.  The  change  is 
based  on  a  survey  of  users — noted  above — which 
showed  that  90  percent  of  the  children  for  whom 
seating  systems  are  purchased  no  longer  use  them 
after  they  are  36  months  old.  A  seat  back  or 
other  support  which  is  21  inches  high  provides 
adequate  head  restraint  protection  for  a  97th 
percentile  3-year-old  male  child. 

Paragraph  S4.7,  which  specifies  minimum 
width  and  strength  requirements  for  webbing, 
and  paragraph  S4.8,  pertaining  to  hardware, 
have  both  been  changed  in  the  light  of  comments 
in  response  to  the  Notice.  The  minimum  width 
of  webbing  was  reduced  from  1%  inches  to  li^ 
inches,  and  the  requirement  was  limited  to  the 
webbing  that  directly  contacts  the  child's  body. 
However,  requirements  for  resistance  to  crocking 
and  staining  were  retained  despite  opposition  to 
them,  since  there  is  a  likelihood  that  belts  that 
stain  children's  clothing  will  go  unused.  The 
requirements  relating  to  the  corrosion -resistance 
qualities  of  hardware  were  altered  so  that  they 
now  apply  only  to  hardware  that  sustains  re- 
straint forces.  This  change  eliminates  an  un- 
necessary burden  on  manufacturers  of  seating 
systems  that  have  decorative  metal  parts. 

Persons  who  have  considered  the  subject  have 
generally  agreed  that  sharp  edges,  small  round 
bars,  and  hard  imyielding  surfaces  should  not  be 
part  of  child  seating  systems,  since  any  of  these 
deficiencies  could  injure  a  child  in  a  crash.  How- 
ever, some  persons  who  filed  comments  recom- 
mended deletion  of  any  prohibition  against  these 
features  on  the  ground  that  there  is  insufficient 
information  on  which  to  specify  precise  perform- 
ance criteria  relating  to  impact  protection. 
While  the  wealth  of  detail  needed  to  design  a 
system  that  offers  optimum  impact  protection 
may  be  unavailable,  the  Director  has  concluded 
that  sufficient  information  is  in  hand  to  permit 
establishment  of  minimum  performance  charac- 
teristics that  are  well  within  the  present  state-of- 
the-art.  Hence,  he  has  retained  impact  protection 
requirements  but  changed  them  somewhat  in  the 
light  of  the  comments  and  of  other  information 
that  lias  become  available  after  the  notice  of 
proposed  rule  making  was  issued. 


Impact  protection  requirements  have  been 
changed  in  the  following  respects:  1.  The  stiiiid- 
ard  does  not  include  a  minimum  permissible 
width  for  rigid  components;  the  limitation  of 
corners  and  edges  of  rigid  components  to  a  radius 
of  three-quarters  inch  is  considered  adequate  to 
eliminate  sharp  edges  and  comers.  2.  A  more 
definitive  description  of  energy-absorbing  ma- 
terial has  been  added  to  give  manufacturers  a 
better  basis  for  material  selection  and  to  preclude 
the  use  of  soft  sponge  rubber,  which  offers  little 
impact  protection.  3.  The  requirement  that  com- 
ponents be  composed  of,  or  covered  with,  energy- 
absorbing  material  has  been  modified  to  exclude 
buckles  and  rigid  sides  of  child  seats  which  have 
a  surface  area  of  at  least  24  square  inches.  Large 
flat  surfaces  tend  to  distribute  impact  loads  over 
a  sufficient  area  of  a  child's  torso  to  preclude 
serious  injury. 

The  performance-underload  requirements  in 
the  proposed  rule  remain  virtually  unchanged, 
except  for  reductions  in  the  static  loads  child 
seating  systems  must  be  capable  of  sustaining. 
These  reductions  reflect  changed  assumptions 
about  the  maximum  ages  of  children  who  occupy 
child  seating  systems.  The  2,000- pound  static 
load  specified  in  the  proposed  rule  was  based  on 
the  hypothesis  that  a  50-pound  child  would  be 
subjected  to  40  "g"  in  a  crash.  The  1,600-pound 
load  requirement  of  the  standard  results  from 
applying  the  same  "g"  forces  to  a  hypothetical 
40-pound  child.  Several  comments  recommended 
that  a  dynamic  test  procedure  be  specified,  on  the 
ground  that  it  would  more  closely  simulate  actual 
crash  conditions.  Because  dynamic  test  facilities 
are  not  readily  available  and,  in  any  event,  no 
generally  accepted  dynamic  impact  performance 
levels  exist,  the  Director  has  decided  not  to  follow 
this  recommendation. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Part  571  of 
Title  49,  CFR,  is  amended  by  adding  a  new 
Federal  motor  vehicle  safety  standard.  .  .  .  This 
new  standard  is  effective  on  January  1,  1971. 

Issued  on  March  23, 1970. 

Douglas  W.  Toms, 

Director 

National  Highway  Safety  Bureau 

35   F.R.  5120 
March   26,   1970 


PART  571;  S  213— PRE  3-4 


EfftcNva:   April    1,    1971 


PREAMBLE  TO  RECONSIDERATION  AND  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY 

STANDARD  NO.  213 

Child  Seating  Systeiis 
(Docket  No.   2-15) 


Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  213,  estab- 
lishing requirements  for  child  seating  systems  for 
use  in  passenger  cars,  multipurpose  passenger 
vehicles,  trucks,  and  buses,  was  issued  on  March 
23,  1970  (35  F.R.  5120).  Thereafter,  pursuant 
to  §553.35  of  the  procedural  rules  (49  CFR 
553.35,  35  F.R.  5119),  petitions  for  reconsidera- 
tion of  the  standard  were  filed  by  Chrysler  Corp., 
General  Motors  Corp.,  American  Motors,  Bolt 
Beranek  and  Newman,  Inc.  (on  behalf  of 
Juvenile  Products  Manufacturers'  Association), 
Hamill  Manufacturing  Co.,  Kiddie  Kar-Go,  Inc., 
and  the  Bobby-Mac  Co.,  Inc.  In  addition,  com- 
ments on  the  petitions  were  submitted  by  the 
Center  for  Auto  Safety 

In  response  to  information  contained  in 
several  of  the  petitions,  plus  other  available  data, 
the  Director  of  the  National  Highway  Safety 
Bureau  is  changing  certain  requirements  of  the 
standard.  In  addition,  the  petitions  raised  certain 
issues  which  are  considered  to  be  appropriate  for 
future  rulemaking  action  because  they  indicate 
areas  in  which  the  standard  may  be  improved. 
Therefore,  the  Director  is  today  issuing  a  notice 
of  proposed  rule  making,  inviting  public  com- 
ment on  those  matters.  The  Director  has  de- 
clined to  grant  requested  relief  from  other  re- 
quirements of  the  standard. 

1.  Paragraph  S3  of  the  standard  defines  a 
child  seating  system  as  "an  item  of  motor  vehicle 
equipment  for  seating  and  restraining  a  child 
being  transported  in  a  passenger  car,  multipur- 
pose passenger  vehicle,  truck,  or  bus."  For  pur- 
poses of  clarity,  this  definition  is  being  revised 
to  state  "♦  *  ♦  for  seating  and  restraining  a 
child  in  a  'motor  vehicle' ".  This  revision  does 
not  change  the  standard's  requirements,  as  the 


particular  vehicles  to  which  the  standard  applies, 
enumerated  in  paragraph  S2,  remain  the  same. 

At  present  the  standard  does  not  apply  to  de- 
vices that  seat  children  in  motor  vehicles,  but  do 
not  restrain  them.  General  Motors  has  requested 
a  change  in  the  definition  of  "child  seating  sys- 
tem" that  would  expand  the  coverage  of  the 
standard  to  include  all  devices  for  seating  chil- 
dren, thus  eliminating  the  exception  that  cur- 
rently exists  for  those  devices  which  merely  seat, 
but  do  not  restrain.  The  change  requested  by 
General  Motors  is  believed  to  have  merit,  and 
in  the  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  issued  con- 
currently with  this  amendment,  the  Director  has 
proposed  to  expand  the  coverage  of  the  standard 
to  include  all  devices  that  are  manufactured  to 
seat  children  in  motor  vehicles.  The  Director 
agrees  with  General  Motors  that  the  interests  of 
safety  would  be  better  served  by  precluding  the 
manufacture  of  devices  which,  although  designed 
to  seat  children  in  motor  vehicles,  do  not  provide 
necessary  protection.  The  Director  also  wishes 
to  make  clear  the  scope  of  the  present  regulation. 
As  presently  defined,  a  child  seating  system  in- 
cludes devices  for  seating  and  restraining  a  child. 
The  intent  of  the  standard  is  to  include  any  seat- 
ing device  that  may  lead  a  consumer  to  assume 
that  it  will  offer  some  protection  to  a  child  placed 
in  it,  either  by  restraining  the  child  with  the 
vehicle  restraint  system,  a  restraint  system  in- 
corporated into  the  device,  or  both.  Therefore, 
any  seating  device  that  provides  restraint  for  a 
child,  no  matter  how  minimal  or  for  what  pur- 
pose, is  a  child  seating  system  under  the  standard. 

2.  Paragraph  S4.1(f)  of  the  standard,  as 
originally  issued,  required  manufacturers  of 
child  seating  systems  to  warn  against  use  of  the 
systems  on  vehicle  seats  that  have  hinged  or 


PART  571;  S  213— PRE  5 


Effective:   April    1,    1971 


folding  seat  backs  but  lack  seat  back  latches  to 
retrain  the  backs  in  the  event  of  a  crash.  Gen- 
eral Motors  Corporation  has  pointed  out  that 
the  mandatory  statement  did  not  warn  against 
use  of  child  seats  on  vehicles  seats  that  hinge  in 
their  entirety  and  do  not  have  restraining 
latches.  The  warning  specified  in  paragraph 
S4.1(f)  is  revised  to  include  a  requirement  for  a 
warning  against  use  of  child  seats  on  hinged  ve- 
hicle seats  that  do  not  have  seat  latches.  Para- 
graph S4.1.1,  which  contains  an  exception  to  the 
warning  requirement,  is  changed  to  reflect  the 
change  in  the  required  warning. 

3.  Both  General  Motors  and  Chrysler  Corp. 
have  asked  for  relief  from  the  requirment,  in 
paragraph  S4.1(a),  that  the  manufacturer's 
name  be  included  on  the  label  affixed  to  each 
child  seating  system.  They  argue  that  it  is 
common  marketing  practice  for  vehicle  manu- 
facturers to  purchase  part  and  equipment  items 
for  resale  under  their  own  names  and  that,  in 
view  of  the  distributor's  obligation  to  certify  that 
those  items  conform  to  applicable  Federal  motor 
vehicle  safety  standards,  no  valid  compliance 
purpose  is  served  by  requiring  the  manufac- 
turer's name  to  appear  on  each  child  seating  sys- 
tem. The  objective  of  the  requirement  is  two- 
fold: First,  to  facilitate  remedial  action  by  the 
Bureau  in  the  event  noncompliance  is  discovered ; 
and,  second,  to  enable  consumers  to  identify  the 
products  which  are  found  to  fall  below  the  per- 
formance levels  established  by  the  standard  or  to 
contain  safety-related  defects.  The  Director  has 
concluded  that  both  of  these  objectives  can  be 
attained  if  the  label  contains  the  name  of  a  per- 
son who  accepts  complete  responsibility  for  the 
safe  performance  of  the  system.  Therefore,  par- 
agraph S4.1(a)  is  revised  to  permit  a  distributor 
to  place  his  name  on  the  label,  in  place  of  the 
manufacturer's  name,  only  if  the  distributor  ac- 
cepts responsibility  for  all  duties  and  liabilities 
imposed  on  the  manufacturer  by  the  National 
Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  (15  U.S.C. 
§  1381-1426).  It  should  be  noted  that  the  actual 
manufacturer  retains  the  duties  and  liabilities 
imposed  on  him  by  the  Act. 

4.  General  Motors,  American  Motors,  and 
Hamill  Manufacturing  Co.  havei  asked  for  relief 
from  paragraph  S4.1(e)'s  requirement  that  the 
manufacturer  of  a  child  seating  system  desig- 


nate the  makes  and  models  of  vehicles  in  which  ^ 
it  can  safely  be  used  and  tlie  locations  in  those  I 
vehicles  at  which  it  is  suitable  for  use.  It  was 
the  intent  of  this  provision  to  permit  the  desig- 
nation to  be  stated  in  general  terms.  It  would 
obviously  be  impracticable  to  require  the  label 
of  a  child  seating  system  to  contain  a  listing 
of  many  hundreds  of  vehicle  makes  and  models. 
The  petitions  indicate  that  clarification  of  this 
provision  is  in  order,  and  the  paragraph  has  been 
revised  to  make  it  clear  that  a  general  description 
of  the  vehicles  and  locations  is  all  that  is  required. 

5.  Paragraph  S4.1(h)  of  the  standard  requires 
child  seating  system  manufacturers  to  state  on 
the  required  label  that  the  child  seat  is  for  use 
"only  by  children  capable  of  sitting  upright  by 
themselves",  and  to  follow  this  statement  with 
the  recommended  minimum  and  maximum  height 
and  weight  of  children  who  can  safely  occupy 
the  seating  system.  General  Motors  has  asked 
that  manufacturers,  where  appropriate,  be  au- 
thorized to  designate  their  products  as  safe  for 
children  "capable  of  sitting  upright  by  them- 
selves", rather  than  requiring  them  to  specify  the 
recommended  minimum  height  and  weight.  The 
Bobby-Mac  Co.,  however,  has  suggested  that 
manufacturers  whose  child  seats  are  designed  for  \ 
use  by  all  ages  of  children,  including  those  who 
cannot  sit  upright,  should  not  be  prohibited  from 
recommending  their  seats  for  use  with  these 
children.  The  Director  believes  that  the  phrase 
"capable  of  sitting  upright  by  themselves",  used 
alone,  lacks  necessary  specificity,  and  therefore 
denies  Greneral  Motors'  request.  However,  it  has 
been  determined  that  minimum  child  size  can 
be  adequately  expressed  by  specifying  only  the 
child"s  weight,  and  the  minimum  height  require- 
ment has  therefore  been  deleted. 

With  reference  to  the  request  of  the  Bobby- 
Mac  Co.,  it  has  been  concluded  that  child  seat- 
ing systems  can  be  designed  ''o  accommodate 
children  who  are  unable  to  sit  .-right  by  them- 
seleves  and  that  in  fact  the  original  proposal 
l)ermitted  such  a  design.  The  phrase  "capable 
of  sitting  upright  by  themselves"  is  therefore 
deleted  as  part  of  the  labeling  requirement. 
However,  it  may  be  necessary  for  a  seating  sys- 
tem designed  to  accommodate  children  not  capa- 
ble of  sitting  upright  unaided  to  be  designed  so 
that  the  attitude  of  the  child  is  adjustable  to  pro- 


PART  571;  S  213— PRE  6 


Effective:   April    1,    1971 


\\  vide  his  back  with  support.  If  so,  paragraph 
S4.2  requires  the  manufacturer  to  furnish  in- 
structions on  how  the  adjustment  is  to  be  made. 
Further,  botli  the  impact  protection  requirements 
of  paragraph  S4.10  and  the  performance  raquire- 
ments  of  paragraph  S4.ll  must  be  met  under 
these  instructions.  Therefore,  in  those  cases 
where  a  seating  system  can  adjust  the  child's 
position,  it  must  meet  the  impact  protection  and 
performance  requirements  at  each  recommended 
adjustment  position.  Language  clarifying  this 
requirement  is  being  added  to  paragraph  S4.ll. 

6.  Kiddie  Kar-Go,  Inc.,  has  asked  for  modi- 
fication of  paragraph  S4.4(a)  of  the  standard, 
which  prechides  child  seating  systems  from 
having  bails,  or  similar  devices,  that  hook  over 
the  backs  of  vehicle  seats.  It  argues  that  its 
child  seat,  which  is  positioned  and  lield  in  place 
partly  through  the  use  of  bails  or  similar  de- 
vices, has  the  advantage  of  appearing  to  be 
something  other  than  a  system  to  provide  crash 
protection.  Consequently,  it  is  argued,  the  seat 
does  not  present  certain  specified  psycliological 
barriers  to  its  installation  and  use  to  the  same 
extent  that  a  "crash  protection''  seat  does. 
There  is,  however,  no  evidence  in  the  Director's 
possession,  and  none  has  been  presented  by  the 
petitioner,  to  indicate  that  the  psychological  fac- 
tors which  the  petitioner  mentions  enter  into  the 
decision  to  purchase,  install,  and  use  a  child  seat. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  known  that  a  seat  back 
to  which  a  child  seat  is  attached  either  with 
straps  or  bails  that  hook  over  the  back  can 
thereby  be  subjected  to  greater  forces  than  it 
can  withstand  in  a  crash  situation.  In  a  for- 
ward collision,  the  additional  load  on  the  seat 
back  resulting  from  attachment  of  a  child  seat 
would,  in  many  instances,  cause  the  seat  back  to 
fail.  The  resultant  forces  on  an  infant  occupant 
of  the  child  seat  could  produce  serious  personal 
injury.  Therefore,  the  request  for  amendment 
of  paragraph  S4.4(a)  is  denied. 

7.  In  response  to  petitions  from  Hamill  Manu- 
facturing Co.  and  American  Motors,  paragraph 
S4.6  of  the  standard,  dealing  with  head  restraint 
capability,  has  been  amended  to  vary  the  manda- 
tory minimum  height  of  the  head  restraint 
(either  the  back  of  the  child  seating  system  itself 
or  the  back  of  the  vehicle  seat,  including  its  head 
restraint,  in  which  the' system  is  installed)  with 


the  maximum  weight  of  the  child  for  which  the 
child  seating  system  is  designed.  Also,  these 
lieiglits  are  to  be  measured  along  a  line  parallel 
to  the  rear  surface  of  the  vehicle  seat  back. 
The  minimum  lieight  of  a  head  restraint  for  the 
largest  child  weight  category  has  been  set  at  20 
inches,  a  lieiglit  determined  sufficient  to  provide 
adequate  protection. 

8.  General  Motors  has  requested  that  the  entire 
head  restraint  paragraph  be  deleted  on  tlie  basis 
that  paragraph  S4.6  of  the  standard  constitutes 
an  inapproriate  and  an  unduly  restrictive  de- 
sign requirement.  General  Motors  also  says  that 
the  requirement  fails  to  contribute  to  motor  ve- 
hicle safety  in  light  of  the  lack  of  any  perform- 
ance requirements  for  the  head  restraint.  The 
request  is  denied.  Safety  research  has  made  it 
clear  that  head  restraints  can  significantly  re- 
duce the  frequency  and  severity  of  neck  injuries 
in  rear-end  collisions.  "While  these  studies  dealt 
primarily  with  protection  of  adult  occupants,  it 
would  seem  even  more  important  to  afford  small 
children  the  type  of  protection  that  adults  derive 
from  the  head  restraints  required  by  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  202.  A  child's  head 
is  proportionately  larger  than  an  adult's,  and 
the  neck  of  a  child  is  also  weaker  than  an  adult 
neck.  The  neck  \-ertebrae  of  children  are  im- 
mature models  of  adult  vertebrae.  "WHien  the 
relatively  heavy  head  of  a  child  is  suddenly 
rotated  rearward,  his  vertebrae  are  imable  to 
sustain  the  resultant  forces.  The  result  is  likely 
to  be  serious  injury  to  the  arteries  supplying 
blood  to  the  head,  to  nerves,  to  the  vertebrae 
themselves,  or  to  the  spinal  cord.  It  is  true  that 
the  standard  does  not  set  out  detailed  perform- 
ance sandards  for  the  head  restraint  protection 
which  child  seats  must  provide.  Instead,  it  re- 
quires manufacturers  to  make  a  good  faith  effort 
to  provide  restraint  against  the  forces  that  act 
on  a  child's  head  during  rearward  impact  of  the 
vehicle.  The  absence  of  specified  performance 
goals  is  caused  by  a  lack  of  information  on  which 
to  base  a  specific  criterion.  In  the  circumstances, 
it  is  preferable  to  retain  the  existing  require- 
ments until  the  standard  can  be  improved  by  the 
addition  of  more  specific  restrictive,  and  elaborate 
performance  requirements  for  child  seat  head 
restraints.  To  accomplish  this  purpose,  the  Di- 
rector has   included   in   the  notice  of  proposed 


PAKT  571 ;  S  213— PRE  7 


Effective:   April    1,    1971 


rule  making  issued  todaj^  proposals  concerning 
improved  performance  requirements  for  head 
restraints  of  child  seating  systems. 

9.  The  wording  of  paragraph  S4.8  has  been 
changed  to  state  more  precisely  the  requirement 
that  metal  components  of  child  seating  systems 
that  directly  restrain  the  child  must  meet  the 
corrosion  resistance  requirements  of  similar  com- 
ponents of  seat  belt  assemblies  as  specified  in 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  209. 

10.  General  Motors  and  Bolt  Beranek  and 
Newman  both  requested  reconsideration  of  the 
impact  protection  requirements  in  paragraph 
S4.10  of  the  standard.  General  Motors  stated 
that  the  requirement  for  material  covering  rigid 
components  that  a  child  may  contact  upon  im- 
pact specifies  only  that  the  material  be  deform- 
able  and  either  nonrecovery  or  slow-recovery 
energy-absorbing  material.  General  Motors  re- 
quested deletion  of  this  requirement  pending  de- 
velopment of  more  objective,  performance-related 
criteria.  General  Motors  also  objects  to  the 
requirement  on  the  ground  that  the  absence  of  a 
specified  demonstration  procedure  makes  it  diffi- 
cult for  manufacturers  to  ascertain  with  certainty 
whether  their  child  seating  systems  comply.  It 
is  recognized  that  the  impact  protection  require- 
ments are  minimal  ones.  As  indicated  in  the  pre- 
amble to  the  rule  (35  F.R.  5121),  there  does  not 
presently  exist  enough  information  upon  which 
to  base  precise  performance  criteria  relating  to 
impact  protection.  It  does  not  follow,  however, 
that  the  standard  should  not  include  impact  pro- 
tection requirements.  A  young  child,  whose  head 
and  body  are  not  fully  developed,  has  a  low 
resistance  to  impact  trauma.  His  skull  and 
thoracic  cage  are  both  highly  elastic  and  cannot 
withstand  highly  concentrated  forces.  It  is  clear 
that  children  have  a  vital  need  for  protection 
against  impacts  with  the  type  of  sharp  edges  or 
small  round  bars  that  are  found  in  many  child 
seating  systems  on  the  market  today.  The  Di- 
rector has  determined  that  child  seat  manufac- 
turers should  be  able  to  make  a  reasonable,  good- 
faith  determination  of  the  areas  on  their  systems 
that  may  be  contacted  by  a  child's  torso  or  head 
by  using  a  doll,  anthropomorphic  dummy  or 
other  similar  device  to  simulate  dimensions  and 
sizes  of  the  children  for  which  their  systems  are 
recommended.     In  the  circumstances,  the  Direc- 


tor has  concluded  that  it  would  be  unreasonable  r 
to  deny  children  the  impact  protection  that  com-  V 
pliance  with  the  standard's  minimal  requirements 
will  afford.  It  is  agreed,  liowever,  that  more 
precise  requirements  would  further  enhance  motor 
vehicle  safety.  Consequently,  the  notice  of  pro- 
posed rule  making  issued  today  proposes  revi- 
sions of  the  impact  protection  requirements  that 
would  add  more  exact  performance  requirements 
and  test  procedures  to  paragraph  S4.10. 

Paragraph  S4.10.1  provides  that  the  rigid 
components  of  a  child  seating  system  that  may 
be  contacted  by  the  head  or  torso  under  various 
impacts  must  have  a  minimum  radius  of  three- 
quarters  of  an  inch.  Bolt  Beranek  and  Newman 
stated  in  their  petition  that  this  requirement 
could  be  interpreted  to  apply  before  the  com- 
ponent is  covered  with  energy  absorbing  material, 
and  that  if  this  were  the  case,  the  requirement 
would  pose  an  undue  burden  on  the  manufac- 
turer. They  requested,  therefore,  that  the  mini- 
mum radius  of  those  components  be  specified 
after  they  are  covered  with  energy-absorbing 
material.  Such  a  requirement,  however,  would 
not  preclude  use  of  a  rigid  member  having  a 
sharp  edge  as  long  as  the  outer  material  complied  4 
with  specifications  for  minimum  radius  and 
energy-absorbing  qualities.  In  view  of  the  pos- 
sibility that  this  combination  of  materials  could 
result  in  serious  injury  to  a  child  who  impacts 
them,  it  was  decided  that  the  minimum  radius  of 
curvature  should  continue  to  apply  to  the  under- 
lying component,  but  that  the  minimum  radius 
could  be  reduced  from  three-quarters  of  an  inch 
to  one-quarter  of  an  inch. 

11.  The  performance  requirements  and  demon- 
stration procedures  in  paragraphs  S4.ll  and  S5 
of  the  standard  prescribe  a  test  in  which  a  torso 
block  is  subjected  to  a  static  load  while  placed 
in  a  child  seating  system  installed  on  a  vehicle 
seat  in  accordance  with  the  recommendations  of 
the  child  seat  manufacturer.  Under  the  original 
requirements,  the  reference  point  in  the  torso 
block  must  not  move  forward  more  than  10 
inches  when  the  block  is  subjected  to  a  forward 
load  of  1,600  pounds  and  must  sustain  a  rear- 
ward load  of  800  pounds.  In  response  to  peti- 
tions for  reconsideration  from  General  Motors, 
American  Motors,  and  Bolt  Beranek  and  New- 


PART  571;  S  213— PRE  8 


Effective:   April    1,    1971 


man,  the  performance  criteria  have  been  modified 
as  follows: 

(a)  The  single  force  requirement  for  all 
seats  has  been  retained;  however,  the  1,600- 
pound  forward  force  has  been  reduced  to  1,000 
pounds,  and  the  800-pound  rearward  force  has 
been  reduced  to  500  pounds.  These  reductions 
make  the  requirements  more  nearly  consistent 
with  the  forces  created  in  a  30-m.p.h.  barrier 
collision. 

General  Motors  had  stated  its  belief  that  a 
single  load  performance  requirement  for  all 
seats,  regardless  of  the  maximum  child  size 
recommended  for  use  in  the  seat,  was  inappro- 
priate. It  had  further  requested  that  the  force 
of  1,600  pounds,  reflecting  a  40g  force  applied 
to  a  40- pound  child,  be  changed  to  a  20g  force 
that  more  nearly  represented  the  forces  gen- 
erated in  a  30-m.p.h.  barrier  collision  test. 

(b)  The  allowable  forward  horizontal  move- 
ment of  the  reference  point  has  been  increased 
from  10  to  12  inches.  This  change  takes  into 
account  recent  testing,  showing  that  deflec- 
tion of  the  vehicle  seat  permits  a  substantial 
amount  of  forward  movement.  There  is 
nothing  the  child  seating  manufacturer  can  do 
by  way  of  improved  design  or  construction  to 
avoid  some  forward  movement  resulting  from 
vehicle  seat  deflection.  Consequently,  the 
standard  is  amended  to  allow  for  unavoidable 
deflection  of  the  vehicle  seat  by  increasing  the 
maximum  permissible  movement  of  the  refer- 
ence point  to  12  inches. 

(c)  In  response  to  a  request  by  General 
Motors  and  Bolt  Beranek  and  Newman,  the 
standard  is  amended  by  inserting  dimensional 
measurements  for  locating  the  test  device  refer- 
ence point.  This  change  should  avoid  potential 
confusion  and  facilitate  testing  of  child  seating 
systems. 

12.  General  Motors  has  also  asked  that  the 
requirement  that  the  maximum  static-test  load 
be  sustained  for  a  period  of  10  seconds  be  elimi- 
nated. It  states  that  the  10-second  period  is  un- 
realistic and  unrelated  to  the  split-second  dura- 
tion of  loading  in  actual  impact  situations.  It 
therefore  requests  that  a  load  application  rate 
of  two  to  four  inches  per  minute  be  substituted 
for  the  requirement  that  the  load  be  sustained 


for  10  seconds.  For  reasons  set  forth  below,  the 
Director  has  determined  that  the  demonstration 
procedure  in  the  standard  should  remain  a  static 
test.  In  a  static  test  of  a  child  seating  system, 
tiie  capability  of  the  system  to  sustain  a  specified 
load  for  a  finite  time  period  is  considered  more 
important  than  the  load  application  rate.  The 
requirement  that  the  load  be  sustained  for  10 
seconds  prevents  removal  of  the  load  at  the  in- 
stant when  the  maximum  specified  value  is  at- 
tained. It  also  tends  to  produce  more  repeatable 
results  from  one  test  to  another  and  from  one 
test  laboratory  to  another.  Hence,  the  request 
is  denied. 

13.  The  Director  also  denies  a  request  for 
modification  of  the  standard  to  permit  child  seat- 
ing systems  to  be  tested,  for  purposes  of  "demon- 
strating" compliance,  on  a  standard  or  simulated 
vehicle  seat  rather  than  on  any  vehicle  with 
which  they  may  be  used.  Manufacturers  may,  of 
course,  use  their  own  judgment  as  to  how  they 
test  their  products.  But  manufacturers  are 
clearly  in  a  better  position  than  consumers  to 
determine  which  vehicle  seats  will  accept  their 
child  seating  systems,  and  it  is  therefore  appro- 
jiriate  for  manufacturers  to  bear  the  legal  and 
technical  burden  of  determining  and  stating  the 
range  of  suitability  of  their  systems.  To  do  this, 
they  must  ascertain  by  some  appropriate  means 
that  their  systems  will  perform  as  required  when 
used  in  any  vehicle  for  which  they  are  recom- 
mended. 

14.  General  Motors  and  American  Motors  have 
asked  for  approval  of  an  alternate  test  device  in 
place  of  the  specified  torso  block.  General 
Motors  has  also  requested  that  alternate  demon- 
stration procedures,  such  as  dynamic  tests,  be 
permitted.  As  stated  above,  the  law  does  not  re- 
quire a  manufacturer  to  use  the  test  or  test  device 
specified  in  a  standard,  but  allows  him  to  use  his 
judgment  in  designing  a  test  program  to  ensure 
that  his  products  conform  to  the  standard. 
Manufacturers  are  encouraged  to  use  the  best 
test  procedures  that  they  can  devise,  as  long  as 
these  procedures  give  an  accurate  indication  of 
whether  their  products  meet  the  requirements  of 
the  standard.  No  rulemaking  action  in  this  re- 
gard is  called  for. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  213  in  §  571.21  of  Title 


PART  571;  S  213— PRE  9 


EfFeclive:   April    1,    1971 

49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  is  revised  to        the  standard.    The  effective  date  of  the  standard      / 

read  as  set  forth  below.  is,  therefore,  extended  to  April  1,  1971. 

Ejfective  date.     The  Bureau  has  determined  Issued  on  September  17,  1970. 

that   because   of   the   significance  of   the   issues  „       ,      -nr   m 

.     ,  ,      ^,         ^..         *   ,  ,  Douglas  W.  Toms, 

raised  by  the  petitions,  and  because  many  manu-  „. 

facturers  have  been  unable  to  commit  their  re-  ^^  ^.       ,'...,  c  c  ..     n 

,        .,,  .  ^    ^,        ,  National   Highway  safety  Bureau, 

sources  to  comply  with  requirements  they  knew 

to  be  under  reconsideration  and  subject  to  change,  35  F.R.   14778 

additional  time  should  be  given  to  comply  with  September   23,    1970 


( 


PAET  571;  S  213— PRE  10 


Effective:    April    10,    1971 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   213 

Child  Seating  Systems 
(Docket  No.   2-15;   Notice  No.  6) 


Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  213,  Child 
Seating  Systems,  was  published  March  23,  1970 
(35  F.R.  5120).  In  response  to  petitions  for 
reconsideration  filed  by  several  manufacturers, 
the  standard  was  amended  September  23,  1970 
(35  F.R.  14778).  In  addition,  a  notice  of  pro- 
posed rulemaking  suggesting  additional  changes 
was  issued  simultaneously  with  that  amendment 
(35  F.R.  14786).  Since  that  time,  Bolt  Beranek 
and  Xewman,  Inc.  (on  behalf  of  the  Juvenile 
Products  Manufacturers'  Association),  has  re- 
quested clarification  of  certain  provisions  of  the 
standard,  and  the  Ford  Motor  Co.  has  requested 
certain  amendments.  This  notice  is  issued  in 
response  to  those  requests. 

Bolt  Beranek  and  Newman  has  asked  whether 
an  adjustable  head  restraint  may  be  used  to  meet 
the  requirements  of  S4.6.1.  It  was  intended  that 
an  adjustable  head  restraint  could  be  used  to 
meet  the  requirements  of  S4.6.1  provided  it  meets 
the  other  requirements  of  the  standard,  and  the 
language  of  S4.6.1  is  hereby  amended  to  clarify 
the  standard  in  that  regard. 

Bolt  Beranek  and  Newman  has  also  requested 
clarification  of  the  release  mechanism  require- 
ments of  S4.9,  which  incorporate  by  reference 
the  requirements  and  test  procedures  for  the 
buckle  of  a  Type  3  seat  belt  assembly  in  Standard 
Xo.  209.  Bolt  Beranek  and  Newman  has  argued 
that  the  present  provision  is  not  wholly  consistent 
with  the  other  requirements  of  Standard  No.  213. 
It  has  pointed  out,  for  example,  that  the  present 
Standard  No.  209  test  procedure  requires  the  re- 
lease mechanism  to  be  subjected  to 'a  force  of 
2,000  pounds,  while  Standard  No.  213  requires 
the  entire  child  seating  system  to  be  subjected  to 
only  a  1,000-pound  force.  It  argues  further  that 
the  present  procedure  unnecessarily  restricts  de- 


sign, and  does  not  permit,  for  example,  a  release 
mechanism  that  uses  the  child  seat  frame  as  one- 
half  of  the  buckle  assembly. 

The  Administration  has  found  these  arguments 
to  have  merit,  and  in  response  is  amending  the 
requirement  and  specifying  an  alternative  test 
procedure  for  the  release  meechanism.  The  re- 
quired force  to  which  the  release  mechanism  is 
subjected,  when  tested  as  presently  specified,  is 
lowered  from  2,000  pounds  to  1,000  pounds.  The 
alternative  test  procedure  allows  the  release 
mechanism  to  be  tested  as  part  of  the  entire  child 
seating  system.  This  alternative  test  will  also 
permit  testing  of  release  mechanisms  of  different 
designs  such  as  that  previously  described  where 
one-half  of  the  buckle  assembly  is  incorporated 
into  the  child  seat  frame. 

The  alternative  test  procedure  added  by  this 
notice,  which  provides  for  testing  of  the  release 
mechanism  as  part  of  the  overall  child  seat  test, 
is  more  appropriate  and  simpler  than  the  test 
procedure  incorporated  from  Standard  No.  209. 
As  a  result,  a  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  is 
being  issued  concurrently  with  this  amendment, 
proposing  that  this  alternative  test  procedure  be 
the  only  release  mechanism  test  procedure  after 
January  1,  1972.  Both  procedures  would  be  re- 
tained until  that  date  in  order  not  to  prejudice 
manufacturers  who  have  relied  upon  the  original 
test  for  certification  purposes. 

Provision  has  been  made  in  the  alternative  test 
procedure  to  allow  configuration  of  the  torso 
block  to  eliminate  excessive  localized  pressure 
caused  by  the  surface  of  the  torso  block  on  the 
back  of  the  release  mechanism.  This  pressure 
is  not  regarded  as  representative  of  actual  condi- 
tions, in  that  the  hard  surface  of  the  torso  block 
offers  substantially   more   resistance  than  would 


PART  571;  S  213— PRE  11 


EfFcctivc  April   10,   1971 


a  child's  body.  This  provision  parallels  a  similar 
amendment  to  S5.3  of  Standard  No.  209,  which 
becomes  effective  April  1,  1971,  to  coincide  with 
the  effective  date  of  Standard  No.  213. 

The  amendments  requested  by  the  Ford  Motor 
Co.  have  been  found  unnecessary,  as  relief  has 
been  granted  through  interpretation  of  the  exist- 
ing provisions  of  the  standard.  For  the  infor- 
mation and  guidance  of  the  industry,  the  questions 
raised  by  Ford  and  the  Administration's  responses 
are  as  follows.  Ford  requested  that  paragraph 
S4.3  of  the  standard,  which  states,  "The  com- 
ponents of  each  child  seating  system  that  directly 
restrain  the  child  shall  be  adjustable  *  *  *"  be 
changed  immediately  to  read  as  proposed  in  the 
notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  published  Septem- 
ber 23,  1970  (35  F.R.  14786),  whose  wording  was, 
"Each  child  seating  system  component  that  is 
adjustable  and  is  designed  to  restrain  the  child 
directly  shall  be  sufficiently  adjustable  *  *  *"  It 
was  not  intended  by  the  present  wording,  how- 
ever, to  require  all  child  seating  systems  to  have 
adjustable  components  to  directly  restrain  the 
child.  A  systeem  without  adjustable  components 
to  directly  restrain  the  child  would  not  be  con- 
sidered to  fail  to  comply,  for  that  reason,  with 
paragraph  S4.3  of  the  standard.  A  final  revision 
of  this  paragraph,  clarifying  the  language  of  the 


present  provision,  will  be  made  after  the  com- 
ments to  the  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  have 
been  analyzed. 

Ford's  second  request  was  for  a  change  in  the 
test  procedure  of  S5.1,  arguing  that  under  this 
procedure  the  torso  block  applies  an  uns^abilized 
concentrated  load  on  the  shield  of  the  Ford  sys- 
tem. In  response,  it  has  been  stated  that  it  is  not 
mandatory  under  S5.1(d)  of  the  standard  that 
the  load  be  applied  to  the  torso  block  at  a  single 
point.  It  may  be  applied  at  two  or  more  points 
as  long  as  the  intersection  of  the  load  application 
line  and  back  surface  of  the  torso  block  is  not 
more  than  8  inches  or  less  than  6  inches  above 
the  bottom  surface  of  the  torso  block.  Thus,  the 
load  could  be  applied  through  a  fixture  attached 
to  both  the  top  and  bottom  of  the  torso  block  as 
long  as  the  load  application  line  is  within  these 
limits.  During  the  test,  however,  only  the  torso 
block  (not  the  attachment  fixture)  may  contact 
the  seating  system. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  213  in  §571.21  of 
Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  is 
amended  .... 

36   F.R.  6895 
April  10,  1971 


PART  571;  S  213— PRE  12 


Effective:  June  29,    1971 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  213 

Child  Seating  Systems 
(Docket  No.  2-15;   Notice  No.  8) 


This  notice  amends  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  213,  "Child  Seating  Systems",  to 
allow  additional  forward  horizontal  movement 
of  child  seating  systems,  under  test,  when  the 
vehicle  seat  is  rearward  of  its  forwardmost  po- 
sition. The  amendment  is  intended  to  remove 
unjustified  compliance  burdens  on  child-seat 
manufacturers  caused  by  certain  vehicle  seat  belt 
configurations  over  which  they  have  no  control. 

Motor  "Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  213,  speci- 
fying requirements  for  child  seating  systems,  was 
issued  March  23,  1970  (35  F.R.  5120),  and 
amended  September  23,  1970  (35  F.R.  14778) 
and  April  10,  1971  (36  F.R.  6895).  The  standard 
presently  limits  the  forward  horizontal  move- 
ment of  a  reference  point  on  the  torso  block  to 
12  inches  or  less,  when  the  torso  block  is  installed 
in  the  child  seating  system  and  subjected  to  a 
1,000-pound  static  force.  Bolt  Beranek  and 
Newman,  Inc.  (on  behalf  of  the  Juvenile  Products 
Manufacturers'  Association)  has  requested  that 
this  requirement  be  changed  in  light  of  recent 
tests  that  have  been  conducted.  It  appears  that 
in  some  cases  involving  late  model  passenger  car 
front  seats,  the  front  outboard  seat  belt  anchor- 
age has  been  placed  so  that  when  the  vehicle  seat 
is  adjusted  to  a  rearward  position,  the  angle  of 
the  seat  belt  is  almost  perpendicular  to  the  floor 
when  the  belt  is  fastened.  This  angle,  which  the 
child  seat  manufacturer  can  in  no  way  control, 
increases  the  forward  movement  of  the  torso 
block  to  more  than  12  inches  during  the  per- 
formance test. 


The  requirement  for  a  maximum  12-inch  for- 
ward movement  is  designed  to  limit  as  much  as 
is  practicable  the  forward  movement  of  a  child 
placed  in  a  child  seating  system  in  the  event  of  a 
crash.  However,  the  distance  between  a  child 
seating  occupant  and  possibly  injurious  surfaces 
of  the  vehicle  interior  in  front  of  the  child  in- 
creases as  the  vehicle  seat  is  moved  rearward. 
Thus  the  need  to  limit  the  forward  horizontal 
movement  to  a  fixed  value,  regardless  of  the  ad- 
justed position  of  the  seat,  is  unwarranted  in 
terms  of  the  safety  benefit  achieved.  The  re- 
quirement of  S4.11.1(a)  (3)  of  Standard  No.  213, 
that  the  forward  horizontal  movement  be  limited 
to  12  inches  or  less,  is  hereby  amended  to  allow 
for  a  greater  forward  movement  than  12  inches 
when  the  vehicle  seat  is  adjusted  rearward  of  its 
forwardmost  position,  to  the  extent  of  the  dis- 
tance that  the  seat  has  been  moved  rearward. 

This  amendment  relieves  restrictions  presently 
contained  in  the  standard,  and  imposes  no  addi- 
tional burdens  on  manufacturers.  Accordingly, 
good  cause  exists  for  an  effective  date  less  than 
30  days  from  the  date  of  issuance,  and  this 
amendment  is  effective  upon  publication  in  the 
Federal  Register  (6/29/71). 

Issued  on  June  23,  1971. 

Douglas  W.  Toms 
Acting  Administrator 

36   F.R.   12224 
June  29,  1971 


PART  571;  S  213— PRE  13-14 


231-088   O  -  "  -  62 


Effective:  November   1,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  213 

Child  Seating  Systems 
(Docket  2-15;   Notice  9) 


This  notice  makes  certain  amendments  to 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  213,  "Child 
Seating.  Systems",  49  CFR  571.213.  Standard 
No.  213  was  published  March  26,  1970  (3.5  F.R. 
5120),  and  amended  September  23,  1970  (35 
F.R.  14778),  April  10,  1971  (.36  F.R.  6895),  and 
June  29,  1971  (36  F.R.  12224).  This  notice  is 
based  in  part  on  notices  of  proposed  rulemaking 
published  September  23,  1970  (36  F.R.  14786) 
(Notice  5),  and  April  10,  1971  (36  F.R.  6903) 
(Notice  7). 

The  definition  of  "child  seating  system"  is 
amended  by  this  notice  to  eliminate  tlie  qualifica- 
tion that  the  device  be  designed  to  restrain 
children.  This  modification  was  proposed  in  the 
notice  of  September  23,  1970,  and  is  adopted  in 
the  form  proposed.  The  proposal  was  based  on 
petitions  which  suggested  the  change  as  a  means 
of  eliminating  a  possible  loophole  in  the  standard, 
which  allowed  the  marketing  of  devices  which 
could  be  advertised  for  transporting  children 
in  motor  vehicles,  but  which  made  no  provision 
for  protecting  them  in  crashes.  As  a  result  of 
the  amendment,  all  devices  designed  to  seat  chil- 
dren in  motor  vehicles  must  conform  to  the 
standard.  One  comment  to  the  notice  suggested 
that  the  language  of  the  definition  be  further 
modified  to  make  it  clear  that  the  A'ehicle  seat 
is  not  included  within  the  definition.  This  sug- 
gestion is  not  accepted.  The  NHTSA  does  not 
agree  that  the  language  of  the  definition  includes 
or  will  be  construed  to  include  vehicle  seats  taken 
separately.  Moreover,  the  vehicle  seat  may  be 
an  integral  part  of  devices  which  would  fall 
under  the  standard,  and  a  specific  exclusion  of 
vehicle  seats  in  the  definition  might  create  the 
erroneous   impression   that   the   extent   that   the 


vehicle  seat  is  utilized  determines  whether  such 
a  device  is  subject  to  the  standard. 

The  standard  is  hereby  clarified  to  make  ex- 
plicit the  proliibition  against  recommending  seat- 
ing systems  for  use  in  other  than  designated 
seating  positions.  The  NHTSA  is  of  the  opinion 
that  Standard  No.  213  at  least  implicitly  pro- 
hibits manufacturers  from  doing  this.  The  label- 
ing requirements  of  paragraph  S4.1(e)  specify 
that  the  label  affixed  to  each  child  seating  system 
must  specify  "both  the  types  of  motor  vehicles 
and  the  designated  seating  positions  ...  in  which 
the  system  is  either  recommended  or  not  recom- 
mended for  use."  Paragraph  S4.4  requires  each 
child  seating  system  to  be  designed  and  con- 
structed so  that  when  it  is  intalled  in  accord- 
ance with  the  manufacturer's  instructions  it  shall 
be  restrained  against  movement  by  either  a  type 
1  or  type  2  seat  belt  asembly.  These  seat  belt 
assemblies  are  required  to  be  installed  at  desig- 
nated seating  positions,  pursuant  to  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  208,  Occupant  Crash 
Protection   (49  CFR  571.  208). 

The  proposal  of  September  23,  1970,  would 
have  amended  paragraph  S4.3,  to  require  only 
child  seats  having  adjustable  restraint  systems 
(as  distinguished  from  those  using  stationary 
impact  shields)  to  be  adjustable  to  fit  all  children 
for  which  they  are  recommended.  An  NHTSA 
opinion  to  this  effect  was  published  in  the  pre- 
amble to  (he  amendment  published  April  10, 1971. 
The  NHTSA  lias  decided  that  the  proposed  lan- 
guage is  too  broad.  As  written,  it  does  not 
require  even  belt  restraint  systems  to  be  adjust- 
able. The  NHTSA  intended  only  that  non- 
adjustable  restraint  designs,  such  as  impact  pads, 
need  not  be  made  adjustable.  Consequently,  this 
amendment  modifies  S4.3  to  make  it  clear  that 


PART  571;  S  213— PRE  15 


Effactlve:  November   I,    1973 


belt  restraint  systems  must  be  adjustable.  In 
response  to  a  comment,  the  NHTSA  lias  modified 
the  proposed  requirement  that  the  restraint  sys- 
tem  fit   snugly   to   apply   only   to  belt  systems. 

The  notice  of  September  23,  1970,  proposed 
more  extensive  head  restraint  requirements  and 
test  procedures  than  the  standard  presently  spec- 
ifies. The  NHTSA  has  made  public  its  plans  to 
institute  a  dynamic  test  as  the  method  for  testing 
child  seating  system  performance.  These  re- 
quirements are  presently  under  development,  and 
appropriate  notice  will  be  issued  once  NHTSA 
eflForts  have  been  completed.  The  NHTSA  has 
decided  to  defer  modification  of  head  restraint 
requirements,  because  such  requirements  would 
require  extensive  redevelopment,  until  they  can 
be  incorporated  into  the  dynamic  performance 
requirements.  The  NHTSA  has,  however,  mod- 
ified the  method  for  measuring  head  restraint 
height.  The  revised  method  utilizes  the  inter- 
section of  the  longitudinal  centerline  of  the  seat- 
mg  surface  with  a  plane  through  the  torso  block 
reference  point  as  the  base  from  which  the  head 
restraint  measurement  is  to  be  made.  The 
NHTSA  agrees  with  the  comments  that  this 
method  is  more  precise  than  the  existing  proce- 
dure, as  it  is  not  based  on  the  angle  of  the  seat 
or  the  attitude  of  the  child  seating  surface. 

Requirements  proposed  in  the  notice  of  Sep- 
tember 23,  1970,  regarding  energy  absorbing  ma- 
tember  23,  1970,  regarding  energy  absorbing 
material  are  also  not  adopted,  because  of  the 
impending  dynamic  test  procedures.  Two  minor 
amendments,  however,  are  adopted.  The  first 
changes  "energy-absorbing  material"  to  "force- 
distributing  material".  Certain  comments  have 
indicated,  and  the  NHTSA  agrees,  that  the  latter 
term  is  a  more  accurate  description  of  these  ma- 
terials. The  second  amendment,  based  on  certain 
comments,  increases  the  number  of  components 


that  need  not  be  co\ered  with  these  materials 
and  need  not  meet  minimum  radius  requirements, 
to  include  belt  adjustment  hardware  attached 
only  to  webbing.  The  padding  requirements  of 
S4.10.1  are  not  practical  for  this  belt  adjustment 
hardware.  Moreover,  by  exempting  these  com- 
ponents from  the  requirements,  manufacturers 
are  free  to  utilize  smaller  belt  adjiistment  hard- 
ware, which  is  less  hazardous  in  impact  conditions 
than  the  larger  belt  adjustment  components  which 
would  otherwise  be  necessary. 

Paragraph  S4.10  is  further  amended,  as  pro- 
posed in  the  notice  of  September  23,  1970,  to 
eliminate  the  exemption  to  the  padding  require- 
ments for  components  contactable  by  the  liead. 
The  NHTSA  has  concluded  that  this  exemption, 
for  components  of  at  least  24  square  inches,  is 
inappropriate  for  components  contactable  by  the 
head,  as  the  size  of  a  component  is  not  necessarily 
related  to  its  ability  to  cushion  head  as  compared 
to  torso  impacts. 

The  notice  of  April  10,  1971,  proposed  that 
the  requiiements  of  paragraph  S4.9  for  belt 
mechanism  release  be  made  part  of  child  system 
test  procedures,  and  to  delete  the  existing  test 
incorporated  from  Standard  No.  209.  No  objec- 
tions were  received,  and  that  proposal  is  adopted. 

In  light  of  the  above.  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  213,  "Child  Seating  Systems"  ap- 
pearing at  49  CFR  §  571.213,  is  amended  .... 

Effective  date:  November  1,  1973. 

Sec.  103,  112,  114,  and  119,  P.L.  89-563,  80 
Stat.  718,  (15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1403,  1407;  dele- 
gation of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51.) 

Issued  on  March  16,  1973. 

James  E.  Wilson 
Acting  Administrator 

38  F.R.  7562 
March  23,  1973 


PART  571;  S  213— PRE  16 


Reissued:    Sept.   23,    1970 
Effecllve:   April    1,    1971 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  213 

Child  Seating  Systems 
(Docket  No.  2-15) 


ST.  Purpose  and  scope.  This  standard  specifies 
requirements  for  cliild  seating  systems  to  mini- 
mize the  likeliliood  of  death  and  injury  to  chil- 
dren in  vehicle  crashes  or  sndden  stops  by  ejection 
from  the  vehicle,  contact  with  tlie  vehicle  interior, 
or  contact  with  a  child  seating  system. 

52.  Application.  This  standard  applies  to 
child  seating  systems  for  use  in  passenger  cars, 
multipurpose  passenger  vehicles,  trucks,  and 
buses.  This  standard  does  not  apply  to  Type  3 
seat  belt  assemblies,  as  defined  in  Federal  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  209,  or  to  systems 
for  use  only  by  recumbent  or  semirecumbent 
children. 

53.  Definition.  ["Child  seating  system"  means 
an  item  of  motor  vehicle  equipment  for  seating 
a  child  being  transported  in  a  motor  vehicle. 
(38  F.R.  7562— March  23,  1973.  Effective: 
11/1/73)] 

54.  Requirements. 

S4.1  Labeling.  Each  child  seating  system 
shall  have  a  label  permanently  affi.xed  to  it.  The 
label  shall  contain  the  following  information  in 
the  English  language  in  letters  and  numerals  not 
less  than  %2-inch  high: 

(a)  The  manufacturer's  name.  However,  a 
distributor's  name  may  be  placed  on  the  label  in 
place  of  the  manufacturer's  name  if  the  distribu- 
tor assumes  responsibility  for  all  duties  and 
liabilities  imposed  on  the  manufacturer  by  the 
National  Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act 
with  respect  to  the  system. 

(b)  Model  number  or  name. 

(c)  Month  and  year  of  manufacture. 

(d)  Place  of  manufacture  (city  and  State  or 
foreign  country).  However,  if  the  label  contains 


the  distributor's  name  in  place  of  the  name  of 
the  manufacturer,  the  city  and  State  or  foreign 
country  of  the  distributor's  principal  offices  shall 
appear  on  the  label. 

(e)  [A  statement  describing  in  general  terms 
both  the  types  of  motor  vehicles  and  the  desig- 
nated seating  positions  in  those  vehicles  in  which 
the  system  is  either  recommended  or  not  recom- 
mended for  use.  A  child  seating  system  may 
not  be  recommended  for  use  in  other  than  a 
designated  seating  position.  The  following, 
either  stated  separately  or  in  combination,  are 
examples  of  acceptable  statements:  (38  F.R. 
7562— March  23,   1973.     Effective:   11/1/73)] 

(1)  "Recommended  for  use  only  on  bench 
seats  of  passenger  cars  manufactured  after 
January  1,  1968,  by  the Motor 

Company." 

(2)  "Recommended  for  use  only  on  seats 
that  have  head  restraints  on  (make  or  model 
designation  (s) )  passenger  cars  manufactured 
after  January  1,  1969." 

(3)  "Not  recommended  for  use  in  trucks 
and  buses." 

(f)  Except  as  provided  in  S4.1.1,  the  follow- 
ing statement :  "Not  for  use  on  hinged  or  folding 
vehicle  seats  or  seat  backs  unless  the  seat  or  seat 
back  is  equipped  with  a  latch." 

(g)  Unless  the  system  is  a  rearward-facing 
child  seating  system,  the  following  statement: 
"For  use  only  on  forward-facing  vehicle  seats." 

(h)  The  following  statement,  inserting  in  the 
blank  spaces  the  manufacturer's  recommenda- 
tions of  the  maximum  height  and  the  minimum 
and  maximum  weight  of  children  who  can  safely 
occupy  the  system:  "For  use  only  by  children 

who  weigh  between  and  pounds 

and  whose  height  is inches  or  less." 


(Rev.   3/16/73) 


PART  571;  S  213-1 


Reissued:   Sept.   23,    1970 
EfFecHve:   April    1,    1971 

S4.1.1  Exemption.  A  part  of  the  warning 
required  by  S4.1(f)  relating  to  use  of  a  child 
seating  system  on  a  hinged  or  folding  vehicle 
seat  or  on  a  vehicle  seat  having  a  hinged  or 
folding  back,  or  on  both,  may  be  omitted  in  the 
following  circumstances : 

(a)  The  part  of  the  warning  that  relates  to 
vehicle  seats  may  be  omitted  if  the  child  seating 
system  includes  a  component  to  restrain  a  hinged 
or  folding  vehicle  seat  and  if,  when  the  system 
and  the  component  are  both  installed  in  the  seat 
in  accordance  with  the  recommendation  required 
by  S4.1(e)  and  the  instructions  required  by  S4.2, 
the  component  will  not  fail  when  a  forward 
longitudinal  force  equal  to  20  times  the  weight  of 
the  vehicle  seat  is  applied  through  the  seat's 
center  of  gravity  and  maintained  for  10  seconds. 

(b)  The  part  of  the  warning  that  relates  to 
seat  backs  may  be  omitted  if  the  child  seating 
system  includes  a  component  to  restrain  the 
hinged  or  folding  seat  back  and  if,  when  the 
system  and  the  component  are  both  installed  in 
the  vehicle  seat  in  accordance  with  the  recom- 
mendation required  by  S4.1(e)  and  the  instruc- 
tions required  by  S4.2,  the  component  will  not 
fail  when  a  forward  longitudinal  force  equal  to 
20  times  the  weight  of  the  vehicle  seat  back  is 
applied  through  the  back's  center  of  gravity 
and  maintained  for  10  seconds. 

(c)  The  entire  warning  may  be  omitted  if  the 
child  seating  system  includes  the  components  for 
restraining  the  seat  and  seat  back  specified  in 
(a)  and  (b). 

54.2  Installation  instructions.  Each  child  seat- 
ing system  shall  be  accompanied  by  an  instruction 
sheet,  providing  a  step-by-step  procedure  (which 
may  include  diagrams)  for  installing  the  system 
in  the  vehicle  in  which  it  is  recommended  for  use 
in  accordance  with  S4.1(e),  securing  the  system 
with  a  Type  1  or  Type  2  seat  belt  assembly,  posi- 
tioning a  child  in  the  system,  and  adjusting  the 
system  to  fit  the  child. 

54.3  Adjustment.  [Each  adjustable  child  seat- 
ing system  component  and  each  belt  system  de- 
signed to  restrain  the  child  directly  shall  be  suf- 
ficiently adjustable  to  fit  a  child  of  any  size  for 
which  the  seat  is  recommended  pursuant  to 
paragraph  S4.1(h)  and  who  is  positioned  in  the 
system   in  accordance  with  the  instructions  re- 


quired by  S4.2.     A  belt  system  used  to  restrain        ' 
the  child  directly  shall  be  sufficiently  adjustable 
to  fit  snugly  any  such  child.     (38  F.R.  7562— 
March  23,  1973.     Effective:  11/1/73)] 

54.4  Attachment.  Eacli  child  seating  system 
shall  be  designed  and  constructed  so  that — 

(a)  the  system  has  no  provision  for  attachment 
to  a  vehicle  seat  back  otlier  than  by  means  of  a 
component  wliicli  is  inserted  between  the  vehicle 
seat  back  and  the  \ehicle  seat  cushion;  and 

(b)  when  installed  in  accordance  with  the  in- 
structions required  by  S4.2,  a  system  installed 
on  a  forward-facing  vehicle  seat  shall  be  re- 
strained against  forward  mo\ement,  and  a  system 
installed  on  a  rearward-facing  vehicle  seat  shall 
be  restrained  against  rearward  movement,  by  a 
Type  1  or  Type  2  seat  belt  assembly  as  defined 
in  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard 
No.  209. 

54.5  Distribution  of  restraint  forces. 

54.5.1  Forward-facing  systems.  When  a  for- 
ward-facing child  seating  system  is  installed  in 
a  vehicle  and  a  child  is  positioned  in  the  system 

in  accordance  with  the  instructions  required  by  . 
S4.2,  components  of  the  child  seating  system  and  \ 
the  vehicle's  seat  belt  assemblies  which  apply 
restraining  forces  directly  to  the  child  shall,  dur- 
ing forward  movement  of  the  child  relative  to 
the  vehicle  in  which  the  system  is  installed,  dis- 
tribute those  forces  on  both  the  pelvis  and  thorax 
of  the  child.  Restraint  forces  may  also  be  dis- 
tributed over  other  areas  of  the  child's  body  as 
long  as  both  the  pelvis  and  thorax  are  re- 
strained. 

54.5.2  Rearward-facing  systems.  When  a 
rearward-facing  child  seating  system  is  installed 
in  a  vehicle  and  a  child  is  positioned  in  the  system 
in  accordance  with  the  instructions  required  by 
S4.2,  the  components  of  the  child  seating  system 
and  the  vehicle's  seat  belt  assemblies  that  apply 
restraining  forces  directly  to  the  child  shall^ — 

(a)  during  forward  movement  of  the  child 
relative  to  the  vehicle  in  which  the  system  is 
installed,  distribute  those  forces  on  both  the  back 
of  the  child's  torso  and  the  back  of  the  child's 
head;  and 

(b)  during  rearward  movement  of  the  child 
relative   to  the   vehicle   in   which   the  system  is        / 


»ev.  3/16/73) 


PART  571;  S  213-2 


Reissued:   Sept.   23,    1970 
Effective:   April    1,    1971 

^     installed,  distribute  those  forces  on  both  the  pelvis  seat  back  or  head   restraint  in  its  highest  ad- 

?      and  thorax  of  the  child.  justable    position,   at   the    lateral    center  of   the 

Restraint  forces  may  also  be  distributed  over  designated  seating  position,  measured  on  a  line 

other  areas  of  the  child's  body  as  long  as  both  parallel  to  the  rear  surface  of  the  vehicle  seat 

the  back  of  the  torso  and  head  are  restrained  back,  is  at  least  equal  to  the  seat  back  height 

during  forward   movement  and  both  the  pelvis  specified  for  the  seating  system  in  S4.6.1. 

and    thorax    are     restrained    during    rearward  S4.7  Webbing.     If  a  child  seating  system  has 

movement.  webbing  to  distribute  restraint  forces  as  required 

S4.6   Heod  restraint.  by  S4.5— 

54.6.1  P^xcept  as  provided  in  S4.6.2,  each  (a)  the  webbing  that  directly  contacts  the 
forward- facing  child  seating  system  shall  have  child's  body  shall  have  a  minimum  width  of  IV^ 
a  head   restraint   that   limits   rearward   angular  inches;  and 

displacement  of  the  child's  head  relative  to  the  (b)   the  webbing  that  sustains  restraint  forces 

child's  torso  line.     The  height  of  the  head  re-  shall   meet  the   requirements   for  webbing  in  a 

straint,  measured  as  the  straight  line  distance  be-  Type  3  seat  belt  assembly  specified  in  paragraphs 

tween  the  highest  point  at  the  lateral  center  of  S4.2(b)   through  S4.2(h)  of  Federal  Motor  Ve- 

the  head  restraint  and  the  point  on  the  longi-  hide  Safety  Standard  No.  209. 

tudinal  centerline  of  the  seating  surface  at  the  ,.„...                 «..,                ,i                i^ 

■    ,          i-         J!        1                 11  1  i    .1                    -•  S4.8   Hardware.       Attachment      hardware      oi 

intersection  ot  a  plane  tiarallel  to  the  rear  surface  ,      ,  •,  i          •                      ,                •            .     •  ^ 

J.  ,,      .          1,1     1    ii          1    ^1      ^          111       _c  each  child  seating  system  that  sustains  restraint 

or  the  torso  block  through  the  torso  block  refer-  ,            ,    i,         ,  ., 

■a  J    ■      o,r  1        1        ii      J.          Ill-  lorces  shall  meet  the  corrosion  resistance  require- 

ence  specified  in  S5.1,  when  the  torso  block  is  ,      .           ,     ,          ,    ,       ,              »             ,    i    i^ 

...        -I-.,       ,-ij        ,■             .        •              J  ments   tor  attachment  hardware  ot  a  seat  belt 

positioned  in  the  child  seating  system  in  accord-  ,,            -n    ■,  ■                     io.^/n      ,.-r.i 

.,,,,.     ^       ,.                •     1  1      o..  o     1    n  assembly  specified  in  paragraph  S4.3(a)  of  J^ed- 

ance  with  the  instructions  required  by  S4.2,  shall  ,    ../ ^       _.  ,  .  ,      ^    i.  ?     o.      i      i    xt      rv/^« 

u           j;  11            /OD  T]^-c>    ^ror,     HT      1.   no    in"o  ^^al    Motor    Vehicle   Safety    Standard   No.   209. 

be  as  follows:    (38  F.R.    (562 — March  23,  1973.  ti     i  i          .      .              ^       .  ^^■          ^      j^t       ^, 

Vff    t'  r  •  11  /I  /T^M  Buckles,  retractors,  and  metallic  parts  other  than 

I                        '                                          r,,,,     .,  .  w.    .=  ...  attachment  hardware  that  sustain  restraint  forces 

The  height   of  the  ... 

If  the  maximum  weight  of  children       head    restraint  shall  meet  the  corrosion  resistance  requirements 

for    whom   the   system    is   rec-        shall  be  at  least :  for  buckles,  retractors,  and  metallic  parts  other 

ommended  is:                                   (inches)  than  attachment  hardware  of  a  seat  belt  assembly 

20  pounds  or  less 15  specified  in  paragraph  S4.3(a)  of  Federal  Motor 

More    than    20   pounds   but    not  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  209. 

more  than  25  pounds 16.2 

More    than    25   pounds   but   not  S4.9  Release     mechanism.     [The     mechanism 

more  than  30  pounds 17.9  for  releasing  components  of  a  child  seating  sys- 

More    than   30   pounds   but    not  tem  that  directly  restrain  the  child  shall  release 

more  than  35  pounds 18.9  when  a  force  of  not  more  than  20  pounds  is  ap- 

More  than  35  pounds 20  plied  in  accordance  with  S5.3.     (38  F.R.  7562— 

54.6.2  Subparagraph    S4.6.1    does    not    apply  ^arch  23,   1973.     Effective:   11/1/73)] 
to  a  child  seating  system  if—  S4.10  Impact  protection. 

(a)  In  accordance  with  S4.1(e),  the  system  is  ^.  ,^  ,   w..      .       .  .             t-,        ,               -i   i 

J  J    .                  ,        .    J     •        i  J        i-  S4.10.1    [Head  and  Torso.     Except  as  provided 

recommended  for  use  only  at  designated  seating  •     r^,  ,„„              .    .,                    ,      ,        ,  ., , 

...          .           ,            J         J  1       i-       1  •  1         i  in  S4.10.2,  any  rigid  component  of  a  child  seat- 
positions   in   makes   and  models   of   vehicles   at  .                 '      j      &             i 

which  the  vehicle's  seat  back  or  head  restraint  ^^g  ^^^tem    (except  restraint   buckles,  and  belt 

limits    rearward    angular    displacement    of    the  adjustment  hardware  attached  only  to  webbing) 

child's  head  relative  to  the  child's  torso  line ;  and  ^h^t,    during    forward,    right-side,    left-side    or 

(b)  -When  the  system  is  installed  in  accord-  rearward  impact,  may  contact  the  head  or  torso 
ance  with  the  instructions  required  by  S4.2,  the  of  a  child  within  the  height  and  weight  range 
distance  from  the  lowest  point  at  the  lateral  recommended  in  accordance  with  S4.1(h)  shall: 
center  of  the  child  seating  surface  to  a  horizontal  (a)  Have  no  comer  or  edge  with  a  radius  of 
plane  tangent  to  the  highest  point  of  the  vehicle  less  than  one-quarter  inch ;  and 

(Rev.  3/16/73)  PART  571;  S  213-3 


Effective:   April    1,    1971 


(b)  Except  as  provided  in  S4.10.'2,  be  covered 
with  defornnible  force-distributing  material  hav- 
ing a  thickness  of  at  least  one-half  inch.  (38 
F.R.  7562— March  23,  1973.    Ert'ective:  11/1/73)] 

S4.10.2  [Exception.  84.10.1  (b)  does  not  apply 
to  the  area  of  a  rigid  back  or  side  of  a  child 
seating  system  that  is  contactable  only  by  the 
child's  torso,  if  tlie  contactable  area  of  the  back 
or  side  is  at  least  2-1  square  inches.  (38  F.R. 
7562— March  23,   1973.     Effective:   11/1/73)] 

S4.11    Performance. 

54.11.1  All  child  seating  systems. 

(a)  When  tested  in  accordance  with  S5.1  each 
child  seating  system  shall — 

(1)  Retain   the  torso  block  in   the  system; 

(2)  Sustain  a  static  load  of  1,000  pounds  in 
the  forward  direction;  and 

[(3)  Restrict  forward  horizontal  movement 
of  the  torso  block  reference  point : 

(i)  When  the  vehicle  seat  is  in  its  for- 
wardmost  adjustment  position,  to  not  more 
than  12  inches; 

(ii)  When  the  vehicle  seat  is  rearward  of 
its  forwardmost  adjustment  ix)sition,  to  not 
more  than  12  inches  plus  the  distance,  meas- 
ure horizontally,  that  the  vehicle  seat  is  rear- 
ward of  its  forwardmost  adjustment  position. 
(36  F.R.  12224— June  29,  1971.  Effective: 
6/29/71)] 

(b)  A  child  seating  system  in  which  the  atti- 
tude of  the  child  is  adjustable  pursuant  to  the 
instructions  provided  in  accordance  with  para- 
graph S4.2  shall  meet  these  requirements  at  each 
designed  adjustment  position. 

54.11.2  Rearward-facing  child  seating  systems. 

(a)  When  tested  in  accordance  with  S5.2, 
each  rearward-facing  child  seating  system 
shall — 

(1)  Retain  the  torso  block  in  the  system; 

(2)  Sustain  a  static  load  of  500  pounds  in 
the  rearward  direction ;  and 

(3)  Restrict  rearward  horizontal  movement 
of  the  torso  block  reference  point  to  12  inches 
or  less. 

(b)  A  child  seating  system  in  which  the  atti- 
tude of  the  child  is  adjustable  pursuant  to  the 


instructions  provided  in  accordance  with  para- 
graph S4.2  shall  meet  these  requirements  at  each 
designed  adjustment  position. 

S5.   Demonstration  procedures. 

55.1  All  seating  systems.  The  child  seating 
system  shall  be  subjected  to  a  static  load,  using 
the  torso  block  shown  in  Figure  6  of  Federal 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  209,  as 
follows : 

(a)  Locate  the  torso  block  reference  point, 
which  is  2.9  inches  above  the  bottom  surface  of 
the  torso  block  and  2.1  inches  forward  of  the 
back  surface  of  the  torso  block. 

(b)  Install  the  system  in  accordance  with  the 
manufacturer's  instructions  required  by  S4.2  on 
a  vehicle  seat  other  than  a  seat  on  which  the 
manufacturer  does  not  recommend  its  installa- 
tion in  the  recommendation  required  by  S4.1(e). 

(c)  Position  the  torso  block  in  the  system  in 
accordance  with  the  manufacturer's  instructions 
required  by  S4.2,  and  adjust  the  system  in  ac- 
cordance  with   those  instructions. 

(d)  Apply  an  increasing  load  to  the  torso 
block  in  a  forward  direction,  not  more  than 
15°  and  not  less  than  5°  above  the  horizontal, 
until  a  load  of  1,000  pounds  is  achieved.  The 
intersection  of  the  load  application  line  and  the 
back  surface  of  the  torso  block,  at  the  time  that 
the  force  removes  the  slack  from  the  load  appli- 
cation system,  shall  not  be  more  than  ^  inches 
or  less  than  6  inches  above  the  bottom  surface 
of  the  torso  block.  Maintain  the  1,000-pound 
load  for  10  seconds. 

(e)  Measure  the  horizontal  movement  of  the 
torso  block  reference  point. 

55.2  Rearward-facing     child     seating     systems. 

The  rearward- facing  cliild  seating  system  shall 
be  subjected  to  the  demonstration  procedure 
specified  in  S5.1,  except  that — 

(a)  A  load  of  500  pounds  shall  be  achieved; 
and 

(b)  The  load  shall  be  applied  in  a  rearward 
direction. 

[S5.3  Release  mechanism.  Conduct  the  fol- 
lowing tests   for   forward- facing  and  rearward- 


(Uv.   3/16/731 


PART  571;  S  213-4 


facing  child  seating  systems,  as  appropriate, 
using  a  torso  block  configured  so  that  it  does  not 
contact  the  buckle  in  a  manner  as  to  affect  the 
buckle  release  force. 

S5.3.1   For   forward-facing  child   seating  sys- 
tems— 

(a)  Test  the  system  with  a  1,000-pound  force 
as  specified  in  S5.1 ; 

(b)  Reduce  the  force  to  45  pounds;  and 

(c)  Release  the  mechanism  in  a  manner  typi- 
cal of  that  employed  in  actual  use. 


Reissued:   Sept.  23,    1970 
Effective:   April    1,    1971 

S5.3.2  For  rearward-facing  child  seating  sys- 
tems— 

(a)  Test  the  system  with  a  500-pound  force 
as  specified  in  S5.2; 

(b)  Reduce  the  force  to  45  pounds;  and 

(c)  Release  the  mechanism  in  a  manner  typi- 
cal of  that  employed  in  actual  use.  (36  F.R. 
6895— April  10,  1971.    Effective:  4/10/71)] 

35  F.R.  14778 
Sept.  23,  1970 


PART  571;  S  213-5 


( 


Effective:   January   1,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   214 


Side  Door  Strength — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.  2-6;  Notice  No.  3) 


The  purpose  of  this  amendment  to  §571.21  of 
Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  is  to  add 
a  new  motor  vehicle  safety  standard  that  sets 
minimum  strength  requirements  for  side  doors 
of  passenger  cars.  The  standard  differs  in  only 
a  few  details  from  the  notice  of  proposed  rule- 
making published  on  April  23,  1970  (35  F.R. 
6512). 

As  noted  in  the  proposal  of  April  23,  the  per- 
centage of  dangerous  and  fatal  injuries  in  side 
collisions  increases  sharply  as  a  maximum  depth 
of  penetration  increases.  "With  this  in  mind,  the 
notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  stressed  the  need 
for  a  door  that  offers  substantal  resistance  to  in- 
trusion as  soon  as  an  object  strikes  it.  The  pro- 
posal required  a  door  to  provide  an  average  crush 
resistance  of  2,500  pounds  during  the  first  6 
inches  of  crush.  One  comment  stated  that 
equivalent  protection  can  be  provided  by  struc- 
tures further  to  the  interior  of  the  door  and  that 
the  proper  measure  of  protection  is  the  force 
needed  to  deflect  the  inner  door  panel  rather  than 
that  needed  to  deflect  the  outer  panel.  Although 
inboard  mounted  structures  may  be  effective  in 
preventing  intrusion  if  the  door  has  a  large  cross 
section,  with  a  correspondingly  large  distance 
between  the  protective  structure  and  the  inner 
panel,  the  standard  as  issued  reflects  the  determi- 
nation that  doors  afford  the  greatest  protection 
if  the  crush  resisting  elements  are  as  close  to  the 
outer  panel  as  possible.  It  follows  from  this  de- 
termination that  the  surface  whose  crush  is  to  be 
measured  must  be  the  outer  panel  rather  than 
the  inner  one.  The  value  specified  for  the  initial 
crush  resistance  has,  however,  been  reduced  from 
2,500  pounds  to  2,250  pounds,  a  value  that  has 
been  determined  to  be  more  appropriate,  par- 
ticularly for  lighter  vehicles. 


Two  comments  suggested  that  the  crush  dis- 
tance should  be  the  distance  traveled  by  the  load- 
ing device  after  an  initial  outer  panel  distortion 
caused  by  a  "pre-load."  This  suggestion  is  with- 
out merit,  in  that  it  would  permit  use  of  need- 
lessly light  outer  panel  materials  and  thereby 
diminish  the  distance  between  the  protective 
elements  of  the  door  and  the  occupants. 

The  comments  revealed  a  considerable  differ- 
ence of  opinion  concerning  the  value  and  validity 
of  the  concept  of  "equivalent  crush  resistance." 
The  equivalent  crush  resistance  was  to  be  derived 
by  adding  i^  (3000-W)  to  the  average  force 
required  to  crush  the  door  12  inches.  It  had 
been  thought  that  the  resulting  bias  against 
heavier  vehicles  was  necessary  in  that  their 
greater  mass  would  cause  them  to  move  side- 
ways less  in  a  collision  than  lighter  vehicles,  with 
more  of  the  impacting  force  being  absorbed  by 
the  door.  Recent  studies,  however,  show  that 
occupants  of  heavier  vehicles  involved  in  side 
collisions  generally  suffer  a  lower  proportion  of 
serious  injuries  and  fatalities  than  persons  in 
lighter  vehicles.  In  light  of  these  studies  and 
other  information,  the  standard  retains  the  basic 
crush  resistance  requirement,  but  deletes  the 
weight  correction  factor.  Since  it  is  no  longer 
appropriate  to  use  the  term  "equivalent  crush 
resistance,"  in  its  place  the  standard  employs  the 
phrase  "intermediate  crush  resistance."  The 
slightly  lower  figure  of  3,500  pounds  has  been 
substituted  for  the  3,750  pound  force  proposed 
in  the  notice.  The  effect  of  the  change  is  to  in- 
crease slightly  the  crush  resistance  required  for 
vehicles  having  curb  weight  less  than  1,800 
pounds,  and  to  decrease  it  slightly  for  vehicles 
weighing  more  than  1,800  pounds. 


PART  571;  S  214— PRE  1 


EfftcHv*:  January   1,   1973 

Similar  reasoning  lies  behind  a  change  in  the 
requirement  for  peak  crush  resistance.  The 
available  information  does  not  support  a  peak 
crush  requirement  that  increases  indefinitely 
with  increasing  vehicle  curb  weight.  The  stand- 
ard therefore  sets  a  ceiling  of  7,000  pounds  to  the 
requirement  that  the  door  have  a  peak  crush  re- 
sistance of  twice  the  vehicle's  curb  weight.  In 
effect,  the  requirement  is  unchanged  from  the 
proposal  for  vehicles  weighing  less  than  3,500 
pounds,  and  is  diminished  for  vehicles  exceeding 
that  weight. 

Several  comments  suggested  that  the  vehicle 
should  be  tested  with  all  seats  in  place,  since  the 
seats  may  provide  protection  against  intrusion 
in  side  impacts.  It  is  recognized  that  proper 
seat  design  can  contribute  to  occupant  safety. 
The  retention  of  the  seat  would,  however,  intro- 
duce a  variable  into  the  test  procedue  whose 
bearing  on  safety  is  not  objectively  measurable 
at  this  time.  For  this  reason,  the  standard 
adopts  the  proposed  requirement  that  the  vehicle 
be  tested  with  its  seats  removed. 

It  was  suggested  that  the  location  of  force 
application  should  be  changed.    The  location  has 


been  designated  to  approximate  the  weakest  sec- 
tion of  that  part  of  the  door  structure  likely  to  be 
struck  by  another  vehicle.  The  area  designated 
has  been  found  the  most  approriate  for  the  bulk 
of  the  automobile  population. 

Effective  date:  January  1,  1973. 

The  majority  of  comments  stated  that  an  effec- 
tive date  of  September  1,  1971,  as  initially  pro- 
posed, would  not  be  feasible.  After  evaluation 
of  the  comments  and  other  information,  it  has 
been  determined  that  the  structural  changes  re- 
quired by  the  standard  will  be  such  that  many 
manufacturers  woud  be  unable  to  meet  the  stand- 
ard if  the  September  1,  1971,  effective  date  were 
retained.  It  has  been  decided  that  there  is  good 
cause  for  establishing  an  effective  date  more  than 
1  year  after  issuance  of  the  rule. 

In  consideration  of  the  above.  Standard  No. 
214  is  adopted  as  set  forth  below. 

Issued  on  October  22,  1970. 

Douglas  W.  Toms, 
Director. 

35  F.R.  16801 
October   30,    1970 


PART  571;  S  214— PRE  2 


EffacHva:   January   1,    1973 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  214 

Side  Door  Strength — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  No.  2-6;  Notice  No.  3) 


51.  Purpose  and  scope.  This  standard  speci- 
fies strength  requirements  for  side  doors  of  a 
motor  vehicle  to  minimize  the  safety  hazard 
caused  by  intrusion  into  the  passenger  compart- 
ment in  a  side  impact  accident. 

52.  Application.  This  standard  applies  to  pas- 
senger cars. 

53.  Requirements.  Each  vehicle  shall  be  able 
to  meet  the  following  requirements  when  any  of 
its  side  doors  that  can  be  used  for  occupant  egress 
are  tested  according  to  S4. 

53.1  Initial  crush  resistance.  The  initial  crush 
resistance  shall  be  not  less  than  2,250  pounds. 

53.2  Intermediate  crush  resistance.  The  inter- 
mediate crush  resistance  shall  not  be  less  than 
3,500  pounds. 

53.3  Peak  crush  resistance.  The  peak  crush 
resistance  shall  be  not  less  than  two  times  the 
curb  weight  of  the  vehicle  or  7,000  pounds, 
whichever  is  less. 

54.  Test  procedures.  The  following  procedures 
apply  to  determining  compliance  with  section 
S3: 

(a)  Remove  from  the  vehicle  any  seats  that 
may  affect  load  upon,  or  deflection  of,  the  side  of 
the  vehicle.  Place  side  windows  in  their  upper- 
most position  and  all  doors  in  locked  position. 
Place  the  sill  of  the  side  of  the  vehicle  opposite 
to  the  side  being  tested  against  a  rigid  unyield- 
ing vertical  surface.  Fix  the  vehicle  rigidly  in 
position  by  means  of  tiedown  attachments  lo- 
cated at  or  forward  of  the  front  wheel  center- 
line  and  at  or  rearward  of  the  rear  wheel  center- 
line. 

(b)  Prepare  a  loading  device  consisting  of  a 
rigid  steel  cylinder  or  semi-cylinder  12  inches  in 
diameter  with  an  edge  radius  of  one-half  inch. 


The  length  of  the  loading  device  shall  be  such 
that  the  top  surface  of  the  loading  device  is  at 
least  one-half  inch  above  the  bottom  edge  of  the 
door  window  opening  but  not  of  a  length  that 
will  cause  contact  with  any  structure  above  the 
bottom  edge  of  the  door  window  opening  during 
the  test. 

(c)  Locate   the   loading   device   as   shown   in 
Figure  I  (side  view)  of  this  section  so  that: 

(1)  Its  longitudinal   axis  is  vertical; 

(2)  Its   longitudinal    axis   is   laterally   op- 
posite the  midpoint  of  a  horizontal  line  drawn 


CENTEWUWE  OF  VEHICLE 


12  mCH  DLAM. 


t~-        DIRECTION      ^^ 
OF  LOfcD 


HORIZONTAL  UKE 
5  WCHES  ABOVE  THE 
LCWEST  POmT  OF 
THE  pOOB 

S  IN.  R, 


STRUCTURES  ABOVE  THE   , 
BOTTOM  EDGE  OF  THE  DOOR 
WINDOW  OPENING 


LOWEST  POINT  OF  THE  DOOR 


MID  POTNT  OF  UNE 


EEmsa 

LOADING  DEVICE  LOCATION  AND  APPLICATION  TO  THE  DOOR 

PI<;UKE   1 

across  the  outer  surface  of  the  door  5  inches 
above  the  lowest  point  of  the  door ; 

(3)  Its  bottom  surface  is  in  the  same  hori- 
zontal plane  as  the  horizontal  line  described 
in  subdivision  (2)  of  this  subparagraph;  and 


PART  571;  S  214-1 


Effective:  January    1,    1973 

(4)  The  cylindrical  face  of  the  device  is  in 
contact  with  the  outer  surface  of  the  door. 

(d)  Using  the  loading  device,  apply  a  load  to 
the  outer  surface  of  the  door  in  an  inboard  di- 
rection normal  to  a  vertical  plane  along  the 
vehicle's  longitudinal  centerline.  Apply  the 
load  continuously  such  that  the  loading  device 
travel  rate  does  not  exceed  one-half  inch  per 
second  until  the  loading  device  travels  18  inches. 
Guide  the  loading  device  to  prevent  it  from 
being  rotated  or  displaced  from  its  direction  of 
travel.  The  test  must  be  completed  within  120 
seconds. 

(e)  Record  applied  load  versus  displacement 
of  the  loading  device,  either  continuously  or  in 
increments  of  not  more  than  1  inch  or  200  pounds 
for  the  entire  crush  distance  of  18  inches. 

(f)  Determine  the  initial  crush  resistance,  in- 
termediate crush  resistance,  and  peak  crush  re- 
sistance as  follows : 


(1)  From  the  results  recorded  in  subpara- 
graph (e)  of  this  paragraph,  plot  a  curve  of 
load  versus  displacement  and  obtain  the  in- 
tegral of  the  applied  load  with  respect  to  the 
crush  distances  specified  in  subdivisions  (2) 
and  (3)  of  this  paragraph.  These  quantities, 
expressed  in  inch-pounds  and  divided  by  the 
specified  crush  distances,  represent  the  average 
forces  in  pounds  required  to  deflect  the  door 
those  distances. 

(2)  The  initial  crush  resistance  is  the  aver- 
age force  required  to  deform  the  door  over  the 
initial  6  inches  of  crush. 

(3)  The  intermediate  crush  resistance  is  the 
average  force  required  to  deform  the  door  over 
the  initial  12  inches  of  crush. 

(4)  The  peak  crush  resistance  is  the  largest 
force  recorded  over  the  entire  18-inch  crush 
distance. 

October   30,    1970 
35  F.R.  16801 


PART  571;  S  2l4r-2 


:> 


EfFacHv*:   SepUmbcr   1,    1972 
Seplambcr   I,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO   MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD   NO.   215 

Exterior  Protection — Passenger  Cars 
(Docket  Nos.   1-9  and   1-10;  Notice  No.  4) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  establish  a  new 
Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  215, 
Exterior  Protection — Passenger  Cars.  The 
standard  will  require  passenger  cars  to  withstand 
specified  low-speed  impacts  at  the  front  and  rear 
without  damage  to  lighting,  fuel,  exhaust,  cool- 
ing, or  latching  systems.  A  public  meeting  on 
the  subject  was  held  on  April  2,  1970,  and  a 
notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  was  published  on 
November  24,  1970  (35  F.R.  17999).  The  com- 
ments received  at  the  meeting  and  in  response  to 
the  notice  have  been  considered  in  the  prepara- 
tion of  this  rule.  The  standard  is  intended  to 
achieve  the  goals  of  preventing  low-speed  colli- 
sions from  impairing  the  safe  operation  of  ve- 
hicle systems  and  of  reducing  the  frequency  of 
override  or  underride  in  collisions  at  higher 
speeds. 

Many  comments  to  the  docket  indicated  that 
manufacturers  would  encounter  substantial  diffi- 
culties in  meeting  the  pendulum-test  require- 
ments at  the  beginning  of  the  1973  model  year. 
The  industry  evidently  has  been  preparing  for 
a  substantial  upgrading  of  passenger  car  bumpers 
for  the  1973  models.  There  are,  however,  con- 
siderable differences  in  the  designs  selected,  with 
respect  to  such  aspects  as  the  height  of  the 
bumpers,  both  top  and  bottom,  the  extent  to 
which  they  protect  the  vehicle  corners,  the  ma- 
terial with  which  they  are  faced  and  the  details 
of  their  configuration.  All  these  aspects  have  a 
considerable  effect  on  whether  the  vehicles  would 
meet  the  pendulum-test  requirement.  In  the 
pendulum  test  a  precisely  configured  block  is  used 
as  a  striker,  with  the  requirement  that  only  a 
particular  projecting  ridge  on  the  block  may 
contact  the  vehicle.  The  difficulties  of  compli- 
ance are  compounded  by  the  fact  that  manufac- 


turers are  in  an  advanced  stage  of  preparation 
for  the  1973  models. 

Some  of  the  comments  to  the  docket  suggested 
that  a  barrier  test  should  be  substituted  for  the 
pendulum,  at  least  for  the  first  phase  of  the  re- 
quirements. A  barrier  test  does  not  by  itself  in- 
volve the  configuration  of  the  front  and  rear 
contact  surfaces.  It  does,  however,  establish  the 
basic  strength  of  those  surfaces  and  the  support- 
ing structures,  and  the  vehicle's  overall  ability 
to  withstand  impacts  at  the  specified  energy 
levels.  It  has  been  decided,  therefore,  to  utilize 
fixed  barrier  collision  tests  in  the  first  phase, 
model  year  1973,  and  upgrade  the  requirements 
by  adding  pendulum  tests  for  model  year  1974. 

It  was  suggested  in  several  of  the  comments 
that  less  bumper  strength  was  needed  on  the  rear 
than  on  the  front,  since  vehicles  are  struck  less 
frequently  and  less  severely,  from  a  statistical 
standpoint,  from  that  direction.  Many  of  the 
designs  presently  in  preparation  for  1973-model 
production  offer  rear  protection  in  the  2-to-3- 
m.p.h.  range,  as  compared  with  5  m.p.h.  at  the 
front.  In  recognition  of  these  factors,  the  re- 
quirement for  rear  impact  protection  on  1973 
models  is  a  barrier  impact  at  21/^  m.p.h.,  while 
the  front  is  required  to  meet  a  5-m.p.h.  barrier 
impact. 

For  the  1974  models  (effective  September  1, 
1973),  a  pendulum  test  requirement  is  added  in 
a  form  similar  to  that  proposed  in  the  Novem- 
ber 24  notice,  with  a  front  impact  speed  of  5 
m.p.h.  and  a  rear  impact  speed  of  4  m.p.h. 

Several  manufacturers  stated  that  the  require- 
ment for  multiple  impacts  on  front  and  rear  was 
too  severe.  The  NHTSA  considers  it  essential  for 
a  bumper  to  be  able  to  sustain  an  impact  without 
impairment  of  its  protective  capabilities,  and  has 


PART  571;  S  215— PRE  1 


Effective:   September   1,    1972 
September    1,    1973 

therefore  retained  the  multiple  impact  require- 
ment. However,  it  is  recognized  that  the  require- 
ment as  proposed  would  permit  up  to  six  im- 
pacts at  the  same  point  and  that  the  vehicle 
could  fail  to  conform  simply  by  denting  the 
bumper  until  it  contacts  a  plane  surface  of  the 
test  device.  Accordingly,  the  standard  provides 
that  impacts  must  be  at  least  2  inches  apart 
laterally. 

A  related  concern  expressed  in  several  com- 
ments was  that  the  vehicle  corners  would  have 
to  be  very  stiff  in  order  to  withstand  longitudinal 
impacts  in  which  most  of  the  test  device  would 
be  outboard  of  the  corner.  Since  corner  protec- 
tion is  also  required  and  a  separate  corner  im- 
pact procedure  is  provided,  the  Administration 
has  determined  that  the  longitudinal  impacts 
should  be  conducted  with  the  test  device  com- 
pletely inboard  of  the  corners,  and  has  amended 
the  requirement  accordingly. 

The  configuration  of  the  test  device's  impact 
face  attracted  several  comments.  Upon  review, 
it  has  been  decided  that  a  3-inch  offset  in  the 
upper  portion  of  the  device  is  unnecessary  to 
establish  the  upper  limit  on  the  height  of  the 
vehicle's  protective  surface.  For  impacts  at  a 
height  of  20  inches,  the  upper  surface  (plane  B) 
is  therefore  offset  by  11^  inches  rather  than  3 
inches.  Several  comments  indicated  that  the 
cross  section  radius  of  the  impact  ridge  should 
be  increased  from  i/^  inch  to  1  inch  or  more  or 
that  the  ridge  should  be  removed  altogether. 
Review  of  the  reasons  advanced  for  the  pro- 
posed changes  does  not  give  sufficient  cause  to 
change  the  shape  of  the  ridge.  Its  design  is 
intended  to  represent  a  fairly  hostile  impacting 
surface,  but  it  is  not  unrepresentative  of  the 
objects  likely  to  be  encountered  by  a  vehicle. 

A  number  of  comments  stated  that  the  require- 
ment for  a  corner  impact  at  45°  was  too  severe 
and  that  it  would  necessitate  undesirable  changes 
in  the  bumper  wrap-around.  Upon  considera- 
tion of  these  comments  and  supporting  data  re- 
guarding  the  frequency  of  angular  impacts,  it 
has  been  decided  to  reduce  the  direction  of  the 
corner  impact  to  30°  from  longitudinal. 

It  appeared  from  the  comments  that  one  of 
the  most  difficult  problems  from  the  standpoint 
of   vehicle   design   arose   from   the   requirement 


that  impacts  be  conducted  at  any  height  from  20  f 
inches  to  14  inches.  To  assure  themselves  of 
conformity  at  the  14-inch  height,  manufacturers 
of  larger  cars  would  have  had  to  lower  the 
bumper  to  a  point  where  it  would  significantly 
interfere  with  the  vehicle's  ability  to  negotiate 
driveways  and  ramps.  A  6-inch  range  in  the 
test  heights  was  found  unnecessary,  since  manu- 
facturers will  have  to  exceed  the  range  some- 
what to  ensure  conformity.  Accordingly,  the 
NHTSA  has  decided  to  raise  the  minimum  test 
height  to  16  inches.  As  adopted  the  standard 
specifies  three  impacts,  front  and  rear,  at  any 
height  between  20  inches  and  16  inches. 

Although  the  standard  does  not  permit  repairs 
to  be  conducted  after  an  impact,  the  Administra- 
tion has  found  merit  in  the  suggestion  that  an 
interval  should  be  specified  between  tests  to  per- 
mit systems  with  self-recovery  features  to  return 
to  their  original  position.  Accordingly,  an  in- 
terval of  30  minutes  is  specified  between  impacts. 

One    comments    pointed    out    that    confusion 
might  arise  from  the  manner  in  which  the  test 
device's    weight    was    specified.      The    standard 
therefore  refers  to  the  effective  impacting  mass      f 
of  the  test  device  and  specifies  that  this  mass  is      ( 
equal  to  the  mass  of  the  impacted  vehicle. 

Further  work  is  in  process  with  respect  to 
the  requirements  effective  September  1,  1973,  and 
it  is  -  anticipated  that  additions  to  or  refinements 
of  those  requirements  would  be  made  in  the  near 
future. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  215,  Exterior  Pro- 
tection, is  added  to  §  571.21  of  Title  49,  Code  of 
Federal  Regulations,  reading  as  set  forth  below. 

Effective  date^  September  1,  1972,  with  further 
requirements  effective  September  1,  1973,  as 
noted  in  the  text  of  the  rule.  Because  of  the 
leadtime  necessary  for  preparation  for  produc- 
tion, it  is  found,  for  good  cause  shown,  that  an 
effective  date  more  than  1  year  later  than  the 
issue  date  is  in  the  public  interest. 

Issued  on  April  9,  1971. 

Douglas  W.  Toms. 
Acting    Administrator. 

36   F.R.  7218 
April   16,  1971 


PART  571 ;  S  215— PRE  2 


Effective:   September   1,    1972 
September    1,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  215 

Exterior  Protection — Passenger  Cars 
(Dockets  No.   1-9  and   1-10;   Notice  5) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  respond  to 
petitions  requesting  reconsideration  of  Motor  Ve- 
hice  Safety  Standard  No.  215,  Exterior  Protec- 
tion, issued  April  9,  1971  (36  F.R.  7218).  The 
petitions  are  denied  in  part  and  granted  in  part. 
To  the  extent  that  changes  to  the  standard  in 
response  to  petitions  have  been  found  to  add  to 
the  performance  requirements,  they  are  included 
in  a  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  published  in 
this  issue  of  the  Federal  Register  (36  F.R.  11868). 

Subsequent  to  issuance  of  the  standard,  peti- 
tions for  reconsideration  were  submitted  by 
Chrysler,  American  Motors,  Fiat,  Japanese  Auto- 
mobile Manufacturer's  Association,  Peugeot, 
Ford,  General  Motors,  Center  for  Auto  Safety, 
Volkswagen,  DeTomaso,  and  Mr.  Jack  F.  Fenton, 
a  member  of  the  California  State  Assembly.  In 
issuing  this  notice,  the  NHSTA  has  reviewed 
each  of  the  issues  raised  in  the  petitions. 

Few  petitioners  took  issue  with  the  fixed  bar- 
rier impact  requirement  effective  January  1,  1972. 
Two  European  manufacturers  requested  that  the 
frontal  speed  be  lowered  to  2i^  mph.  No  sup- 
porting data  were  submitted,  however.  The 
NHTSA  continues  to  regard  a  5-mph  impact  as 
an  appropriate  measure  of  frontal  protection  and 
the  petitions  are  denied.  Among  the  domestic 
manufacturers,  American  Motors  reouested  that 
the  license  plate  lamps  be  exempted  from  the  pro- 
tective criteria  of  S5.3.1,  on  the  grounds  that  the 
best  location  for  the  license  plate  lamps  is  in  a 
bumper  insert  that  is  difficult  to  insulate  from 
shock.  Since  the  license  plate  lamps  have  little 
bearing  on  operational  safety,  and  their  protec- 
tion would  in  some  cases  require  a  dispropor- 
tionate degree  of  design  alteration  ,the  request 
appears  reasonable  and  the  license  plate  lamps 
are  exempted  from  the  protection  criteria. 


The  pendulum  impact  test  requirements,  effec- 
tive September  1,  1973,  were  the  subject  of  a 
divergent  group  of  comments.  With  its  multiple 
impacts  at  varying  heights  at  5  mph  in  the  front 
and  4  mph  in  the  rear,  the  pendulum  test  imposes 
two  basic  requirements:  the  management  of  the 
total  energy  of  the  pendulum,  and  the  configura- 
tion of  the  front  and  rear  surfaces  in  order  to 
accommodate  the  pendulum's  impact  ridge. 

Because  of  the  limited  width  of  the  pendulum, 
as  compared  to  a  fixed  collision  barrier,  the 
energy  imparted  by  the  pendulum  to  the  portion 
of  the  vehicle  it  strikes  is  roughly  equivalent  to 
the  energy  transmitted  to  that  portion  during  a 
barrier  test  at  the  same  speed.  The  rear  4-mph 
pendulum  test  therefore  approximates  the  energy 
level  of  a  4-mph  barrier  test  and  represents  an 
appreciable  increase  over  the  21/2  mph  rear  bar- 
rier test  required  in  1972.  General  Motors  re- 
quested a  postponement  of  the  4-mph  require- 
ment to  1975  to  minimize  the  costs  of  retooling 
necessary  to  meet  the  increased  requirements. 
It  has  been  determined  that  early  adoption  of  the 
4-mph  pendulum  test  is  desirable,  and  the  re- 
quested postponement  is  therefore  denied.  In 
light  of  the  responses  to  the  rulemaking,  the 
NHTSA  is  considering  additional  rulemaking  to 
increase  the  pendulum  speed,  as  well  as  the  bar- 
rier speed,  to  5  mph  for  rear  impacts.  This 
course  of  action  is  advocated  in  petitions  by  the 
Ford  Motor  Company,  The  Center  for  Auto 
Safety,  and  Mr.  Fenton,  and  is  proposed  in  a 
notice  published  in  this  issue  of  the  Federal 
Register  (36  F.R.  11868). 

A  number  of  petitions  stated  that  the  width 
and  aggressiveness  of  bumpers  that  can  with- 
stand 5-mph  comer  impacts  will  create  safety 
problems  in  various  types  of  impact  situations, 
and  that  the  overall  balance  of  vehicle  protection 


231-088  O  -  77  -  63 


PART  571;  S  215— PRE  3 


EffccHvc:  S«pt»mb*r  1,    1972 
Saptombar  1,    1973 


and  crash-worthiness  would  be  better  served  by 
setting  the  impact  requirements  for  the  vehicle 
comers  at  a  somewhat  lower  level.  Eeview  of 
the  available  information  indicates  that  this  posi- 
tion has  merit,  and  an  adjustment  is  therefore 
made  in  the  speed  of  corner  impacts,  from  5  mph 
in  the  front  and  4  mph  in  the  rear,  to  3  mph  at 
both  front  and  rear. 

The  impact  ridge  on  the  pendulum  test  device 
performs  the  vital  functions  of  assuring  basic 
uniformity  in  bumper  height  and  of  limiting 
the  surface  angularity  that  contributes  to  under- 
ride  and  override.  The  NHTSA  adheres  to  its 
finding  that  the  impact  ridge  is  a  reasonable  and 
practicable  means  of  assuring  the  desired  pro- 
tection. It  appears,  however,  that  the  shape  of 
the  ridge  as  the  standard  was  issued — its  cross 
section  an  equilateral  triangle  with  a  rounded 
apex — could  produce  some  undesirable  side  ef- 
fects. Petitioners  argued  that  this  relatively 
narrow  and  sharp  ridge  unjustifiably  restricts 
the  use  of  resilient  material^  and  energy-absorb- 
ing designs  that  represent  the  most  effective 
methods  of  meeting  the  objectives  of  the  stand- 
ard. Petitioners  variously  requested  that  contact 
with  the  plane  behind  the  ridge  be  permitted, 
or  that  the  impact  ridge  be  broadened,  thereby 
reducing  its  tendency  to  indent  the  vehicle's 
surface. 

Upon  review,  it  has  been  determined  that  a 
broadening  of  the  ridge  is  desirable,  both  because 
of  the  greater  latitude  allowed  in  the  selection 
of  resilient  materials,  and  because  of  other  effects 
on  the  size  and  shape  of  the  bumpers.  Several 
petitions  argued  that  the  present  standard  re- 
quires a  manufacturer  to  design  an  excessively 
wide  bumper  in  order  to  meet  the  protective 
criteria  imder  the  full  range  of  vehicle  weights 
and  manufacturing  tolerances.  A  broader  im- 
pact ridge  would  alleviate  this  problem,  and 
should  also  reduce  the  penetration  of  the  license 
plate  opening  that  was  seen  as  a  problem  by 
some  manufacturers.  The  NHTSA  has  deter- 
mined that  most  of  the  meritorious  requests  in 
the  petitions  can  be  satisfied  by  the  adoption  of 
a  broader  impact  ridge.  The  pendulum  design 
suggested  by  the  Ford  Motor  Company  has  been 
found  to  have  considerable  merit,  and  the  stand- 
ard is  therefore  amended  to  incorporate  impact 
ridge  dimensions  similar  to  those  requested  by 


Ford.  To  the  extent  that  the  remaining  petitions 
relating  to  bumper  height  and  shape  are  not 
satisfied  by  this  amendment,  they  are  denied. 
The  Chrysler  request  to  limit  corner  testing  to 
20-inch  height  is  premised  on  difficulties  that  are 
partially  alleviated  by  the  modification  of  the 
ridge,  and  the  petition  in  that  respect  is  ac- 
cordingly denied. 

General  Motors  requested  that  the  height  range 
for  the  pendulum  test  be  changed  to  18-to-22 
inches,  from  the  present  16-to-20  inch  specifica- 
tion. On  review  of  all  avaiable  information, 
NHTSA  has  determined  that  such  a  change 
would  not  be  desirable,  and  the  petition  is 
denied.  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  the 
amended  design  of  the  impact  face  retains  the 
3-inch  separation  between  the  upper  edge  of  the 
ridge  and  Plane  B,  so  that  manufacturers  may 
design  burners  extending  some  distance  above  the 
20-inch  level. 

In  response  to  requests  to  clarify  the  sequence 
of  testing  in  effect  September  1,  1973,  S5.2  is 
amended  to  make  it  clear  that  the  pendulum 
tests  are  to  precede  the  barrier  tests.  Other 
minor  adjustments  have  been  made  in  the  protec- 
tive criteria  to  make  it  clear  that  the  vehicle's 
hood,  trunk,  and  doors — and  not  just  their  latch- 
ing systems — must  be  operable  in  the  normal 
maner  (S5.3.2),  and  to  substitute  the  more  gen- 
eral term  "leaks"  in  S5.3.4  in  place  of  the  term 
"open  joints." 

The  petition  from  the  Center  for  Auto  Safety 
suggested  the  addition  of  further  protective  cri- 
teria to  ensure  substantially  complete  vehicle 
protection.  A  notice  proposing  such  additional 
criteria  is  published  in  today's  issue  of  the  Fed- 
eral Register  (36  F.R.  11868).  The  Center  also 
requested  the  addition  of  requirements  limiting 
the  acceleration  imparted  to  occupants  during 
impacts.  The  Ford  Motor  Company  also  sug- 
gested that  the  NHTSA  consider  rulemaking  re- 
lating to  limits  on  occupant  acceleration,  and  in- 
dicated that  it  intended  to  submit  data  on  the 
subject  in  September  of  1971.  Although  review 
of  the  available  information  does  not  indicate 
that  occupant  accelerations  will  be  significantly 
increased  in  vehicles  conforming  to  the  standard, 
the  NHTSA  is  aware  of  the  issue  and  will  con- 
sider further  rulemaking  on  the  subject  if  sub- 
sequent data  reveals  a  problem.  j| 


PAUT  571 ;  S  215— PRE  4 


; 


EffMtIv*:  S*pt*mb«r   I,    1972 
Saptambar   I,    1973 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  Motor  Ve-  Issued  on  June  15,  1971. 

hide  Safety  Standard  No.  215,  Exterior  Protec- 
tion, in  §571.21  of  Title  49,  Code  of  Federal 

Regulations,  is  amended.   .  .  .     Effective  date:  Douglas  W.  Toms 

September    1,    1972    and    September    1,    1973.  Acting  Administrator 

The  amendments  to  the  protective  criteria  are 
effective  September  1,  1972.     The  amendments 

to  S5.2,  S7.2.5,  and  Figures  1  and  2  are  effective  36  F.R.  11852 

September  1,  1973.  June  22,  1971 


) 


PAKT  571;  S  215— PRE  5-6 


c 


€ 


i 


Efftctiv*:   Sept*mb«r   1,    1972 
(Except  as  noted  in  rule) 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  215 

Exterior  Protection 
(Dockets  No.   1-9  and   1-10,  Notice  7) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  amend  Fed- 
eral Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  215,  in 
§  571.21  of  Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations. 
The  amendments  are  based  on  a  review  of  all 
materials  heretofore  submitted  to  the  docket,  in- 
cluding a  petition  for  reconsideration  by  the 
.Japanese  Automobile  Manufacturers  Association 
(JAMA).  They  also  constitute  action  on  the 
notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  of  June  22,  1971 
(36  F.R.  11868). 

As  published  June  22,  1971,  (36  F.R.  11852), 
Standard  No.  215  became  effective  in  two  phases. 
The  first  phase,  beginning  September  1,  1972, 
requires  a  passenger  car  to  meet  certain  protec- 
tive criteria  in  barrier  impacts  at  5  mph  in  the 
front  and  21^  mph  in  the  rear.  The  second 
phase,  effective  September  1,  1973,  required  a  car 
to  meet  the  protective  criteria  during  and  after 
an  additional  series  of  impacts  with  a  weighted 
pendulum,  at  5  mph  in  the  front,  4  mph  in  the 
rear  and  3  mph  on  the  vehicle  corners. 

Simultaneously  with  the  publication  of  the 
standard  on  June  22,  the  NHTSA  proposed 
amendments  in  the  second  phase  of  the  require- 
ments that  would  increase  the  protection  required 
by  the  standard  (36  F.R.  11868).  The  velocities 
in  rear  impacts  were  to  be  raised  to  5-mph  for 
both  barrier  and  pendulum  testing,  the  vehicle's 
engine  was  to  be  running  during  a  barrier  im- 
pact, and  the  list  of  protective  criteria  was  to  be 
enlarged  to  include  a  general  prohibition  against 
damage  that  adversely  affects  any  aspect  of  per- 
formance that  relates  to  motor  vehicle  safety. 

The  petition  for  reconsideration  by  .JAMA 
requested  a  one  year  delay  in  the  5-mph  front 
and  4-mph  rear  pendulum  impact  requirements 
contained  in  the  June  22  rule.  The  NHTSA 
has  concluded  that  a  uniform  delay  in  the  pen- 


dulum requirements  is  not  justified,  in  that  for 
the  majority  of  vehicles  the  cost  of  improved 
protective  systems  in  1973  is  outweighed  by 
their  benefits.  The  JAMA  petition  is  therefore 
denied. 

With  respect  to  the  amendments  proposed  in 
the  notice  of  June  22,  a  number  of  comments 
objected  to  the  proposed  increase  in  the  velocity 
of  rear  barrier  impacts  for  the  reason  that  it 
would  require  additional  time  for  compliance 
and  that  it  woidd  increase  the  cost  of  the  pro- 
tective system  without  corresponding  benefits  to 
the  consumer.  On  review,  the  NHTSA  has  con- 
cluded that  the  benefits  of  5-mph  rear  bumper 
protection  will  outweigh  the  costs  involved.  Basic 
5-mph  barrier-impact  protection  can  be  provided 
with  a  variety  of  available  devices  and  designs, 
which  do  not  themselves  generally  require  ex- 
tensive vehicle  sheet-metal  changes.  The  require- 
ment of  meeting  the  damage  criteria  in  a  5-mph 
impact,  front  and  rear,  is  therefore  adopted, 
effective  September  1,  1973. 

The  notice  of  June  22,  1971,  also  proposed  to 
increase  the  speed  of  the  pendulum  test  device 
in  rear  impacts  to  5-mph,  effective  September  1, 
1973.  Several  comments  raised  lead  time  objec- 
tions. Upon  review  of  the  information  concern- 
ing tooling  costs  and  other  costs  associated  with 
a  5-mph  rear  pendulum  test  in  1973,  the  NHTSA 
has  concluded  that  for  the  majority  of  vehicles 
the  benefits  to  the  public  outweigh  any  incre- 
mental cost  associated  with  the  1973  effective 
date,  and  September  1,  1973,  is  established  as 
the  effective  date  for  most  vehicles. 

The  NHTSA  has  determined,  however,  that 
with  respect  to  certain  vehicles,  the  detailed  con- 
figurational  requirements  imposed  by  the  pen- 
dulum tests  cause  severe  leadtime  problems.    The 


PART  571;  S  215— PRE  7 


Efhcflv*:  S*ptamb«r  1,   1972 
(Except  as  noted  In  rule) 

vehicles  having  the  greatest  difficulties  are  con- 
centrated in  the  smaller  classes,  particularly 
small  convertibles,  hardtops,  and  sports-type 
cars.  It  has  been  determined  that  if  these  ve- 
hicles were  forced  to  comply  with  the  pendulum 
tests  by  the  September  1,  1973  date,  a  substan- 
tial disruption  of  the  manufacturers'  production 
and  tooling  schedules  would  result,  with  ex- 
tremely large  cost  penalties.  In  view  of  the  ad- 
verse effect  that  this  would  probably  have  both 
on  manufacturers'  other  safety-related  develop- 
ment programs,  and  on  consumer  costs,  a  one-year 
delay  in  the  pendulum  test  requirements  with 
respect  to  the  limited  class  of  vehicles  most 
severely  affected  has  been  found  to  be  in  the 
public  interest.  An  exception  has  therefore 
been  made  in  the  application  of  the  pendulum 
test  requirements  to  passenger  cars  with  wheel 
base  of  115  inches  or  less,  if  they  are  convertibles, 
vehicles  with  no  back  seat,  or  "hardtops"  (ve- 
hicles with  no  "B  pillar"  above  the  bottom  of 
the  window  opening) .  These  cars  must  meet  the 
requirement  one  year  later,  by  September  1,  1974. 
This  exception  does  not  affect  the  barrier  crash 
test  requirements,  which  go  into  effect  as  pro- 
posed with  respect  to  all   passenger  cars. 

In  response  to  repeated  requests  from  manu- 
facturers to  alleviate  the  retooling  and  restyling 
problems  associated  with  corner  impacts  at 
heights  below  20  inches,  the  NHTSA  has  deter- 
mined that  a  two  year  delay  in  the  implementa- 
tion of  S7.2.2,  to  September  1,  1975,  would  al- 
low for  more  economical  changeover  and  amends 
the  standard  accordingly.  The  requirement  for 
corner  impacts  at  20  inches  (S7.2.1)  remains  ef- 
fective September  1,  1973,  and  will  provide  a 
significant  level  of  protection  for  the  period  be- 
fore the  effective  date  of  S7.2.2. 

The  new  condition  regarding  engine  operation 
caused  some  uncertainly  among  the  commenters 
as  to  whether  the  engine  must  remain  running 
for  any  length  of  time  after  initial  contact  with 
the  barrier.  Temporary  engine  stalling  at  low 
speeds  is  not  considered  a  major  safety  problem, 
nor  would  it  alone  constitute  damage  within  the 
meaning  of  the  standard.  If  the  engine  cannot 
be  restarted,  of  course,  some  damage  would  be 
indicated,  and  the  vehicle  would  fail  to  conform 
to  the  protective  criterion  proposed  by  the  June 
22  notice.    To  clarify  this  point,  the  NHTSA  has 


r 


decided  to  amend  the  test  condition  to  provide 
that  the  engine  is  operating  "at  the  onset  of  a 
barrier  impact." 

The  proposed  addition  to  the  protective  cri- 
teria was  criticized  for  what  was  said  to  be  a  lack 
of  objectivity,  in  that  it  does  not  identify  the 
aspects  of  performance  relating  to  motor  ve- 
hicle safety  and  does  not  specify  the  manner  in 
which  they  may  be  adversely  affected.  As  an 
alternative,  it  was  suggested  that  the  NHTSA 
list  the  specific  systems  that  must  remain  fully 
operative  after  the  vehicle  has  been  tested.  This 
suggestion  has  merit,  in  that  it  would  eliminate 
uncertainty  as  to  which  systems  must  be  ex- 
amined for  damage  after  the  tests  have  been 
performed.  Tlie  vehicle  propulsion,  suspension, 
steering,  and  braking  systems  have  been  iden- 
tified in  this  regard. 

The  suggestion  that  the  particular  prohibited 
effects  on  given  systems  be  specified  has  not, 
however,  been  adopted.  It  is  impracticable,  and 
probably  impossible,  to  specify  in  a  standard  all 
foreseeable  types  of  damage  or  impairment  that 
could  occur  to  a  complex  system  such  as  steering  A 
or  front  suspension.  Any  motor  vehicle  must,  W 
on  the  other  hand,  be  designed  so  as  to  with- 
stand without  damage  the  types  and  degrees  of 
shocks  and  stresses  that  it  will  encounter  in 
normal  road  use  (aside  from  normal  wear  that 
occurs  with  extended  use,  which  is  not  at  issue 
here.)  The  NHTSA  has  therefore  found  it 
reasonable  to  require  manufacturers  to  design 
their  vehicles,  including  the  front  and  rear 
bumper  systems,  in  such  a  manner  that  specified 
safety-related  systems  suffer  no  damage,  remain 
in  proper  adjustment,  and  continue  to  operate  in 
the  normal  manner. 

One  clarifying  amendment  has  been  adopted 
as  a  result  of  comments  on  the  requirement  of 
S5.3.1  that  the  vehicle  "shall  comply  with  the 
applicable  visibility  requirements  of  section 
S4.3.1.1  of  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No. 
108."  Ford  suggested  that  the  quoted  language 
might  not  cover  the  appropriate  aspects  of  light- 
ing performance,  and  therefore  requested  a  refer- 
ence to  Table  III  of  Standard  No.  108.  Upon 
review  of  the  question,  the  NHTSA  agrees  that 
the  comprehensive  nature  of  S5.3.1  should  be 
more  strongly  indicated,  but  finds  that  the  omis-      ^ 


PART  571;  S  215— PRE  8 


sion  of  some  categories  of  lights  from  Table  III 
make  it  an  inadequate  reference.  Instead,  it 
has  been  decided  to  strike  the  limiting  reference 
to  section  S4.3.1.1  of  Standard  No.  108  and  to 
refer  broadly  to  the  "applicable  requirements  of 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  108."'  Use 
of  this  more  general  phrase  makes  the  reference 
to  the  headlamp  adjusment  requirements  un- 
necessary and  that  sequence  is  accordingly  de- 
leted. 

In  a  separate  petition  for  rulemaking,  Amer- 
ican Motors  has  requested  an  amendment  to 
Ijermit  the  removal  during  pendulum  tests,  of 
"bumper  protective  strips"  made  of  resilient  ma- 
terial with  specified  characteristics.  Although 
the  NHTSA  recognizes  that  resilient  materials 
may  be  used  to  advantage  on  automobile  bumpers, 
it  regards  the  June  22  amendment  of  the  impact 


EffacHva:  S*pl*mb*r   1,   1972 
(Except  as  neltd  In  rule) 

ridge  as  the  most  satisfactory  means  of  per- 
mitting such  materials.  By  permitting  removal 
of  such  materials  during  testing  the  standard 
would  no  longer  effectively  control  the  contour 
of  the  vehicle's  bumper  and  its  interaction  with 
other  vehicles  during  low  speed  impacts.  The 
petition  is  therefore  denied. 

By  reason  of  the  foregoing,  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  215,  Exterior  Protection, 
is  amended.  .  .  . 

Effective  date:  September  1,  1972,  except  as 
otherwise  noted  in  S5.2. 

Issued  on  October  18,  1971. 

Charles  H.  Hartman 
Acting  Administrator 

36   F.R.  20369 
October   21,    1971 


PART  571;  S  215— PRE  9-10 


Effactiv*:  SspUmbvr   1,    1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  215 

Exterior  Protection 
(Docket  No.   1-9  and   1-10;  Notice  8) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  respond  to 
petitions  requesting  reconsideration  of  certain 
amendments  to  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  215,  Exterior  Protection,  49  CFR 
§571.215,  issued  on  October  18,  1971  (36  F.R. 
20369,  October  21,  1971).  After  issuance  of  the 
amendments,  petitions  were  filed  pursuant  to  49 
CFR  553.35  by  American  Motors,  Ford,  General 
Motors,  and  Chrysler.  The.  petitions  are  granted 
in  part  and  denied  in  part. 

Each  of  the  petitioners  objected  to  the  amend- 
ment of  section  S5.3.1.  The  section  had  formerly 
provided  that,  after  impact,  the  vehicle's  lamps 
and  reflectors  had  to  meet  the  visibility  require- 
ments of  S4.3.1.1  of  the  Standard  No.  108.  Upon 
closer  review  of  S5.3.1,  the  NHTSA  concluded 
that  the  breadth  of  the  protection  that  the  section 
was  intended  to  require  might  not  be  adequately 
conveyed  by  referring  only  to  Standard  No.  108's 
visibility  requirements.  It  was  therefore  decided 
to  broaden  the  reference  to  Standard  No.  108, 
to  refer  to  "the  applicable  requirements"  of  that 
standard. 

The  broadening  of  the  reference  to  Standard 
No.  108  appears  to  have  had  a  greater  impact  on 
manufacturers  than  was  expected.  After  review 
of  the  petitions,  the  NHTSA  has  concluded  that 
opportunity  should  be  given  for  additional  com- 
ment on  the  subject  of  lighting.  The  language 
of  S5.3.1  is  therefore  changed  to  its  original 
form.  In  a  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  pub- 
lished today  in  the  Federal  Register  (36  F.R. 
23831)  amendments  are  proposed  to  S5.1  and 
S5.3.1  that  will  require  vehicles  manufactured 
after  September  1,  1973,  to  meet  the  photometric 
requirements  of  Standard  No.  108,  as  well  as  the 
visibility  requirements. 

The  Ford  Motor  Company  stated  that  the  re- 
quirement of  S5.3.4  that  "the  vehicle's  exhaust 


system  shall  have  no  leaks  or  constrictions," 
would  preclude  the  use  of  drip  holes  to  remove 
condensation  and,  in  addition,  would  not  allow 
constrictions  where  tubing  must  be  bent  for 
proper  routing.  Standard  No.  215  is  not  in- 
tended to  prohibit  such  design  features,  but  only 
to  prohibit  damage  resulting  from  the  impacts 
specified  in  the  standard.  Accordingly,  design 
drip  holes  are  not  considered  to  be  "leaks,"  and 
"constrictions"  does  not  include  the  normal  de- 
sign configuration  of  the  exhaust  system.  The 
amendment  requested  by  Ford  is  considered  un- 
necessary, and  the  petition  is  therefore  denied. 

General  Motors  objected  to  the  requirement  of 
S5.3.5  that  specified  vehicle  systems  shall  "suffer 
no  damage."  The  company  stated  that  the 
phrase  was  not  objective  and  was  therefore  in- 
appropriate for  a  standard.  On  reconsideration, 
the  NHTSA  has  concluded  that  the  other  protec- 
tive requirements  of  S5.3.1  afford  adequate  pro- 
tection and  that  the  benefits  resulting  from  the 
no-damage  requirement  are  not  significant 
enough  to  justify  its  continuance  as  part  of  the 
standard.  85.3.5  is  therefore  amended  by  de- 
leting the  phrase  "suffer  no  damage." 

In  its  petition.  General  Motors  repeated  its 
objection  to  the  requirement  for  corner  impacts 
at  heights  below  20  inches  (S7.2.2).  As  in  its 
previous  comments  on  the  subject,  the  company 
requested  an  amendment  to  permit  contact  with 
Plane  A  of  the  test  device  in  such  impacts.  The 
NHTSA  has  previously  rejected  this  request,  ai  1 
on  reconsideration  finds  no  sufficient  cause  to 
alter  its  position.  A  primary  effect  of  requiring 
impacts  below  20  inches  is  to  establish  a  fairly 
broad  and  non-hostile  surface  at  the  vehicle's 
corners.  The  shape  of  the  impact  ridge  is  such 
that  if  the  no-contact  requirement  applied  only 


PART  571;  S  215— PRE  11 


EfftcHv*:  Svptambar  1,   1972 

at   the  20-inch  height,  the  standard  would  not  The  foregoing  amendments  are  issued  under     | 

prevent  the  manufacture  of  bumpers  with  blade  tlie  authority  of  sections  103  and  119  of  the  Na-     ^ 

type  corners.     The  NHTSA  considers  that  the  tional  Traffic  and  Motor  "Vehicle  Safety  Act,  15 

extension  of  time   previously  granted   for  con-  U.S.C.  1392,  1407  and  the  delegation  of  authority 

formity  with  S7.2.2   (to  September  1,  1975)   is  at  49  CFR  1.51. 

adequate  for  the  redesign  of  sheet  metal,  if  this  Issued  on  December  9,  1971. 

is  necessary,  and  declines  to  amend  the  standard 

further  with  respect  to  corner  impacts.  Charles  H.  Hartman 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing.  Motor  Ve-  Acting  Administrator 
hide  Safety  Standard  No.  215,  Exterior  Protec- 
tion, §  571.215  of  Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Reg-  36  F.R.  23802 
ulations,  is  amended.   .   .  .  December  15,   1971 


PART  571;  S  215— PRE  12 


Effccllv*:   StpUmbtr    I,    1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO   MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  215 

Exterior  Protection 
(Docket  No.   1-9;   NoHce   11) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  (a)  to  amend 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  215,  Exterior 
Protection,  49  CFR  §  571.215,  to  permit  the  re- 
moval of  bumper  hitches  during  the  required 
impacts;  (b)  to  amend  the  headlamp  adjustment 
requirements  of  S5.3.1  of  the  standard;  and  (c) 
to  terminate  rulemaking  with  respect  to  other 
amendments  proposed  to  S5.3.1  of  the  standard 
by  notice  of  December  15,  1971  (36  F.R.  23831). 

The  amendment  to  permit  removal  of  trailer 
hitches  was  proposed  on  January  22,  1972  (37 
F.R.  1059)  in  response  to  a  petition  for  rule- 
making by  General  Motors,  who  stated  that  fac- 
tory installation  of  trailer  hitches  would  have  to 
be  discontinued  if  their  removal  were  not  per- 
mitted during  testing.  In  proposing  the  amend- 
ment, the  agency  noted  that  if  factory  installation 
were  to  cease,  as  appeared  likely,  the  effect  would 
probably  be  to  increase  the  number  of  hitches 
installed  after  purchase. 

Two  comments  expressed  reservations  about 
the  proposal.  The  Automobile  Club  of  Southern 
California  expressed  concern  about  the  effects  of 
the  trailer  hitch  on  the  fuel  tank  in  rear  end 
collisions.  The  Center  for  Auto  Safety  stated 
that  the  proper  functioning  of  a  trailer  hitch  is 
essential  for  safe  towing  and  that  the  hitch  should 
therefore  be  regulated  in  the  same  manner  as 
the  other  safety  systems  specified  in  the  standard. 
Even  if  the  standard  were  to  apply  to  hitches, 
however,  the  applicable  requirement  would  be  the 
non-contact  requirement  of  S5.3.6,  and  it  is  not 
at  all  certain  that  compliance  with  this  require- 
ment would  produce  a  superior  trailer  hitch. 
The  discontinuance  of  factory  installations  would 
probably  not  improve  the  situation  in  any  case. 
The  improvements  in  trailer  hitches  which  the 
Center  and  the  Automobile  Club  seek  would  thus 
appear  to  lie  outside  the  scope  of  Standard  No. 


215.      The    proposed    amendment    is    therefore 
being  adopted  as  proposed. 

In  response  to  the  proposal,  a  question  has  been 
raised  concerning  the  intent  of  the  requirement 
that  "the  aim  of  each  headlamp  shall  be  adjust- 
able in  accordance  with  the  applicable  require- 
ments of  Standard  No.  108".  General  Motors 
stated  that  the  reference  should  be  more  specific 
and  suggested  a  reference  to  Table  1  of  SAE 
Recommended  Practice  J599b,  Lighting  Inspec- 
tion Code.  American  Motors  stated  that  it  con- 
siders two  of  the  SAE  Standards  subreferenced 
by  Standard  No.  108— SAE  J579a  and  J580a— 
to  be  based  entirely  on  laboratory  bench  tests  and 
not  ujwn  on-vehicle  tests. 

This  agency  disagrees  with  American  Motors, 
and  considers  J580a  to  be  an  on-vehicle  test  as 
well  as  a  laboratory  bench  test.  It  has  concluded, 
however,  that  J580a  and  the  other  SAE  Stand- 
ards referenced  by  Standard  No.  108  are  less 
suited  to  the  purposes  of  Standard  No.  215  than 
are  the  provisions  of  the  lighting  inspection  pro- 
cedure of  SAE  J599b.  Standard  No.  215  is  in- 
tended to  protect  the  headlamps  so  that  they  can 
be  adjusted  to  throw  a  satisfactory  pattern  of 
light.  Accordingly,  it  has  been  decided  to  amend 
the  last  sentence  of  S5.3.1  of  Standard  No.  215 
to  refer  to  the  table  in  SAE  Recommended  Prac- 
tice J599b  that  sets  out  the  aiming  requirements 
for  headlamps. 

The  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking,  published 
on  December  15,  1971,  proposed  to  require  the 
lights  to  be  operable  after  the  test  impacts  and 
to  require  them  to  meet  the  photometric  require- 
ments of  Standard  No.  108.  Upon  review  of  the 
comments  and  further  evaluation  of  the  potential 
effects  of  the  proposed  requirements,  it  has  been 
concluded   that   neither   is   likely   to   produce   a 


PART  571;  S  215— PRE  13 


Effective:   September    1,    1972 


significant  upgrading  of  vehicle  protection,  and 
that  their  costs  would  far  outweigh  their  benefits. 

The  preamble  to  the  notice  indicated  that  the 
intent  of  the  operability  requirement  was  to  pre- 
vent filament  breakage.  Most  of  the  comments 
pointed  out  that  the  SAE  requirements  incor- 
porated by  Standard  No.  108  do  not  prohibit 
filament  failure  during  endurance  tests,  and  in 
fact  expressly  permit  replacement  in  the  event 
of  failure.  This  is  consistent  with  the  prevailing 
treatment  of  bulb  replacement  as  a  part  of  rou- 
tine maintenance.  In  light  of  this  fact,  and  of 
the  small  amount  of  time  and  energy  involved 
in  replacing  a  bulb,  it  has  been  decided  hot  to 
adopt  the  proposed  requirement  that  the  lamps 
(e.e.,  the  bulbs)  be  operable. 

The  photometric  requirements  of  Standard  No. 
108  are  those  of  several  SAE  lighting  standards. 
Each  of  these  standards  consists  of  a  series  of 
laboratory  test  procedures.  On  review  of  the 
comments,  which  are  unanimous  in  their  claim 
that  the  SAE  laboratory  procedures  are  difficult 
to  adapt  to  the  circumstances  of  Standard  No. 
215  and  that  they  go  beyond  the  stated  purpose 
of  the  standard,  it  has  been  decided  not  to  adopt 


the  photometric  requirements.  Thus,  the  protec- 
tive criteria  with  respect  to  lighting  will  con- 
tinue to  be  visibility,  headlamp  aiming,  and 
freedom  from  cracks. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  215,  Exterior  Protec- 
tion, 49  CFR  §  571.215,  is  amended  .... 

Effective  date:  September  1, 1972. 

Because  this  amendment  modifies  an  existing 
rule  in  a  manner  that  imposes  no  additional 
substantive  requirements,  it  is  found  for  good 
cause  shown  that  an  effective  date  less  than  180 
days  from  the  date  of  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,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407, 
and  the  delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51. 

Issued  on  August  14, 1972. 

Douglas  W.   Toms 
Administrator 

37  F.R.  16803 
August  19,  1972 


PART  571;  S  215— PRE  14 


Effective:   March    1,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO   MOTOR  VEHfCLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   215 


Exterior  Protection 
(Docket  No.  74-11;   Notice   3) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  umencl  Stand- 
ard Xo.  215,  Exterior  Protection^  to  regulate  the 
performance  of  pressure  vessels  used  in  exterior 
protection  systems. 

In  a  notice  published  Se^jtember  1,  1972  (37 
F.R.  17858),  it  was  proposed  that  pressure  ves- 
sels be  required  to  absorb  impact  energy  by  the 
accumulation  of  air  or  hydraulic  pressure  to 
withstand  the  specified  test  impacts  without  re- 
leasing pressure  to  the  atmosphere.  Tlie  objec- 
tive of  this  proposal  was  twofold:  to  insure 
consistency  in  the  regulation  of  jiressure  devices 
on  motor  vehicles  by  preempting  State  and  local 
regulations,  and  to  establish  a  criterion  that 
would  represent  a  safe  level  of  performance  for 
such  devices. 

The  National  Committee  on  Uniform  Traffic 
Laws  and  Ordinances  disagreed  with  what  it 
saw  to  be  a  policy  of  regulation  for  the  purpose 
of  preempting  State  laws  and  regulations.  Al- 
though the  XHTSA  is  of  the  o[)inion  that  regu- 
lation for  the  purpose  of  preemption  is  sometimes 
necessary,  the  necessitating  circumstances  do  not 
often  arise.  In  the  present  case,  liowever.  it 
appeared  tlie  development  of  pressure  vessels  to 
meet  Standard  Xo.  215  was  inhibited  by  the 
existence  of  State  and  local  regulations,  most  of 
whicli  had  been  adopted  for  other  purposes  and 
only  incidentally  aifected  veliicles.  It  furtlier 
api^eared  that  the  test  procedures  of  the  stand- 
ard afforded  a  good  means  of  testing  the  safety 
of  the  devices  and  that  the  preemption  of  State 
and  local  regulations  woidd  tlierefore  not  lower 
the  level  of  public  safety.  Under  these  cii'cum- 
stances  iDreemption  is  considered  appropriate. 

The  principal  objection  to  the  proposal  was 
that   it  required  a  higher  level   of  performance 


than  necessary  to  accomplish  the  intended  safety 
goal  of  protecting  bystanders  from  injury.  It 
was  pointed  out  in  the  comments  that  the  pro- 
posed prohibition  against  pressure  loss  covdd  be 
construed  to  bar  the  release  of  pressure  by  safety 
release  valves  or  by  other  means  that  do  not 
present  a  hazard.  In  addition.  Rolls  Royce 
noted  that  in  situations  where  pressure  vessels 
are  relied  upon  as  an  aspect  of  a  vehicle's  ex- 
terior protection  system,  any  substantial  pressure 
loss  would  result  in  a  failure  to  satisfy  the  dam- 
age criteria  specified  for  the  multiple  test  im- 
pacts. The  XHTSA  finds  merit  in  these 
observations  and  has  concluded  that  regulation 
of  pressure  vessels  should  be  limited  to  the  type 
of  destructive  failure  that  could  endanger  by- 
standers. It  has  been  determined  that  the  de- 
sired degree  of  safety  can  be  achieved  by 
preventing  loss  of  i)ressure  during  testing  when 
it  is  accompanied  by  separation  of  fragments 
from  the  vessel,  since  it  is  these  fragments  that 
pose  the  potential  safety  hazard. 

The  proposed  amendment  has  been  altered  in 
another,  less  significant,  respect  by  adding  the 
phrase  ''in  an  exterior  protection  system"  as  part 
of  the  description  of  the  device  regulated  by  the 
section.  Several  comments  expressed  concern 
that  shock  absorbers  could  ]ia\e  been  included 
within  the  proposed  description.  The  quoted 
phrase  has  been  added  to  make  it  clear  that  shock 
absorbers  and  similar  devices  are  not  i-egulated 
by  the  pressure  vessel  performance  criteria.  A 
further  suggestion  concerning  the  substitution  of 
tlie  term  "pressure  vessel"  for  "device"  has  also 
been  adopted. 

Section  S5.2  is  amended  to  reflect  the  addition 
of  the  new  requirement  in  S5.3. 


PART  571;  S  215— PRE  15 


Effective:   March    1,    1975 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  ilotor  Ve-  Issued  on  August  7,  1974. 

hide  Safety  Standard  No.  215,  Extenov  Protec-  J'xmes   B    Gre"orv 

tion  (49  CFR  571.215),  is  amended  ....  Administrator  " 

Effective  date:  March  1.  1975. 

OQ    c  p      9Q3AQ 

(Sees.   103,  119,  Pub.  L.  89-563.  80  Stat.  718  ";  , I    iQ7d 

(15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407);  delegation  of  authority  August  15,  1974 

at  49  CFR  1.51.) 


PART  571:  S  215— PRE  16 


Effective:   September    1,    1974 


PREAMBLE    TO    AMENDMENT  TO    MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD   NO.   215 

(Docket  No.   74-11;   Notice   5) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  amend  Stand- 
ard No.  215,  Exterioi'  Protection^  by  extending 
the  current  exception  of  certain  vehicles  with 
wlieelbases  of  115  inches  or  less  from  the  pen- 
dulum impact  requirements  until  November  1, 
1974. 

Responding  to  a  petition  submitted  by  General 
Motors,  the  NHTSA  proposed  a  brief  delay  in 
the  application  of  the  jjendulum  impact  require- 
ments to  convertibles,  vehicles  with  no  B-pillars, 
and  vehicles  with  no  rear  seat  having  wheelbases 
of  115  inches  or  less  (39  F.R.  29600,  August  16, 
1974).  In  its  petition  General  Motors  explained 
that  a  work  stoppage  at  its  St.  Louis,  Missouri 
manufacturing  plant  appeared  certain  to  delay 
the  build-out  of  its  1974  model  Corvettes  beyond 
the  current  August  31,  1974  termination  of  the 
115-inch  wheelbase  exception.  They  pointed  out 
that  denial  of  the  requested  extension  would  in- 
volve the  scrappagc  of  some  scarce  materials, 
such  as  polyvinyl  chloride  and  other  petrochemi- 
cals, which  are  not  capable  of  modification  for 
use  in  vehicles  subject  to  the  pendulum  require- 
ments. 


No  comments  were  received  in  opposition  to 
the  proposal.  The  NHTSA  has  determined  that 
the  General  Motors  request  should  be  granted, 
having  concluded  that  the  extension  will  have 
no  materially  adverse  effect  on  motor  vehicle 
safety  and  will  prevent  waste  of  scarce  materials 
which  have  already  been  committed  for  1974 
Corvette  model  i)rodnction. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing  S5.2.2  of 
Standard  No.  215  (49  CFR  571.215)  is 
amended  .... 

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  August  29,  1974. 


James    B.    Gregory 
Administrator 

39  F.R.  31641 
August  30,  1974 


PART  571;  S  21.5— PRE  17-18 


Effective:   May    13,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  215 

Exterior  Protection 
(Docket  No.  74-11;  Notice   10) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  amend  Stand- 
ard No.  215,  Exterior  Protection,  49  CFR  571.215, 
to  reduce  the  number  of  longitudinal  pendulimi 
impacts  and  to  delay  for  one  year  until  Septem- 
ber 1,  1976,  the  application  of  the  low-comer  im- 
pact requirements  to  vehicles  with  wheelbases 
exceeding  120  inches. 

On  March  12,  1975,  the  National  Highway 
Traffic  Safety  Administration  (NHTSA)  pub- 
lished a  notice  (40  F.E.  11598)  proposing  a 
reduction  in  the  number  of  front  and  rear  longi- 
tudinal pendulum  impacts  from  six  to  two. 
The  notice  also  proposed  a  1-year  postponement 
of  the  September  1,  1975,  effective  date  of  the 
low-comer  impact  requirements  as  they  apply  to 
''full-sized"  vehicles  (with  wheelbases  in  excess 
of  120  inches) ,  in  order  to  provide  Chrysler  with 
necessary  relief  due  to  current  serious  financial 
difficulties. 

The  March  12,  1975,  notice  also  addressed  the 
proposed  Part  581  bumper  standard  by  revising 
the  damage  criteria  and  proposing  new  effective 
dates  for  implementation  of  the  Title  I,  Motor 
Vehicle  Infonnation  and  Cost  Savings  Act  (Pub. 
L.  92-513)  damageability  standard.  Since  the 
Part  581  provisions  involve  complex  issues  re- 
lating to  permissible  cosmetic  damage  and  have 
been  the  focus  of  much  detailed  comment,  the 
agency  needs  more  time  to  formulate  its  next 
rulemaking  step  in  this  area.  The  two  proposed 
revisions  of  Standard  215,  however,  have  been 
examined  in  light  of  the  comments  and  final  ac- 
tion on  them  can  now  be  taken.  The  imminence 
of  the  proposed  effective  dates  of  these  two 
amendments  makes  immediate  action  necessary. 
Therefore,  the  proposed  amendments  to  Standard 
215  are  being  addressed  in  this  notice,  while  the 


proposed  amendments  to  Part  581  remain  under 
consideration  for  action  in  a  later  notice. 

Although  most  commentei'S  supported  the  pro- 
posed reduction  in  the  number  of  longitudinal  im- 
pacts, Ford  Motor  Company  and  State  Farm 
Mutual  Insurance  Company  raised  some  objec- 
tions to  the  move.  Ford,  who  had  submitted  a 
l^etition  to  lower  the  number  of  pendulum  impacts 
to  one  front  and  one  rear,  argued  that  the 
NHTSA's  proposal  to  require  two  front  and  rear 
impacts  was  "overkill",  not  supported  by  acci- 
dent data.  On  the  other  side.  State  Form  ex- 
pressed concern  that  the  proposed  number  of 
pendulum  impacts  would  not  assure  an  adequate 
level  of  bumper  performance. 

The  NHTSA  finds  both  Ford's  and  State 
Farm's  arguments  without  merit.  NHTSA 
studies  show  that  a  passenger  car  is  involved  in 
an  average  of  slightly  more  than  two  low-speed 
bumper-involved  accidents  in  its  10-year  life.  In 
light  of  this,  a  bumper's  capability  to  provide 
adequate  protection  would  not  be  assured  by  one 
longitudinal  impact.  Based  on  these  accident 
statistics,  each  bumper  should  be  able  to  with- 
stand two  longitudinal  pendulum  impacts  in  or- 
der to  ensure  a  sufficient  level  of  bumper  per- 
formance. 

The  pi'oposal  to  delay  for  1  year  the  implemen- 
tation of  the  low-comer  impact  requirements  as 
they  apply  to  vehicles  with  wheelbases  over  120 
inches  met  with  criticism  from  many  commenters. 
The  main  objections  centered  on  the  alleged  un- 
fairness of  relief  being  limited  to  "full-sized" 
vehicles.  It  was  urged  that  the  1-year  suspension 
be  made  applicable  to  all  vehicles  or  that  the 
requirement  be  deleted  altogether. 

The  NHTSA  does  not  accept  these  arguments. 
The  proposal  to  delay  the  low-comer  impact  re- 


PART  571;  S  215— PRE  19 


23I-0&8   O  -  77  -  64 


Effective:   May    13,    1975 


quirements  until  September  1,  1976,  for  vehicles 
with  wheelbases  in  excess  of  120  inches  was  based 
soleljf  on  an  intent  to  provide  Chrysler  with  some 
relief  from  the  serious  financial  difficulties  it  is 
now  experiencing.  As  stated  in  the  preamble  to 
the  March  12,  1975,  notice,  tlie  redesigning  neces- 
sary' for  Chrysler  to  bring  its  "full-sized"  ve- 
hicles into  compliance  with  the  low-corner 
requirement  bj'  September  1,  1975,  would  add 
significantly  to  its  financial  burdens. 

In  past  notices  the  NHTSA  has  supported  its 
position  that  the  low-comer  impact  requirements 
assure  i^rotection  from  certain  types  of  low-speed 
collisions  which  are  frequently  encountered.  For 
this  reason,  the  requests  to  delete  permanently  the 
low-corner  impact  i-equirements  are  rejected.  In 
addition,  tlie  requests  that  the  1-year  delay  be 
applied  to  all  vehicle  types  is  rejected,  since  the 


need  for  financial  relief  expressed  by  Chrysler 
does  not  support  an  overall  suspension  of  the 
provision.  To  satisfy  Chrysler's  needs,  only  "full- 
sized"  cars  need  be  affected. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  S5.2.1  and 
S7.1  of  Standard  No.  215,  Exterioi'  Protection 
(49  CFR  571.215)   are  amended.  .  .  . 

Elective  date:  May  13,  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  May  7,  1975. 

James  B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

40  F.R.  20823 
May  13,  1975 


^ 


PART  571;  S  216— PRE  20 


^ 


Effective:    September    1,    1972 
September    1,    1973 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  215 

Exterior  Protection — Passenger  Cors 

(Docket  Nos.    1-9  and    1-10;   Notice  No.   4) 


51.  Scope.  This  standard  establishes  require- 
ments for  the  impact  resistance  and  the  con- 
figuration of  front  and  rear  vehicle  surfaces. 

52.  Purpose.  The  purpose  of  this  standard  is 
to  prevent  low-speed  collisions  from  impairing 
the  safe  oi:>eration  of  vehicle  systems,  and  to  re- 
duce the  frequency  of  override  or  underride  in 
liigher  speed  collisions. 

53.  Application.  This  standard  applies  to  pas- 
senger cars. 

54.  Definition.  All  terms  defined  in  the  Act 
and  the  niles  and  standards  issued  under  its  au- 
thority are  used  as  defined  therein. 

55.  Requirements. 

55.1  Vehicles  manufactured  on  or  after  Septem- 
ber 1,  1972. 

Each  vehicle  manufactured  on  or  after  Sep- 
tember 1,  1972,  shall  meet  the  protective  criteria 
of  S5.3.1  through  S5.3.4  when  it  impacts  a  fixed 
collision  barrier  that  is  perpendicular  to  the  line 
of  travel  of  the  vehicle,  while  traveling  longitu- 
dinally forward  at  5  mph  and  while  traveling 
longitudinally  rearward  at  21^  mph,  under  the 
conditions  of  S6.1. 

55.2  Vehicles  manufactured  on  or  after  Sep- 
tember 1,  1973. 

[Except  as  provided  in  S5.2.1  and  S5.2.2,  each 
vehicle  manufactured  on  or  after  September  1, 
1973,  shall  meet  the  protective  criteria  of  So. 3.1 
through  S5.3.7  during  and  after  impacts  by  a 
pendulum-type  test  device  in  accordance  with  the 
procedures  of  S7.1  and  S7.2  followed  by  impacts 
into  a  fixed  collision  barrier  that  is  perpendicular 
to  the  line  of  travel  of  the  vehicle,  while  travel- 
ing longitudinally  forward  at  5  mph  and  while 
traveling  longitudinally  rearward  at  5  mph  un- 
der the  conditions  of  S6.  (39  F.R.  29369— 
August  15,  1974.     Effective:  3/1/75)] 


55.2.1  [The  corner-impact  procedure  of  S7.2.2 
shall  not  apply  to  any  vehicle  with  a  wheelbase 
exceeding  120  inches  manufactured  from  Septem- 
ber 1,  1973  to  August  31,  1976.  (40  F.R.  20823— 
May  13,  1975.    Effective:  5/13/75)] 

55.2.2  [The  fixed  collision  barrier  impact  re- 
quirements of  S5.2  shall  apply,  but  the  pendulum 
impact  requirements  of  S5.2  shall  not  apply  to 
each  vehicle  manufactured  from  September  1, 
1973  to  October  31,  1974,  that  has  a  wheelbase 
of  115  inches  or  less  and  that  either — 

(a)  Has  a  convertible  top; 

(b)  Has  no  roof  support  structure  between  the 
A-pillar  and  the  rear  roof  support  structure;  or 

(c)  Has  no  designated  seating  position  behind 
the  front  designated  seating  positions. 

(39    F.R.    31641— August    30,    1974.      Effective: 

9/1/74)] 

S5.3    Protective   criteria. 

55.3.1  [Each  lamp  or  reflective  device,  except 
license  plate  lamps,  shall  be  free  of  cracks  and 
shall  comply  with  the  applicable  visibility  re- 
quirements of  S4.3.1.1  of  Standard  No.  108 
(§  571.108  of  this  part).  The  aim  of  each  head- 
lamp shall  be  adjustable  to  within  the  beam  aim 
inspection  limits  specified  in  Table  2  of  SAE 
Recommended  Practice  J599b,  July  1970,  meas- 
ured with  a  mechanical  aimer  conforming  to  the 
requirements  of  SAE  Standard  J602a,  July  1970. 
(37  F.R.  16803— August  19,  1972.  Eff'ective: 
9/1/72)] 

55.3.2  Tlie  \ehicle"s  hood,  trunk,  and  doors 
shall  operate  in  the  normal  manner. 

55.3.3  The  veliiole's  fuel  and  cooling  systems 
shall  have  no  leaks  or  constricted  fluid  passages 
and  all  sealing  devices  and  caps  shall  operate  in 
the  normal  manner. 


(Rev.    5/7/75) 


PART  571 ;  S  215-1 


Effective:   September    1,    1972 
September    1,    1973 

55.3.4  Tlie  vehicle's  exhaust  system  shall  have 
no  leaks  or  constrictions. 

55.3.5  [The  vehicle's  propulsion,  suspension, 
steering,  and  braking  systems  shall  remain  in  ad- 
justment and  shall  operate  in  the  normal  manner. 
(36  F.E.  23802— December  15,  1971.  Effective: 
September  1,  1972)]* 

55.3.6  The  vehicle  shall  not  touch  the  test  de- 
vice except  on  the  impact  ridge  shown  in  Figures 
1  and  2.  (36  F.R.  20369— October  21,  1971. 
Effective:   9/1/72,  except  as  noted  in  S5.2)] 

[S5.3.7  A  pressure  vessel  used  to  absorb  im- 
pact energy  in  an  exterior  protection  system  by 
the  accumulation  of  gas  pressure  or  hydraulic 
pressure  shall  not  suffer  loss  of  gas  or  fluid  ac- 
companied by  separation  of  fragments  from  the 
vessel.  (39  F.R.  29369— August  15,  1974.  Ef- 
fective: 3/1/75)] 

S6.  Conditions.  The  vehicle  shall  meet  the 
requirements  of  S5  under  the  following  condi- 
tions. 

56.1  General. 

56.1.1  The  vehicle  is  at  unloaded  vehicle 
weight. 

56.1.2  The  front  wheels  are  parallel  to  the 
vehicle's  longitudinal  centerline. 

56.1.3  Tires  are  inflated  to  the  vehicle  manu- 
facturer's recommended  pressure  for  the  specified 
loading  condition. 

56.1.4  Brakes  are  disengaged  and  the  trans- 
mission is  in  neutral. 

[S6.1.5  Trailer  hitches  are  removed  from  the 
vehicle.  (37  F.R.  16803— August  19,  1972.  Ef- 
fective: 9/1/72)1 

56.2  Pendulum  test  conditions.  The  follow- 
ing conditions  apply  to  tlie  pendulum  test  pro- 
cedures of  S7.1  and  S7.2. 

56.2.1  The  test  device  consists  of  a  block  with 
one  side  contoured  as  specified  in  Figure  1  and 
Figure  2  with  the  impact  ridge  made  of  hardened 
steel. 

56.2.2  With  plane  A  vertical,  the  impact  line 
shown  in  Figures  1  and  2  is  horizontal  at  the 
same  height  as  the  test  device's  center  of  percus- 
sion. 


*S5.2  through  S5.3.6  were  amended  October  21,  1971. 
S5.3.1  and  S5.3.5  were  subsequently  amended  36  F.R. 
23802— December   15,    1971 


\«-R 


V 


.-PLANE  e 


Q  12'  R  >^ 

I  IMPACT 

y   ■ TANGENT  RIDGE 


FRONT  VIEW 


56.2.3  The  effective  impacting  mass  of  the  test 
device  is  equal  to  the  mass  of  the  tested  vehicle. 

56.2.4  Wlien  impacted  by  the  test  device,  the 
vehicle  is  at  rest  on  a  level,  rigid  concrete  surface. 

[S6.3   Barrier  test  condition.     At  the  onset  of  a 

barrier  impact,  tlie  vehicle's  engine  is  operating 
at  idling  speed.  (36  F.R.  20369— October  21, 
1971.     ElTective:  9/1/72)] 

S7.  Test  procedures. 

S7.1  Longitudinal  impact  test  procedures.  [Im- 
pact the  vehicle's  front  surface  and  its  rear  sur- 
face two  times  each  with  the  impact  line  at  any 
lieight  between  20  inches  and  16  inches,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  following  procedure.  (40  F.R. 
20823— May  13,  1975.    Effective  date:  5/13/75)] 


V 


\.R 


G5) 


FRONT  VIEW 


(Rev.    5/7/75) 


PART  571;  S  215-2 


57.1.1  For  impacts  at  a  height  of  20  inches, 
l^lace  the  test  de\ice  sliown  in  Figure  1  so  that 
plane  A  is  vertical  and  the  impact  line  is  hori- 
zontal at  the  specified  height. 

57.1.2  For  impacts  at  a  height  between  20 
inches  and  16  inches,  place  the  test  device  shown 
in  figure  2  so  that  plane  A  is  vertical  and  the  im- 
pact line  is  horizontal  at  a  height  within  the 
range. 

57.1.3  For  each  impact,  position  the  test  de- 
vice so  that  the  impact  line  is  at  least  2  inches 
apart  in  vertical  direction  from  its  position  in 
any  prior  impact,  unless  the  midpoint  of  the 
impact  line  with  respect  to  the  vehicle  is  to  be 
more  than  12  inches  apart  laterally  from  its 
position  in  any  prior  impact. 

57.1.4  For  each  impact,  align  the  vehicle  so 
that  it  touches,  but  does  not  move,  the  test  device, 
with  the  vehicle's  longitudinal  centerline  per- 
pendicular to  the  plane  that  includes  plane  A  of 
the  test  device  and  with  the  test  device  inboard 
of  the  vehicle  corner  test  positions  specified  in 
S7.2. 

[S7.1.5  !Move  the  test  device  away  from  the  ve- 
hicle, then  release  it  so  that  plane  A  remains 
vertical  from  release  until  the  onset  of  reboiuid, 
and  the  arc  described  by  any  point  on  the  im- 
pact line  is  constant,  with  a  radius  of  not  less 
than  11  feet,  and  lies  in  a  plane  parallel  to  the 
vertical  plane  through  the  vehicle's  longitudinal 
centerline.     (36  F.R.  8734— May  12,  1971)] 

57.1.6  [Impact  the  vehicle  at  5  mph.  (36 
F.R.      20369— October      21,      1971.        Effective: 

9/1/72)] 

57.1.7  Perform  the  impacts  at  intervals  of  not 
less  than  30  minutes. 


Effective:    September    1,    1972 
September    1,    1973 

S7.2  Corner  impact  test  procedure.  Impact  a 
front  corner  and  a  rear  corner  of  the  vehicle 
once  each  with  the  impact  line  at  a  height  of  20 
inches  and  impact  the  other  front  corner  and 
the  other  rear  corner  once  each  with  the  impact 
line  at  any  height  between  20  inches  and  16 
inches  in  accordance  with  the  following  pro- 
cedure. 

57.2.1  For  an  impact  at  a  height  of  20  inches, 
place  the  test  device  shown  in  figure  1  so  that 
plane  A  is  vertical  and  the  impact  line  is  hori- 
zontal at  the  specified  height. 

57.2.2  For  an  impact  at  a  height  between  20 
inches  and  16  inches,  place  the  test  device  shown 
in  figure  2  so  that  plane  A  is  vertical  and  the 
impact  line  is  horizontal  at  a  height  within  the 
range. 

57.2.3  Align  the  vehicle  so  that  a  vehicle 
corner  touches,  but  does  not  move,  the  lateral 
center  of  the  test  device  with  plane  A  of  the 
test  device  forming  an  angle  of  60  degrees  with 
a  vertical  longitudinal  plane. 

57.2.4  Move  the  test  device  away  from  the 
vehicle,  then  release  it  so  that  plane  A  remains 
\ertical  from  release  until  the  onset  of  rebound, 
and  the  arc  described  by  any  point  on  the  im- 
pact line  is  constant,  with  a  radius  of  not  less 
than  11  feet,  and  lies  in  a  vertical  plane  at  an 
angle  of  30°  to  the  vertical  plane  through  the 
vehicle's  longitudinal  centerline. 

57.2.5  Impact  each  corner  at  3  mph. 

36   F.R.   7218 
April   16,  1971 

36  F.R.   8734 
May   12,   1971 


(Rev.   Oct.    1971) 


PART  571;  S  215-3 


w- 


^ 


Effactivc:   Augud   IS,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  216 

Roof  Crush  Resistance — Passenger  Cars 

(Docket  No.  2-6;  Notice  5) 


The  purpose  of  this  amendment  to  Part  571 
of  Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  is  to 
add  a  new  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  216, 
(49  CFR  §  571.216)  that  sets  minimum  strength 
requirements  for  a  passenger  car  roof  to  reduce 
the  likelihood  of  roof  collapse  in  a  rollover  acci- 
dent. The  standard  provides  an  alternative  to 
conformity  with  the  rollover  test  of  Standard 
208. 

A  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  on  this  sub- 
ject was  issued  on  January  6,  1971  (36  F.R.  166). 
As  noted  in  that  proposal,  the  strength  of  a  ve- 
hicle roof  affects  the  integrity  of  the  passenger 
compartment  and  the  safety  of  the  occupants. 
A  few  comments  suggested  that  there  is  no 
significant  causal  relationship  between  roof  de- 
formation and  occupant  injuries  in  rollover  acci- 
dents. However,  available  data  have  shown  that 
for  non-ejected  front  seat  occupants  in  rollover 
accidents,  serious  injuries  are  more  frequent 
when  the  roof  collapses. 

The  roof  crush  standard  will  provide  protec- 
tion in  rollover  accidents  by  improving  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  door,  side  window,  and  windshield 
retention  areas.  Preserving  the  overall  structure 
of  the  vehicle  in  a  crash  decreases  the  likelihood 
of  occupant  ejection,  reduces  the  hazard  of  oc- 
cupant interior  impacts,  and  enhances  occupant 
egress  after  the  accident.  It  has  been  deter- 
mined, therefore,  that  improved  roof  strength 
will  increase  occupant  protection  in  rollover 
accidents. 

Standard  208  (49  CFR  §571.208),  Ocnipant 
Crash  Protection,  also  contains  a  rollover  test 
requirement  for  vehicles  that  conform  to  the 
"first  option"  of  providing  complete  passive  pro- 
tection.   The  new  Standard  216  issued  herewith 


is  intended  as  an  alternative  to  the  Standard  208 
rollover  test,  such  that  manufacturers  may  con- 
form to  either  requirement  as  they  choose. 
Standard  208  is  accordingly  amended  by  this  no- 
tice; the  effect  of  the  amendment,  together  with 
the  new  Standard  216,  is  as  follows: 

(1)  From  January  1,  1972,  to  August  14, 
1973,  a  manufacturer  may  substitute  Standard 
216  for  the  rollover  test  requirement  in  the  first 
option  of  Standard  208;  Standard  216  has  no 
mandatory  application. 

(2)  From  August  15,  1973,  to  August  14, 
1977,  Standard  216  is  in  effect  as  to  all  passenger 
cars  except  those  conforming  by  passive  means 
to  the  rollover  test  of  Standard  208,  but  it  may 
continue  to  be  substituted  for  that  rollover  test. 

(3)  After  August  15,  1977,  Standard  216 
will  no  longer  be  a  substitute  for  the  Standard 
208  rollover  test.  It  is  expected  that  as  of  that 
date  Standard  216  will  be  revoked,  at  least  with 
respect  to  its  application  to  passenger  cars. 

A  few  comments  stated  that  on  some  models 
the  strength  required  in  the  A  pillar  could  be 
produced  only  by  designs  that  impair  forward 
visibility.  After  review  of  strengthening  options 
available  to  manufacturers,  the  Administration 
has  concluded  that  a  satisfactory  increase  in 
strength  can  be  obtained  without  reducing  vis- 
ibility. 

Some  comments  suggested  that  the  crush  lim- 
itation be  based  on  the  interior  deflection  of  the 
test  vehicle  rather  than  the  proposed  external  cri- 
terion, After  comparison  of  the  two  methods,  it 
has  been  concluded  that  a  test  based  on  interior 
deflection  would  produce  results  that  are  sig- 
nificantly less  uniform  and  more  difficult  to 
measure,  and  therefore  the  requirement  based  on 


PART  571;  S  216— PRE  1 


EfFacllva:  August   IS,    1973 


external   movement  of  the  test  block  has  been 
retained. 

Several  changes  in  detail  have  been  made, 
however,  in  the  test  procedure.  A  number  of 
comments  stated  that  the  surface  area  of  the 
proposed  test  device  was  too  small,  that  the 
10-degree  pitch  angle  was  too  severe,  and  that 
the  5  inches  of  padded  test  device  displacement 
was  not  enough  to  measure  the  overall  roof 
strength.  Later  data  available  after  the  issuance 
of  the  NPKM  (Notice  4)  substantiated  these 
comments.  Accordingly,  the  dimensions  of  the 
test  block  have  been  changed  from  12  inches 
square  to  30  inches  by  72  inches,  the  face  padding 
on  the  block  has  been  eliminated,  and  the  pitch 
angle  has  been  changed  from  10  degrees  to  5 
degrees. 

Several  manufacturers  asked  that  convertibles 
be  exempted  from  the  standard,  stating  that  it 
was  impracticable  for  those  vehicles  to  be  brought 
into  compliance.  The  Administration  has  deter- 
mined that  compliance  with  the  standard  would 
pose  extreme  difficulties  for  many  convertible 
models.  Accordingly,  manufacturers  of  con- 
vertibles need  not  comply  with  the  standard; 
however,  until  August  15,  1977,  they  may  comply 
with  the  standard  as  an  alternative  to  conformity 
with  the  rollover  test  of  Standard  208. 

A  few  comments  objected  to  the  optional  5,000- 
pound  ceiling  to  the  requirement  that  the  roof 
have  a  peak  resistance  of  I14  times  the  unloaded 
vehicle  weight.  Such  objections  have  some  merit, 
if  the  energy  to  be  dissipated  during  a  rollover 
accident  must  be  absorbed  entirely  by  the  crash 
vehicle.  In  the  typical  rollover  accident,  how- 
ever, in  which  the  vehicle,  rolls  onto  the  road 
shoulder,  significant  amounts  of  energy  are  ab- 
sorbed by  the  ground.  This  is  particularly  true  in 
heavier  vehicles.  Some  of  the  heavier  vehicles, 
moreover,  would  require  extensive  redesign,  at  a 
considerably  greater  cost  penalty  than  in  the 
case  of  lighter  vehicles,  to  meet  a  strength  re- 
quirement of  11/^  times  their  weight.  At  the 
same  time,  heavier  vehicles  generally  have  a 
lower  rollover  tendency  than  do  lighter  vehicles. 
On  the  basis  of  these  factors,  it  has  been  deter- 
mined that  an  upper  limit  of  5,000  pounds  on 


the  strength  requirement  is  justified,  and  it  has   /^ 
been  retained.  l     <^ 

It  was  requested  that  the  requirement  of 
mounting  the  chassis  horizontally  be  deleted.  It 
has  been  determined  that  the  horizontal  mount- 
ing position  contributes  to  the  repeatability  of 
the  test  procedure  and  the  requirement  is  there- 
fore retained. 

The  required  loading  rate  has  been  clarified 
in  light  of  the  comments.  The  requirement  has 
been  changed  from  a  rate  not  to  exceed  200 
pounds  per  second  to  a  loading  device  travel 
rate  not  exceeding  one-half  inch  per  second,  with 
completion  of  the  test  within  120  seconds. 

A  number  of  manufacturers  requested  that 
repetition  of  the  test  on  the  opposite  front  corner 
of  the  roof  be  deleted.  It  has  been  determined 
that,  as  long  as  it  is  clear  that  both  the  left  and 
right  front  portions  of  the  vehicle's  roof  struc- 
ture must  be  capable  of  meeting  the  require- 
ments, it  is  not  necessary  that  a  given  vehicle  be 
capable  of  sustaining  successive  force  applica- 
tions at  the  two  different  locations.  The  second 
test  is  accordingly  deleted. 


Effective  date :  August  15,  1973.  After  evalua- 
tion of  the  comments  and  other  information,  it 
has  been  determined  that  the  structural  changes 
required  by  the  standard  will  be  such  that  many 
manufacturers  would  be  unable  to  meet  the  re- 
quirements if  the  January  1,  1973  effective  date 
were  retained.  It  has  therefore  been  found,  for 
good  cause  shown,  that  an  effective  date  more 
than  one  year  after  issuance  is  in  the  public  in- 
terest. On  or  after  January  1,  1972,  however, 
a  manufacturer  may  substitute  compliance  with 
this  standard  for  compliance  with  the  rollover 
test  requirement  of  Standard  208. 

In  consideration  of  the  above,  the  following 
changes  are  made  in  Part  571  of  Title  49,  Code 
of  Federal  Regulations: 

1.  Standard  No.  208,  49  CFR  §  571.208,  is 
amended  by  adding  the  following  sentence  at  the 
end  of  S5.3,  Rollover:  "However,  vehicles  manu- 
factured before  August  15,  1977,  that  conform  to 
the  requirements  of  Standard  No.  216  (§  571.216) 
need  not  conform  to  this  rollover  test  require- 
ment." 


c 


PART  571;  S  216— PRE  2 


i) 


Efftctiv*:  Auguil   15,    1973 

2.  A  new  §  571.216,  Standard  No.  216  Roof  Issued  on  December  3,  1971. 

Crush  Resistance,  is  added.  . . . 

Charles   H.   Hartman 
This  rule  is  issued  under  the  authority  of  sec-  Acting  Administrator 

tions  103  and   119  of  the  National  Traffic  and 

Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407,  36  p.R.  23299 

■ind  the  delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51.  December  8,  1971 


PART  571;  S  216— PRE  3-4 


e 


( 


Effective:   September   1,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  216 

Roof  Crush  Resistance 
(Docket  No.  69-7;  Notice  29) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  postpone  the 
effective  date  of  the  requirements  of  Standards 
No.  208,  Occupant  Crash  Protection,  and  216, 
Roof  Crush  Resistance,  applicable  to  the  upcom- 
ing model  year,  from  August  15,  1973,  to  Sep- 
tember 1,  1973. 

The  amendment  of  the  effective  date  was  pro- 
posed in  a  notice  published  July  17,  1973  (38 
F.R.  19049),  in  response  to  a  petition  filed  by 
Chrysler  Corporation.  Chrysler  had  stated  that 
the  build  out  of  their  1973  models  was  in  danger 
of  running  beyond  the  August  15  date,  due  to  a 
variety  of  factors  beyond  the  company's  control. 
In  proposing  the  postponement  of  the  date,  the 
NHTSA  noted  that  the  August  15  date  had  been 
chosen  to  coincide  with  the  normal  changeover 
date  and  that  a  delay  would  not  appear  to  have 
any  effect  beyond  allowing  a  slightly  prolonged 
build-out. 

The  two  comments  submitted  in  response  to 
the  proposal  were  both  favorable.  The  agency 
has  not  discovered  any  adverse  consequences  of  a 
delay  which  would  make  it  inadvisable,  and  has 


therefore  decided  to  postpone  the  effective  date 
as  proposed. 

In  light  of  the  foregoing,  49  CFR  571.208, 
Standard  No.  208,  Occupant  Crash  Protection, 
is  amended  by  changing  the  date  of  August  14, 
1973,  appearing  in  S4.1.1  to  August  31,  1973,  and 
by  changing  the  date  of  August  15,  1973,  appear- 
ing in  S4.1.2  to  September  1,  1973.  The  effective 
date  of  49  CFR  571.216,  Standard  No.  216,  Roof 
Crush  Resistance,  is  changed  from  August  15, 
1973,  to  September  1, 1973. 

Because  this  amendment  relieves  a  restriction 
and  imposes  no  additional  burden,  an  effective 
date  of  less  than  30  days  from  the  date  of  issu- 
ance is  found  to  be  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  10, 1973. 

James  B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

38  F.R.  21930 
August  14,  1973 


PART  571;  S  216— PRE  5-6 


^ 


Effactlv*:  September   I,    1973 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  216 
ROOF  CRUSH  RESISTANCE— PASSENGER  CARS 


51 .  Scope.  This  standard  establishes  strength 
requirements  for  the  passenger  compartment 
roof. 

52.  Purpose.  The  purpose  of  this  standard  is 
to  reduce  deaths  and  injuries  due  to  the  crushing 
of  the  roof  into  the  passenger  compartment  in 
rollover  accidents. 

53.  Application.  This  standard  applies  to 
passenger  cars.  However,  it  does  not  apply  to 
vehicles  that  conform  to  the  rollover  test  require- 
ments (S5.3)  of  Standard  208  (§571.208)  by 
means  that  require  no  action  by  vehicle  occupants. 
It  also  does  not  apply  to  convertibles,  except 
for  optional  compliance  with  the  standard  as  an 
alternative  to  the  rollover  test  requirements  in 
S5.3  of  Standard  208. 

54.  Requirements.  A  test  device  as  described 
•in  S5  shall  not  move  more  than  5  inches,  meas- 
ured in  accordance  with  S6.4:,  when  it  is  used  to 
apply  a  force  of  li/^  times  the  unloaded  vehicle 
weight  of  the  vehicle  of  5,000  pounds,  whichever 
is  less,  to  either  side  or  the  forward  edge  of  a 
vehicle's  roof  in  accordance  with  the  procedures 
of  S6.  Both  the  left  and  right  front  portions  of 
the  vehicle's  roof  structure  shall  be  capable  of 
meeting  the  requirements,  but  a  particular  ve- 
hicle need  not  meet  further  requirements  after 
being  tested  at  one  location. 

55.  Test  Device.  The  test  device  is  a  rigid  un- 
yielding block  with  its  lower  surface  formed  as 
a  flat  rectangle  30  inches  X  72  inches. 

56.  Test  Procedure.  Each  vehicle  shall  be 
capable  of  meeting  the  requirements  of  S4  when 
tested  in  accordance  with  the  following  pro- 
cedure. 

56.1.  Place  the  sills  or  the  chassis  frame  of 
the  vehicle  on  a  rigid  horizontal  surface,  fix  the 
vehicle   rigidly   in  position,  close  all  windows, 


close  and  lock  all  doors,  and  secure  any  con- 
vertible top  or  removable  roof  structure  in  place 
over  the  passenger  compartment. 

S6.2.  Orient  the  test  device  as  shown  in  Figure 
1,  so  that — 

(a)  Its  longitudinal  axis  is  at  a  forward 
angle  (side  view)  of  5°  below  the  horizontal, 
and  is  parallel  to  the  vertical  plane  through  the 
vehicle's  longitudinal  c^nterline; 

(b)  Its  lateral  axis  is  at  a  lateral  outboard 
angle,  in  the  front  view  projection,  of  25°  be- 
low the  horizontal; 

(c)  Its  lower  surface  is  tangent  to  the  sur- 
face of  the  vehicle;  and 

(d)  The  initial  contact  point,  or  center  of 
the  initial  contact  area,  is  on  the  longitudinal 
centerline  of  the  lower  surface  of  the  test  device 
and  10  inches  from  the  forwardmost  point  of 
that  centerline. 


FORCE 


RIGID  HORIZONTAL  SURFACE 
FRONT  VIEW  SIDE  VIEW 

TEST  DEVICE  LOCATION  AND  APPLICATION  TO  THE  ROOF 
Figuri  1 


S6.3.  Apply  force  in  a  downward  direction 
perpendicular  to  the  lower  surface  of  the  test 
device  at  a  rate  of  not  more  than  one-half  inch 


(Kav.  8/1 0/731 


PART  571;  S  216-1 


Effective:   September    1,    1973 

per  second  until  reaching  a  force  of  IV2  times 
the  unloaded  vehicle  weight  of  the  tested  ve- 
hicle or  5,000  pounds,  whichever  is  less.  Com- 
plete the  test  within  120  seconds.  Guide  the 
test  device  so  that  throughout  the  test  it  moves, 
without  rotation,  in  a  straight  line  with  its  lower 
surface  oriented  as  specified  in  S6.2(a)  through 
S6.2(d). 


S6.4  Measure  the  distance  that  the  test  de- 
vice moves,  i.e.,  the  distance  between  the  original 
location  of  the  lower  surface  of  the  test  device 
and  its  location  as  the  force  level  specified  in 
S6.3  is  reached. 

36   F.R.   23299 
December  8,  1971 


( 


(Rev.    8/10/73) 


PART  571;  S  216-2 


EffMHv*!  Saptombar  I,  1973 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  217 

Bus  Window  Retention  and  Release 
(Dockat  Nq.  2-10;  Notics  3) 


The  purpose  of  this  amendment  to  §  571.21  of 
Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  is  to  add 
a  new  motor  vehicle  safety  standard  that  estab- 
lishes minimum  requirements  for  bus  window 
retention  and  release  to  reduce  the  likelihood  of 
passenger  ejection  in  accidents  and  enhance  pas- 
senger exit  in  emergencies. 

A  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  on  this  sub- 
ject was  published  on  August  15,  1970  (35  F.R. 
13025).  The  comments  received  in  response  to 
the  notice  have  been  considered  in  this  issuance 
of  a  final  rule. 

For  reasons  of  clarification,  the  requirements 
paragraph  has  been  reorganized  and  the  demon- 
stration procedures  paragraph  has  been  replaced 
by  a  test  conditions  paragraph.  Some  of  the 
specifications  of  the  demonstration  procedures 
paragraph  are  incorporated  under  the  require- 
ments paragraph,  and  the  remainder  are  retained 
under  the  test  conditions  paragraph.  With  the 
exception  of  the  changes  discussed  below,  the 
reorganization  does  not  affect  the  substance  of 
the  standard. 

In  altering  the  window  retention  requirements, 
the  final  rule  lowers  the  force  application  limit, 
provides  more  precise  glazing  breakage  and 
glazing  yield  limits,  and  exempts  small  windows. 
With  respect  to  the  emergency  exit  requirements, 
the  standard  permits  devices  other  than  push-out 
windows  to  be  used  for  emergency  exits,  permits 
buses  with  a  GVWR  of  10,000  pounds  or  less  to 
utilize  devices  other  than  emergency  exits  for 
emergency  egress,  and  permits  an  alternate  roof 
exit  when  the  bus  configuration  precludes  pro- 
vision of  a  rear  emergency  exit.  It  also  raises 
the  force  limits  for  release  and  extension  of 
emergency  exits,  deletes  the  inertial  load  require- 
ment for  the  release  mechanism,  and  requires 
that  emergency  exit  location  markings  be  lo- 


cated within  each  occupant  space  adjacent  to 
an  exit. 

A  few  changes  have  been  made  in  the  diagram 
accompanying  the  standard.  Figure  1,  "Adja- 
cent Designated  Seating  Position,  Occupant 
Spaces,  and  Push-Out  Window  Relationship," 
has  been  deleted  from  the  final  rule  because  the 
relationship  is  sufficiently  described  in  the  text 
of  the  standard.  Accordingly,  Figures  2  and  3 
have  been  renumbered  as  Figures  1  and  2,  re- 
spectively. A  new  Figure  3,  indicating  access 
regions  for  emergency  exits  which  do  not  have 
adjacent  seats,  has  been  added.  For  reasons  of 
clarification,  Figures  2a  and  2b  and  Figures  3a 
and  3b  in  the  proposed  rule  have  been  placed 
beside  each  other  to  form  Figures  1  and  2  re- 
spectively. 

The  torque  in  Figures  2a  and  2b  of  the  pro- 
posed rule  has  been  transferred  to  the  text  and 
has  been  explained  to  indicate  that  the  force 
used  to  obtain  the  torque  shall  not  be  more  than 
20  pounds.  In  addition,  the  clearance  specifica- 
tions in  Figures  1  and  2  have  been  clarified  in 
the  text  to  require  that  the  lower  edge  of  the 
force  envelope  shall  be  located  5  inches  above 
the  seat,  or  2  inches  above  the  armrest,  if  any, 
whichever  is  higher.  In  several  instances,  minor 
changes  have  been  made  in  the  labeling  without 
altering  the  substance  of  the  diagrams. 

A  number  of  comments  sought  changes  in  the 
window  retention  requirements.  Two  comments 
requested  an  exemption  for  intra-city  buses  be- 
cause the  probability  of  rollover  accidents  would 
be  minimal  in  slow-speed  operation.  Urban 
transit  buses  are  subjected  to  risks  of  rollover 
accident-8  within  the  city  when  they  travel  at 
moderate  to  high  speed  on  intra-urban  express- 
ways, and  should  therefore  be  covered  by  the 


PART  671;  S  217— PRE  1 


Effecllve:   September   1,    1973 


standard.      Accordingly,    the    request    for    this 
exemption  is  denied. 

Several  comments  requested  an  exemption  for 
small  windows.  Since  there  is  little  likelihood 
of  passenger  ejection  or  protrusion  from  window 
openings  whose  minimum  surface  dimension 
measured  through  the  center  of  the  area  is  less 
than  eight  inches,  an  exemption  for  windows  of 
this  size  has  been  granted. 

Two  comments  asked  that  the  2,000  pound 
force  application  limit  in  the  window  retention 
requirement  be  lowered.  The  data  indicates  that 
a  1,200-pound  limit  would  be  more  compatible 
with  the  glazing  strength.  Accordingly,  the 
2,000-pound  force  application  limit  has  been 
lowered  to  1,200  pounds. 

Several  manufacturers  stated  that  they  en- 
countered difficulties  in  ascertaining  when  the 
proposed  head  form  penetration  limit  of  the 
window  retention  requirement  had  been  reached. 
After  observation  of  window  retention  testing, 
the  NHTSA  has  concluded  that  the  penetration 
limit  as  specified  in  the  notice  of  proposed  rule- 
making is  difficult  to  determine.  For  this  reason 
the  head  form  penetration  limit  has  been  re- 
phrased in  terms  of  the  development  of  cracks 
in  the  glazing  and  the  amount  of  depression  of 
the  glazing  surface  in  relation  to  its  original 
position. 

A  number  of  comments  objected  to  the  require- 
ment that  at  least  75%  of  the  glazing  be  retained 
in  the  window  mounting  during  window  reten- 
tion testing.  The  NHTSA  has  determined  that 
the  intent  of  this  requirement  is  already  accom- 
plished by  the  requirement  that  each  window  be 
retained  during  testing  by  its  surrounding  struc- 
ture in  a  manner  which  would  prevent  passage 
of  a  i-inch  sphere,  and  the  requirement  is  ac- 
cordingly deleted  from  the  final  rule. 

With  respect  to  the  emergency  exit  require- 
ments, the  standard  permits  devices  other  than 
push-out  windows  to  be  used  for  emergency 
exits.  Upon  review  of  the  requirements,  it  has 
been  determined  that  devices  such  as  panels  and 
doors  which  meet  the  emergency  exit  require- 
ments would  be  as  effective  as  push-out  windows 
for  emergency  egress.  Because  the  Administra- 
tion has  concluded  that  passenger  egress  is  en- 
hanced  when  several  emergency  exits  are  pro- 


vided, the  standard  requires  that  in  computing    /^ 
whether  a  bus  meets  the  unobstructed  openings    \ 
area  requirements,  no  emergency  exit,  regardless 
of  its  area,  shall  be  credited  with  more  than  520 
square  inches  of  the  total  area  requirement. 

A  number  of  motor  vehicle  manufacturers 
sought  exemption  from  the  emergency  exit  re- 
quirements for  smaller  vehicles  weighing  10,000 
pounds  or  less  GVWR,  such  as  limousines  and 
station"  wagons,  which  are  designed  to  carry 
more  than  10  persons  and  are  therefore  consid- 
ered to  be  buses  under  NHTSA  regulations  (49 
CFR  571.3).  Such  vehicles  are  usually  provided 
with  numerous  doors  and  windows  which  pro- 
vide sufficient  unobstructed  openings  for  emer- 
gency exit.  Therefore  the  Administration  has 
concluded  that  the  configuration  of  these  vehicles 
satisfies  the  intent  of  the  standard  with  respect 
to  provision  of  emergency  exits,  and  they  are 
exempted  from  the  emergency  exit  openings  re- 
quirements. 

The  emergency  exit  requirements  have  been 
changed  to  permit  installation  of  an  alternate 
roof  exit  when  the  bus  configuration  precludes 
provision  of  a  rear  exit,  provided  that  the  roof  ^ 
exit  meets  the  release,  extension,  and  identifica-  f' 
tion  requirements.  The  NHTSA  has  established 
this  alternative  in  order  to  allow  design  flexi- 
bility while  providing  for  emergency  egress  in 
rollover  situations. 

A  number  of  comments  expressed  concern  that 
the  proposed  maximum  force  level  for  release 
and  extension  of  emergency  exits  in  Figures  2a 
and  b  and  3a  and  b  were  too  low  to  inhibit  in- 
advertent operation  by  passengers  and  suggested 
that  the  required  maximum  force  level  be  raised. 
After  consideration  of  the  goals  of  facilitating 
emergency  egress  and  preserving  the  integrity 
of  the  passenger  compartment  under  normal 
operation,  it  has  been  determined  that  the  maxi- 
mum force  levels  should  be  raised  from  10  and 
30  pounds  to  20  and  60  pounds  respectively. 

One  comment  submitted  the  results  of  testing 
which  indicated  that  the  30g  inertial  load  re- 
quirement for  the  release  mechanism  was  un- 
necessarily high.  The  testing  also  revealed  that 
the  engineering  concepts  upon  which  the  inertial 
load  requirement  is  based  are  not  generally  ap- 
plied in  the  industry  and  that  the  requirement 


PART  571;  S  217— PRE  2 


Effective:   September   I,    1973 


would  be  impracticable.  Moreover,  an  increase 
in  maximum  force  levels  for  emergency  exit  op- 
eration in  the  rule  should  improve  latch  integ- 
rity. For  these  reasons,  the  requirement  has 
been  deleted. 

The  standard  requires  emergency  exit  location 
markings  to  be  placed  in  certain  occupant  spaces 
because  of  a  possible  contradiction  under  the 
proposed  standard  between  the  requirement  that 
the  identification  markings' be  located  within  6 
inches  of  the  point  of  operation  and  the  require- 
ment that  the  markings  be  visible  to  a  seated 
occupant.  The  NHTSA  has  concluded  that 
emergency  egress  could  be  hindered  if  the  pas- 
senger has  difficulty  in  finding  the  marking,  and 
that  location  of  the  marking  outside  of  an  occu- 
pant space  containing  an  adjacent  seat,  which 
would  be  permitted  vmder  the  proposed  standard, 
could  create  this  problem.  At  the  same  time  it 
is  desirable  for  the  identification  and  instructions 
to  be  located  near  the  point  of  release.  There- 
fore the  final  rule  requires  that  when  a  release 
mechanism  is  not  located  within  an  occupant 
space  containing  an  adjacent  seat,  a  label  indi- 
cating the  location  of  the  nearest  release  mech- 
anism shall  be  placed  within  that  occupant  space. 

The  temperature  condition  has  been  reworded 
to  make  it  clear,  in  light  of  the  explanation  of 


usage  in  §  571.4,  that  the  vehicle  must  be  capable 
of  meeting  the  performance  requirements  at  any 
temperature  from  70°  F.  to  85°  F. 

Effective  date:  September  1,  1973.  After 
evaluation  of  the  comments  and  other  informa- 
tion, it  has  been  determined  that  the  structural 
changes  required  by  the  standard  will  be  such 
that  many  manufacturers  will  require  an  effec- 
tive date  of  at  least  fifteen  months  after  issuance. 
It  is  therefore  found,  for  good  cause  shown,  that 
an  effective  date  more  than  one  year  from  the 
date  of  issuance  is  in  the  public  interest. 

In  consideration  of  the  above.  Standard  No. 
217,  Bus  Window  Retention  and  Release,  is 
added  to  §  571.21  of  Title  49,  Code  of  Federal 
Regulations,  as  set  forth  below. 

This  rule  is  issued  under  the  authority  of 
sections  103,  112,  and  119  of  the  National  Traffic 
and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act,  15  U.S.C.  1392, 
1401,  1407,  and  the  delegation  of  authority  at 
49  CFR  1.51. 

Issued  on  May  3, 1972. 

Douglas  W.  Toms 
Administrator 

37  F.R.  9394 
May  10,  1972 


231-088   O  -  77  -  65 


PART  571;  S  217— PRE  3^ 


( 


( 


( 


Effective:   September   I,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  217 

Bus  Window  Retention  and  Release 
(Docket  2-10;  Notice  4) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  respond  to 
petitions  for  reconsideration  of  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  217,  Bus  Window  Reten- 
tion and  Release,  in  §  571.217  of  Title  49,  Code 
of  Federal  Regulations.  The  standard  was  is- 
sued on  May  10,  1972  (37  F.R.  9394). 

International  Harvester  stated  that  it  manu- 
factures an  18-passenger  airport  limousine,  the 
"Stageway  Coach  Conversion",  weighing  10,700 
pounds  GVWR  and  requested  that  it  be  ex- 
empted from  the  requirements  of  S5.2.1,  "Buses 
with  GVWR  of  more  than  10,000  pounds." 
They  emphasized  that  the  18-passenger  model  is 
equipped  with  10  side  doors,  two  more  than  is 
provided  by  a  15-passenger,  10,000-pound,  ver- 
sion of  a  similar  airport  limousine  vehicle  which 
they  manufacture.  The  NHTSA  has  concluded 
that  vehicles  which  provide  at  least  one  door  for 
each  three  passenger  seating  positions  afford 
sufficient  means  of  emergency  egress  regardless 
of  their  weight.  S5.2.1  has  accordingly  been 
amended  to  provide  that  buses  with  a  GVWR  of 
more  than  10,000  pounds  may  alternatively  meet 
the  unobstructed  openings  requirement  of  S5.2 
by  providing  at  least  one  door  for  each  three 
passenger  spaces  in  the  vehicle.  The  "Stageway 
Coach  Conversion"  falls  into  the  category  of 
vehicles  covered  by  this  amendment  and  thus 
International  Harvester's  request  is  granted. 

International  Harvester,  General  Motors,  and 
Chrysler  all  requested  a  clarification  of  the  S5.1 
window  retention  requirements  because  they  felt 
it  was  possible  to  interpret  the  paragraph  as 
prohibiting  the  use  of  tempered  glass  for  window 
glazing.  Ford  also  submitted  a  request  for  ex- 
emption from  the  window  retention  requirements 
for  buses  under  10,000  pounds  GVWR  based  on 
its  interpretation  of  S5.1  as  precluding  the  use 


of  tempered  glass.  The  petitioners  stated  that 
tempered  glass  would  shatter  under  the  applica- 
tion of  pressure  required,  and  were  not  certain 
whether  S5.1(b),  describing  the  development  of 
cracks  in  the  glazing,  would  cover  this  occur- 
ence. The  NHTSA  did  not  intend  to  prohibit 
the  use  of  tempered  glass,  and  in  order  to  correct 
this  possible  ambiguity,  S5.1(b)  has  been 
amended  to  include  shattering  of  the  window 
glazing. 

General  Motors  also  requested  an  interpreta- 
tion of  the  method  of  measuring  whether  80 
percent  of  the  glazing  thickness  has  developed 
cracks  as  described  in  S5.1(b).  The  paragraph 
refers  to  a  measurement  through  the  thickness 
of  glass  and  not  a  measurement  of  the  glazing 
surface  area,  as  GM  suggests  it  could  mean.  GM 
also  doubted  that  the  percentage  of  glazing  thick- 
ness which  develops  cracks  could  be  measured. 
The  NHTSA  has  determined  that  the  intent  of 
the  language  is  clear  and  that  performance  of 
this  measurement  is  within  the  state  of  the  art, 
so  that  no  change  in  the  language  is  necessary. 
The  request  is  therefore  denied. 

General  Motors  requested  a  clarification  of  the 
term  "minimum  surface  dimension"  in  paragraph 
S5.1(c).  The  NHTSA  agrees  that  a  clarification 
is  necessary  to  prevent  interpretations  which  may 
not  meet  the  intent  of  this  standard,  and  the 
paragraph  has  been  accordingly  amended  to 
specify  that  the  dimension  is  to  be  measured 
through  the  center  of  the  area  of  the  sheet  of 
glazing. 

Greneral  Motors  stated  that  it  interpreted  the 
head  form  travel  rate  specified  in  S5.1.1  of  two 
inches  per  minute  as  a  "nominal  value"  require- 
ment, since  no  tolerances  are  given  in  the  stand- 
ard.    The  test  conditions  in  a  safety  standard 


PART  571;  S  217— PRE  5 


Effectiv*:  Septembar  1,   1973 

represent  the  performance  levels  that  the  product 
must  be  capable  of  meeting.  They  are  not  in- 
structions either  to  the  manufacturers'  or  the 
government's  test  laboratories,  or  a  requirement 
that  the  product  should  be  tested  at  "exactly" 
those  levels.  The  manufacturers'  tests  in  this 
case  should  be  designed  to  demonstrate  that  the 
vehicle  would  meet  the  stated  requirements  if 
tested  at  two  inches  per  minute.  If  that  is  what 
General  Motors  means  by  a  "nominal  value",  its 
interpretation  is  correct. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety   Standard   No.  217,  Bus  Window 


Retention    and    Release,    49    CFR    571.217,    is       ^ 
amended F 

Effective  date :  September  1, 1973. 

This  notice  is  issued  imder  the  authority  of 
sections  103,  112,  and  119  of  the  National  Traffic 
and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act,  15  U.S.C.  1392, 
1401,  1407,  and  the  delegation  of  authority  at 
49  CFR  1.51. 

Issued  on  August  30, 1972. 

Douglas  W.  Toms 
Administrator 

37  F.R.  18034 
September  6,  1972 


f 


PART  571;  S  217— PRE  6 


EfbcHv*:  Saplambar   1,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  217 

Bus  Window  Retention  and  Release 
(Docket  No.  2-10;  Notice  5) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  amend  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  217,  Bus  Window 
Retention  and  Release,  49  CFR  §  571.217,  in  re- 
sponse to  petitions  received.  Several  minor 
amendments  for  purposes  of  clarification  have 
also  been  made.  The  standard  was  published 
initially  on  May  10,  1972,  (37  F.R.  9394),  and 
amended  September  6,  1972  (37  F.R.  18034). 

Wayne  Corporation  has  petitioned  that  the 
torque  limit  of  20  inch-pounds  for  the  actuation 
of  rotary  emergency  exit  releases  in  S5.3.2(a)  (3) 
of  the  standard  is  impractical.  The  Blue  Bird 
Body  Company  also  objected  to  the  requirement, 
requesting  that  the  limit  be  raised  to  225  inch- 
pounds  in  order  to  avoid  inadvertent  openings. 
The  NHTSA  has  decided,  based  on  these  peti- 
tions, that  a  maximum  torque  requirement  is 
redudant,  since  the  force  magnitude  generally  is 
limited  in  S5.3.2  to  not  more  than  twenty  pounds. 
Accordingly  the  torque  requirement  is  deleted 
from  the  rule. 

Blue  Bird  also  requested  that  Figure  3A, 
which  depicts  access  region  for  roof  and  side 
emergency  exits  without  adjacent  seats  in  both 
an  upright  and  overturned  bus,  be  made  more 
explicit. 

In  response  to  this  request,  Figure  3A  is  being 
replaced  by  two  figures,  one  of  which  depicts 


a  side  emergency  exit  (Figure  3A),  and  the  other 
a  roof  emergency  exit  (P'igure  3B).  Existing 
Figure  3B,  depicting  access  regions  for  a  rear 
exit  with  a  rear  shelf  or  other  obstruction  behind 
the  rearmost  seat,  becomes  Figure  3C.  A  new 
Figure  3D  is  added  to  depict  rear  seat  access 
regions  in  buses  not  having  a  rear  shelf  or  other 
obstruction  behind  the  rearmost  seat,  a  config- 
uration common  to  school  buses.  Paragraph 
S5.2.1,  regarding  provision  of  emergency  exits, 
is  amended  to  make  it  clear  that  a  required  rear 
exit  must  meet  the  requirements  of  S5.3  through 
S5.5  when  the  bust  is  overturned  on  either  side, 
with  the  occupant  standing  facing  the  exit,  as 
well  as  when  the  bus  is  upright. 

In  consideration  of  the  above.  Standard  No. 
217,  Bus  Window  Retention  and  Release,  49  CFR 
571.217,  is  amended  .... 

Elective  date:  September  1,  1973. 

(Sec.  103,  112,  119,  P.L.  89-563,  80  Stat.  718, 
15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1407)  and  the  delegation 
of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51. 

Issued  on  February  28,  1973. 

Douglas  W.  Toms 
Administrator 

38  F.R.  6070 
March  6,  1973 


PART  571;  S  217— PRE  7-8 


( 


( 


( 


Effective:   June   3,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   217 

Bus  Window  Retention  and  Release 
(Docket  No.  2-10;   Notice  7) 


This  notice  amends  Federal  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  217,  "Bus  Window  Reten- 
tion and  Release"  (49  CFR  §  571.217),  to  exempt 
from  the  standard  buses  manufactured  for  the 
purpose  of  transporting  persons  under  physical 
restraint.  The  amendment  is  based  on  a  notice 
of  proposed  rulemaking  published  October  1, 
1973  (38  F.R.  27227),  following  petitions  re- 
ceived from  the  Bureau  of  Prisons,  United  States 
Department  of  Justice. 

The  comments  received  in  response  to  the  pro- 
posal agreed  that  buses  manufactured  for  the 
specified  purpose  should  not  be  provided  with 
the  emergency  exits  required  by  Standard  No. 
217.  The  standard  specifies  that  buses  contain 
emergency  exits  operable  by  bus  occupants,  re- 
quirements which  the  NHTSA  considers  ob- 
viously incompatible  with  the  need  to  transport 
prison  inmates.  The  National  Transportation 
Safety  Board  (NTSB)  commented,  however,  that 
compensatory  measures  should  be  taken  to  mini- 
mize the  likelihood  of  fire  in  prison  buses,  since 
the  probability  of  safely  evacuating  a  prison  bus 
is  less  than  that  of  any  other  type  of  bus.  The 
NTSB  urged  that  the  exemption  be  limited  to 
diesel-fueled  buses,  since  diesel  fuel  is  less  likely 
to  ignite  than  gasoline. 

The  NHTSA  recognizes  the  desirability  of 
minimizing  the  likelihood  of  fire  in  buses.    How- 


ever, at  the  present  time  it  is  not  practical  to 
expect  that  all  newly  manufactured  prison  buses 
be  equipped  with  diesel  engines,  given  the  ap- 
parent immediate  need  for  the  exemption.  Ap- 
propriate rulemaking  action  can  be  taken  in  the 
future  if  it  appears  necessary  to  mitigate  from 
a  safety  standpoint  the  loss  of  emergency  exits 
in  prison  buses. 

In  light  of  the  above,  paragraph  S3  of  section 
571.217,  Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations 
(Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  217),  is 
amended.  .  .  . 

Effective  date:  June  3,  1974.  This  amendment 
imposes  no  additional  burdens  on  any  person  and 
relieves  restrictions  found  to  be  unwarranted. 
Accordingly,  good  cause  exists  and  is  hereby 
found  for  an  effective  date  less  than  180  days 
from  the  day  of  issuance. 

(Sees.  103,  112,  and  119,  Pub.  L.  89-563;  80 
Stat.  718;  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1491,  1407;  delegations 
of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51.) 


Issued  on  April  26,  1974. 


James   B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

39  F.R.  15274 
May  2,  1974 


PART  571;  S  217— PRE  9-10 


( 


Effective:   October    16,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   217 

Bus  Window  Retention  and  Release 
(Docket  No.  75-6;  Notice  2) 


This  notice  amends  Federal  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  217,  Bus  Window  Reten- 
tion and  Release,  49  CFR  571.217,  to  clarify  the 
marking  requirements  for  emergency  exits  on 
buses.  The  amendment  requires  certain  mark- 
ings on  all  bus  emergency  exits  except  manually- 
operated  windows  of  sufRcient  size  and  doors  in 
buses  with  a  GVIVR  of  10,000  pounds  or  less. 

The  amendment  was  proposed  in  a  notice 
published  April  18,  1975  (40  FR  17266).  Com- 
ments were  received  from  Chrysler  Corporation 
and  General  Motors.  Chrj-sler  concurred  with 
the  proposal.  GM,  while  also  concurring,  sug- 
gested that  the  wording  of  the  amendment  be 
modified  somewhat.  The  amendment  has  been 
reworded  to  reflect  more  clearly  the  intent  of 
this  amendment,  distinguishing  between  emer- 
gency exits  that  require  markings  and  those  that 
do  not.  The  NHTSA  has  determined  that  special 
emergency  exit  markings  are  unnecessary  for 
doors  and  manually-operated  windows  in  buses 
with  a  G\nVR  of 'lO.OOO  pounds  or  less.  This 
amendment  does  not  exempt  buses  with  a  GVWR 
of  10,000  pounds  or  less  from  complying  with 
the  unobstructed  openings  i-equirements  of  S5.2. 


It  only  provides  that  the  openings  do  not  have 
to  be  marked  as  emergency  exits.  However, 
specially-installed  emergency  exits  in  such  buses, 
such  as  push-out  windows,  are  not  exempted 
from  the  marking  requirements. 

The  amendment  also  allows  bus  manufacturers 
the  option  of  designating  an  emergency  door  as 
"Emergency  Door"  or  "Emergency  Exit."  This 
will  bring  Standard  No.  217  into  confomiity 
with  current  NHTSA  interpretations  of  the 
emergency  exit  marking  requirements.  How- 
ever, any  emergency  exit  other  than  a  door  must 
have  the  designation  "Emergency  Exit." 

Accordingly,  S5.5.1  of  49  CFR  571.217,  Bus 
Windoiv  Retention  and  Release,  is  amended  .... 

Effective  date:  October  16,  1975. 

(Sees.  103,  112,  119,  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80  Stat. 
718  (15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1407) ;  delegations  of 
authority  at  49  CFR  1.51). 

Issued  on  October  8,  1975. 

Gene  G.  Mannella 
Acting  Administrator 

40  FR.  48512 
October  16,  1975 


PART  571;  S  217— PRE  11-12 


f 


( 


Effective:   September   1,    1973 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  217 
Bus  Window  Retention  and  Release 


51.  Scope.  This  standard  establishes  require- 
ments for  the  retention  of  windows  other  than 
windshields  in  buses,  and  establishes  operating 
forces,  opening  dimensions,  and  markings  for 
push-out  bus  windows  and  other  emergency  exits. 

52.  Purpose.  The  purpose  of  this  standard  is 
to  minimize  the  likelihood  of  occupants  being 
thrown  from  the  bus  and  to  provide  a  means  of 
readily  accessible  emergency  egress. 

53.  Application.  [This  standard  applies  to 
buses,  except  buses  manufactured  for  the  purpose 
of  transporting  persons  under  physical  restraint. 
(39  F.R.  15274— May  2,  1974.  Effective:  6/3/74)3 

54.  Deflniticns. 

"Push-out  window"  means  a  vehicle  window 
designed  to  open  outward  to  pro\'ide  for  emer- 
gency egress. 

"Adjacent  seat"  means  a  designated  seating 
position  located  so  that  some  portion  of  its  occu- 
pant space  is  not  more  than  10  inches  from  an 
emergency  exit,  for  a  distance  of  at  least  15 
inches  measured  horizontally  and  parallel  to  the 
exit. 

"Occupant  space"  means  the  space  directly 
above  the  seat  and  footwell,  boiuided  vertically 
by  the  ceiling  and  horizontally  by  the  normally 
positioned  seat  back  and  the  nearest  obstruction 
of  occupant  motion  in  the  direction  the  seat 
faces. 

55.  Requirements. 

S5.1  Window  Retention.  Except  as  provided 
in  S5.1.2,  each  piece  of  window  glazing  and  each 
surrounding  window  frame,  when  tested  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  procedure  in  S5.1.1  under  the 
conditions  of  S6.1  through  S6.3,  shall  be  re- 
tained by  its  surrounding  structure  in  a  manner 
that  prevents  the  formation  of  any  opening  large 
enough  to  admit  the  passage  of  a  4-inch  diameter 
sphere  under  a  force,  including  the  weight  of 


the  sphere,  of  5   pounds  until  any  one  of  the 
following  events  occurs: 

(a)  A  force  of  1200  pounds  is  reached. 

(b)  [At  least  80%  of  the  glazing  thickness  has 
developed  cracks  running  from  the  load  contact 
region  to  the  periphery  at  two  or  more  points,  or 
shattering  of  the  glazing  occurs.  (37  F.R. 
18034— September  6,  1972.     Effective:  9/1/73)] 

(c)  [The  inner  surface  of  the  glazing  at  the 
center  of  force  application  has  moved  relative  to 
the  window  frame,  along  a  line  perpendicular  to 
the  undisturbed  inner  surface,  a  distance  equal 
to  one-half  of  the  square  root  of  the  minimum 
surface  dimension  measured  through  the  center 
of  the  area  of  the  entire  sheet  of  window  glazing. 
(37  F.R.  18034— September  6,  1972.  Effective: 
9/1/73)] 

55.1.1  An  increasing  force  shall  be  applied 
to  the  window  glazing  through  the  head  form 
specified  in  Figure  4,  outward  and  perpendicular 
to  the  undisturbed  inside  surface  at  the  center 
of  the  area  of  each  sheet  of  window  glazing,  with 
a  head  form  travel  of  2  inches  per  minute. 

55.1.2  The  requirements  of  this  standard  do 
not  apply  to  a  window  whose  minimum  surface 
dimension  measured  through  the  center  of  its 
area  is  less  than  8  inches. 

S5.2  Provision  of  Emergency  Exits.  Buses 
other  than  school  buses  shall  provide  unob- 
structed openings  for  emergency  exit  which  col- 
lectively amount,  in  total  square  inches,  to  at 
least  67  times  the  number  of  designated  seating 
positions  on  the  bus.  At  least  40  percent  of  the 
total  required  area  of  unobstructed  openings, 
computed  in  the  above  manner,  shall  be  provided 
on  each  side  of  a  bus.  However,  in  determining 
the  total  unobstructed  openings  provided  by  a 
bus,  no  emergency  exit,  regardless  of  its  area, 
shall  be  credited  with  more  than  536  square 
inches  of  the  total  area  requirement. 


(Rev.  6/3/74) 


PART  571;  S  217-1 


Effective:  September   1,    1973 


1/ 


^ "^ 

U~       jn^  FORCE     '  "^ 


U. 


2S0I  .02S  SYNTHETIC  UNDERLAVER 

3m!  k  mi  tensile  strength 

Go!  tOK  ELONQATION 

NAP*  GOAT  SAIN.  WET  CHAMOIS.  OH 

mo!  .003  SYNTHETIC  SKIN 
1000!  SO    PS  TENSILE  STRENGTH 

lOO!  51L  ELONGATION 


FIGURE  4  HEAD  FORM 


55.2.1  Buses  with  GVWR  of  more  than  10,000 
pounds.  [Except  as  provided  in  S5.2.1.1,  buses 
with  a  GVWR  of  more  than  10,000  pounds  shall 
meet  the  unobstructed  openings  requirements  by 
providing  side  exits  and  at  least  one  rear  exit 
that  conforms  to  S5.3  through  S5.5.  The  rear 
exit  shall  meet  the  requirements  when  the  bus 
is  upright  and  when  the  bus  is  overturned  on 
either  side,  with  the  occupant  standing  facing  the 
exit.  When  the  bus  configuration  precludes  in- 
stallation of  an  accessible  rear  exit,  a  roof  exit 
that  meets  the  requirements  of  85.3  through  So.5 
when  the  bus  is  overturned  on  either  side,  with 
the  occupant  standing  facing  the  exit,  shall  be 
provided  in  the  rear  half  of  the  bus.  (38  F.R. 
6070— March  6,  1973.     Effective:  9/1/73)] 

[55.2.1.1  A  bus  with  GVWR  of  more  than 
10,000  pounds  may  satisfy  the  unobstructed 
openings  requirement  by  providing  at  least  one 
side  door  for  each  three  passenger  seating  posi- 
tions in  the  vehicle.  (37  F.R.  18034— September 
6,1972.    Effective:  9/1/73)] 

55.2.2  Buses  with  a  GVWR  of  10,000  pounds 
or  less.  Buses  with  a  GVWR  of  10,000  pounds 
or  less  may  meet  the  unobstructed  openings  re- 
quirement by  providing : 


(a)  Devices  that  meet  the  requirements  of 
S5.3  through  S5.5  without  using  remote  controls 
or  central  power  systems ; 

(b)  Windows  that  can  be  opened  manually  to 
a  position  that  provides  an  opening  large  enough 
to  admit  unobstructed  passage,  keeping  a  major 
axis  horizontal  at  all  times,  of  an  ellipsoid  gen- 
erated by  rotating  about  its  minor  axis  an  ellipse 
having  a  major  axis  of  20  inches  and  a  minor 
axis  of  13  inches ;  or 

(c)  Doors. 

55.2.3  School  Buses.  The  emergency  exit  re- 
quirements do  not  apply  to  school  buses,  but  if  a 
school  bus  contains  any  push-out  windows  or 
other  emergency  exits,  these  exits  shall  conform 
to  S5.3  through  S5.5. 

55.3   Emergency  exit  release. 

55.3.1  [Each  push-out  window  or  other  emer- 
gency exit  shall  have  a  release  mechanism  located 
within  the  regions  specified  in  Figure  1,  Figure 
2,  or  Figure  3.  The  lower  edge  of  the  region  in 
Figure  1,  and  Region  B  in  Figure  2,  shall  be 
located  5  inches  above  the  adjacent  seat,  or  2 
inches  above  above  the  armrest,  if  any,whichever 
is  higher.  (38  F.R.  6070— March  6,  1973.  Effec- 
tive: 9/1/73)] 

55.3.2  When  tested  under  the  conditions  of 
S6,  both  before  and  after  the  window  retention 
test  required  by  S5.1,  each  emergency  exit  shall 
allow  manual  release  of  the  exit  by  a  single  oc- 
cupant using  force  applications  each  of  which 
conforms,  at  the  option  of  the  manufacturer, 
either  to  (a)  or  (b).  The  release  mechanism  or 
mechanisms  shall  require  for  release  one  or  two 
force  applications,  at  least  one  of  which  differs 
by  90  to  180°  from  the  direction  of  the  initial 
push-out  motion  of  the  emergency  exit  (outward 
and  perpendicular  to  the  exit  surface). 

(a)  Low-force  aj^plication. 

Location :  As  shown  in  Figure  1  or  Figure  3. 
Type  of  Motion:  Rotary  or  straight. 
Magnitude:  [Not  more  than  20  pounds.     (38 
F.R.  6070— March  6, 1973.    Effective :  9/1/73)] 

(b)  High  force  application. 

Location:  As  shown  in  Figure  2  or  Figiire  3. 
Type  of  Motion:  Straight,  jaerpendicular  to 
the  undisturbed  exit  surface. 
Magnitude:  Not  more  than  60  pounds. 


(Rev.  2/28/73) 


PART  571;  S  217-2 


ADJACENT  SEAT 


(n 


ADJACENT  SEAT 


FLOOR  BENEATH  EMERGENCY  EXIT 


VIEW  PARALLEL  TO  SEAT  BACK 


FLOOR  BENEATH  EMERGENCY  EXIT 
VIEW  PERPENDICULAR  TO  SEAT  BACK 


■CLEARANCE  AREA  AROUND 
SEAT  BACK,  ARM  RESTS, 
AND  OTHER  OBSTRUCTIONS 


FIGURE  2  HIGH-FORCE  ACCESS  REGIONS  FOR  EMERGENCY  EXITS  HAVING  ADJACENT  SEATS 


FLOOR  BENEATH  EMERGENCY  EXIT 
VIEW  PARALLEL  TO  SEAT  BACK 


■CLEARANCE  AREA  AROUND 
SEAT  BACK.  ARM  RESTS, 
AND  OTHER  OBSTRUCTIONS 


FLOOR  BENEATH  EMERGENCY  EXIT 

VIEW  PERPENDICULAR  TO  SEAT  BACK 

ACCESS  REGION  IS  THE  SPATIAL  VOLUME  CREATED 
BY  THE  INTERSECTION  OF  THE  PROJECTIONS  OF  THE 
AREAS  SHOWN  IN  THE  TWO  VIEWS. 


FIGURE  1   LOW-FORCE  ACCESS  REGION  FOR  EMERGENCY  EXITS  HAVING  ADJACENT  SEATS 


PART  571;  S  217-3 


EffacHv*:  Saptambar   1,    1973 


INSIDE  CEILING 


24  INCHES 

i       1        .        . 


INSIJE  WALL 


INSIDE  FLOOR  - 

3A.  SIDE  EMERGENCY  EXIT 


INSIDE  WALL 


ACCESS  REQ ION 
FOR  HIGH  FORCES 


INSIDE  CEILING 


INSIDE  WALL 


3B.   ROOF  EMERGENCY   EXIT 

FIGURE    3~LOW    AND    HIGH-FORCE    ACCESS    REGIONS    FOR    EMERGENCY 
EXITS  WITHOUT  ADJACENT  SEATS 


(R«v.   2/28/73) 


PART  571;  S  217-4 


Effective:   September    1,    1973 


23  INCH  HADIliS 


INSIDE  FLOOR  OF  UPRIGHT  BUS 


•TYPICAL  CLEARANCE  AROUND  OBSTRUCTIONS 


3C.   REAR   EMERGENCY   EXIT   WITH   REAR   OBSTRUCTION 


ACCESS  REGION 
FOR  LOW  FORCES 


ACCESS  REGION 
FOR  HIGH  FORCES 


INSIDE  FLOOR 


INSIDE  WALL 


3D.    REAR   EMERGENCY   EXIT   WITHOUT   REAR   OBSTRUCTION 

FIGURE  3— CONTINUED 


IRev.   2/28/731 


PART  571;  S  217-5 


55.4  Emergency  exit  extension.  Each  push- 
out  window  or  other  emergency  exit  shall,  after 
the  release  mechanism  >  has  been  operated,  under 
the  conditions  of  S6,  before  and  after  the  win- 
dow retention  test  required  by  S5.1,  using  the 
reach  distances  and  corresponding  force  levels 
specified  in  S5.3.2  be  manually  extendable  by  a 
single  occupant  to  a  position  that  provides  an 
opening  large  enough  to  admit  unobstructed 
passage,  keeping  a  major  axis  horizontal  at  all 
times,  of  an  ellipsoid  generated  by  rotating 
about  its  minor  axis  an  ellipse  having  a  major 
axis  of  20  inches  and  a  minor  axis  of  13  inches. 

55.5  Emergency  exit  identification. 

S5.5.1  [Except  for  windows  serving  as  emer- 
gency exits  in  accordance  with  S5.2.2(b)  and 
doors  in  buses  with  a  GVWK  of  10,000  pounds 
or  less,  each  emergency  door  shall  have  the  de- 
signation "Emergency  Door"  or  "Emergency 
Exit"  and  each  push-out  window  or  other  emer- 
gency exit  besides  a  door  shall  have  the  designa- 
tion "Emergency  Exit".  Concise  operating  in- 
structions shall  be  located  within  6  inches  of  the 
release  mechanism.  Wlien  a  release  mechanism 
is  not  located  within  an  occupant  space  of  an 
adjacent  seat,  a  label  meeting  the  requirements 
of  S5.5.2  that  indicates  the  location  of  the  nearest 
release  mechanism  shall  be  placed  within  that 
occupant  space. 

EXAMPLE:  "EMERGENCY  EXIT  IN- 
STRUCTIONS LOCATED  NEXT  TO 
SEAT  AHEAD" 


(40  F.R.  48512- 
10/16/75)] 


-October  16,  1975.     Effective: 


S5.5.2  Except    as    provided    in    S5.5.2.1,    each 
marking  shall  be  legible,  when  the  only  source 


Effective:   September   1,    1973 

of  light  is  the  normal  night-time  illumination  of 
the  bus  interior,  to  occupants  having  corrected 
visual  acuity  of  20/40  (Snellen  ratio)  seated  in 
the  adjacent  seat,  seated  in  the  seat  directly  ad- 
joining the  adjacent  seat,  and  standing  in  the 
aisle  location  that  is  closest  to  that  adjacent  seat. 
The  marking  shall  be  legible  from  each  of  these 
locations  when  the  other  two  corresponding  lo- 
cations are  occupied. 

S5.5.2.1  If  the  exit  has  no  adjacent  seat,  the 
marking  must  meet  the  legibility  requirements 
of  S5.5.2  for  occupants  standing  in  the  aisle 
location  nearest  to  the  emergency  exit,  except 
for  a  roof  exit,  which  must  meet  the  legibility 
requirements  for  occupants  positioned  with  their 
backs  against  the  ^oor  opposite  the  roof  exit. 

S6.  Test  conditions. 

56.1  The  vehicle  is  on  a  flat,  horizontal  sur- 
face. 

56.2  The  inside  of  the  vehicle  and  the  outside 
environment  are  kept  at  any  temperature  from 
70°  to  85°  Fahrenheit  for  4  hours  immediately 
preceding  the  tests,  and  during  the  tests. 

56.3  For  the  window  retention  test,  windows 
are  installed,  closed,  and  latched  (where  latches 
are  provided)  in  the  condition  intended  for 
normal  bus  operation. 

56.4  For  the  emergency  exit  release  and  ex- 
tension tests,  windows  are  installed  as  in  S6.3, 
seats,  armrests,  and  interior  objects  near  the 
windows  are  installed  as  for  normal  use,  and 
seats  are  in  the  upright  position. 

37  F.R.  9394 
May  10,  1972 


(Rev.    10/8/75) 


PART  571;  S  217-6 


EfFeclive:   March    1,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   218 

Motorcycle  Helmets 
(Docket  No.  72-6;  Notice   2) 


The  purpose  of  this  amendment  to  Part  571 
of  Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  is  to 
add  a  new  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No. 
218,  Motorcycle  Helmets,  49  CFR  §  571.218,  that 
establishes  minimum  performance  requirements 
for  motorcycle  helmets  manufactured  for  use  by 
motorcyclists  and  other  motor  vehicle  users. 

A  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  on  this  sub- 
ject  was  published  on  May   19,   1972    (37   F.R. 
10097).     The  comments  received  in  response  to' 
the  notice  have  been  carefully  considered  in  this 
issuance  of  a  final  rule. 

In  the  previous  notice,  the  NHTSA  proposed 
that,  effective  September  1,  1974,  the  perform- 
ance levels  for  the  impact  attenuation  require- 
ments be  upgraded  to  that  of  the  Head  Injury 
Criterion  (HIC)  required  by  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  208.  A  number  of  com- 
ments on  this  subject  sought  to  defer  a  final 
determination  until  further  research  and  addi- 
tional tests  could  be  conducted.  The  agency  has 
carefully  reviewed  the  issues  raised  by  these 
comments  and  has  determined  that  technical  data 
presently  being  generated  on  this  matter  by 
several  investigations  should  be  considered  in  up- 
grading the  impact  attenuation  requirements. 
Accordingly,  a  decision  on  the  upgrading  will 
be  deferred  until  after  this  research  has  been 
completed  and  the  results  evaluated,  and  after 
any  appropriate  data  have  been  reviewed. 

Comments  to  the  docket  on  the  initial  impact 
attenuation  requirement  ranged  from  abolishing 
the  time  duration  criteria  of  2.0  milliseconds  and 
4.0  milliseconds  at  the  200g  and  150g  levels,  re- 
spectively, to  increasing  these  criteria  to  2.8 
milliseconds  at  the  200g  level  and  5.6  milliseconds 
at  the  150g  level.  One  approach  taken  in  regard 
to  this  requirement  contends  that  the  available 
test   data    are   insufficient    for  quantifying  time 


limits  for  the  relatively  short  duration  accelera- 
tions which  are  involved  in  helmet  testing.  Sev- 
eral comments  questioned  the  validity  of  the 
proposed  time  duration  limits,  since  these  limits 
were  based  on  the  optional  swing-away  (as  op- 
posed to  fixed  anvil)  test  of  the  American 
National  Standards  Institute  (ANSI)  Standard 
Z90. 1-1966,  which  was  omitted  from  the  most 
recent  issues  of  the  Z90.1  Standard  (1971  and 
197.3)  and  was  not  contained  in  the  proposed 
motorcycle  helmet  standard.  An  additional  com- 
ment points  out  that  helmets  designed  to  meet 
higher  energy  impacts  than  the  initial  impact 
attenuation  requirement  occasionally  have  diffi- 
culty meeting  a  2.0  millisecond  requirement  at 
the  200g  level. 

A  review  of  available  biomechanical  data  indi- 
cates that  the  head  impact  exposure  allowed  by 
the  2.0  and  4.0  millisecond  limits  at  the  200g 
and  150g  levels,  respectively,  is  greater  than  that 
allowed  by  other  measures  of  head  injury  po- 
tential. It  is  the  agency's  view,  moreover,  that 
the  best  evidence  indicates  that  an  increase  in 
the  time  duration  criteria  would  permit  a  sub- 
stantial reduction  in  the  protection  provided  to 
the  helmet  wearer.  Since  the  comments  to  the 
docket  did  not  provide  any  new  data  or  suf- 
ficiently compelling  arguments  which  would 
justify  relaxing  the  proposed  limits  for  tolerable 
head  impact  exposure,  the  2.0  and  4.0  millisecond 
criteria  are  retained  as  part  of  the  initial  im- 
pact attenuation  criteria. 

In  response  to  comments  recommending  that 
the  allowable  weight  of  the  supporting  assembly 
for  the  impact  attenuation  drop  test  be  changed 
to  20%  instead  of  the  proposed  10%  of  the 
weiglit  of  the  drop  assembly,  the  NHTSA  has 
determined  that  such  a  change  would  enable 
more  durable  testing  equipment  to  be  used  with- 


PART  571;  S  218— PRE  1 


231-088   O  -  77  -  66 


Effective:   March    1,    1974 


out  any  significant  effect  on  test  results.    Accord- 
ingly,  this  ^veight  limitation  has  been  raised  to 

20%. 

Several  coninients  expressed  concern  that  the 
proposed  0.(M-inch  indentation  limit  included 
under  the  penetration  test  would  create  problems 
of  measurement.  The  agency  has  determined 
that  the  intent  of  this  0.04-inch  indentation  limit 
is  sufficiently  accomplished  by  the  requirement 
that  the  striker  not  contact  the  surface  of  the 
test  headform,  and  the  0.04-inch  indentation 
limit  is  therefore  deleted  from  the  final  rule. 
Further,  in  consideration  of  the  need  to  readily 
detect  any  contact  by  the  striker,  the  agency  has 
determined  that  the  contactable  surfaces  of  the 
penetration  test  headforms  should  be  constructed 
of  a  metal  or  metallic  alloy  which  will  insure 
detection.  Several  minor  changes  in  the  test 
conditions  for  the  penetration  test  have  also  been 
made,  without  altering  the  substance  of  tliose 
conditions. 

A  number  of  comments  recommended  that 
where  the  retention  system  consists  of  components 
which  can  be  independently  fastened  without 
secviring  the  complete  assembly,  such  compo- 
nents sliould  not  have  to  individually  meet  the 
retention  test  requirements.  Since  helmets  have 
a  tendency  to  be  thrown  off  by  a  crash  and 
motorcyclists  sometimes  only  partially  fasten  the 
retention  system  where  such  an  option  exists,  the 
agency  has  concluded  that  retention  components 
as  well  as  the  entire  assembly  should  meet  the 
test  requirements  in  every  fastening  mode  as 
specified  in  the  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking. 

A  number  of  comments  requested  that  the  105° 
minimum  perii:)heral  vision  clearance  to  each  side 
of  the  midsagittal  plane  be  increased  to  120°. 
The  10.5°  minimum  requirement  was  proposed 
because  it  satisfies  a  demand  by  the  public  for 
the  availability  of  some  helmets  which  provide 
added  protection  to  the  temporal  areas  in  ex- 
change for  a  minimal  reduction  in  peripheral 
vision  capability  without  compromising  the  safe 
limits  of  peripheral  vision  clearance.  A  review 
of  available  field-of-vision  studies  and  the  lack 
of  any  evidence  to  the  contrary  indicate  that  105° 
minimum  clearance  to  each  side  of  t  le  midsagittal 
plane  provides  ample  periphera;  vision  capa- 
bility.     Since   the    requests    for    increasing   the 


minimum  clearance  to  120°  were  not  accompanied       A 
by    any    supporting    data    or    arguments,    the      U 
agency  has  concluded  that  the  standard  should 
allow  the  additional  protection  which  the  105° 
minimum  clearance  would   permit  and,  accord- 
ingly, this  requirement  is  retained. 

With  respect  to  providing '  important  safety 
information  in  the  form  of  labeling,  one  com- 
ment recommended  that,  due  to  possible  label 
deterioration,  both  the  manufacturer's  identifica- 
tion and  the  helmet  model  designation  should  be 
permanently  marked  by  etching,  branding, 
stamping,  embossing,  or  molding  on  the  exterior 
of  the  helmet  shell  or  on  a  permanently  attached 
component  so  as  to  be  visible  when  the  helmet 
is  in  use.  The  NHTSA  has  determined  that  the 
practical  effect  of  this  recommendation  is  accom- 
plished by  requiring  each  helmet  to  be  perma- 
nently and  legibly  labeled.  The  method  to  be 
used  to  permanently  and  legibly  affix  a  label  for 
each  helmet  is  therefore  left  to  the  discretion  of 
the  manufacturer.  However,  in  order  that  there 
may  be  some  external,  visual  evidence  of  con- 
formity to  the  standard,  the  labeling  requirement 
has  been  further  modified  to  require  manufac- 
turer certification  in  the  form  of  the  DOT 
symbol  to  appear  in  permanent  form  on  the 
exterior  of  the  helmet  shell. 

One  comment  recommended  that  the  prelimi- 
nary test  procedures  include  the  application  of  a 
10-pound  static  test  load  to  the  apex  of  a  helmet 
after  it  is  placed  on  the  reference  headform  and 
before  the  "test  line"  is  drawn  to  insure  that  the 
refei-ence  marking  will  be  relatively  uniform, 
thus  reducing  variances  in  test  results  of  identical 
helmets.  The  agency  concurs  in  this  recom- 
mendation and  it  has  been  included  in  the 
standard. 

A  number  of  comments  objected  to  the  loca- 
tion of  the  test  line.  With  respect  to  the  pro- 
posed requirement  that  the  test  line  on  the 
anterior  portion  of  a  helmet  coincide  with  the 
reference  plane  of  its  corresponding  reference 
headform,  it  was  pointed  out  that  the  helmet's 
brow  area  would  have  to  be  excessively  thick  in 
order  to  meet  the  impact  attenuation  criteria  at 
any  point  less  than  approximately  1  inch  from 
the  brow  opening.  The  data  indicate  that  this 
objection  is  valid,  and  the  location  of  the  anterior 


PART  571;  S  218— PRE  2 


Effective:   March    1,    1974 


test  line  has  been  modified  by  placing  it  1  inch 
above  and  parallel  to  the  reference  plane. 

A  number  of  comments  objected  to  the  pro- 
posed requirement  that  the  test  line  on  the 
posterior  portion  of  a  helmet  coincide  with  the 
basic  plane  of  its  corresponding  reference  head- 
form.  The  principal  objection  expressed  con- 
cern that,  by  extending  the  posterior  test  line  to 
the  basic  plane,  the  resulting  increase  in  the 
posterior  surface  of  a  helmet  could  cause  the 
helmet  to  impact  the  wearer's  neck  where 
rearward  rotation  of  the  head  occurs,  thereby 
increasing  the  potential  for  injury  in  certain 
cases.  After  further  consideration  of  this 
aspect  of  helmet  safety,  the  agency  has  deter- 
mined that  the  location  of  the  test  line  on  the 
posterior  portion  of  a  helmet  should  be  modified 
by  placing  it  1  inch  below  and  parallel  to  the 
reference  plane. 

Several  comments  questioned  the  sufficiency  of 
the  anatomical  dimensions  and  diagrams  pro- 
vided for  the  reference  headforms  in  the  Ap- 
pendix of  the  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking.  Of 
these  comments,  two  proposed  adopting  the 
dimensional  specifications  of  the  existing  ANSI 
Z90.1  headform,  while  a  third  recommended  the 


inclusion  of  an  additional  reference  headform 
to  accommodate  tlieir  smallest  child  helmet.  The 
agency  has  concluded  that,  in  order  to  promote 
greater  uniformity  in  testing  and  more  repeatable 
results,  one  of  the  reference  headforms  should 
have  the  dimensional  specifications  of  the  readily 
available  Z90.1  headform,  the  others  being  scaled 
proportionally,  and  that  a  reference  headform 
for  smaller  child  helmets  should  be  added.  Ac- 
cordingly, the  Appendix  has  been  revised  to 
reflect  these  changes. 

E-jfective  date:  March  1,  1974. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  a  new  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  218,  Motorcycle 
Helmets,  is  added  as  §  571.218  of  Title  49,  Code 
of  Federal  Regulations,  as  set  forth  below. 

(Sees.  103,  112,  119,  Public  Law  89-563,  80 
Stat.  718,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1407;  delegation 
of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51.) 

Issued  on  August  9,  1973. 

James  B.  Gregory 
Administrator 

38  F.R.  22390 
August  20,   1973 


PART  571;  S  218— PRE  3-4 


(I 


Effective:   March    1,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  218 

Motorcycle  Helmets 
(Docket  No.  72-6;   Notice  3) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  respond  to 
petitions  for  reconsideration  and  petitions  for 
rulemaking  to  amend  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  218,  Motorcycle  Helmets  (49  CFK 
571.218). 

Standard  No.  218,  published  on  August  20, 
1973,  (38  F.R.  22390),  established  minimum 
performance  requirements  for  helmets  manufac- 
tured for  use  by  motorcyclists  and  other  motor 
vehicle  users.  Pursuant  to  49  CFR  553.35,  peti- 
tions for  reconsideration  were  filed  by  the  Safety 
Helmet  Council  of  America  (SHCA)  and  Lear- 
Siegler,  Inc.,  Bon-Aire  Division.  Additionally, 
pursuant  to  49  CFR  553.31,  petitions  to  amend 
the  standard  were  filed  by  the  Z-90  Committee 
of  the  American  National  Standards  Institute, 
Midwest  Plastics  Corp.,  Approved  Engineering 
Test  Laboratories,  Bell-Toptex,  Inc.,  Premier 
Seat  and  Accessory  Co.,  Safetech  Co.,  Sterling 
Products  Co.,  Inc.,  Lanco  Division  of  Roper 
Corp.,  American  Safety  Equipment  Corp.,  and 
Electofilm,  Inc. 

In  response  to  information  contained  in  both 
the  petitions  for  reconsideration  and  the  peti- 
tions for  rulemaking,  the  standard  is  being 
amended  in  some  minor  respects,  and  its  effec- 
tiveness is  temporarily  suspended  for  helmets 
that  must  be  tested  on  headform  sizes  A,  B,  and 
D.  Requested  changes  in  other  requirements  of 
the  standard  are  denied. 

1.  Effective  date.  The  NHTSA  received  com- 
ments from  Royal  Industries/Grant  Division, 
Jefferson  Helmets,  Inc.,  and  Rebcor,  Inc.,  urging 
that  the  March  1,  1974,  effective  date  be  reaf- 
firmed and  stating  that  they  either  have  already 
produced  or  could  produce  helmets  by  that  date 
which  meet  the  standard's  requirements.  The 
NHTSA    commends    these    manufacturers    for 


their  outstanding  efforts  and  their  positive  atti- 
tude toward  producing  safer  products. 

The  parties  who  submitted  petitions,  however, 
all  requested  some  postponement  of  the  stand- 
ard's effective  date.  The  postponement  requests 
ranged  from  an  indefinite  extension  to  a  delay 
until  the  manufacturers  are  able  to  test  helmets 
to  the  required  headforms,  and  were  sought  on 
the  following  three  grounds :  (1)  additional  time 
in  order  to  obtain  headforms  required  for  refer- 
ence marking  and  testing;  (2)  alleged  inade- 
quacy of  the  headform  diagrams  provided  in  the 
final  rule;  and  (3)  inability  to  find  a  supplier 
or  forge  for  the  K-IA  magnesium  alloy  required 
for  the  impact  attenuation  test  headforms. 

As  explained  in  the  preamble  to  the  standard, 
the  headforms  provided  in  the  Appendix  of  the 
notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  (May  19,  1972, 
37  F.R.  10097),  were  changed  by  the  agency  in 
order  to  utilize  the  readily  available  Z90.1  head- 
form  and  to  promote  greater  uniformity  in  test- 
ing and  more  repeatable  results.  In  view  of  the 
fact  that  the  size  C  headform  of  the  final  rule  is 
identical  to  the  Z90.1  headform,  is  readily  avail- 
able in  test  laboratories,  is  used  for  several  on- 
going certification  programs,  and  that  the  other 
headforms  are  scaled  proportionally,  the  NHTSA 
anticipated  that  competition  would  motivate 
both  the  manufacturers  and  the  test  laboratories 
to  take  the  initiative  cither  to  obtain  or  to  pro- 
duce the  other  required  headforms.  It  now  ap- 
pears that  the  problem  of  finding  a  supplier  or 
forge  for  the  K-lA  magnesium  alloy  required 
for  the  A,  B,  and  D  impact  attentuation  test 
headforms  is  substantial  enough  to  justify  the 
requests  for  a  postponement  of  the  standard's 
effective  date  for  helmets  that  must  be  tested  on 
headform  sizes  A,  B,  and  D. 


PART  571;  S  218— PRE  5 


Effective:   March    1,    1974 


Because  the  NHTSA  determined  that  the  size 
C  head  form  would  be  identical  to  the  Z90.1  head- 
form,  the  low  resonance  magnesium  alloy 
(K-lA)  specified  for  making  the  Z90.1  head- 
form  also  was  specified  for  headforms  required 
by  the  standard.  Statements  that  it  might  be 
difficult  to  find  suppliers  or  forges  for  the  ma- 
terial were  first  made  in  the  petitions  on  the 
standard.  The  NHTSA  has  determined  that 
other  low-resonance  magnesium  alloys  can  be 
substituted  for  the  K-IA  type  without  causing 
significant  variances  in  the  results  of  any  of  the 
helmet  tests,  so  that  manufacturers  can  determine 
compliance  without  undue  cost  penalties  even 
where  the  K-lA  alloy  is  in  short  supply.  Ac- 
cordingly, the  K-lA  alloy  is  retained  as  the 
basic  headform  material  for  the  standard. 

In  view  of  the  foregoing  considerations  with 
particular  emphasis  on  the  fact  that  testing 
services  through  commercial  testing  laboratories 
have  been  readily  available  for  several  years  for 
the  ANSI  Z90.1  Standard  headform,  which  is 
the  size  C  headform  of  the  standard,  the  requests 
for  postponing  the  standard's  effective  date  are 
denied  with  respect  to  helmets  that  fit  headform 
C. 

The  petitions  for  a  postponement  of  the  effec- 
tive date  are  granted,  however,  with  respect  to 
helmets  that  must  be  tested  on  headforms  A,  B, 
and  D.  A  sentence  is  being  added  to  the  Appli- 
cation section  of  the  standard,  excepting  from 
its  coverage  helmets  that  must  be  tested  on  these 
headform  sizes.  The  second  sentence  in  86.1.1 
of  the  standard  relating  to  the  selection  of  a 
reference  headform  to  be  used  for  reference 
marking  should  be  disregarded  until  the  stand- 
ard is  made  effective  for  helmets  that  must  be 
tested  on  headform  sizes  A,  B,  and  D.  To  fa- 
cilitate both  the  production  and  availability  of 
headforms,  the  NHTSA  has  contracted  with  the 
Snell  Memorial  Foundation  to  monitor  the  prep- 
aration of  detail  drawings  and  model  headforms 
consistent  with  the  requirements  of  the  standard. 
The  drawings  and  headforms  will  be  included 
in  the  docket  for  public  examination  upon  their 
completion.  A  review  of  the  leadtime  informa- 
tion provided  by  the  comments  to  the  docket 
indicates  that  approximately  8  months  of  manu- 
facturer leadtime  will  be  needed  after  the  detail 
dimensional  drawings  of  the  A,  B,  and  D  head- 


forms  become  available.  When  the  drawings  are 
available,  notice  to  that  effect  will  be  published 
in  the  Federal  Register.  The  planned  effective 
date  for  the  A,  B,  and  D-size  helmets  is  8  months 
from  the  date  of  the  publication  of  that  notice. 

2.  Time  duraticnx  cntena  jon'  impact  attenua- 
tion test.  Petitions  on  the  impact  attenuation 
test  time  duration  criteria  of  paragraphs  S5.1(b) 
ranged  from  eliminating  the  time  duration  cri- 
teria of  2.0  milliseconds  and  4.0  milliseconds  at 
the  200g  and  150g  levels,  respectively,  to  increas- 
ing these  criteria  to  3.0  milliseconds  at  the  200g 
level  and  6.0  milliseconds  at  the  150g  level. 
None  of  these  petitions  raised  any  issues  or  sub- 
mitted any  data  different  from  those  already 
considered  by  the  NHTSA.  The  available  bio- 
mechanical  data  indicate  that  the  head  impact 
protection  provided  to  the  helmet  user  by  the 
standard's  time  duration  criteria  is  greater  than 
that  which  would  result  from  the  proposed 
changes,  and  the  2.0  and  4.0  millisecond  criteria 
are  retained. 

3.  Conditioning  period.  One  petitioner  re- 
quested that  the  24-hour  conditioning  require- 
ment for  each  of  the  four  impact  tests  in 
paragraph  S6.3  be  modified  to  "4  to  24  hours," 
consistent  with  the  requirements  of  ANSI  Z90.1, 
arguing  that  4  hours  is  sufficient  to  condition  a 
helmet  to  the  various  environmental  conditions 
required  for  the  respective  tests  without  compro- 
mising the  intent  of  the  standard.  Upon  further 
study  of  this  matter,  the  NHTSA  has  concluded 
that,  although  4  hours  would  not  be  sufficient  as 
a  general  condition,  changing  the  conditioning 
period  to  12  hours  would  facilitate  product  test- 
ing without  compromising  the  intent  of  the 
standard.  Accordingly,  paragraph  S6.3,  "Con- 
ditioning," is  revised  by  changing  the  "24-hour" 
conditioning  requirement  to  "12  hours"  in  each 
place  the  24-hour  requirement  appears. 

4.  Low  temperature  conditioning  requirement. 
Three  petitioners  objected  to  the  —20"  F.  low 
temperature  conditioning  requirement  in  para- 
graph S6.3(b)  on  the  basis  that  the  requirement 
is  overly  severe.  On  review  of  available  infor- 
mation, this  agency  has  determined  that  precise 
data  on  the  best  low  temperature  requirements 
for  testing  are  not  available.  Pending  receipt 
of  more  specific  information,  therefore,  the  cold 


PART  571;  S  218— PRE  6 


Effecli'/e:  March    1,    1974 


temperature  requirement  of  14°  F.  that  has  been 
used  up  to  now  by  the  American  National  Stand- 
ards Institute  appears  to  be  the  most  appropriate. 
Accordingly,  paragraph  S6.3(b),  "Low  tempera- 
ture," is  revised  by  changing  the  "  —  20°  F." 
conditioning  requirement  to  "14°  F.". 

5.  Projectians.  One  petitioner  requested  that 
paragraph  S5.5,  "Projections,"'  be  changed  to 
permit  a  maximum  rigid  projection  inside  the 
helmet  shell  of  0.080  in.  with  a  minimum  diam- 
eter of  0.150  in.  The  basis  for  this  request  is  to 
allow  for  the  use  of  eyelets  and  rivets  for  attach- 
ment of  snaps  for  face  shields  and  retention 
systems.  The  NHTSA  is  concerned  that  due 
care  be  exercised  with  regard  to  minimizing  tlie 
injury  producing  potential  of  such  fasteners. 
Eyelets  and  rivets  for  the  attachment  of  snaps 
should  be  designed  to  form  a  portion  of  the 
continuous  surface  of  the  inside  of  the  helmet 
shell.  Where  they  are  so  designed,  such  attach- 
ments would  not  be  "rigid  projections."  Ac- 
cordingly, no  revision  to  this  requirement  is 
necessary. 


6.  Labeling.  One  petitioner  recommended  that 
the  labeling  requirements  in  paragraph  S5.6  be 
clarified  with  the  help  of  manufacturers  and 
other  interested  parties.  Since  the  petitioner  did 
not  specify  the  points  requiring  clarification  and 
because  no  other  comments  were  recei-ved  on  this 
subject,  the  NHTSA  has  determined  that  no 
sufficient  reasons  have  been  given  to  change  the 
labeling  requirements. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  49  CFR 
571.218,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  218, 
Motorcycle  Heltnets,  is  amended.  .  .  . 

Effective  date :  March  1,  1974. 

(Sees.  103,  112,  119,  Public  Law  89-563,  80 
Stat.  718,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1407;  delegation 
of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51.) 


Issued  on  January  23,  1974. 


James   B.   Gregory 
Administrator 
39  F.R.  3554 
January  28,  1974 


PART  571;  S  218— PRE  7-8 


n 


( 


EffacNvt:  March    1,    1974 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NUMBER  218 


MOTORCYCLE  HELMETS 


51 .  Scope.  This  standard  establishes  minimum 
performance  requirements  for  helmets  designed 
for  use  by  motorcyclists  and  other  motor  vehicle 
users. 

52.  Purpose.  The  purpose  of  this  standard  is 
to  reduce  deaths  and  injuries  to  motorcyclists 
and  other  motor  veh.icle  users  resulting  from  head 
impacts. 

53.  Application.  This  standard  applies  to 
helmets  designed  for  use  by  motorcyclists  and 
other  motor  vehicle  users.  [The  requirements 
of  this  standard  apply  to  helmets  that  fit  head- 
form  size  C,  manufactured  on  or  after  March  1, 
1974.  Helmets  that  do  not  fit  headform  size  C 
will  not  be  covered  by  this  standard  until  it  is 


extended  to  those  sizes  by  further  amendments 
(39    F.R.    3554— January    28,    1974.      Effective: 

3/1/74)1 

S4.   Definitions. 

"Basic  plane"  means  a  plane  through  the 
centers  of  the  right  and  left  external  ear  open- 
ings and  the  lower  edge  of  the  eye  sockets 
(Figure  1)  of  a  reference  headform  (Figure  2) 
or  test  headform. 

"Midsagittal  plane''  means  a  longitudinal  plane 
through  the  apex  of  a  reference  headform  or  test 
lieadform  that  is  perpendicular  to  the  basic 
plane  (Figure  3). 

"Reference  plane'"  means  a  plane  above  and 
parallel  to  the  basic  plane  on  a  reference  head- 


BASIC  PLANE 


LOWER  EDGE  OP 
EYE  SOCKET 


CENTER  OF  EXTERNAL 
EAR  OPENING 


Figure  1 


(R*v.    1/23/74) 


PART  571;  S  218—1 


Effective:   Morch    I,    1974 


VERTICAL  TRANSVERSE 
PLANE  AS  DETERMINED 
BY  S6. 1.3(d) 


CENTER   OF   EXTERNAL 
EAR  OPENING 


( 


TEST  LINE  1  INCH 
ABOVE  REFERENCE 
PLANE 


NOPE: 

SOLID  LII\IES  WOULD  CORRESPOND 
TO  THE  TEST  LINE  ON  A  TEST 
HELMET. 


TEST  LINE  1  INCH 
BELOW  REFERENCE 
PLANE 


REFERENCE  PLANE 


VEFfTICAL  TRANSVERSE 
PLANE  AS  DETERMINED 
BY  S6.1.3.(b) 


BASIC  PLANE 


nj 


TEST  SURFACE 


Figure  2 


form  or  test  headfonn  (Figure  2)  at  the  distance 
indicated  in  the  Appendix. 

"Reference  headform"  means  a  measuring  de- 
vice contoured  to  the  dimensions  of  one  of  the 
four  headforms  described  in  the  Appendix,  with 
surface  markings  indicating  the  locations  of  the 
basic,  midsagittal,  and  reference  planes,  and  the 
centers  of  the  external  ear  openings. 

'•Test  headform"  means  a  test  device  contoured 
to  the  dimensions  of  one  of  the  four  reference 
headforms  described  in  the  Appendix  for  all  sur- 
face areas  that  contact  the  helmet,  with  surface 
markings  indicating  the  locations  of  the  basic, 
midsagittal,  and  reference  planes. 

"Retention  system"  means  the  complete  as- 
sembly by  which  the  helmet  is  retained  in  posi- 
tion on  the  head  during  use. 

"Helmet  positioning  index"  means  the  distance 
in  inches,  as  specified  by  the  manufacturer,  from 
the  lowest  point  of  the  brow  opening  at  the 
lateral  midpoint  of  tlie  helmet  to  the  basic  plane 
of   a   reference   headform,   when   the   helmet  is 


SDTTION  TUnOJGH  TOE  BASIC  PLANE 


PERIPHEIWL  VISION 
CLEMWNCE 


FIgura  3 


PART  571;  S  218—2 


Effecllve:   March    1,    1974 


firmly  and  properly  positioned  on  the  reference 
headform. 

S5.  Requirements.  Each  helmet  shall  meet  the 
requirements  of  S5.1  through  S5.3  when  sub- 
jected to  any  conditioning  procedure  specified 
in  S6.3,  and  tested  in  accordance  with  S7. 

55.1  Impact  attenuation.  When  an  impact  at- 
tenuation test  is  conducted  in  accordance  with 
S7.1,  all  of  the  following  requirements  shall  be 
met: 

(a)  Peak  accelerations  shall  not  exceed  400g; 

(b)  Accelerations  in  excess  of  200g  shall  not 
exceed  a  cumulative  duration  of  2.0  milliseconds ; 
and 

(c)  Accelerations  in  excess  of  150g  shall  not 
exceed  a  cumulative  duration  of  4.0  milliseconds. 

55.2  Penetration.  "Wlien  a  penetration  test  is 
conducted  in  accordance  with  S7.2,  the  striker 
shall  not  contact  the  surface  of  the  test  headform. 

55.3  Retention  system. 

55.3.1  AVhen  tested  in  accordance  with  S7.3: 

(a)  The  retention  system  or  its  components 
shall  attain  the  loads  specified  without  separa- 
tion; and 

(b)  The  adjustable  portion  of  the  retention 
system  test  device  shall  not  move  more  than  1 
inch  measured  between  preliminary  and  test  load 
positions. 

55 .3 .2  Where  the  retention  system  consists  of 
components  which  can  be  independently  fastened 
without  securing  the  complete  assembly,  each 
such  component  shall  independently  meet  the 
requirements  of  S5.3.1. 

55.4  Configuration.  Each  helmet  shall  have  a 
protective  surface  of  continuous  contour  at  all 
points  on  or  above  the  test  line  described  in 
S6.1.3.  The  helmet  shall  provide  peripheral 
vision  clearance  of  at  least  105°  to  each  side  of 
the  midsagittal  plane,  when  the  helmet  is  ad- 
justed as  specified  in  S6.2.  The  vertex  of  these 
angles,  shown  in  Figure  3,  shall  be  at  the  point 
on  the  anterior  surface  of  the  reference  headform 
at  the  intersection  of  the  midsagittal  and  basic 
planes.  The  brow  opening  of  the  helmet  shall 
be  at  least  1  inch  above  all  points  in  the  basic 
plane  that  are  within  the  angles  of  peripheral 
vision   (see  Figure  3). 


55.5  Projections.  A  helmet  shall  not  have  any 
rigid  2Jrojections  inside  its  shell.  Rigid  projec- 
tions outside  any  helmet's  shell  shall  be  limited 
to  those  required  for  operation  of  essential 
accessories,  and  shall  not  protrude  more  than  0.19 
inch. 

55.6  Labeling. 

S5.6.1  Each  helmet  shall  be  permanently  and 
legibly  labeled,  in  a  manner  such  that  the  label  (s) 
can  be  easily  read  without  removing  padding  or 
any  other  permanent  part,  with  the  following: 

(1)  Manufacturer's   name  or   identification. 

(2)  Precise  model  designation. 

(3)  Size. 

(4)  Month  and  year  of  manufacture.  This 
may  be  spelled  out  (e.g.,  June  1974),  or  expressed 
in  numerals  (e.g.,  6/74). 

(5)  The  symbol  DOT,  constituting  the  manu- 
facturer's certification  that  the  helmet  conforms 
to  the  applicable  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standards.  This  symbol  shall  appear  on  the 
outer  surface,  in  a  color  that  contrasts  with  the 
background,  in  letters  at  least  %  inch  high, 
centered  laterally  approximately  I14  inches  from 
the  bottom  edge  of  the  posterior  portion  of  the 
helmet. 

(6)  Instruction  to  the  purchaser  as  follows: 
"Shell    and    liner    constructed    of     (identify 

type(s)  of  materials). 

"Helmet  can  be  seriously  damaged  by  some 
common  substances  without  damage  being  visible 
to  the  user.  Apply  only  the  following:  (Recom- 
mended cleaning  agents,  paints,  adhesives,  etc., 
as  appropriate). 

"Make  no  modifications.  Fasten  helmet  se- 
curely. If  helmet  experiences  a  severe  blow,  re- 
turn it  to  the  manufacturer  for  inspection,  or 
destroy  and  replace  it."  (On  an  attached  tag, 
brochure,  or  other  suitable  means,  any  additional, 
relevant  safety  information  should  be  supplied 
at  the  time  of  purchase.) 

55.7  Helmet  positioning  index.  Each  manu- 
facturer of  helmets  shall  establish  a  positioning 
index  for  each  helmet  he  manufactures.  This 
index  shall  be  furnished  immediately  to  any  per- 
son who  requests  the  information,  with  respect 
to  a  helmet  identified  by  manufacturer,  model 
designation,  and  size. 


PART  571;  8  218—3 


Effective:    Morch    1,    1974 


S6.  Preliminary  test  procedures.  Before  sub- 
jecting a  lielniet  to  the  testing  sequence  specified 
in  ST.,  prepare  it  according  to  the  following 
procedures. 

56.1  Reference   marking. 

56.1.1  Use  a  reference  headform  that  is  firmly 
seated  with  the  basic  and  reference  planes  hori- 
zontal. Place  the  complete  helmet  to  be  tested 
on  the  reference  headform  of  the  largest  size 
specified  in  the  Appendix  whose  circumference 
is  not  greater  than  the  internal  circumference 
of  the  headband  when  adjusted  to  its  largest 
setting,  or  if  no  headband  is  provided  to  the  cor- 
responding intei'ior  surface  of  the  helmet. 

56.1.2  Apply  a  10-pound  static  load  normal  to 
the  helmet's  apex.  Center  the  helmet  laterally 
and  seat  it  firmly  on  the  reference  headform 
according  to  its  helmet  positioning  index. 

56.1.3  Maintaining  the  load  and  position  de- 
scribed in  S6.1.2,  draw  a  line  (hereinafter  re- 
ferred to  as  "test  line")  on  the  outer  surface  of 
the  helmet  coinciding  with  portions  of  the  inter- 
section of  that  surface  with  the  following  planes, 
as  shown  in  Figure  2 : 

(a)  A  plane  1  inch  above  and  parallel  to  the 
reference  plane  in  the  anterior  portion  of  the 
reference  headform; 

(b)  A  vertical  transverse  plane  2.5  inches  be- 
hind the  point  on  the  anterior  surface  of  the 
reference  headform  at  the  intersection  of  the 
midsagittal  and  reference  planes; 

(c)  The  reference  plane  of  the  reference  head- 
form; 

(d)  A  vertical  transverse  plane  2.5  inches  be- 
hind the  center  of  the  external  ear  opening  in 
a  side  view ;  and 

(e)  A  plane  1  inch  below  and  {parallel  to  the 
reference  plane  in  the  posterior  portion  of  the 
reference  headform. 

56.2  Helmet  positioning.  Prior  to  each  test,  fix 
the  helmet  on  a  test  headform  in  the  position 
that  conforms  to  its  lielmet  positioning  index. 
Secure  the  helmet  so  that  it  does  not  shift  posi- 
tion prior  to  impact  or  to  application  of  force 
during  testing. 

S6.2.1  In  testing  as  specified  in  S7.1  and  S7.2, 
place  tlie  retention  system  in  a  position  such  that 


it  does  not  interfere  with  free  fall,  imisact,  or 
penetration.  y 

S6.3  Conditioning.  Immediately  prior  to  con- 
ducting tiie  testing  sequence  specified  in  ST.,  con- 
dition each  test  helmet  in  accordance  with  any 
one  of  the  following  procedures: 

[(a)  Ambient  conditions.  Exj^ose  to  a  tem- 
perature of  70°  F.  and  a  relative  humidity  of 
50%  for  12  hours. 

(b)  Low  temperature.  Expose  to  a  tempera- 
ture of  14°  F.  for  12  hours. 

(c)  H!gh  temperature.  Expose  to  a  tempera- 
ture of  122°  F.  for  12  hours. 

(d)  Water  imme7'sion.  Immerse  in  water  at  a 
temperature  of  TT°  F.  for  12  hours.  (39  F.R. 
temperature  of  TT°  F.  for  12  hours. 

If  during  testing,  the  time  out  of  the  condition- 
ing environment  for  a  test  helmet  exceeds  5  min- 
utes, return  the  helmet  to  the  conditioning- 
environment  for  a  minimum  of  3  minutes  for 
each  minute  out  of  the  conditioning  environment 
or  12  hours,  whichever  is  less,  prior  to  resump- 
tion of  testing.  (39  F.R.  3554— January  28, 
19T4.    Effective:  3/1/74)] 

S7.  Test  conditions. 

S7.1    Impact  attenuation   test.  / 

57.1.1  Impact  attenuation  is  measured  by  de- 
termining acceleration  imparted  to  an  instru- 
mented test  headform  on  which  a  complete  helmet 
is  mounted  as  specified  in  S6.2,  when  it  is  dropped 
in  guided  free  fall  upon  fixed  hemispherical  and 
flat  steel  anvils. 

57.1 .2  Each  helmet  is  impacted  at  four  sites 
with  two  successive,  identical  impacts  at  each  site. 
Two  of  these  sites  are  impacted  upon  a  flat  steel 
anvil  and  two  upon  a  hemispherical  steel  anvil  as 
specified  in  ST.l.T  and  ST.1.8.  The  impact  sites 
are  at  any  point  on  the  area  above  the  test  line 
described  in  S6.1.3,  and  separated  by  a  distance 
not  less  tiian  one-sixth  of  the  maximum  circum- 
ference of  the  helmet. 

57.1.3  The  guided  free  fall  drop  heights  for 
tlie  helmet  and  test  headform  combination  onto 
the  iiemispherical  anvil  and  flat  anvil  are  54.5 
inches  and  T2  inches,  respectively. 

57.1.4  Test  headforms  for  impact  attenuation 
testing  are  constructed  of  magnesium  alloy 
(K-IA),  and  exhibit  no  reasonant  frequencies 
l)elow  3,000  Hz. 


(Rev.    1/23/74) 


PART  571;  S  218 


Effective:   March    1,    1974 


S7.1.5  AVeight  of  the  drop  assembly,  as  speci- 
fied in  Table  I,  is  the  combined  weight  of  the 
instrumented  test  headform  and  supporting  as- 
sembly for  tlie  drop  test.  The  weight  of  the 
supporting  assembly  does  not  exceed  20%  of  the 
weight  of  the  drop  assembly.  The  center  of 
gravity  of  the  combined  test  headform  and  sup- 
porting assembly  lies  within  a  cone  with  its  axis 
vertical  and  forming  a  10°  included  angle  with 
the  vertex  at  the  point  of  impact. 

TABLE  I 


WEIGHTS  FOR 

IMPACT  ATTENUATION 

TEST 

DROP  ASSEMBLY 

Reference 

Headform  Size 

Weight   (Lbs)* 

A 

7.8 

B 

8.9 

C 

11.0 

D 

13.4 

*  Combined  weight  of  instrumented  test  headform  and 
supporting  a.ssemhly  for  drop  test. 

57.1.6  The  acceleration  transducer  is  mounted 
at  the  center  of  gravity  of  the  combined  test 
headform  and  supporting  assembly  with  the  sen- 
siti\e  axis  aligned  to  within  5°  of  vertical  when 
the  test  headform  is  in  the  impact  position.  The 
acceleration  data  channel  complies  with  SAE 
Recommended  Practice  J211  requirements  for 
channel  class  1,000. 

57.1.7  The  flat  anvil  is  constructed  of  steel 
with  a  5-inch  minimum  diameter  impact  face, 
and  the  hemispherical  anvil  is  constructed  of  steel 
with  a  1.9-inch  radius  impact  face. 

57.1.8  The  rigid  mount  for  both  of  the  anvils 
consists  of  a  solid  mass  of  at  least  300  pounds, 
the  outer  surface  of  which  consists  of  a  steel  plate 
with  minimum  thickness  of  1  inch  and  minimum 
surface  area  of  1  ft.^ 

S7.2   Penetration   test. 

S7.2.1.  The  penetration  test  is  conducted  by 
dropping  the  penetration  test  striker  in  guided 
free  fall,  with  its  axis  aligned  vertically,  onto  the 
outer  surface  of  the  complete  helmet,  when 
mounted  as  specified  in  S6.2,  at  any  point  above 


the   test   line,   described'  in   S6.1.3,  except  on   a 
fastener  or  other  rigid  projection. 

57.2.2  Two  penetration  blows  are  applied  at 
least  3  inches  apart,  and  at  least  3  inches  from 
the  centers  of  any  impacts  applied  during  the 
impact  attenuation  test. 

57.2.3  The  height  of  the  guided  free  fall  is 
118.1  inches,  as  measured  from  the  striker  point 
to  the  impact  point  on  the  outer  surface  of  the 
test  helmet. 

57.2.4  The  contactable  surfaces  of  the  penetra- 
tion test  head  forms  are  constructed  of  a  metal 
or  metallic  alloy  having  a  Brinell  hardness  num- 
ber no  greater  than  55,  which  will  readily  permit 
detection  should  contact  by  the  striker  occur. 
The  surface  is  refinished  if  necessary  prior  to 
each  penetration  test  blow  to  permit  detection 
of  contact  by  the  striker. 

57.2.5  The  weight  of  the  penetration  striker 
is  6  pounds,  10  ounces. 

57.2.6  The  point  of  the  striker  has  an  included 
angle  of  60°,  a  cone  height  of  1.5  inches,  a  tip 
radius  of  0.019  inch  (standard  0.5  millimeter 
radius)  and  a  minimum  hardness  of  60  Rockwell, 
C-scale. 

57.2.7  The  rigid  mount  for  the  penetration 
test  headform  is  as  described  in  S7.1.8. 

S7.3   Retention   system   test. 

57.3.1  The  retention  system  test  is  conducted 
by  applying  a  static  tensile  load  to  the  retention 
assembly  of  a  complete  helmet,  which  is  mounted, 
as  described  in  S6.2,  on  a  stationary  test  head- 
form  as  shown  in  Figure  4,  and  by  measuring 
the  movement  of  the  adjustable  portion  of  the 
retention  system  test  device  under  tension. 

57.3.2  The  retention  system  test  device  con- 
sists of  both  an  adjustable  loading  mechanism 
by  which  a  static  tensile  load  is  applied  to  the 
helmet  retention  assembly  and  a  means  for  hold- 
ing the  test  headform  and  helmet'  stationary. 
The  retention  assembly  is  fastened  around  two 
freely  moving  rollers,  both  of  which  have  a  0.5 
inch  diameter  and  a  3-inch  center-to-center  sepa- 
ration, and  which  are  mounted  on  the  adjustable 


PART  571 ;  S  218—5 


Effcrtiva:  March    1,    )974 


\           TEST  KEl^ET 

STATIONARY  TEST                  ^^^S5v\ 
HEAOFOTI            "^^^^^ 

y^ 

^^J 

'J 

^fe     >^^^s^ 

_r  .  \  \      -_/ "T"      2- RETHfflOtJ  ASSEWBLY 

JMr^'' 

FTCELY  MOtlNC  BOLLOtS           /                 '  , 

M3UNTH)  OtJ  ADJl-STABLE    — "^                    1  ,               APPLICATION  OF  STATIC 

PCflTION  CF  RETDn-ICTJ                                 '  ,          ,    TEJJSILE  UDAD 

SYSTH'.  TEST  DEVICE  WITH                           Iw  ./ 

OI«<ErERS  0.5  IWCK;  AND                            y*^ 

CQtra^To-cQtrER  separa- 

TIOK  3  DOES. 

RETD/riCK  SYSTEM  TEST  DEVICE 

Fi|gte  4 


portion  of  the  tensile  loading  device  (Figure  4). 
The  helmet  is  fixed  on  the  test  headform  as  neces- 
sary to  ensure  that  it  does  not  move  during  the 
application  of  the  test  loads  to  the  retention 
assembly. 

57.3.3  A  50-pound  preliminary  test  load  is  ap- 
plied to  the  retention  assembly,  normal  to  the 
basic  plane  of  the  test  headform  and  sym- 
metrical with  respect  to  the  center  of  the  reten- 
tion assembly  for  30  seconds,  and  the  maximum 
distance  from  the  extremity  of  the  adjustable 
portion  of  the  retention  system  test  device  to 
the  apex  of  the  helmet  is  measured. 

57.3.4  An  additional  250-pound  test  load  is 
applied  to  the  retention  assembly,  in  the  same 
manner  and  at  the  same  location  as  described 
in  S7.3.3,  for  120  seconds,  and  the  maximum  dis- 
tance from  the  extremity  of  the  adjustable  por- 
tion of  the  retention  system  test  device  to  the 
apex  of  the  helmet  is  measured. 


PART  571;  S  218—6 


APPENDIX 


Effective:   March    1,    1974 


.5.28. 


—  2.58 2.11- 


refeemce  basic 

plane  plane      |2!32 

^  a' 


7,05j  CEOTER  OF 

2,21)    EAR  OPENING 


6.97 


3.W 


2.29 


-5.28 


COOTOUR  AT  ^ 


-1.83  - 
CONTOUR  AT  REFERENCE  PLANE 


6.97 


-14.83 
CONTOUR  AT  BASIC  PLANE 


-5.28- 


N  2.58 


REFERENCE 
PLATE    ^ 
5.28 ■ 1-f 


^  s™ 

BASIC  PLANE. 


2.11 


1.57 - 

J).  91 ■ 

CONTOUR  AT  PLAJC  A-A 


1.9? 


-1.92- 
-1.63- 


REFERENCE      , 
PLANE-        \ 

^iSYM 
BASIC  PLANE 


2.29 

■-I 
2.11 


tn 


1.17^ 

-1.83 ^ 

CONTOUR  AT  PLANE  B-B 


HEADPORM  A 


ALL  DIMENSIONS  IN  INCHES 


PART  571;  S  218—7 


Effective:   March    1,    1974 


5.il9 

^2.68-t-2.20H 


BASIC 


'i 


2-331 
Bi 


PLANE 


CENTER  OF  EAR 
OPENING  ^ 


I— 2. 38 -J 


2.142 
7.26 


3.63 


COMTOUR  AT  Z 


COMTOUH  AT  REFEROICE  PLANE 


CONTOUR  AT  BASIC  PLANE 


r- 


5.49- 


5.19 


REFERENCE 
PLANEy 


0  |S™ 
BASIC  PLANE 


Y]' 


V 


2.20 


-1.77- 


-5.15 
CONTOUR  AT  PLANE  A-A 


5.19 


-5.12- 
-5.03— 


T 

REFERENCE 
PLANE 
/ 


s™ 


BASIC  PLANE, 


J4.65- 
-5.03 


CONTOUR  AT  PLANE  B-B 


2.38 


2.20 


HEADPORM  B 


ALL  DIMENSIONS  BI  INCHES 


PART  571;  S  218—8 


Effective:   March    1,    1974 


5.90- 


7.80 


-    2.56-1 

OOWrOUR  AT  t 


-5.62- 


5. HO 

COOTOUR  AT  REFERENCE  PLANE 


CONTOUR  AT  BASIC  PLA>E 


-5.90- 


REraraucE   \ 


5.90 


PLAhE 

1  Is™ 


1 


\         BASIC  PLANE 

I 5.53 

CONTOUR  AT  PLANE  A-A 


5.58 


-5.50- 
-5.10- 


refehehce 
plane; 


2  |s™ 
BASIC  PLANE 


z. 


-5.00— 
—5.40- 


2.56 


2.36 


CONTOUR  AT  PLANE  B-B 


HEADPORM  C 


ALL  DmmSIONS  DJ  INCHES 


231-088  O  -  77  -  67 


PART  571;  S  218—9 


Effective:    March    1,    1974 


6.31 
-  3.08  -  2.52- 

REOTiENCE  BASIC 
3.21   PLANE    PLANE 


;2.78 

A 


1,     CENTER  OF  EAR 

OPENING  ■•  '  .„  ,1, 
2.67  ,  ,  ^•3'* 
B.  ,        ' 


2.7t-H 

CONTOUR  AT  i 


5.77 
CONTOUR  AT  REFERENCE  PLANE 


5.77  -  -   - 

cornouR  at  ba^ic  plane 


-6.31 


6.31 


CONTOUR  AT  PLANE  A-A 


5-77  — 


REFERENCE 
PLANE-     ' 


5.96 


0|SYM 

BASIC  plane; 


2.7') 


2.52 


5.77 
CONTOUR  AT  PLANE  B-B 


HEADPORM  D 


ALL  DIMENSIONS  IN  INCHES 


38  F.R.  22390 
August  20,   1973 


PART  571;  S  218—10 


Effectiva:   September   I,    1976 


PREAMBLE  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   219 

Windshield  Zone  Intrusion 
(Docket  No.  74-21;  Notice  2) 


This  notice  establishes  a  new  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  219,  49  CFR  571.219,  that 
regulates  the  intrusion  of  vehicle  parts  from 
outside  the  occupant  compartment  into  a  defined 
zone  in  front  of  the  windshield  during  a  frontal 
barrier  crash  test. 

The  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  on  which 
this  issuance  is  based  was  issued  on  May  20,  1974 
(39  F.R.  17768).  An  earlier  notice  had  been 
issued  on  August  31,  1972  (37  F.R.  17763),  pro- 
posing a  standard  that  would  prohibit  penetra- 
tion of  the  protected  zone  by  any  part  of  a 
vehicle  outside  of  the  occupant  compartment 
during  a  30-mph  frontal  impact  into  a  fixed 
barrier.  After  further  study  and  an  analysis 
of  comments  submitted  in  response  to  that  no- 
tice, the  NHTSA  determined  that  the  initial 
rule  was  unnecessarily  stringent  since  its  near- 
total  ban  on  intrusion  had  the  effect  of  pro- 
hibiting entrance  into  the  protected  zone  or 
contact  with  the  windshield  by  small  particles 
such  as  paint  chips  and  glass  which  do  not  rep- 
resent a  danger  to  the  vehicle  occupants  if  they 
enter  the  zone  and  impact  the  windshield  open- 
ing with  a  limited  amount  of  force. 

Consequently,  in  the  notice  published  on  May 
20,  1974,  the  proposed  standard  on  windshield 
zone  intrusion  was  amended  to  permit  penetra- 
tion by  particles,  to  a  depth  of  no  more  than 
one-quarter  inch  into  a  styrofoam  template  in 
the  shape  of  the  protected  zone  and  affixed  to 
the  windshield,  during  a  30-mph  frontal  barrier 
crash. 

In  addition,  the  amended  proposal  published 
May  20,  1974,  provided  that  contact  by  vehicle 
parts  with  the  windshield  opening  in  the  area 
below  the  protected  zone,  during  a  30-mph  bar- 
rier crash  test,  would  not  be  prohibited  provided 


that  the  inner  surface  of  that  portion  of  the 
windshield  is  not  penetrated.  The  procedure 
for  determining  the  lower  edge  of  the  protected 
zone  was  also  revised. 

Standard  No.  219,  Windshield  Zone  Intrusion, 
reflects  some  minor  changes  incorpoiated  for 
clarification  following  publication  of  the  pro- 
posed rule  on  May  20,  1974.  First,  open-body- 
type  vehicles  with  fold-down  or  removable  wind- 
shields have  been  added  to  forward  control 
vehicles  as  vehicle  types  to  which  the  standard 
does  not  apply.  A  structurally  unsupported 
windshield,  essential  to  the  utility  of  this  ve- 
hicle type,  typically  does  not  remain  in  place 
during  a  30-mph  frontal  barrier  crash  test,  hence 
the  test  is  impracticable  for  this  type  of  vehicle. 

In  addition,  the  standard  provides  that  its 
prohibitions  against  penetration  by  particles  to 
a  depth  of  more  than  one-quarter  inch  into  the 
styrofoam  template  and  penetration  of  the  inner 
surface  of  the  portion  of  the  windshield  below 
the  protected  zone  do  not  apply  to  windshield 
molding  and  other  components  designed  to  be 
normally  in  contact  with  the  windshield.  This 
provision  was  contained  in  the  proposed  stand- 
ard published  August  31,  1972  but  omitted  from 
the  proposal  published  May  20,  1974. 

The  standard  as  adopted  also  specifies  that 
the  6.5-inch-diameter  rigid  sphere  employed  to 
determine  the  lower  edge  of  the  protected  zone 
shall  weigh  15  pounds,  the  approximate  weight 
of  the  head  and  neck  of  an  average  driver  or 
passenger. 

Comments  submitted  by  Wayne  Corporation 
and  Sheller-Globe  Corporation,  manufacturers 
of  funeral  coaches  and  ambulances,  urged  that 
the  standard  for  windshield  zone  intrusion  con- 
tain an  exception  for  such  vehicles  in  view  of 


PART  571;  S  219— PRE  1 


Effective:   September   1,    1976 

the  low  incidence  of  accidents  involving  funeral 
coaches  and  ambulances,  the  low  volume  of  pro- 
duction of  such  vehicles,  and  the  high  cost  of 
barrier  crash  testing.  The  NHTSA  has  deter- 
mined that  these  arguments  are  without  merit. 
The  manufacturers  have  presented  no  evidence 
to  support  the  contention  that  funeral  coaches 
and  ambulances  are  involved  in  fewer  accidents 
in  proportion  to  their  numbers  than  other  ve- 
hicles. Furthermore,  several  comments  criticiz- 
ing the  allegedly  prohibitive  costs  of  compliance 
with  the  standard  appear  to  have  erroneously 
assumed  that  every  manufacturer  must  conduct 
barrier  crash  tests.  The  performance  require- 
ment for  windshield  zone  intrusion  is  set  out  in 
So.  of  the  standard.  A  manufacturer  r  f  funeral 
coaches  and  ambulances  may,  for  example,  as- 
sure itself  that  the  requirement  is  met  by  barrier 
crashing  the  conventional  chassis  which  is  a  com- 
ponent of  the  special  vehicle,  modified  to  simu- 
late the  dynamic  characteristics  of  the  funeral 
coach  or  ambulance.  Or,  the  manufacturer  may 
use  the  design  characteristic  of  the  vehicle  tak- 
ing into  account  the  modifications  it  makes,  or 
information  supplied  by  the  chassis  manufac- 
turer. 

Low  volume  of  production  is  not  an  appro- 
priate basis  for  an  exemption.  As  the  NHTSA 
has  maintained  in  past  proceedings  where  the 
same  argument  was  advanced,  the  appropriate 
means   to   avoid   application   of   a   standard   on 


hardship  grounds  is  a  temporary  exemption 
under  49  CFR  Part  555. 

Finally,  the  NHTSA  is  continuing  to  promote 
compatibility  and  economy  in  barrier  crash  test- 
ing bj'  adopting  vehicle  loading  and  dummy 
restraint  requirements  in  Standard  No.  219 
identical  to  those  set  out  in  proposed  amend- 
ments to  Standard  No.  301,  Fuel  System  Integ- 
rity, 49  CFR  571.301  (40  F.R.  17036,  April  16, 
1975).  It  has  therefore  required  that  50th- 
percentile  test  dummies  be  placed  in  the  seating 
positions  whose  restraint  system  is  required  to 
be  tested  by  a  dummy  under  Standard  No.  208, 
Occupant  Crash  Protection,  49  CFR  571.208,  and 
that  they  may  be  restrained  only  by  the  means 
that  are  installed  in  the  vehicle  at  the  respective 
seating  positions. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  49  CFR 
Part  571  is  amended  by  the  addition  of  a  new 
Standard  No.  219,  49  CFR  571.219,  Windshield 
Zone  Intmsion.  .  .  . 

Effective  date:  September  1, 1976. 
(Sees.  103,  119,  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80  Stat.  718 
(15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407)  ;  delegation  of  authority 
at  49  C.F.R.  1.51.) 

Issued  on  June  9,  1975. 

James  B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

40  F.R.  25462 
June  16,  1975 


PART  571;  S  219— PRE  2 


EfFeclive:    September    1,    1976 
September    1,    1977 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   219 

Windshield  Zone  Intrusion 
(Docket  No.  74-21;   Notice   3) 


This  notice  responds  to  four  petitions  for  re- 
consideration of  the  notice  published  June  16, 
1975  (40  FE  25462),  which  established  a  new 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  Xo.  219,  Wmd- 
shield  Zone  Inti'UMon,  49  CFR  571.219,  regulat- 
ing the  intrusion  of  vehicle  parts  fiom  outside 
the  occupant  compartment  into  a  defined  zone 
in  front  of  the  windshield  durinc;  a  frontal 
barrier  crash  test.  The  National  Hifrhway 
Traffic  Safety  Administration  (XPITSA)  hereby 
amends  Standard  No.  219  on  the  basis  of  the 
information  and  arguments  presented  by  some 
of  the  petitioners. 

Petitions  for  reconsideration  were  recei\'ed 
from  the  IMotor  Vehicle  Manufacturers  Associa- 
tion (MVMA),  General  Motors,  Ford,  and  Jeep. 
MVMA,  General  ]\Iotors,  and  Ford  requested 
substitution  of  the  term  "daylight  opening"  for 
"windshield  opening,"  and  General  IVIotors  and 
Jeep  requested  a  change  in  the  effective  date  of 
Standard  No.  219  from  September  1,  1976  to 
September  1,  1977.  In  addition,  Jeep  requested 
that  Standard  No.  219  not  become  applicable 
until  final  issuance  of  Standard  No.  212,  Wind- 
shield Mounting,  49  CFR  571.212. 

The  NHTSA  has  detennined  that  the  peti- 
tions of  MVMA,  General  Motors,  and  Ford 
requesting  substitution  of  the  term  "daylight 
opening"  for  "windshield  opening"  have  merit, 
and  they  are  therefore  granted.  These  peti- 
tioners requested  that  the  term  "windshield  open- 
ing" be  replaced  by  the  term  "daylight  opening", 
which  is  defined  in  paragraph  2.3.12  of  section 
E,  Ground  Vehicle  Practice,  SAE  Aerospace- 
Automotive  Drawing  Standards,  September, 
1963.  The  part  of  the  windshield  below  the  day- 
light opening  is  protected  by  the  cowling  and 
instrument  panel.    There  is  little  likelihood  that 


in  a  frontal  crash  any  vehicle  component  will 
penetrate  the  cowling  and  instiximent  panel  with 
sufficient  force  to  pose  a  threat  to  the  vehicle 
occupants.  Therefore,  the  zone  intrusion  require- 
ments of  Standard  No.  219  should  only  apply 
to  the  area  of  the  windshield  susceptible  to 
actual  penetration  by  vehicle  components  in  a 
crash.  Accordingly,  the  term  "windshield  open- 
ing" as  it  is  used  in  Standard  No.  219,  is  replaced 
by  "daylight  opening."  The  SAE  definition  of 
"daylight  opening"  has  been  slightly  modified  to 
reflect  the  particular  characteristics  of  Standard 
No.  219. 

The  NHTSA  has  concluded  that  the  petitions 
of  Genei-al  Motors  and  Jeep  requesting  a  change 
in  the  effective  date  of  Standard  No.  219  should 
be  granted  in  part  and  denied  in  part.  The 
economic  considerations  involved  in  coordinating 
the  effective  date  of  Standard  No.  219  with  that 
of  Standard  No.  212,  Windshield  Mounting, 
justify  postponement  of  the  effective  date  to 
September  1,  1977,  for  application  of  Standard 
No.  219  to  all  vehicles  except  passenger  cai^s. 
However,  the  effective  date  of  September  1,  1976, 
will  be  retained  for  passenger  cai-s  because  of 
their  greater  susceptibility  to  the  intrusion  of 
vehicle  parts  against  which  this  standard  is  de- 
signed to  protect.  This  postponement  of  effec- 
tive dates  also  grants  in  part  Jeep's  petition 
requesting  that  the  applicability  of  Standard 
No.  219  be  postponed  until  final  issuance  of 
Standard  No.  212. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  §  571.219 
is  amended  by  revising  S4.,  S5.,  and  S6.1(d)  of 
Standard  No.  219,  Windshield  Zone  Intrusion^ 
to  read  as  follows : 

Ejfective  date:  September  1,  1976,  for  pas- 
senger cars;  September  1,  1977,  for  multipurpose 


PART  571;  S  219— PRE  3 


Effective:    September    1,    1976 
September    1,    1977 

passenger    vehicles,    trucks,    and    buses    witli    a  Issued  on  November  10,  1975. 

GVWR  of  10,000  pounds  or  less.  James  B.  Gregory 

(Sec.   103,  119,  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80  Stat.  718  Administrator 

(15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407) ;  delegation  of  authority  40  F.R.  53033 

at  49  CFR  1.51.)  November  14,  1975 


PART  571;  S  219— PRE  4 


Effective:   September   1,    1976 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   219 
Windshield  Zone  Intrusion 


51.  Scope.  This  standard  specifies  limits  for 
the  displacement  into  the  windshield  area  of 
motor  vehicle  components  during  a  crash. 

52.  Purpose.  The  purpose  of  this  standard  is 
to  reduce  crash  injuries  and  fatalities  that  result 
from  occupants  contacting  vehicle  components 
displaced  near  or  through  the  windshield. 

53.  Application.  This  standard  applies  to  pas- 
senger cars,  and  to  multipurpose  passenger  ve- 
hicles, trucks  and  buses  of  10,000  pounds  or  less 
gross  vehicle  weight  rating.  However,  it  does 
not  apply  to  forward  control  vehicles  or  open- 
body-type  vehicles  with  fold-down  or  removable 
windshields. 

54.  Definitions. 

["Daylight  Opening"  (DLO)  means  the  maxi- 
mum unobstructed  opening  through  the  glazing 
surface,  including  reveal  or  ganiish  moldings 
adjoining  the  surface,  as  measured  parallel  to 
the  outer  surface  of  the  glazing  material.  (40 
F.K.  53033— November  14,  1975.  Effective: 
9/1/76  &  9/1/77)3 

"Windshield  opening"  means  the  outer  surface 
of  the  windshield  glazing  material. 

55.  Requirement.  [^Vlien  the  vehicle  traveling 
longitudinally  forward  at  any  speed  up  to  and 
including  30  mph  impacts  a  fixed  collision  bar- 
rier that  is  perpendicular  to  the  line  of  travel 
of  the  vehicle,  under  the  conditions  of  S7,  no 
part  of  the  vehicle  outside  the  occupant  com- 
partment, except  windshield  molding  and  other 
components  designed  to  be  normally  in  contact 
with  the  windshield,  shall  penetrate  the  protected 
zone  template,  affixed  according  to  S6,  to  a  depth 
of  more  than  one-quarter  inch,  and  no  such  part 
of  a  vehicle  shall  penetrate  the  inner  surface  of 
that  portion  of  the  windshield,  within  tlie  DLO, 
below  the  protected  zone  defined  in  S6.     (40  F.R. 


53033— November  14,  1975. 

9/1/77)3 


Effective:  9/1/76  & 


S6.   Protected  zone  template. 

S6.1  The  lower  edge  of  the  protected  zone  is 
determined  by  the  following  procedure  (see 
Figure  1). 

(a)  Place  a  6.5-inch  diameter  rigid  sphere, 
weighing  15  pounds,  in  a  position  such  that  it 
simultaneously  contacts  the  inner  surface  of  the 


LOWER  BOUNDARY  OF 
WINDSHIELD  PROTECTED 
ZONE 


HORIZONTAL  EXTENSION 
BEYOND  OUTERMOST 
CONTACTABLE  POINT 


CROSS  SECTION  OF 
PROTECTED  ZONE  IN 
TYPICAL  VERTICAL 
LONGITUDINAL  PLANE 


POINT  OF  CONTACT 
BETWEEN  SPHERE  AND 
INNER  SURFACE  OF 
WINDSHIELD 


FRONT  VIEW 


WINDSHIELD  PROTECTED  ZONE 
Figure  1 


windshield  glazing  and  the  surface  of  the  in- 
strument panel,  including  padding.  If  any 
accessories  or  equipment  such  as  the  steering 
control  system  obstruct  positioning  of  the  sphere, 
remove  them  for  the  purposes  of  this  procedure. 

(b)  Draw  the  locus  of  points  on  the  inner 
surface  of  the  windshield  contactable  by  the 
sphere  across  the  width  of  the  instrument  panel. 
From  the  outermost  contactable  points,  extend 
the  locus  line  horizontally  to  tlie  edges  of  the 
fflazing  material. 


(Rev.    11/10/75) 


PART  571;  S  219-1 


Effective:    September    I,    1976 


(c)  Draw  a  line  on  the  inner  surface  of  the 
windshield  helow  and  one-half  inch  distant  from 
the  locus  line. 

(d)  [The  lower  edge  of  the  i^rotected  zone 
is  the  longitudinal  projection  onto  the  outer  sur- 
face of  the  windshield  of  the  line  determined 
in  S6.i(c).  (40  F.R.  53033— November  14,  1975. 
Effective:  9/1/76  &  9/1/77)] 

56.2  The  protected  zone  is  the  space  enclosed 
by  the  following  surfaces,  as  shown  in  Figure  1 : 

(a)  [The  outer  surface  of  the  windshield  in 
its  precrash  configuration.  (40  F.R.  53033 — 
November  14, 1975.    Effective :  9/1/76  &  9/1/77)3 

(b)  [The  locus  of  points  3  inches  outward 
along  perpendiculars  drawn  to  each  point  on  the 
outer  surface  of  the  windshield.  (40  F.R.  53033 
—November  14,  1975.  Effective:  9/1/76  & 
9/1/77)] 

(c)  [The  locus  of  lines  forming  a  45°  angle 
with  the  outer  surface  of  the  windshield  at  each 
point  along  the  top  and  side  edges  of  the  outer 
surface  of  the  windshield  and  the  lower  edge  of 
the  protected  zone  determined  in  S6.1,  in  the 
plane  perpendicular  to  the  edge  at  that  point. 
(40  F.R.  53033— November  14,  1975.  Effective: 
9/1/76  &  9/1/77)] 

56.3  A  template  is  cut  or  formed  from  Styro- 
foam,  type  DB,  cut  cell,  to  tlie  dimensions  of  the 
zone  as  determined  in  S6.2.  The  template  is 
affixed  to  the  windshield  so  that  it  delineates  the 
protected  zone  and  remains  affixed  throughout 
the  crash  test. 

S7.  Test  conditions.  The  requirement  of  S5 
shall  be  met  under  the  following  conditions : 

57.1  The  protected  zone  template  is  affixed  to 
the  windshield  in  the  manner  described  in  S6. 

57.2  The  hood,  hood  latches,  and  any  other 
hood  retention  components  are  engaged  prior  to 
the  barrier  crash. 

57.3  Adjustable  cowl  tops  or  other  adjustable 
panels  in  front  of  the  windshield  are  in  the  po- 
sition used  under  normal  operating  conditions 
when  windshield  wiping  systems  are  not  in  use. 


57.4  The  parking  brake  is  disengaged  and  the      / 
transmission  is  in  neutral. 

57.5  Tires  are  inflated  to  the  vehicle  manu- 
facturer's specifications. 

57.6  The  fuel  tank  is  filled  to  any  level  from 
90  to  95  percent  of  capacity. 

57.7  The  vehicle,  including  test  devices  and 
instrumentation,  is  loaded  as  follows : 

(a)  Except  as  specified  in  S7.6,  a  passenger 
car  is  loaded  to  its  unloaded  vehicle  weight  plus 
its  rated  cargo  and  luggage  capacity  weight,  se- 
cured in  the  luggage  area,  plus  a  50th-percentile 
test  dummy  as  specified  in  Part  572  of  this  chap- 
ter at  each  front  outboard  designated  seating 
position  and  at  any  other  position  whose  protec- 
tion system  is  required  to  be  tested  by  a  dummy 
under  the  provisions  of  Standard  No.  208.  Each 
dummy  is  restrained  only  by  means  that  are  in- 
stalled for  protection  at  its  seating  position. 

(b)  Except  as  specified  in  S7.6,  a  multipurpose 
passenger  vehicle,  truck  or  bus  is  loaded  to  its 
unloaded  vehicle  weight,  plus  300  pounds  or  its 
rated  cargo  and  luggage  capacity,  whichever  is 
less,  secured  to  the  vehicle,  plus  a  50th-percentile 
test  dummy  as  specified  in  Part  572  of  this  chap- 
ter at  each  front  outboard  designated  seating 
position  and  at  any  other  position  whose  protec- 
tion system  is  required  to  be  tested  by  a  dummy 
under  the  provisions  of  Standard  No.  208.  Each 
dummy  is  restrained  only  by  means  that  are  in- 
stalled for  protection  at  its  seating  position.  The 
load  is  distributed  so  that  the  weight  on  each 
axle  as  measured  at  the  tire-ground  interface  is 
in  proportion  to  its  GAWR.  If  the  weight  on 
any  axle  when  the  vehicle  is  loaded  to  its  un- 
loaded vehicle  weight  plus  dummy  weight  ex- 
ceeds the  axle's  proportional  share  of  the  test 
weight,  the  remaining  weight  is  placed  so  that 
tlie  weight  on  that  axle  remains  the  same.  For 
the  purposes  of  this  section,  unloaded  vehicle 
weight  does  not  include  the  weight  of  work- 
performing  accessories. 

40  F.R.   25462 
June  16,  1975 


(Rev.    11/10/751 


PART  571;  S  219-2 


Effective:   October   26,    1976 


PREAMBLE  TO   MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   220 

School   Bus  Rollover  Protection 
(Docket  No.   75-2;   Notice  2) 


This  notice  establishes  a  new  motor  vehicle 
safety  Standard  No.  220,  School  Bus  Rollover 
Protection,  49  CFR  571.220,  specifying  perform- 
ance requirements  for  the  structural  integrity  of 
the  passenger  compartment  of  school  buses  when 
subjected  to  forces  that  can  be  encountered  in 
rollovers. 

The  Motor  Vehicle  and  Schoolbus  Safety 
Amendments  of  1974  (the  Act)  mandate  the  is- 
suance of  Federal  motor  vehicle  safety  standards 
for  several  aspects  of  school  bus  performance, 
including  crashworthiness  of  the  vehicle  body 
and  frame.  Pub.  L.  93-942,  section  202  (1.5 
U.S.C.  1392(i)(l)(A)).  Bused  on  this  inan- 
ilate  and  on  bus  liody  cnisliworthiness  research 
(DOT-HS-046-3-694),  the  NHTSA  proposed 
rollover  protection  requirements  for  school  buses 
(40  F.R.  8570,  February  28,  1975).  Citing  sta- 
tistics on  the  safety  record  of  school  bus  opera- 
tion, several  manufacturers  questioned  whether 
any  standard  for  school  bus  rollover  protection 
could  be  justified. 

The  Act  reflects  a  need,  evidenced  in  corre- 
spondence to  the  NHTSA  from  the  public,  to 
protect  the  children  who  ride  in  school  buses. 
They  and  their  parents  have  little  direct  control 
over  the  types  of  vehicles  in  which  they  ride  to 
school,  and  are  not  in  a  position  to  determine 
the  safety  of  the  vehicles.  It  is  for  this  reason 
that  the  school  bus  standards  must  be  effective 
and  meaningful. 

At  the  same  time,  the  safety  history  of  school 
buses  does  not  demonstrate  that  radical  modifica- 
tion of  school  bus  structure  would  substantially 
decrease  occupant  death  and  injury.  As  noted 
in  the  "School  Bus  Safety  Improvement  Pro- 
gram'' contract  conducted  by  Ultrasvstcnis.  Inc.. 
(DOT-HS-046-3-694)   for  the  NHTSA  : 


"School  buses  are  a  relatively  safe  mode  of  hu- 
man transportation.  School  bus  accident  rates 
and  injury/fatality  rates  on  a  per-vehicle,  per- 
vehicle-mile,  per-passenger-mile,  or  per-passen- 
ger  basis  are  significantly  less  than  for  other 
passenger  vehicles.  Accidents  to  school  children 
while  enroute  to  and  from  school  occur  primarily 
in  modes  other  than  as  school  bus  passengers. 
However,  school  bus  safety  can  and  .should  be 
improved." 

As  a  practical  matter,  the  amount  of  struc- 
tural modification  called  for  in  this  standard  is 
also  limited  as  a  result  of  the  O-month  lead  time 
available  to  implement  the  provisions  of  each 
school  bus  standard  after  its  promulgation.  The 
various  new  requirements  imposed  in  response  to 
the  mandate  of  the  Act  will  recjuire  considerable 
effort  by  school  bus  manufacturers  to  bring  their 
products  into  conformity  in  tlie  9-month  period. 

The  Physicians  for  Automotive  Safety,  The 
National  Transportation  Safety  Board,  the  Home 
Insurance  Company  and  other  commenters 
suggested  that  the  NHTSA  had  ignored  the 
recommendations  of  the  report  submitted  by 
Ultrasystems  on  school  bus  improvement.  The 
report  concluded  that  the  improved  school  bus 
design  tested  by  Ultrasystems  could  withstand  a 
significantly  greater  load  for  the  same  amount 
of  roof  crush  than  existing  school  bus  designs. 

In  fact,  the  NHTSA  evaluated  the  test  re- 
suits  and  Ultrasy stem's  recommendations  care- 
fully. While  tlie  percentage  of  reduction  of  roof 
crush  would  be  substantial  as  a  result  of  the 
reconnnended  design  change,  no  relationship  of 
this  decrease  in  deflection  to  improved  safety 
for  occupants  was  establislied.  Ultrasystems  re- 
ported that  increases  of  $500  in  cost  and  530 
[)oun(ls  were  incurred  to  achie\p  several  iiuprovp- 


PART  571;  S  220— PRE  1 


Effective:    October   26,    1976 


ments,  including  those  of  the  vertical  loof  crush 
test. 

The  recommendations  also  implied  increased 
structural  rigidity  but  did  not  evaluate  its  effect 
on  the  amount  of  energy  absorbed  by  vehicle 
occupants  in  a  crash.  Also,  Ultrasystems,  did 
not  consider  the  ])rob]ems  of  lead  time  and  re- 
tooling costs  in  making  its  recommendations. 
The  NHTSA  continues  to  consider  that  its  pi'o- 
posal  of  51/8  inches  of  maximum  roof  ciaish  under 
a  load  equal  to  I14  times  the  vehicle's  unloaded 
weight  provides  a  satisfactory  level  of  occupant 
crash  protection.  Available  data  do  not  support 
the  conclusion  that  a  2-  or  3-inch  reduction  of 
this  crush  would  significantly  improve  the  level 
of  passenger  safety  in  school  buses.  It  is  the 
intention  of  the  NHTSA  to  continually  revicAv 
accident  statistics  relating  to  school  bus  safety. 
Accordingly,  future  upgrading  of  the  standard 
will  be  considered  should  such  action  be  war- 
ranted based  upon  availability  of  appropriate 
data. 

In  response  to  inquiries  fiom  the  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Manufacturers  Association  and  General 
Motors  as  to  the  origin  of  the  5i/g-inch  require- 
ment, the  limit  is  drawn  from  the  existing  School 
Bus  Manufacturers  Institute  requirement  for 
school  bus  structural  integrity  (Static  Load  Test 
Code  for  School  Bus  Body  Structure,  issued  by 
the  School   Bus  Manufacturers  Institute). 

In  adopting  the  Si/g-inch  limit  found  in  the 
[)resent  industry  standard,  the  NHTSA  is  not 
merely  preserving  the  .status  quo.  While  a  man- 
ufacturer may  have  designed  its  products  to 
meet  the  industry  standard  in  the  past,  certain 
of  its  products  presumably  performed  either  bet- 
ter or  worse  than  tlie  nominal  design.  Con- 
foi'mity  to  NHTSA  standards,  in  contrast. 
ref|uirps  tliat  every  vehicle  be  capable  of  meeting 
the  r)i^-inch  limit.  This  means  that  the  manu- 
facturer nnist  design  its  vehicles  to  meet  a  liigher 
level  of  performance,  to  provide  a  compliance 
margin  foi-  those  of  its  products  whicli  fall  lielow 
tlie  nominal  design  level.  Of  course,  the  manu- 
facturer can  reduce  the  compliance-margin 
jirobjem  witliout  redesign  by  improving  the  con- 
sistency of  its  manufacturing  processes. 

The  standard  requires  that,  upon  the  applica- 
tion of  vertical  downwai-d  force  to  the  Inis  roof 
equal  to  lyo  times  the  vehicle's  unloaded  weight. 


the  vehicle  roof  shall  not  crush  more  tlian  .5% 
inches,  and  the  emergency  exits  sliall  I)o  capable 
of  being  opened,  with  the  weiglit  applied,  and 
after  its  release.  The  National  Transportation 
Safety  Board,  the  Vehicle  Equipment  Safety 
Commission  (VESC).  Mercedes-Benz,  and  the 
Action  for  Child  Transportation  Safety  organiza- 
tion suggested  other  methods  for  evaluation  of 
crashworthiness.  The  NHTSA  has  considered 
these,  but  concludes  that  the  static  test  specified 
in  this  standard  provides  a  reasonable  means  to 
determine  crashworthiness  without  unnecessary 
testing  expense. 

Based  on  submitted  comments,  the  standard 
varies  in  some  respects  from  the  proposal.  The 
sizes  of  the  force  application  plates  used  to  apply 
force  and  the  method  of  application  have  been 
revised  to  simplify  the  test  procedures  and  equip- 
ment, and  to  spread  the  force  over  larger  areas 
of  the  vehicle  roofs  of  large  and  small  vehicles. 
The  pi-oposal  specified  a  rigid,  rectangular  force 
application  plate  36  inches  wide  and  20  inches 
shorter  than  the  vehicle  roof,  preventing  re- 
liance on  the  roof  end  structures  for  rollover 
protection  in  typical  body-on-chassis  construc- 
tion. Commentei's  pointed  out  that  the  end 
structures  of  the  roof  are  almost  certain  to  bear 
the  weight  of  a  rollover  and  should  be  included 
in  a  test  of  a  vehicle's  crashworthiness.  Several 
manufacturers  and  other  commenters  recom- 
mended an  increase  in  the  size  of  the  force  ap- 
plication plate,  in  order  to  permit  the  foremost 
and  rearmost  roof  "bows"  of  their  buses  to  absorb 
a  portion  of  the  test  load.  Ford  Motor  Companj' 
stated  it  had  performed  the  test  as  proposed  and 
asserted  that  the  roof  of  its  van-type  vehicle,  as 
presently  designed  could  not  meet  the  require- 
ment without  an  increase  in  the  size  of  the  force 
application  plate  to  distribute  the  load  over  the 
entire  vehicle  roof.  Chrysler  Corporation  stated 
it  would  find  it  necessary  to  discontinue  produc- 
tion of  small  school  buses  because  of  i-edesign 
costs  if  the  requirements  were  adopted  as  pro- 
posed. 

With  a  view  to  the  safety  record  of  school 
buses  and  the  9-month  lead  time,  the  NHTSA 
concludes  that  the  force  application  plate  can 
be  modified  so  that  an  additional  "bow"  or 
"bows"'  bear  part  of  the  applied  force.  It  is  the 
NHTSA's  view  that  a  change  to   permit   both 


PART  571;  S  220— PRE  2 


Effective:   October   26,    1976 


roof  end  stnictures  to  fully  contribute  to  s^upport 
of  tlic  ai)plied  force  in  the  case  of  buses  of  iiioTe 
tiian  10,000  pounds  would  be  a  relaxation  of 
current  industry  practices.  Accordingly,  the  ex- 
tent of  change  recommended  by  the  industry  is 
not  adopted.  The  XHTSA  concludes  that  an 
8-inch  increase  in  the  length  of  the  force  applica- 
tion plate  is  sufficient  to  allow  some  portion  of 
the  applied  force  to  be  absorbed  by  the  end  bows 
of  the  I'oof  while  maintaining  adequate  crash 
protection.  Thei'efore,  for  these  buses  the  width 
of  the  plate  remains  as  proposed  while  the  length 
of  the  plate  is  increased  8  inches. 

In  the  case  of  lighter  buses,  which  are  gen- 
erally of  the  van  type,  the  XHTSA  has  increased 
both  the  widtli  and  length  of  the  plate  to  en- 
compass the  entire  roof. 

The  procedure  for  applying  force  tliiougli  the 
plate  has  also  been  modified  in  some  respects. 
Many  comments  objected  that  the  procedure  re- 
quired an  expensive,  complex  hydraulic  mecha- 
nism that  would  increase  the  costs  of  compliance 
Avithout  justification.  The  pi'oposal  specified  an 
"ev^nh'-distributed  vertical  force  in  a  downward 
direction  through  the  force  application  plate", 
starting  with  the  plate  horizontal.  Commenters 
interpreted  these  specifications  to  mean  that  the 
vehicle  would  be  required  to  absorb  the  energy 
in  evenly-distributed  fashion  and  that  the  hori- 
zontal attitude  of  the  plate  must  be  maintained. 

Actually  these  specifications  were  included  in 
the  proposed  method  to  advise  manufacturers  of 
the  precise  procedures  to  be  employed  in  com- 
pliance testing  of  their  products.  Understanding 
that  some  manufacturers  may  choose  to  achieve 
the  required  force  application  by  applying 
weights  evenly  over  the  surface  of  the  plate,  the 
standard  specified  an  "evenly-distributed  force'" 
to  eliminate  other  methods  (such  as  a  concen- 
trated force  at  one  end  of  the  plate)  that  could 
unfairly  test  the  vehicle  structure.  The  hori- 
zontal attitude  of  the  plate  was  also  intended  to 
establish  a  beginning  point  for  testing  on  which 
a  manufacturer  can  rely.  ^Miile  these  specifica- 
tions establish  the  exact  circumstances  under 
which  vehicles  can  be  tested,  a  manufacturer  can 
depart  from  them  as  long  as  it  can  l)e  shown 
that  the  vehicle  would  comply  if  tested  exactly 
as  specified.  In  place  of  the  perfectly  rigid  plate 
called  for  in  the  standard,  for  example,  a  manu- 


facturer could  employ  a  plate  of  sufficient  stiff- 
ness to  ensure  tliat  tiie  test  results  are  not  affected 
by  the  lack  of  rigidity. 

Some  modification  of  the  test  procedures  has 
been  made  for  simplification  and  clarity.  To 
permit  placement  of  the  plate  on  the  roof  to 
begin  testing  without  a  suspension  mechanism, 
the  specification  for  horizontal  attitude  is  mod- 
ified to  permit  the  plate  to  depart  from  the 
horizontal  in  tiie  fore  and  aft  direction  only. 
Some  manufacturers  considered  the  initial  ap- 
plication of  force  as  an  unnecessary  complication. 
However,  the  initial  force  application  of  500 
pounds  has  been  retained  in  order  to  permit  elim- 
ination of  inconsequential  deformation  of  the  roof 
structure  prior  to  measurement  of  the  permissible 
.51/8  inches  of  deflection.  In  instances  where  the 
force  application  plate  weighs  more  than  500 
pounds,  some  type  of  suspension  mechanism 
could  be  used  temporarily  to  constrain  the  load 
level  to  the  initial  value,  if  the  manufacturer 
decides  to  conduct  his  testing  exactly  as  specified 
in  the  standard's  procedures. 

The  requirement  that  force  be  applied  "through 
the  plate"  has  been  changed  to  "to  the  plate" 
in  order  to  avoid  a  misunderstanding  that  the 
vehicle  must  absorb  energy  evenly  over  the  sur- 
face of  its  roof. 

As  proposed  bj'  several  commenters,  the  rate 
of  application  in  pounds  per  minute  lias  been 
changed  to  inches  per  second,  specifically  "at  any 
rate  not  more  than  i/o  inch  per  second."  Manu- 
facturers should  understand  that  "any"  in  this 
context  is  defined  by  the  XHTSA  "(49  CFR 
§  571.4)  to  mean  that  the  vehicle  roof  must  satisfy 
the  requirement  at  every  rate  of  application 
within  the  stated  range.  General  Motors  re- 
ports that  as  a  practical  matter,  the  effect  of 
speed  in  rate  of  application  for  tests  of  this 
nature  is  not  significant  in  the  range  of  0.12 
inches  per  second  to  1  inch  per  second. 

The  re(juirenient  that  movement  "at  any  point" 
on  the  plate  not  exceed  5%  inches  has  not  been 
modified  despite  some  objections.  The  XHTSA 
considers  it  reasonable  that  excessive  crush  not 
be  permitted  at  the  extremities  of  the  plate. 
^Measurement  of  movement  only  at  the  center  of 
the  plate,  for  exami)le,  would  permit  total  col- 
lapse of  the  structure  in  any  direction  as  long 
as  one  point  on  llie  bus  maintained  its  integrity. 


PART  571;  S  220— PRE  3 


EfFeclive:   October   26,    1976 


The  preparation  of  the  vehicle  for  the  applica- 
tion of  force  has  been  modified  to  specify  re- 
placement of  non-rigid  body  mounts  with 
equivalent  rigid  mounts.  The  compression  of 
deformable  body  mounts  is  unrelated  to  crash- 
worthiness  of  the  structure  and  can  therefore  be 
eliminated  to  permit  testing  of  tlie  structure 
itself. 

Accessories  or  components  which  extend  up- 
ward from  the  vehicle's  roof  (such  as  school  bus 
lights)  are  removed  for  test  purposes.  It  is  also 
noted  tliat  the  vehicle's  transverse  frame  members 
or  body  sills  are  supported  for  test  purposes.  In 
response  to  a  question  from  Blue  Bird  Body 
Company,  a  frame  simulator  may  be  used  along 
with  any  other  variations  as  long  as  the  manu- 
facturer assures  liimself  that  the  vehicle  would 
conform  if  tested  precisely  as  specified  in  the 
standard. 

The  vehicle's  emergency  exits  must  also  be  ca- 
palilo  of  opening  wlien  the  required  force  is  ap- 
plied, and  following  release  of  the  force.  As 
noted  in  comments,  this  requirement  simulates 
the  use  of  the  exits  after  a  rollover,  whether  or 
not  the  vehicle  comes  to  rest  on  its  roof.  Tiie 
proposed  requirement  of  ability  to  close  these 
exits  is  eliminated  because  sucli  a  capability  is 
unnecessary  in  an  emergency  evacuation  of  the 
bus.  For  this  reason,  the  requirement  has  been 
modified  so  that  a  particular  test  specimen  (i.e., 
a  particular  bus)  will  not  be  required  to  meet 
requiicments  for  emergency  exits  which  open 
following  release  of  force,  if  the  exits  have  al- 
ready been  tested  while  the  application  force  is 
maintained. 

With  regard  to  tlie  requirements  as  a  whole. 
Crown  Coach  and  other  manufacturers  argued 
that  the  application  of  IV2  times  the  vehicle's 
unloaded  weight  unfairly  discriminates  against 
buses  with  a  higher  vehicle  woight-to-passenger 
ratio.  The  XHTSA  disagrees,  and  notes  that 
tlie  relevant  consideration  in  rollover  is  the 
weight  of  the  vehicle  itself  in  determining  the 
energy  to  lie  absorbed  by  the  structure.  In  a 
related  area,  one  manufacturer  suggested  that 
the  increased  weight  of  the  NHTSA's  contem- 
l)lated  new  standards  for  school  buses  would  in- 
crease unloaded  vehicle  weight  to  the  point  where 
redesign  would  be  required  to  meet  the  rollovei- 
standai-d.      The    NHTSA    has    considered    this 


issue  and  estimates  that  the  only  significant  new       ^flj 
weight    would    be    for   improved    seating.      This      ^H 
weight  increase  would  not  substantially  increase 
tlie  severity  of  the  rollover  standard. 

The  State  of  California  suggested  consolida- 
tion of  the  rollover  standard  with  the  joint 
sti'ength.  While  such  a  consolidation  would  ap- 
pear logical  for  school  buses  alone,  the  NHTSA 
prefers  the  flexibility  of  separate  standards  with 
a  view  to  their  use  independently  in  the  future 
for  other  vehicle  types.  For  example,  the  appli- 
cation of  vertical  force  to  the  vehicle  structui'e 
may  be  appropriate  in  a  vehicle  for  which  the 
joint  strength  requirement  would  not  be  appro- 
priate. 

The  State  of  Georgia  requested  that  transit 
systems  transporting  school  children  be  exempted 
from  Standard  No.  220.  This  commenter  ap- 
parently misunderstood  the  applicability  of  the 
standard.  It  only  applies  to  newly-manufactured 
vehicles  and  does  not  require  modification  of 
existing  fleets,  whether  or  not  operated  by  a 
transit  authority. 

Interested     persons     should     note     that     the 
NHTSA    has   issued   a   proposal   to   modify   the 
definition  of  "school  bus"   (40  F.R.  40854,'  Sep-        ^ 
tember   1,   1975)    and  that   if  that  definition  is       fl 
adopted  the  requirements  of  this  standard  will        ^ 
apply  to  all  vehicles  that  fall  within  the  defini- 
tion, whether  or  not  they  fall  wuthin  the  present 
definition. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  a  new  motor 
vehicle  safety  standard  No.  220,  School  Bus  Boll- 
over  Protection,  is  added  as  §  571.220  of  Part  571 
of  Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations.  .  .  . 

Effective  date:  October  26.  1976. 

The  effective  date  of  this  standard  is  estab- 
lished as  9  months  after  the  date  of  its  issuance, 
as  required  by  the  Motor  Vehicle  and  Schoolbus 
Safety  Amendments  of  1974,  Pub.  L.  93-492, 
section  202  (15  U.S.C.  1397(i)  (1)  (A) ). 

(Sec.  103,  119,  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80  Stat.  718  (15 
U.S.C.  1392,  1407)  ;  §  202,  Pub.  L.  93-492,  88 
Stat.  1470  (15  U.S.C.  1392);  delegation  of  au- 
tliority  at  49  CFR  1.51) 

Issued  on  January  22,  1976. 

Howaid  J.  Dugoff 
Acting  Administrator 
41    F.R.  3874 
January    27,    1976 


PART  571 ;  S  220— PRE  4 


Effective:   October   26,    1976 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   220 


School   Bus  Rollover  Protection 


51.  Scope.  This  standard  establishes  per- 
formance i-equirenients  for  school  bus  rollover 
protection. 

52.  Purpose.  The  purpose  of  this  standard  is 
to  reduce  the  number  of  deaths  and  the  severity 
of  injuries  that  result  from  failure  of  the  school 
bus  body  structure  to  withstand  forces  encoun- 
tered in  rollover  crashes. 


S3.  Applicability. 

school  liuses. 


This    standard    applies    to 


54.  Requirements.  When  a  force  equal  to  II/2 
times  the  unloaded  vehicle  weight  is  applied  to 
the  roof  of  the  vehicle's  body  structure  through 
a  force  application  plate  as  specified  in  S.5.,  Test 
procedures — 

(a)  The  downward  vertical  movement  at  any 
point  on  the  application  plate  shall  not  exceed 
514  inches;  and 

(b)  Each  emergency  exit  of  the  vehicle  pro- 
vided in  accordance  with  Standard  No.  217 
(§  571.217)  shall  be  capable  of  opening  as  spec- 
ified in  that  standard  during  the  full  application 
of  tlie  force,  and  after  release  of  the  force.  A 
particular  vehicle  (i.e..  test  specimen)  need  not 
meet  the  emergency  exit  opening  recjuirement 
after  release  of  force  if  it  is  subjected  to  the 
emergency  exit  opening  requirements  during  the 
full  application  of  the  force. 

55.  Test  procedures.  Each  vehicle  shall  be 
capable  of  meeting  the  requirements  of  S4.  when 
tested  in  accordance  with  the  procedures  set 
forth  below. 

S5.1  With  any  non-rigid  chassis-to-body 
mounts  replaced  with  equivalent  rigid  mounts, 
place  the  vehicle  on  a  rigid  horizontal  surface 
so  that  the  vehicle  is  entirely  supported  liy 
means   of  the   vehicle   frame.     If  the   vehicle   is 


constructed  without  a  frame,  place  the  vehicle 
on  its  body  sills.  Remove  any  components  which 
extend  upward  from  the  vehicle  roof. 

55.2  Use  a  flat,  rigid,  rectangular  force  ap- 
plication plate  that  is  measured  with  respect  to 
the  vehicle  roof  longitudinal  and  lateral  center- 
lines, 

(a)  In  the  case  of  a  vehicle  with  a  GV^\'Tl  of 
more  than  10,000  pounds,  12  inches  shorter  than 
the  vehicle  roof  and  36  inches  wide;  and 

(b)  In  the  case  of  a  vehicle  with  a  GVWR 
of  10,000  pounds  or  less,  5  inches  longer  and  5 
inches  wider  than  the  vehicle  roof.  For  pur- 
poses of  these  measurements,  the  vehicle  roof  is 
that  structure,  seen  in  the  top  projected  view, 
that  coincides  with  the  passenger  and  driver  com- 
partment of  the  vehicle. 

55.3  Position  the  force  application  plate  on 
the  \ehicle  roof  so  that  its  rigid  surface  is  per- 
pendicular to  a  vertical  longitudinal  plane  and 
it  contacts  the  roof  at  not  less  than  two  points, 
and  so  that,  in  the  top  projected  view,  its  lon- 
gitudinal centerline  coincides  with  the  longitu- 
dinal centerline  of  the  vehicle,  and  its  front  and 
rear  edges  are  an  equal  distance  inside  the  front 
and  rear  edges  of  the  vehicle  roof  at  the  center- 
line. 

55.4  Apply  an  evenly-distributed  vertical 
force  in  the  downward  direction  to  the  force 
application  plate  at  any  rate  not  more  than  0.5 
inch  per  second,  until  a  force  of  500  pounds  has 
been  applied. 

55.5  Apply  additional  vertical  force  in  the 
downward  direction  to  the  force  application  plate 
at  a  rate  of  not  more  than  0.5  inch  per  second 
until  tlie  force  specified  in  S4  has  been  applied, 
and  maintain  this  application  of  force. 


PART  571;  S  220-1 


Effective:   October   26,    1976 


55.6  Pleasure  the  downward  inovonient  of 
any  point  on  tlie  force  ai)plication  plate  which 
occurred  durinjf  the  application  of  force  in  ac- 
cordance with  S5.5. 

55.7  To  test  the  capability  of  tlie  vehicle's 
emergency  exits  to  open  in  accordance  with 
S4(b)-  ' 

(a)  In  the  case  of  testing  under  the  full  ap- 
plication of  force,  open  the  emergency  exits  as 
specified  in  S4(b)  while  maintaining  the  force 
applied  in  accordance  with  S5.4  and  S5.5;  and 

(b)  In  the  case  of  testing  after  the  release  of 
all  force,  release  all  downward  force  applied  to 


the  force  application   plate  and  open  the  emer- 
gency exits  as  specified  in  S-4(b). 

S6.  Test  conditions.  The  following  conditions 
apply  to  tlie  requirements  specified  in  S4. 

56.1  Temperature.  The  ambient  temperature 
is  any  level  between  32"  F.  and  90°  F. 

56.2  Windows  and  doors.  Vehicle  windows, 
doors,  and  emergency  exits  are  in  fully-closed 
position,  and  latched  but  not  locked. 

41    F.R.  3874 
January    27,    1976 


PART  571:  S  220-2 


( 


Effective:   October   26,    1976 


PREAMBLE  TO   MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD   NO.   221 

School   Bus  Body  Joint  Strength 
(Docket  No.  73-34;   Notice  3) 


This  notice,  establishes  a  new  motor  vehicle 
safety  stanrlard.  Xo.  221 :  School  Bn^  Body  Joint 
StrP7ifif]i.  4!>  CFR  571.221,  specifvinf;-  a  niini- 
iiuun  poi'fonnance  love!  for  school  luis  body 
panel  joints. 

The  ilotor  ^'ehicle  and  Schoolbns  Safety 
Amendments  of  1074  (Pnb.  L.  03-492.  88  Stat. 
1470,  lieiein.  the  Act)  i-equire  the  issuance  of 
minimum  I'ecjuirements  for  school  Imis  body  and 
frame  naslnvortiiiness.  This  rnlemakinjr  is  pur- 
suant to  authority  vested  in  tlie  Secretary  of 
Transportation  by  tlie  Act  and  delepated  to  tlie 
Administi'atoi-  of  the  XIITSA.  and  is  preceded 
by  notices  of  proposed  rulemalcinc  issued  Jan- 
uary 29.  1974  (:59  F.R.  2490)  and  ^[arch  i:'.. 
1975  (40  F.R.  11738). 

One  of  tlie  si<rnificant  injury-producing'-  cliar- 
acteristics  of  scliool  bus  accidents,  exposure  to 
sliarp  metal  ed^es.  occurs  when  body  panels  be- 
come separated  from  the  structural  components 
to  which  they  have  been  fastened.  Tn  an  acci- 
dent severe  lacei'ations  may  restdt  if  the  occu- 
pants of  the  bus  are  tossed  ajiainst  these  edges. 
Moreover,  if  i)anel  separation  is  great  the  com- 
ponent may  be  ejected  from  the  vehicle,  greatly 
increasing  tlie  possibility  of  serious  injury. 

Tills  standard  is  intended  to  lessen  the  likeli- 
hood of  tliese  modes  of  injury  by  recjuiring  that 
liody  joints  on  school  buses  have  a  tensile 
strength  e([ual  to  60  pei'cent  of  the  tensile 
strengtli  of  the  weakest  joined  body  panel,  as 
suggested  by  the  Vehicle  Equi[)ment  Safety 
("onunission  (VESC).  The  XHTSA  has  deter- 
iniuccl  that  this  is  an  appropriate  level  of  per- 
foriiumce  lor  body  joints  and  that  its  application 
to  school  buses  is  both  reasonable  and  practicable. 
Fiu'thermore.  the  XHTSA  believes  that  adoption 


of  this  standard  will  provide  an  effective  and 
meaningful  solution  to  the  body  panel  problem. 

It  is  anticipated  that  this  rule  will  burden 
manufacturers  only  to  the  extent  of  requiring 
the  installation  of  more  rivets  than  are  currently 
tised.  The  XIITSA  has  reviewed  the  economic 
and  environmental  impact  of  this  proposal  and 
detei'inined  that  neither  will  be  significant. 

Tn  their  response  to  the  two  XHTSA  pro- 
posals on  this  subject,  several  of  the  commenters 
suggested  that  the  standard  could  be  met  by  re- 
ducing the  strength  of  the  panel  rather  than 
increasing  the  strength  of  the  joint,  and  that  a 
minimum  joint  strength  should  be  required.  For 
several  reasons  the  XIITSA  does  not  believe  that 
a  mininuun  absolute  joint  strength  is  desirable 
at  this  time.  While  this  standard  Avill  tend  to 
iiHi'ease  the  overall  strength  of  buses,  it  is  not 
designed  to  set  minimum  body  panel  strength 
i-equirements.  Its  purpose  is  to  prevent  panels 
fi'om  separating  at  the  joint  in  the  event  of  an 
accident.  In  order  to  deal  with  the  problem  of 
laceration,  this  regulation  must  be  applicable  to 
both  exterior  and  interior  joints.  An  absolute 
miniinmn  joint  strength  requirement  would  be 
constrained  by  the  level  of  performance  appro- 
priate for  the  relatively  thin  interior  panels. 
Thus,  the  overall  level  of  performance  could  not 
be  defined  in  a  meaningful  fashion  without  se- 
verely and  unnecessarily  limiting  the  manufac- 
ture7-'s  flexibility  in  designing  his  product.  The 
XHTSA  School  Bus  Rollover  Protection  Stand- 
ard (49  CFR  571.220).  which  specifies  require- 
ments for  the  stiiictural  integrity  of  school  bus 
liodies,  shotdd  result  in  a  practical  lower  limit 
on  panel  strength  and  thereby  set  a  practical 
absolute  minimum  joint  .strength. 


PART  571;  S  221— PRE  1 


Effective:   October   26,    1976 


Tlie  \HTSA  has  no  evidence  tliat  tlic  mode 
of  failure  found  in  the  Uu<ier  traditional  sciiool 
buses  also  occurs  in  smaller,  van-type  school 
buses  cui-rently  manufactured  by  automobile 
manufacturers  for  use  as  11-  to  l7-i)assenger 
school  buses.  Ford  Motor  Company  commented 
that  the  mode  of  injury  sought  to  be  prevented 
])V  this  standard  does  not  occur  in  accidents  in- 
volving school  buses  converted  from  multipur- 
pose passenger  vehicles  (vans).  Chrysler  Cor- 
poration suggested  that  the  proposed  requirement 
is  inappropriate  wlien  applied  to  vans  with 
''coach"  joiiit  construction.  Based  on  these  com- 
ments, the  XIIT8A  has  determined  that  until 
information  to  the  conti-ary  appears  .or  is  de- 
veloped these  vehicles  should  not  be  covered  by 
the  requirement.  Accordingly,  the  application 
of  the  standard  has  been  limited  to  school  buses 
with  a  gross  vehicle  weight  rating  over  10,000 
|)ounds. 

Several  conunenters  suggested  that  certain 
types  of  joints  might  not  be  susceptible  of  testing 
in  tlie  manner  specified  in  this  regulation.  Up 
to  this  time  the  NIITSA  has  not  found  sufficient 
evidence  in  support  of  that  position  to  justify 
ame.ndiiig  the  standard.     If  information  is  re- 


ceived indicating  that  different  test  methods  are 
required  for  certain  applications,  appropriate 
action  will  be  initiated. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  a  new  motor 
vehicle  safety  standard.  No.  '■221^chool  Bits  Body 
Joint  Strength,  is  added  as  §  ,571.221  of  Part  571 
of  Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  as  set 
forth  below. 

Elective  date :  October  26, 1976. 

The  effective  date  of  this  standard  is  9  months 
after  the  date  of  issuance,  as  required  by  the 
Motor  Vehicle  and  Schoolbus  Safety  Amend- 
ments of  1974.  Pub.  L.  93-492,  section  202  (15 
U.S.C.  1397(i)(l)(A)). 

(Sees.  103.  119,  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80  Stat.  718 
(15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407) ;  §  202,  Pub.  L.  93-492,  88 
Stat.  1470  (15  U.S.C.  1392) ;  delegation  of 
authority  at  49  CFR  1.50.) 


Issued  on  January  22, 1976. 


Howard  J.  Dugoff 
Acting  Administrator 

41  F.R.  3872 
January  27,  1976 


PART  571;  S  221— PRE  2 


Effective:   October   26,    1976 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  221 


School  Bus  Body  Joint  Strength 


51.  Scope.  This  standard  establishes  require- 
ments for  the  sti'ength  of  body  panel  joints  in 
school  bus  bodies. 

52.  Purpose.  The  purpose  of  this  standard  is 
to  reduce  deaths  and  injuries  resultinof  from  the 
structural  collapse  of  school  bus  bodies  during 
crashes. 

53.  Application.  This  standard  applies  to 
school  buses  with  ji^ross  vehicle  weight  ratings  of 
moie  than  10,000  pounds. 

54.  Definitions. 

"Body  com])onent"  means  a  part  of  a  bus  body 
made  from  a  single  piece  of  homogeneous  ma- 
terial or  from  a  single  piece  of  composite  ma- 
terial such  as  plywood. 

"Body  panel"'  means  a  body  component  used 
on  tlie  exterior  or  interior  surface  to  enclose  the 
bus'  occupant  space. 

"Body  panel  joint''  means  the  area  of  contact 
or  close  proximity  between  the  edges  of  a  body 
panel  and  another  body  component,  excluding 
spaces  designed  for  ventilation  or  another  func- 
tional i)urpose,  aiul  excluding  doors,  windows, 
and  maintenance  access  panels. 

"Bus  body''  means  the  portion  of  a  bus  that 
ciuloses  the  bus'  occupant  space,  exclusive  of  the 
bumpers,  the  chassis  frame, .  and  any  sti'ucture 
forward  of  the  forwai'dmost  poiiit  of  the  wiiid- 
sliield  mounting. 

55.  Requirement.  When  tested  in  accordance 
witli  the  i)rocedure  of  S6,  each  liody  [)auel  joint 
shall  be  capable  of  liolding  the  body  panel  to  tlie 
member  to  wliich  it  is  joined  when  subjected  to 
a  force  of  60%  of  the  tensile  strength  of  the 
weakest  joined  body  panel  determined  pur.suant 
to  86,2, 


S6.   Procedure. 

S6.1    Preparation  of  the  test  specimen. 

S6.1.1  If  a  body  panel  joint  is  8  inches  long  or 
longer,  cut  a  test  specimen  that  consists  of  any 
randomly  selected  8-inch  segment  of  the  joint, 
together  with  a  portion  of  the  bus  body  whose 
dimensions,  to  the  extent  permitted  by  the  size 
of  the  joined  parts,  are  those  specified  in  Figure 
1,  so  that  the  specimen's  centerline  is  perpen- 
dicular to  the  joint  at  the  midpoint  of  the  joint 
segment.  Where  the  body  panel  is  not  fastened 
continuously,  select  the  segment  so  that  it  does 
not  bisect  a  spot  weld  or  a  discrete  fastener. 


Joint  ovftttrtlfM 


Spaarrwn  oannrlin 


> 


y'  K3+3H  X. 


H  dimarMlon*  in  indw* 


56.1.2  If  a  joint  is  less  than  8  inches  long,  cut 
a  test  specimen  witli  enough  of  the  adjacent  ma- 
terial to  permit  it  to  be  held  in  the  tension  test- 
ing machine  specified  in  S6.3. 

56.1.3  Prepare  the  test  specimen  in  accordance 
with  tlie  preparation  procedures  specified  in  the 
15)73  edition  of  the  Annual  Book  of  ASTM 
.'standards,  published  by  the  American  Society 
for  Testing  and  Materials,  1916  Race  Street, 
Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania  19103, 


231-088  O  -  71  - 


PART  571;  S  221-1 


Effective:   October   26,    1976 


S6.2  Determination  of  minimum  allowable 
strength.  For  pui[)()SO.s  of  dotcriniinni;-  the  iniiii- 
muiu  ulluwablo  joint  strciifitli,  deteriuine  the 
tensile  strengths  of  the  joined  body  coinponents 
as  follows: 

(a)  If  tlie  nioclianical  properties  of  a  material 
are  specified  by  the  American  Society  for  Test- 
inir  and  Materials,  the  relative  tensile  strenjjth 
for  such  a  material  is  the  minimum  tensile 
streno-th  specified  for  tliat  material  in  the  197;^ 
edition  of  the  Annual  Book  of  AST]\I  Standards. 

(b)  If  tlie  mechanical  propei'ties  of  a  material 
are  not  specified  by  the  .Vmciican  Society  foi- 
l'estin<,r  and  Materials,  determine  its  tensile 
strentrth  by  cutting  a  sjjecimen  from  the  bus 
liody  out,side  the  area  of  the  joint  and  by  testing- 
it  in  accordance  witli  S6.3. 


S6.3   Strength  test. 

56.3.1  Grip  tlie  joint  specimen  on  opposite 
sites  of  the  joint  in  a  tension  testing  machine 
calil)i-ated  in  accordance  with  Method  E4,  Veri- 
fication of  Testing  Machines,  of  the  American 
Society  for  Testing  and  Materials  (1973  Annual 
Hook  of  ASTM  Standards). 

56.3.2  Adjust  the  testing  machine  grips  so  that 
the  joint,  under  load,  will  be  in  stress  approxi- 
malcly  perpendicular  to  the  joint. 

56.3.3  Apply  a  tensile  force  to  the  specimen 
by  se[>arating  the  heads  of  the  testing  machine 
at.  any  uniform  rate  not  less  than  14  inch  and  not 
more  than  %  inch  per  minute  until  the  specimen 
sei)arates. 

41  F.R.  3872 
January  27,  1976 


PART  571;  S  221-2 


Effective:    October   26,    1976 


PREAMBLE  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   222 

School  Bus  Seating  and   Crash   Protection 
(Docket  No.  73-3;   Notice   5) 


This  notice  establishes  a  new  motor  vehicle 
•safety  Standard  No.  222,  School  Bus  Se.afiny 
and  Crash  Protection,  that  specifies  seat  in  «r,  re- 
straining barrier,  and  impact  zone  requirements 
for  school  buses. 

The  Motor  Vehicle  and  Schoolbiis  Safety 
Amendments  of  1974,  Pub.  L.  93-402,  directed 
the  issuance  of  a  school  bus  seatin<i'  systems  per- 
formance standard  (and  other  standards  in  seven 
areas  of  vehicle  performance).  The  XIITSA 
had  already  issued  two  proposals  for  school  bus 
seatinjr  systems  prior  to  enactment  of  the  1974 
Safety  Amendments  (the  Act)  (.".S  F.R.  4770. 
February  22.  1978)  (39  F.E.  27.-)8r).  July  30.  1974) 
and  subsequently  published  two  additional  pro- 
posals (40  F.R.  1785.5.  April  23.  1975)  (40  F.R. 
47141.  October  S.  1975).  Each  aspect  of  tiie  le- 
quirenients  was  fully  considered  in  the  course 
of  this  rulemakin<r  activity.  Couunents  received 
in  response  to  the  most  recent  proposal  wei'e 
limited  to  a  few  asi)ccts  of  the  Standard. 

The  largest  number  of  connnents  were  received 
on  the  requirement  that  school  bus  passenjrei' 
seats  be  equipped  with  seat  belt  anchoraj^es  at 
each  seatinjr  position.  Tlie  standard  relies  on 
compartmentalization  between  well-padded  and 
well-constructed  scats  to  provide  occu[)ant  pro- 
tection on  school  buses  (other  than  \an-type 
buses).  At  the  same  time,  seat  belt  anchorajres 
were  proposed  so  that  a  i;reatei'  nieasui'c  of  pro- 
tection could  l)e  ^ifnined  if  a  particular  user  chose 
to  use  the  anchorajres  by  installation  of  seat  belts 
tofrether  with  a  system  to  assuie  that  seat  belts 
would  be  worn.  pro]iei'ly  adjusted,  and  not 
misused. 

Rus  operators  stron<;;ly  expressed  the  \iew  tliat 
the  presence  of  seat  licit  anchoi'afres  would  en 
couraire   the   installation   of  seat   belts  by   school 


districts  without  providing;'  the  necessary  super- 
vision of  their  use.  This  association  of  scliool 
bus  operators  (National  .'-School  Transportation 
Association)  also  questioned  the  benefits  that 
woidd  be  dei'ived  from  anchorajxe  installation  as 
lon<j:  as  their  utilization  is  not  required.  Tn  view 
of  these  factors,  and  the  iiulications  that  in  any 
event  only  a  small  fraction  of  school  buses  would 
have  belts  installed  and  properly  used,  the 
NHTSA  concludes  that  the  proposed  seat  belt 
anchorafic  re(iuirement  should  not  be  included  in 
this  initial  school  bus  seatinjr  standard.  Further 
study  of  the  extent  to  which  belts  would  be  in- 
stalled and  pioperly  used  should  permit  more 
certainty  as  tlie  i)asis  for  any  future  action. 

XHTSA  calculations  demonstrate  that  the 
stren<i1h  characteristics  of  the  scat  specified  by 
the  standard  to  pro\i(le  the  correct  amount  of 
com[)artmcntalization  also  jirovide  the  strenirth 
necessaiy  to  absorli  seat  belt  loads.  Tiiis  means 
that  an  o[)erator  or  school  district  may  safely 
attach  seat  belts  to  the  seat  frame,  even  where 
ancliorai;es  are  not  installed  as  ori<rinal  equiji- 
mcnt.  Tlie  seat  is  stronjr  enoufrh  to  take  the 
force  of  occupants  a<iainst  the  seat  back  if  no 
belts  are  utilized,  or  the  force  of  occupants 
against  seat  belts  if  occupants  are  restrained  by 
belts  attached  to  the  seat  frame  throufrh  the 
anchorajres  provided. 

The  Physicians  for  Automotive  Safety  (PAS) 
requested  that  lap  belts  be  required  in  addition 
to  the  compartmentalization  offered  by  the  seat- 
in<r  systems.  Tlu-  agency  concbided  earlier  in 
this  rulemakino;  procedure  that  compartmentali- 
zation piovides  satisfactory  protection  and  that 
a  requirement  for  belts  without  the  assurance  of 
pioper  sui)ervision  of  theii'  use  woidd  not  be  an 
effective  means  of  providing  occupant  protection. 


PART  571;  S  222— PRE  1 


Effective:    October   26,    1976 


I'AS  has  not  provided  data  or  arj;\uiionts  tliat 
would  modify  this  conclusion,  and  its  r(M]H('st  is 
thercforo  denied. 

PAS.  rclyin<r  on  test  in;;-  und(Mtakcn  at  the 
University  of  Califoinia  at  Los  An^reles  in  1!)67 
and  1960.  ar^iued  that  a  vertical  scat  hack  hei;:ht 
of  'J4  inches  alxnc  tlie  seatiii^i'  reference  point 
(SRP)  is  necessary  to  atl'orfl  ade([uate  protec- 
tioi\  ajiiiinst  occupant  injury.  The  XIITSA,  as 
noted  in  its  fourth  notice  of  school  bus  crash 
protection.  ])ased  its  'iO-inch  re(|uireuient  on 
newer  data  ;;euerated  in  dynamic  and  static  test- 
inir  by  AMF  Coi-poration  of  prototype  seats  de- 
siiiiied  to  meet  the  proposed  rccjuircments  of  the 
standard  ("Development  of  a  Unitized  School 
Bus",  DOT-HS-400969).  While  the  XIITSA 
does  not  dispute  that  a  properly  constrncted. 
higher  seat  back  provides  more  protection  than 
a  lower  seat  back,  the  data  support  the  a^rency's 
detei'inination  that  tiie  i^O-inch  seat  back  provides 
a  reasonable  level  of  protection.  School  bus  ac- 
cident data  do  not  [)rovide  substantial  evidence 
of  a  whiplash  injury  experience  that  could  justify 
a  4-inch  increase  in  seat  back  hei^jht.  For  this 
reason,  the  seat  back  heipht  is  made  final  as 
proposed. 

Several  counnenters  objected  to  applicability 
of  the  standard  to  school  buses  with  a  ;i;ross  ve- 
hicle weio-ht  i-atin;;:  (GVWR)  of  10,000  pounds 
or  less  (light  school  buses),  asserting-  that  the 
special  requirements  of  the  standard  for  those 
buses  were  inappropriate,  or  unachievable  within 
the  9-nionth  leadtime  for  compliance  mandated 
by  the  Act. 

Chrysler  Corpoiation  requested  exclusion  of 
light  school  buses  from  this  standard  for  an  in- 
definite period,  and  Ford  ^lotor  Company  re- 
(piested  that  es.sentially  the  same  package  of 
standards  as  already  aie  provided  in  its  van-type 
midti-purpose  passenger  vehicles  and  school  bus 
models  be  I'equired  in  the  future,  with  no  addi- 
tional protection.  Both  companies  belie\e  that 
the  relatively  small  numbers  of  their  vehicl(>s 
sold  as  school  buses  would  have  to  be  withdrawn 
from  the  market  because  of  the  expense  of  tool- 
ing new  seating  that  oii'ers  more  crash  i)rotection 
than  present  seating.  Wayne  Corporation  manu- 
factures a  light  school  bus  that  is  not  based  on 
a  van-type  vehicle,  and  requested  that  seats  used 


in  its  larger  models  be  permitted  in  smaller 
models,  along  with  seat  belts  that  comply  with 
Standard  \o.  209. 

The  Congressional  direction  to  issue  standards 
f(n-  school  bus  seating  systems  (15  U.S.C. 
S  1392(i)  (1)  (A)  (iv))  implies  that  existing  seat- 
ing and  occupant  crash  i)rotection  standards  are 
insufficient  for  vehicles  that  carry  school  children. 
'I'he  XHTSA  has  proposed  a  combination  of  re- 
quirements for  light  school  buses  that  differ  from 
those  for  heaxier  buses,  because  the  crash  pulse 
experienced  by  smaller  vehicles  is  more  severe 
than  that  of  larger  vehicles  in  similar  collisions. 
Tile  standard  also  s[)ecifies  ade<juate  numbers  of 
seat  belts  for  the  children  that  the  vehicle  would 
carry,  because  such  restraints  are  necessary  to 
l)rovide  adequate  crash  protection  in  small  ve- 
iiicles.  The  requirements  applicable  to  light 
scliool  buses  are  considered  reasonable,  and  are 
tiierefore  included  in  the  final  rule  as  proposed. 

In  Wayne's  case,  it  is  not  clear  why  the  seat 
it  has  developed  for  heavier  school  buses  will  not 
serve  in  its  smaller  school  buses.  Seat  belts  may 
need  to  be  attached  to  the  floor  to  support  the 
force  specified  by  Standard  X^o.  210  for  anchor- 
ages. Also,  some  interior  padding  may  be 
necessary  to  meet  the  vehicle  impact  zone  re- 
(juirements  of  Sr).3.1.1(a). 

Sheller-Globe  Corporation  (Sheller)  and 
Wayne  consideied  unreasonable  the  standard's 
limitation  on  maxinunu  distance  between  a  seat's 
SEP  and  the  rear  surface  of  the  seat  or  restrain- 
ing liarrier  forward  of  the  SRP  (Sr).2).  The 
limitation  exists  to  minimize  the  distance  an  oc- 
cupant travels  before  forward  motion  is  arrested 
by  the  padded  structure  that  compartmentalizes 
the  occui)ant.  Tiie  two  bus  manufacturers  con- 
tend that  they  nnist  also  comply  with  State  re- 
(luirements  for  a  miniunun  distance  between  seats 
that  results  in  only  1  inch  of  tolerance  in  seating 
[)iacement. 

Section  10;$(d)  of  the  Xational  Traffic  and 
Motor  \'chicle  Safety  Act  provides  in  part : 
(d)  Whenever  a  Federal  motor  vehicle  safety 
standard  ...  is  in  effect,  no  State  or  political 
subdivision  of  a  State  shall  have  any  authority 
either  to  establish  or  continue  in  effect,  with 
respect  to  any  motor  \-ciiicle  or  item  of  motor 
vehicle  equipment   any  safety  standard  appli- 


PART  571:  S  222— PRE  2 


Effective:    October    26,     1 976 


cable  to  the  same  aspect  of  performance  of 
such  vehicle  or  item  of  cquii)ment  which  is  not 
identical  to  the  Federal  standard. 

It  is  the  opinion  of  the  XHTSA  that  any 
State  requirement  relating  to  seat  spacing,  othei' 
than  one  identical  to  the  Federal  refjuirement  for 
maximum  spacing  of  20  inches  from  the  SRP,  is 
preempted  under  §  103(d),  15  U.S.C.  §  1392(d). 

Sheller  advocated  wider  seat  sjiacing  for  ac- 
tivity buses,  because  seats  are  occupied  for  longer 
periods  of  time  on  road  trips.  The  NHTSA, 
noting  that  activity  buses  are  often  used  on  the 
open  highway  at  high  speeds  for  long  periods  of 
time,  requests  comments  on  the  advisability  of 
specifj'ing  a  seat  belt  requirement  in  place  of 
the  seat  spacing  requirement  in  the  case  of  these 
buses. 

Much  of  Shellei'  and  Wayne's  concern  ovei' 
tolerances  may  stem  from  a  misunderstanding  of 
the  meaning  of  "seating  refei'ence  point"  (SRP). 
As  defined  by  the  XHTSA  (49  CFR  571.3),  the 
SRP  is  essentially  the  manufacturer's  design 
reference  point  which  simidates  tiie  pivot  center 
of  the  human  torso  and  thigh,  located  in  accord- 
ance with  the  SAE  Standard  J826.  Thus  the 
manufacturer  calculates,  on  its  seat  design  seen 
in  side  projected  view,  the  pivot  center  of  the 
human  torso  and  thigh  of  the  potential  seat  occu- 
pant, and  then  establishes  a  design  reference  point 
that  simulates  the  location  of  the  actual  pivot 
center.  The  NHTSA  has  interpreted  that  this 
design  reference  point  may  be  fixed  by  the  manu- 
facturer with  reference  to  the  seating  structure 
to  simplify  calculation  of  its  location  in  a  bus 
for  purposes  of  measurement  and  compliance. 

Sheller  also  requested  that  the  "seat  perform- 
ance forward"  testing  be  simplified  by  elim- 
inating the  8-inch  range  of  locations  at  which 
the  lower  loading  bar  can  be  applied  against  the 
seat  back.  As  noted  in  the  preamble  to  Xotice  4 
of  this  docket  in  response  to  a  similar  request 
from  Blue  Bird  Body  Company,  the  XHTSA  de- 
clines to  make  this  restriction,  to  di.scourage  the 
addition  of  a  narrow  2-inch  wide  structural  mem- 
ber at  this  point  simply  to  meet  the  retjuirement. 
This  reasoning  remains  valid  and  Siieller's  re- 
quest is  denied. 


."^heller  also  asked  that  the  requirement  for 
forward-facing  seats  be  eliminated  from  the 
standard,  in  view  of  the  practice  of  installing 
side-facing  seals  in  some  buses  for  handicapped 
students.  The  XHTSA  designed  the  seating  sys- 
tem in  this  standard  for  protection  from  fore  and 
aft  crash  forces,  and  considers  it  necessary  that 
the  seats  be  forward-facing  to  achieve  the  objec- 
tive of  occupant  protection.  Comments  are  so- 
licited on  whether  the  provision  of  this  protection 
in  special  vehicles  is  impractical. 

The  Vehicle  Equipment  and  Safety  Conmiis- 
sion  (VESC)  asked  for  a  minimum  seat  widtli 
of  13  inches  for  each  designated  seating  position, 
looting  that  the  standard's  formula  permits  seat- 
ing of  12.67  inches  in  width.  The  agency  does 
not  believe  its  standard  will  encourage  seats  nar- 
rower than  those  piescntly  provided  in  school 
buses,  but  will  watch  for  any  indication  that  that 
is  occurring.  Action  can  lie  taken  in  the  future 
if  it  appears  that  seating  is  being  desigiied  to 
be  narrower  than  at  present. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  a  new  motoi' 
vehicle  safety  Standard  Xo.  222,  School  Bus 
Se.ating  and  Crash.  Protection,  is  added  as 
g  571.222.  of  Part  571  of  Title  49.  Code  of  Federal 
Regulations.   .  .  . 

Elective  date:  October  26,  1976.  The  effec- 
tive date  of  this  standard  is  established  as  9 
months  after  the  date  of  its  issuance,  as  required 
by  the  Motor  Vehicle  and  Schoolbus  Safety 
.'Vmendments  of  1974,  Pub.  L.  9.3-492,  section  202 
(15  U.S.C.  1397(i)(l)(A)). 

(Sec.  103,  119.  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80  Stat.  718  (15 
U.S.C.  1392,  1407);  §202,  Pub.  L.  9.3-492.  88 
Stat.  1470  (15  U.S.C.  1392)  ;  delegation  of  au- 
thority at  49  CFR  1.50). 

Issued  on  January  22.  1976. 

Howard  .1.  Duiroff 
Acting  Administrator 

41    F.R.   4016 
Jatiuary   28,    1976 


PART  571;  S  222— PRE  3^ 


i 


Effective:   October   26,    1976 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD   NO.   222 


School   Bus  Seating  and  Crash   Protection 


51.  Scope.  Tliis  standard  establishes  occu- 
pant protection  requirements  for  school  bus  pas- 
sen<rer  seatin<r  and  restrainin<r  barriers. 

52.  Purpose.  Tlie  purpose  of  this  standard 
is  to  reduce  the  number  of  deaths  and  the  .se- 
verity of  injuries  that  result  from  the  impact  of 
school  bus  occupants  ajrainst  structures  witliin 
the  vehicle  durinjj  crashes  and  sudden  drivini^- 
maneuvei's. 


S3.  Application. 

school  buses. 


This     standard     applies     to 


54.  Definitions.  "Contactable  surface"  means 
any  surface  within  the  zone  specified  in  S. 5. 3.1.1 
that  is  contactable  from  any  direction  by  the  test 
device  described  in  S6.6,  except  any  surface  on 
the  front  of  a  seat  back  or  restraining  barrier  3 
inches  or  more  below  the  top  of  the  seat  back  or 
restraining  barrier. 

"School  bus  passenger  seat"  means  a  seat,  other 
than  tlie  driver's  seat,  in  a  school  bus. 

S4.1  The  number  of  seating  positions  con- 
.sidered  to  be  in  a  bench  seat  is  expressed  by  tiie 
symbol  "\V.  and  calculated  as  the  bench  width  in 
inches  divided  by  15  and  rounded  to  tlio  nearest 
whole  innnl)er. 

55.  Requirements,  (a)  Each  vehicle  with  a 
gross  veliicle  weiglit  rating  of  more  than  10,000 
pounds  shall  be  capable  of  meeting  any  of  the 
reqwiiements  set  forth  under  this  heading  when 
tested  under  the  conditions  of  S6.  However,  a 
particular  school  bus  passenger  seat  (i.e..  test 
specimen)  in  tliat  weight  class  need  not  meet 
furtiier  requirements  after  having  met  Sr).1.2  and 
S5.1.5,  or  having  been  subjected  to  either  Sr».1.3. 
So.1.4,  or  S5.3. 


(b)  Each  vehicle  with  a  gross  vehicle  weight 
rating  of  10,000  pounds  or  less  shall  be  capable 
of  meeting  tlic  following  requirements  at  all  seat- 
ing i)ositions  other  than  the  driver's  seat:  (1) 
The  requirements  of  §§  .571.208,  571.209,  and 
571.210  (Standard  Xos.  208,  209,  and  210)  as 
they  apply  to  multipurpose  passenger  vehicles; 
and  (2)  the  reciuirements  of  S5.1.2.  S5.1.3.  S5.1.4, 
S5. 1.5,  and  S5.3  of  this  standard.  However,  the 
requirements  of  Standard  Xos.  208  and  210  shall 
be  met  at  W  seating  positions  in  a  bench  seat 
using  a  body  block  as  specified  in  Figure  2  of 
this  standard,  and  a  particular  school  bus  pas- 
senger seat  (i.e.,  a  test  specimen)  in  that  weight 
class  need  not  meet  further  requirements  after 
iiaving  met  S5.1.2  and  S5.1.5,  or  having  been 
subjected  to  either  S5.1.3,  S5.1.4.  S5.3,  or  §  571.210 
(Standard   No.  210). 

S5.1  Seating  requirements.  School  bus  pas- 
senger seats  shall  be  forward  facing. 

55.1.1  [Reserved] 

55.1.2  Seat    back     height    and     surface     area. 

Eacii  school  bus  passenger  seat  shall  be  equipped 
with  a  seat  back  that,  in  tlie  front  projected 
view,  has  a  front  surface  area  abov^e  the  hori- 
zontal plane  that  passes  through  the  seating 
reference  point,  and  below  the  horizontal  plane 
20  inches  above  the  seating  reference  point,  of 
not  less  than  90  percent  of  the  seat  l)ench  widtli 
in  inches  nudtiplied  by  20. 

55.1.3  Seat     performance     forward.     When     a 

school  bus  passengei'  seat  tliat  lias  another  .seat 
behind  it  is  subjected  to  tiie  application  of  force 
as  specified  in  S5. 1.3.1  and  S5.1.3.2,  and  subse- 
(lueiitly.  the  application  of  additional  force  to 
the  seat  back  as  specified  in  S5. 1.3.3  and  S5.1.3.4 : 
(a)  The  seat  back  force  deflection  curve  shall 
fall  within  the  zone  specified  in  Figure  1; 


PART  571;  S  222-1 


Effective:   October   26,    1976 


wwwwwwww 

|6ln.  2VUas\ 


SEAT  BACK  FORCE  DEFLECTION  CURVE 
SHALL  NOT  ENTER  SHADED  AREAS 


DEFLECTION  IINCHESI 
FIGURE  I      FORCE/DEFIECIIOH  ;0«E 


(b)  Seat  back  deflection  shall  not  exceed  14 
inches;  (for  detonnination  of  (a)  and  (b)  the 
force/deflection  uiir\'e  describes  only  the  foi'ce 
applied  through  the  upper  loading  bar.  and  only 
the  forward  travel  of  the  pivot  attachment  point 
of  the  upper  loading  bar,  measured  from  the 
point  at  which  the  initial  application  of  10 
pounds  of  force  is  attained.) 

(c)  The  seat  shall  not  deflect  by  an  amount 
such  that  any  part  of  the  seat  moves  to  within  4 
inches  of  any  part  of  another  school  bus  ]3assen- 
ger  seat  or  restraining  barrier  in  its  originally 
installed  position; 

(d)  The  seat  shall  not  separate  from  the  ve- 
hicle at  any  attachment  point ;  and 

(e)  Seat  components  shall  not  separate  at  any 
attachment  point. 

55. 1.3.1  Position  the  loading  bar  specified  in 
S6.5  so  that  it  is  laterally  centered  behind  the 
seat  back  with  the  bar's  longitudinal  axis  in  a 
transverse  plane  of  the  vehicle  and  in  any  hori- 
zontal plane  between  4  inches  above  and  4  inches 
below  the  seating  reference  point  of  the  school 
bus  passenger  seat  behind  the  test  specimen. 

55. 1.3.2  Apply  a  force  of  700W  pounds  hori- 
zontally in  the  forward  direction  through  tlie 
loading  bai'  at  the  pivot  attaclnnent  point.  Reach 
the  specified  load  in  not  less  than  .5  nor  more 
than  30  seconds. 

55. 1.3.3  No  sooner  than  1.0  second  after  at- 
taining the  required  force,  reduce  that  force  to 
350W  pounds  and,  while  maintaining  the  pivot 


l)oint  position  of  the  first  loading  bar  at  the  posi- 
tion where  the  35GW  pounds  is  attained,  position 
a  second  loading  bar  described  in  S6.5  so  that  it 
is  laterally  centered  behind  the  seat  back  witli 
the  bar's  longitudinal  axis  in  a  ti'ansverse  plane 
of  the  vehicle  and  in  the  horizontal  plane  16 
inhes  above  the  seating  reference  point  of  the 
school  bus  passenger  seat  behind  the  test  speci- 
men, and  move  the  bar  forward  against  the  seat 
l)ack  until  a  force  of  10  pounds  has  been  applied. 

S5. 1.3.4  Apply  additional  force  horizontally 
in  the  forward  dii'ection  through  the  upper  bar 
luitil  4,000W  inch-pounds  of  energy  have  been 
absorlied  in  deflecting  the  seat  back  (or  restrain- 
ing barrier).  Apply  the  additional  load  in  not 
less  than  5  seconds  nor  more  than  30  seconds. 

S5.1.4  Seat  performance  rearward.  When  a 
school  bus  passenger  seat  that  has  another  seat 
behind  it  is  subjected  to  the  application  of  force 
as  specified  in  S5. 1.4.1  and  S5.1.4.2: 

(a)  Seat  back  force  shall  not  exceed  2,200 
pounds ; 

(b)  Seat  back  deflection  shall  not  exceed  8 
inches;  (For  determination  of  (a)  and  (b)  the 
force/deflection  curve  describes  only  the  force 
applied  thi-ough  the  loading  bar,  and  only  the 
reai'ward  travel  of  the  pivot  attachment  point  of 
the  loading  bar,  measured  from  the  point  at 
which  the  initial  application  of  50  pounds  of 
force  is  attained. 

(c)  The  seat  shall  not  deflect  by  an  amount 
such  that  any  part  of  tlie  seat  moves  to  within 
4  inches  of  any  part  of  another  passenger  seat 
in  its  originally  installed  position; 

(d)  The  seat  shall  not  separate  from  the  ve- 
liicle  at  any  attachment  point;  and 

(e)  Seat  components  shall  not  separate  at  any 
attachment  point. 

S5. 1.4.1  Position  the  loading  bar  described 
in  S6..5  so  that  it  is  laterally  centered  forward 
of  the  seat  back  witli  the  bar's  longitudinal  axis 
in  a  transverse  plane  of  the  vehicle  and  in  the 
horizontal  plane  13.5  inches  above  the  seating 
reference  point  of  tlie  test  specimen,  and  move 
tlio  loading  bar  rearward  against  the  seat  back 
until  a  foi-ce  of  50  pounds  has  been  applied. 


PAET  .571;  S  222-2 


Effective:    October   26,    1976 


S5.1.4.2  Apply  additional  force  horizontally 
rearward  thioiisih  the  loadin<r  bar  until  S2,8()()W 
inch-pounds  of  energy  has  been  absorbed  in  de- 
flecting the  seat  back.  Apply  the  additional  load 
in  not  less  than  5  seconds  nor  more  than  30 
seconds. 

S5.1.5  Seat  cushion  retention.  In  the  case  of 
school  bus  passenger  seats  equipped  with  seat 
cushions,  with  all  manual  attachment  devices  be- 
tween the  seat  and  the  seat  cusliion  in  tlie  manu- 
facturer's designed  position  for  attaciiment.  the 
seat  cushion  shall  not  separate  from  tlie  seat  at 
any  attachment  point  wlien  sul)jected  to  an  up- 
ward force  of  five  times  the  scat  cushion  weight, 
applied  in  any  period  of  not  less  tlian  1  noi'  more 
than  T)  seconds,  and  maintained  for  5  seconds. 

S5.2  Restraining  barrier  requirements.  Each 
vehicle  shall  be  equipped  with  a  restraining  bar- 
rier forward  of  any  designated  seating  position 
that  does  not  have  the  reai-  surface  of  another 
school  bus  passenger  seat  within  20  inches  of  its 
seating  reference  point,  measured  along  a  hori- 
zontal longitudinal  line  through  the  seating  ref- 
erence point  in  the  forward  direction. 

55.2.1  Barrier-seat  separation.  The  horizontal 
distance  between  the  restraining  liarrier's  rear 
surface  and  the  seating  reference  point  of  the 
seat  in  front  of  wliich  it  is  required  shall  be  not 
more  than  20  inches,  measured  along  a  hoi'izontal 
longitudinal  line  through  the  seating  reference 
point  in  the  forward  direction. 

55.2.2  Barrier   position    and    rear   surface    area. 

The  position  and  rear  surface  area  of  the  re- 
straining barrier  shall  be  such  that,  in  a  front 
projected  view  of  the  bus,  each  point  of  the  bar- 
rier's perimeter  coincides  with  (tr  lies  outside  of 
the  perimeter  of  the  seat  back  of  the  scat  for 
which  it  is  lequired. 

55.2.3  Barrier  performance  forward.  When 
force  is  applied  to  the  i-estraining  barrier  in  the 
same  manner  as  specified  in  S;").!..'?.!  thiough 
S.5. 1.3.4   for  seating  performance   tests: 

(a)  The  resti'aining  hairier  foi'ce /deflect ion 
curve  shall  fall  within  tlie  zone  specified  in 
Figure  1 ; 

(b)  Restraining  barrier  deflection  shall  not  ex- 
ceed   14    inches;    (For   computation   of    (a)    and 


(b)  the  force/deflection  curve  describes  only  the 
force  applied  through  the  ui)[)er  loading  bar. 
and  only  the  forward  travel  of  th.e  pivot  attach- 
ment point  of  the  loading  liar,  measured  from 
the  point  at  which  tlie  initial  application  of  10 
pounds  of  force  is  attained.) 

(c)  Restraining  barrier  deflection  shall  not  in- 
terfere with  normal  door  operation; 

(d)  The  restraining  barrier  shall  not  separate 
from  the  vehicle  at  any  attachment  point ;  and 

(e)  Restraining  barrier  components  shall  not 
separate  at  any  attachment  point. 

S5.3   Impact  zone   requirements. 

S5.3.1  Head  protection  zone.  Any  contactable 
surface  of  the  vehicle  within  any  zone  specified 
in  S5.3.1.1  shall  meet  the  requirements  of  S5.3.1.2 
and  S.5.3.1.3.  However,  a  surface  area  that  has 
been  contacted  pursuant  to  an  impact  test  need 
not  meet  further  requirements  contained  in  S^.S. 

55.3.1.1  The  head  protection  zones  in  each 
vehicle  are  the  spaces  in  front  of  each  school 
bus  passenger  seat  which,  in  relation  to  that  seat 
and  its  seating  reference  point,  are  enclosed  by 
the  following  planes; 

(a)  Horizontal  planes  12  inches  and  40  inches 
above  the  seating  reference  point; 

(b)  A  vertical  longitudinal  plane  tangent  to 
the  inboard  (aisle  side)  edge  of  the  seat; 

(c)  A  vertical  longitudinal  plane  3.2.5  inches 
inboard  of  the  outboard  edge  of  the  seat,  and 

(d)  Vertical  transvei'se  planes  through  and  30 
inches  forward  of  the  reference  point. 

55.3.1.2  Head  form  impact  requirement.  When 
anjf  contactable  sui-face  of  tlie  vehicle  within 
the  zones  specified  in  So. 3.1.1  is  impacted  from 
any  direction  at  22  feet  per  second  by  the  head 
form  described  in  S6.6,  the  axial  acceleration  at 
the  center  of  gravity  of  the  head  form  shall  be 
such  that  the  expression 


[    (f.-f.)J  f^    ""^^     J 


(f.-fj 


shall  not  exceed  1,000  where  a  is  the  axial  ac- 
celeration expressed  as  a  midtiple  of  g  (the 
acceleration  due  to  gravity),  and  t,  and  t^  are 
any  two  ])oints  in  time  during  the  impact. 


PART  571:  S  222-3 


Effective:   October   26,    1976 


S5.3.1.3  Head  form  force  distribution.  Wlion 
any  contiictable  siirfaco  of  the  vehicle  within  the 
zones  specified  in  IS;"). 3.1.1  is  impacted  from  any 
direction  at  22  feet  per  second  by  tlie  head  form 
described  in  S6.6.  the  energy  necessary  to  deflect 
tlie  impacted  material  shall  be  not  less  than  40 
iiich-pounds  before  the  force  level  on  the  head 
form  exceeds  loO  pounds.  '\Mien  any  contactable 
surface  within  such  zones  is  impacted  by  the 
iiead  form  from  any  direction  at  5  feet  per  sec- 
ond, the  contact  area  on  the  head  form  surface 
shall  be  not  less  than  3  square  inches. 

S5.3.2  Leg  protection  zone.  Any  part  of  the 
seat  liacks  or  restrainin<i-  barriers  in  the  vehicle 
within  any  zone  specified  in  S5.3.2.1  shall  meet 
the  requirements  of  85.3.2.2. 


55.3.2.1.  The  leg  protection  zones  of  each  ve- 
hicle are  those  parts  of  the  school  bus  passenger 
seat  backs  and  restraining  barriers  bounded  by 
horizontal  planes  12  inches  above  and  4  inches 
below  the  seating  leference  point  of  the  school 
bus  passenger  seat  immediately  behind  the  seat 
back  or  restraining  barrier. 

55.3.2.2.  When  any  point  on  the  rear  surface 
of  that  part  of  a  seat  back  or  restraining  barrier 
within  any  zone  specified  in  S5. 3.2.1  is  impacted 
from  any  direction  at  16  feet  per  second  by  the 
knee  form  specified  in  S6.7,  the  resisting  force 
of  the  impacted  material  shall  not  exceed  600 
pounds  and  the  contact  ai'ea  on  the  knee  form 
surface  shall  not  be  less  than  3  square  inches. 


^1.94R 
(TYP) 


19.5  R 


■0-      BLOCK  COVERED  BY 
1.00  MED.  DENSITY  CANVAS 
COVERED  FOAM  RUBBER 


2.00  R 


0.75DIA.- 
THRU  HOLE 


-2.00  R 


3.34 


1.94  R 
(TYP1 


FIGURE  2  -  BODY  BLOCK  FOR  LAP  BELT 


PAET  571;  S  222-4 


Effective:   October   26,    1976 


S6.  Test  conditions.  The  followiiijr  conditions 
apply  to  tlio  reqnironipnts  specified  in  Sf). 

56.1  Test  surface.  The  bus  is  at  rest  on  a  level 
surface. 

56.2  Tires.  Tires  are  inflated  to  the  pressure 
specified  by  the  manufacturer  for  the  gross  ve- 
hicle  weight    rating. 

6.3  Temperature.  The  ambient  temperature  is 
any  level  between  32  degrees  F.  and  90  degrees  F. 

56.4  Seat  back  position.  If  adjustable,  a  seat 
back  is  adjusted  to  its  most  upright  position. 

56.5  Loading  bor.  The  loading  bar  is  a  I'igid 
cylinder  with  an  outside  diameter  of  6  inches 
that  has  hemispherical  ends  with  radii  of  3  inches 
and  with  a  surface  roughness  that  does  not  ex- 
ceed fi3  micro-inches,  root  mean  square.  Then 
length  of  the  loading  bar  is  4  inches  less  than  the 
width  of  the  seat  back  in  each  test.  The  stroking 
mechanism  applies  force  through  a  pivot  attach- 
ment at  the  centerpoint  of  the  loading  bar  wiiich 
allows  the  loading  bar  to  rotate  in  a  horizontal 
plane  30  degrees  in  either  direction  from  the 
transverse  position. 

S6.5.1  A  vertical  or  lateral  force  of  4,000 
pounds  applied  externally  through  the  pivot  at- 
tachment point  of  the  loading  bar  at  any  posi- 
tion reached  during  a  test  specified  in  this 
standard  shall  not  deflect  that  point  more  than 
1  inch. 

56.6  Head  form.  The  head  form  for  the  meas- 
urement of  acceleration  is  a  rigid  surface  com- 
prised of  two  hemispherical  shapes,  with  total 
equivalent  weight  of  11.5  pounds.  The  first  of 
the  two  hemispherical  shapes  has  a  diameter  of 
6.5  inches.  The  second  of  the  two  hemispherical 
shapes  has  a  2  inch  diameter  and  is  centered  as 
shown  in  Figure  3  to  protrude  from  the  outer 
surface  of  the  first  hemispherical  shape.  The 
surface  roughness  of  the  hemispherical  shapes 
does  not  exceed  63  micro-inches,  root  mean 
square. 

S6.6.1  The  direction  of  travel  of  the  head 
form  is  coincidental  with  the  straight  line  con- 
necting the  centcrpoints  of  the  two  spherical 
outer  surfaces  which  constitute  the  head  form 
shape. 


BIHEMISPHERICAL  HEAD  FORM  RADII 


FIGURE  3 

56.6.2  The  head  form  is  instrumented  with  an 
acceleration  sensing  device  whose  output  is  re- 
corded in  a  data  channel  that  conforms  to  the 
requirements  for  a  1,000  IIz  chaimol  class  as 
specified  in  SAE  Recoiimiended  Practice  J211a, 
December  1971.  The  head  form  exhibits  no 
resonant  frequency  below  three  times  the  fre- 
quency of  the  channel  class.  The  axis  of  the 
acceleration  sensing  device  coincides  with  the 
straight  line  connecting  the  centcrpoints  of  the 
two  hemispherical  outer  surfaces  which  consti- 
tute the  head  form  shape. 

56.6.3  The  head  form  is  guided  by  a  stroking 
device  so  that  tlie  direction  of  travel  of  the  head 
form  is  not  ati'ected  by  impact  with  the  surface 
being  tested  at  the  levels  called  for  in  the 
standard. 

S6.7  Knee  form.  The  knee  form  for  measure- 
ment of  force  is  a  rigid  3-inch-diameter  cylinder, 
with  an  equivalent  weight  of  10  pounds,  that  has 
one  rigid  hemispherical  end  with  a  li/^  inch 
radius  forming  the  contact  surface  of  the  knee 


PART  571;  S  222-5 


Effective;   October   26,    1976 

form.    The  hemispherical  surface  roughness  does 
not  exceed  63  micro-inches,  root  moan  s(|iiar('. 

56.7.1  The  direction  of  travel  of  the  knee 
form  is  coincidental  with  the  centerline  of  the 
ripid  cylinder. 

56.7.2  The  knee  form  is  instrumented  with  an 
acceleration  sensing  device  whose  output  is  re- 
corded in  a  data  channel  tliat  conforms  to  the 
requirements  of  a  600  Hz  channel  class  as  spec- 
ified in  the  SAE  Recommended  Practice  J211a, 
December  1971.  The  knee  form  exhibits  no 
resonant  frequency  below  three  times  the  fre- 
quency  of  the  channel  class.     The  axis  of  the 


acceleration  sensing  device  is  aligned  to  measure 
acceleration  along  the  centerline  of  the  cylindrical 
knee  form. 

S6.7.3  The  knee  form  is  guided  by  a  stroking 
device  so  that  the  direction  of  travel  of  the  knee 
form  is  not  affected  by  impact  with  the  surface 
being  tested  at  the  levels  called  for  in  the 
standard. 

S6.8  The  head  form,  knee  form,  and  con- 
tactable  surfaces  are  clean  and  dry  during  impact 
testing. 

41    F.R.  4016 
January   28,    1976 


PART  571 ;  S  222-6 


ElbcHv*:  JoniMiry  1,   IMS 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  301 
Fuel  Tanks,  Fuel  Tank  Filler  Pipes,  and   Fuel  Tank  Connections — Passenger  Cars 


51 .  Purpose  and  scope.  This  standard  speci- 
fies requirements  for  the  integrity  and  security 
of  fuel  tanks,  fuel  tank  filler  pipes,  and  fuel 
tank  connections  to  minimize  fire  hazard  as  a 
result  of  collision. 

52.  Application.  This  standard  applies  to  pas- 
senger cars. 

53.  Requirements.  When  tested  in  accordance 
with  S4 : 

(a)  Fuel  tank  filler  pipes,  fuel  tank  connec- 
tions to  fuel  lines,  and  fuel  tanks  filled  to  at 
least  90  percent  of  capacity  with  a  liquid  having 
substantially  the  same  viscosity  as,  and  specific 


gravity  no  less  than,  the  fuel  used  in  the  vehicle, 
shall  not  discharge  fluid  at  a  rate  greater  than 
1  ounce  (by  weight)  per  minute  after  termina- 
tion of  impact. 

(b)  Fluid  losses  during  impact  shall  not  ex- 
ceed 1  ounce  (by  weight). 

S4.  Demonstration  procedures.  [Impact  the 
vehicle  perpendicularly  into  a  fixed  collision 
barrier  at  a  forward  longitudinal  velocity  of  30 
miles  per  hour.  (35  F.R.  11242  July  14,  1970. 
Effective:  9/1/70)] 

32  F.R.  2416 
February  3,   1967 


> 


IMv.  7/14/70) 


PART  571;  S  301-1 


^ 


Efftcllva:  Sepl«mb*r   1,    I97S 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY 
STANDARD  NO.  301(9/1/75) 

Fuel  System  Integrity 
(Docket  No.  70-20;  Notice  2) 


This  notice  amends  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  301  on  fuel  system  integrity  to 
specify  static  rollover  requirements  applicable  to 
passenger  cars  on  September  1,  1975,  and  to 
extend  applicability  of  the  standard  to  multi- 
purpose passenger  vehicles,  trucks,  and  buses 
with  a  GVAVR  of  10,000  pounds  or  less  on  Sep- 
tember 1,  1976. 

The  NHTSA  proposed  amending  49  CFR 
571.301,  Fuel  Tanks,  Fuel  Tank  Filler  Pipes,  and 
Fuel  Tank  Connections,  on  August  29,  1970,  (35 
F.E.  13799).  Under  the  proposal  the  standard 
would  be  extended  to  all  vehicles  with  a  GVWR 
of  10,000  pounds  or  less.  No  fuel  spillage  would 
be  permitted  during  the  standard's  tests.  As 
proposed,  these  would  include  a  spike  stop  from 
60  mph,  and  a  30  mph  frontal  barrier  crash. 
Additional  tests  for  vehicles  with  a  GVWR  of 
6,000  pounds  or  less  would  include  a  rear-end 
collision  with  a  fixed  barrier  at  30  mph,  and  a 
static  rollover  test  following  the  frontal  barrier 
crash.  With  respect  to  the  proposal :  the  frontal 
impact  and  static  rollover  tests  are  adopted  but 
with  an  allowance  of  fuel  spillage  of  1  ounce 
per  minute;  the  spike  stop  test  is  not  adopted; 
and  the  rear-end  fixed  barrier  collision  test  is 
being  reproposed  in  a  separate  rule  making  ac- 
tion published  today  to  substitute  a  moving 
barrier. 

The  proposal  that  there  be  zero  fuel  spillage 
was  almost  universally  opposed  for  cost/benefit 
reasons.     The  NHTSA  has  concluded   that  the 
requirement   adopted,   limiting   fuel    spillage    to 
1   ounce  per  minute,  will  have  much  the  san 
effect  as  a  zero-loss  requirement.    The  standa 
will  effectively  require  motor  vehicles  to  be  c 
signed  for  complete  fuel  containment,  since  any 
spillage  allowed  by  design  in  the  aftermath  of 


testing  could  well  exceed  the  limit  of  the  stand- 
ard. At  the  same  time,  the  1-ounce  allowance 
would  eliminate  concern  over  a  few  drops  of 
spillage  that  in  a  functioning  system  may  be  un- 
avoidable. 

Fuel  loss  will  be  measured  for  a  15-minute 
period  for  both  impact  and  rollover  tests. 

The  NHTSA  proposed  a  panic-braking  stop 
from  60  mph  to  demonstrate  fuel  system  integ- 
rity. Many  commented  that  this  appeared 
superfluous,  increasing  testing  costs  with  no  per- 
formance improvements,  since  the  proposed  front 
and  rear  impact  tests  represented  considerably 
higher  deceleration  loadings  than  could  be 
achieved  in  braking.  The  NHTSA  concurs,  and 
has  not  adopted  the  panic  stop  test.  The  frontal 
barrier  crash  at  30  mph  has  been  retained  for 
passenger  cars,  and  extended  to  multipurpose 
passenger  vehicles,  trucks,  and  buses  with  a 
GVWR  of  10,000  pounds  or  less  as  of  Septem- 
ber 1,  1976. 

The  static  rollover  test  was  adopted  as  pro- 
posed. It  applies  to  passenger  cars  as  of  Sep- 
tember 1,  1975,  and  to  multipurpose  passenger 
vehicles,  trucks,  and  buses  with  a  GVWR  of 
6,000  pounds  or  less,  as  of  September  1,  1976. 
The  rollover  test  follows  the  front  barrier  crash, 
and  consists  of  a  vehicle  being  rotated  on  its 
longitudinal  axis  at  successive  increments  of  90°. 
A  condition  of  the  test  is  that  rotation  between 
increments  occurs  in  not  less  than  1  minute  and 
not  more  than  3  minutes.  After  reaching  a  90° 
increment,  the  vehicle  is  held  in  that  position  for 
5  minutes. 

The  proposed  rear-end  crash  test  incorporated 
a  fixed  collision  barrier.  Manufacturers  gener- 
ally favored  a  moving  barrier  impact  as  a  closer 


PART  571;  S  301(9/1/75)— PRE  1 


Effective:   September   1,    1975 


simulation  of  real  world  conditions.  The  NHTSA 
concurs  and  is  not  adopting  a  rear  end  fixed 
barrier  test.  Instead,  it  is  proposing  a  rear-end 
moving  barrier  collision  test  as  part  of  the  notice 
of  proposed  rulemaking  published  today. 

Under  the  proposal  the  vehicle  would  be 
loaded  to  its  GVWR  with  the  fuel  tank  filled  to 
any  level  between  90  and  100  percent  of  capacity. 
Many  commenters  objected  on  the  grounds  that 
full  loading  of  a  vehicle  represents  an  unrealistic 
condition  in  terms  of  actual  crash  experience. 
The  NHTSA  does  not  agree.  Although  full 
loading  of  a  vehicle  is  not  the  condition  most 
frequently  encountered,  it  certainly  occurs  fre- 
quently enough  that  the  vehicle  should  be  de- 
signed to  give  basic  protection  in  that  condition. 
The  vehicle  test  weight  condition  has  been 
adopted  as  proposed.  It  should  be  noted  that, 
in  the  parallel  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking 
issued  today,  vehicles  would  be  tested  under  the 


weight  conditions  specified  in  Standard  No.  208, 
effective  September  1, 1975. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  49  CFR 
Part  571.301,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard 
No.  301,  is  amended  .... 

Effective  date:  September  1,  1975.  Because 
of  the  necessity  to  allow  manufacturers  sufficient 
production  leadtime  it  is  found  for  good  cause 
shown  that  an  effective  date  later  than  1  year 
after  issuance  of  this  rule  is  in  the  public  in- 
terest. 

(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  15, 1973. 

James   B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

38  F.R.  22397 
August  20,  1973 


i 


PART  571;  S  301(9/1/75)— PRE  2 


Effective:   September    1,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  301 

Fuel  System  Integrity 
(Docket  No.  73-20;   Notice  2) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  amend  Federal 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  301,  Ftiel 
System  Integnty,  to  upgrade  substantially  the 
requirements  of  the  standard  by  specifying  a 
rear  moving  barrier  crash,  a  lateral  moving  bar- 
rier crash,  and  a  frontal  barrier  crash  including 
impacts  at  any  angle  up  to  30°  in  either  direction 
from  the  perpendicular. 

A  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  published 
August  20,  1973  (38  F.R.  22417)  proposed  the 
imposition  of  additional  testing  requirements 
designed  to  ameliorate  the  dangers  associated 
with  fuel  spillage  following  motor  vehicle  acci- 
dents. In  an  amendment  to  Standard  No.  301, 
published  on  the  same  day  as  the  proposal,  a 
frontal  barrier  crash  and  a  static  rollover  test 
were  specified.  In  order  to  ensure  the  safety  of 
fuel  systems  in  any  possible  collision  situation, 
the  NHTSA  finds  it  essential  to  incorporate  ad- 
ditional proposed  test  requirements  into  the 
present  standard  and  to  make  these  requirements 
applicable  to  all  vehicle  types  with  a  GV^VR  of 
10,000  pounds  or  less. 

Comments  in  response  to  the  proposal  were 
received  from  29  commenters.  Any  suggestions 
for  changes  of  the  proposal  not  specifically  men- 
tioned herein  are  denied,  on  the  basis  of  all  the 
information  presently  available  to  this  agency. 
A  number  of  the  issues  raised  in  the  comments 
have  been  dealt  with  by  the  agency  in  its  re- 
sponse to  the  petitions  for  reconsideration  of  the 
final  rule  issued  on  August  20,  1973.  In  its  notice 
responding  to  the  petitions,  the  NHTSA  consid- 
ered objections  to  the  use  of  actual  fuel  during 
testing,  the  specified  fuel  fill  level,  the  applica- 
tion of  the  standard  to  vehicles  using  diesel  fuel, 
the  fuel  spillage  measuring  requirement,  and  the 
allegedly    more    stringent    loading    requirements 


applicable  to  passenger  cars.  The  type  of  fuel 
subject  to  the  standard  was  also  clarified. 

Objections  were  registered  by  13  commenters 
to  the  proposed  inclusion  of  a  dynamic  rollover 
test  in  the  fuel  system  integrity  standard.  As 
proposed,  the  requirement  calls  for  a  measure- 
ment of  the  fuel  loss  while  the  vehicle  is  in  mo- 
tion. Commenters  pointed  out  the  exceptional 
difficulty  in  measuring  or  even  ascertaining  a 
leakage  when  the  vehicle  is  rolling  over  at  30 
mph.  The  NHTSA  has  decided  that  the  objec- 
tions have  merit,  and  has  deleted  the  dynamic 
rollover  test.  The  results  of  the  dynamic  rollover 
do  not  provide  sufficiently  unique  data  with  re- 
gard to  the  fuel  system's  integrity  to  justify  the 
cost  of  developing  techniques  for  accurately 
measuring  spillage  during  such  a  test,  and  of 
conducting  the  test  itself.  The  NHTSA  has 
concluded  that  the  severity  of  the  other  required 
tests,  when  conducted  in  the  specified  sequence, 
is  sufficient  to  assure  the  level  of  fuel  system 
integrity  intended  by  the  agency. 

Triumph  Motors  objected  to  the  use  of  a  4,000- 
pound  barrier  during  the  moving  barrier  impacts, 
asserting  that  such  large  barriers  discriminate 
against  small  vehicles.  Triumph  requested  that 
the  weight  of  the  barrier  be  the  curb  weight  of 
the  vehicle  being  tested  in  order  to  alleviate  the 
burden  on  small  vehicles.  The  NHTSA  has  con- 
cluded that  no  justification  exists  for  this  change. 
The  moving  barrier  is  intended  to  represent 
another  vehicle  with  which  the  test  vehicle  must 
collide.  The  use  of  a  4,000-pound  moving  bar- 
rier is  entirely  reasonable  since  vehicles  in  use 
are  often  over  4,000  pounds  in  weight  and  a 
small  vehicle  is  as  likely  to  collide  with  a  vehicle 
of  that  size  as  one  smaller.  The  NHTSA  con- 
siders it  important  that  vehicle  fuel  systems  be 


PART  571;  S  301-75— PRE  3 


231-088  0-77-69 


Effective:   September    1,    1975 


designed  in  such  a  way  as  to  withstand  impacts 
from  vehicles  they  are  exposed  to  on  the  road, 
regardless  of  the  differences  in  their  sizes. 

Jeep  and  American  Motors  objected  to  the 
effective  dates  of  the  proposed  requirements  and 
asked  that  they  be  extended.  Jeep  favors  an 
effective  date  not  earlier  than  September  1,  1979, 
and  American  Motors  favors  a  September  1, 
19T8,  effective  date.  The  NHTSA  denies  these 
requests.  It  has  found  that  the  time  period  pro- 
vided for  development  of  conforming  fuel  sys- 
tems is  reasonable  and  should  be  strictly  adhered 
to  considering  the  urgent  need  for  strong  and 
resilient  fuel  systems. 

Several  commenters  expressed  concern  over  the 
impact  of  the  prescribed  testing  procedures  on 
manufacturers  of  low-volume  specialty  vehicles. 
The  NHTSA  appreciates  the  expense  of  conduct- 
ing crash  tests  on  low-production  vehicles,  realiz- 
ing that  the  burden  on  the  manufacturer  is 
related  to  the  number  of  vehicles  he  manufac- 
tures. However,  there  are  means  by  which  the 
small-volume  manufacturer  can  minimize  the 
costs  of  testing.  He  can  concentrate  test  efforts 
on  the  vehicle  (s)  in  his  line  that  he  finds  most 
difficult  to  produce  in  conformity  with  the  stand- 
ard. These  manufacturers  should  also  be  aware 
that  an  exemption  from  application  of  the  stand- 
ard is  available  where  fewer  than  10,000  vehicles 
per  year  are  produced  and  compliance  would 
subject  him  to  substantial  financial  hardship. 

In  responding  to  the  petitions  for  reconsider- 
ation of  the  amendment  to  Standard  No.  301, 
published  August  20,  1973,  the  NHTSA  revised 
the  fuel  system  loading  requirement  to  specify 
Stoddard  solvent  as  the  fuel  to  be  used  during 
testing.  In  accordance  with  that  amendment, 
the  proposed  requirement  that  the  engine  be 
idling  during  the  testing  sequence  is  deleted. 
However,  electrically  driven  fuel  pumps  that 
normally  run  when  the  electrical  system  in  the 
vehicle  is  activated  shall  be  operating  during  the 
barrier  crash  tests. 

In  order  to  fulfill  the  intention  expressed  in 
the  preamble  to  the  proposal,  that  simultaneous 
testing  under  Standards  Nos.  208  and  301  be 
possible,  language  has  been  added  to  subpara- 
graph S7.1.5  of  Standard  No.  301  specifying  the 
same   method   of   restraint   as   that  required   in 


Standard  No.  208.  In  its  response  to  petitions 
for  reconsideration  of  Standard  No.  301  (39  F.R.  /j 
10586)  the  NHTSA  amended  the  standard  by  f 
requiring  that  each  dummy  be  restrained  during 
testing  only  by  means  that  are  installed  in  the 
vehicle  for  protection  at  its  seating  position  and 
that  require  no  action  by  the  vehicle  occupant. 

Suggestions  by  several  commenters  that  the 
application  of  certain  crash  tests  should  be  lim- 
ited to  passenger  cars  in  order  to  maintain  com- 
plete conformance  to  the  requirements  of 
Standard  No.  208  are  found  to  be  without  merit. 
Enabling  simultaneous  testing  under  several 
standards,  although  desirable,  is  not  the  most 
important  objective  of  the  safety  standards.  The 
NHTSA  is  aware  of  the  burden  of  testing  costs, 
and  therefore  has  sought  to  ease  that  burden 
where  possible  by  structuring  certain  of  its 
standards  to  allow  concurrent  testing  for  com- 
pliance. It  must  be  emphasized,  however,  that 
the  testing  requirements  specified  in  a  standard 
are  geared  toward  a  particular  safety  need. 
Application  of  the  tests  proposed  for  Standard 
No.  301  to  all  vehicle  types  with  a  GVAVR  of 
10,000  pounds  or  less  is  vital  to  the  accomplish- 
ment of  the  degree  of  fuel  system  integrity  neces- 
sary to  protect  the  occupants  of  vehicles  involved  / 
in  accidents. 

No  major  objections  were  raised  concerning  the 
proposed  angular  frontal  barrier  crash,  lateral 
barrier  crash,  or  rear  moving  barrier  crash.  On 
the  basis  of  all  information  available  to  this 
agency,  it  has  been  determined  that  these  pro- 
posed crash  tests  should  be  adopted  as  proposed. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  49  CFR 
571.301,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  301, 
is  amended  to  read  as  set  forth  below. 

Effective  date:  September  1,  1975,  with  addi- 
tional requirements  effective  September  1,  1976, 
and  September  1,  1977,  as  indicated. 

(Sees.  103,  119,  Pub.  L.  89-56*:,  80  Stat.  718, 
15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407;  delegation  of  authority  at 
49  CFR  1.51.) 

Issued  on  March  18,  1974. 

James  B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

39   F.R.   10588 
March   21,    1974 


PART  571;  S  301-75— PRE  4 


Effective:    September    1,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  301-75 

Fuel   System   Integrity 
(Docket  No.  73-20;   Notice  3) 


This  notice  resix)nds  to  petitions  for  recon- 
sideration of  tlie  two  recent  Federal  Rejiister 
notices  amending:  and  upfirading  Standard  No. 
301  (39  F.R.  10586;  39  F.R.  10.5SS)  and  amends 
the  standard  in  se\eral  respects. 

On  March  21,  1974  two  notices  were  publisiied 
pertaining  to  Standard  No.  301,  Fuel  System  In- 
tegrity. One  notice  (39  F.R.  10586)  responded 
to  petitions  for  reconsideration  of  an  earlier 
amendment  to  the  standard  (38  F.R.  22397), 
while  the  other  (39  F.R.  10588)  substantially 
u[)graded  the  standard's  performance  i-equire- 
ments.  It  was  the  intention  of  the  NHTSA  that 
the  notice  upgrading  the  standard  be  considered 
as  the  tinal  rule  and  supersede  the  notice  re- 
sponding to  petitions.  Hereafter,  the  notice  re- 
sponding to  petitions  will  be  referred  to  as 
Notice  1,  while  the  notice  upgrading  the  stand- 
ard will  be  referred  to  as  Notice  2. 

On  October  27,  1974,  the  Motor  Vehicle  and 
Schoolbus  Safety  Amendments  of  1974  (P.L. 
93-492)  were  signed  into  law.  These  amend- 
ments to  the  National  Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Act  incorporate  Standard  No.  301  as  it 
was  published  in  Notice  2  on  March  21,  1974. 
According  to  the  amendment  the  technical  errors 
which  appeared  in  Notice  2  may  be  corrected, 
while  future  amendments  are  prohibited  from 
diminishing  the  level  of  motor  vehicle  safety 
which  was  established  in  the  notice.  The  changes 
contained  in  this  notice  conform  to  these  statu- 
tory requirements. 

Due  to  an  oversight.  Notice  2  failed  to  include 
two  provisions  which  appeared  in  Notice  1.  The 
limitation  of  the  standard's  application  to  ve- 
hicles which  use  fuel  with  a  boiling  point  above 
32"F  was  inadvertently  omitted  in  Notice  2  and 
is  hereby  reinstated.  Notice  2  also  failed  to  in- 
clude a  provision  specifying  that  vehicles  not  be 


altered  during  the  testing  sequences.  It  was  the 
intent  of  the  NHTSA  that  damage  or  otiier 
alteration  of  the  vehicle  incurred  during  the  bar- 
rier crashes  not  be  corrected  prior  to  the  static 
rollover  tests.  The  test  recpiirements  are  there- 
fore amended  to  prohibit  the  alteration  of  ve- 
hicles following  each  of  the  specified  test  impacts. 

In  order  to  clarify  the  manner  in  which  the 
load  is  to  be  distributed  during  testing  of  multi- 
purjjose  passenger  vehicles,  trucks,  and  buses, 
S7. 1.5(b)  is  amended  to  require  that  when  the 
weight  on  one  of  the  axles  exceeds  its  propor- 
tional share  of  the  loaded  vehicle  weight,  when 
the  vehicle  is  loaded  only  with  dummies,  the  re- 
mainder of  the  required  test  weight  shall  be 
placed  on  the  other  axle,  so  that  the  weight  on 
the  fii'st  axle  remains  the  same.  The  loading 
specification  did  not  specifically  address  this 
contingency. 

The  requirement  that  the  load  be  located  in 
the  load  carrying  area  of  multipurpose  passenger 
vehicles,  trucks,  and  buses  during  testing  is  de- 
leted since  the  agency  has  determined  that  such 
a  limitation  is  consistent  with  the  provision  spec- 
ifying distribution  of  weight  in  proportion  with 
the  vehicle's  gross  axle  weight  ratings. 

Petitions  for  reconsideration  were  received 
from  eleven  petitioners.  Although  only  those 
comments  raising  issues  found  to  be  significant 
have  been  discussed,  due  consideration  has  been 
given  to  all  requests.  Any  requests  not  spe- 
cifically discussed  herein  are  denied. 

A  substantial  number  of  petitioners  objected 
to  the  requirement  that  dummies  used  during 
testing  be  restrained  only  by  passive  means  in- 
stalled at  the  seating  positions.  Petitioners 
pointed  out  that  mandatory  passive  restraint 
systems  proposed  in  Standard  No.  208  have  a 
proposed  effective  date  of  September  1,  1976; 
one  year  after  the  September  1,  1975  effective 


PART  571;  S  301-75— PRE  5 


Effective:   September    1,    1975 


date  set  for  implementation  of  Standard  301. 
This  would  leave  a  period  of  time  when  most 
dummies  would  be  involved  in  testing  while  to- 
tally unrestrained.  Renault,  Jeejo,  American 
Motors,  Mercedes-Benz.  General  Motors,  and 
Ford  requested  that  the  dununies  be  restrained 
during  testing  by  whatever  means,  active  or  pas- 
sive, are  installed  at  the  particular  seating  posi- 
tions. To  pro\ide  otherwise,  they  argued,  would 
unnecessarily  expose  the  dummies  to  costly  dam- 
age when  subjected  to  impacts  in  an  unrestrained 
condition. 

The  XHTSA  finds  petitioners'  objections  mer- 
itorious. Although  this  agency  has  determined 
that  reliable  test  results  can  be  best  obtained 
when  occupant  weight  is  included  in  the  vehicle 
during  crash  testing,  the  manner  in  which  that 
weight  is  installed  is  subject  to  additional  con- 
siderations. The  NHTSA  has  made  clear  its 
desire  to  enable  simultaneous  testing  luider  more 
than  one  standard  where  the  test  requirements 
are  compatible.  Standards  301  and  208  both 
require  frontal  and  lateral  barrier  crash  tests 
which  can  be  conducted  concurrently  if  the  ve- 
hicles are  loaded  uniformly.  Since  Standard 
208  provides  for  crash  testing  with  dummies  in 
vehicles  with  passive  restraint  systems.  Standard 
301  testing  of  these  same  vehicles  should  be  con- 
ducted with  dummies  installed  in  the  seating 
positions  provided  under  Standard  208.  The 
presence  of  the  passive  restraints  will  protect 
the  dummies  from  unnecessary  damage  and  the 
required  testing  for  compliance  with  both  stand- 
ards can  be  accomplished  simultaneously.  Where 
a  vehicle  is  not  equipped  with  passive  restraints, 
and  Standard  208  testing  is  not  mandated,  weight 
equal  to  that  of  a  50th  percentile  test  dummy 
should  be  secured  to  the  floor  pan  at  the  front 
outboard  designated  seating  positions  in  the  ve- 
hicles being  tested. 

Further  concern  over  the  damage  to  which  test 
dummies  might  be  exposed  was  manifested  by 
Jeep  and  American  Motors.  They  petitioned 
for  the  removal  of  the  dummies  prior  to  the 
static  rollover  tests,  arguing  that  tlieir  presence 
serves  no  safety-related  purpose.  The  NHTSA 
has  granted  the  request,  on  the  l)asis  of  its  deter- 
mination that  the  dummies  would  have  little  or 
no  effect  on  the  fuel  system's  integrity  during 
the  rollover  segment  of  the  test  procedure. 


Jeep  and  American  Motors  further  suggested 
that  the  standard  specify  that  hardware  and  P 
instrumentation  be  removed  prior  to  the  static 
rollover  test  in  order  to  prevent  its  damage. 
This  request  is  denied  as  unnecessary.  Standard 
No.  301  contains  no  specification  for  the  inclusion 
of  instrumentation  during  testing.  Any  instru- 
mentation present  in  the  vehicle  is  there  by  deci- 
sion of  the  manufacturer  to  assist  him  in 
monitoring  the  behavior  of  the  fuel  system 
during  testing,  and  must  be  installed  and  utilized 
in  such  a  manner  as  not  to  affect  the  test  results. 
Therefore,  as  long  as  the  loading  i-equirements 
of  the  standard  are  met,  manufacturers  may  deal 
with  their  instrumentation  in  any  fashion  they 
wish,  as  long  as  the  test  results  are  unafl'ected. 

Volkswagen  urged  that  unrestrained  dummies 
not  be  required  during  the  rear  moving  impact 
test,  citing  the  absence  of  such  a  test  in  Standard 
208  and  alleging  that  the  integrity  of  vehicle 
fuel  systems  would  not  be  greatly  affected  by  the 
presence  of  dummies.  This  request  is  denied. 
The  rear  moving  barrier  crash  specified  in  pro- 
posed Standard  207,  Seating  Si/stems,  provides 
for  the  installation  of  dummies  in  the  same  seat- 
ing positions  as  required  for  Standard  301,  thus 
permitting  simultaneous  conduct  of  the  rear  bar- 
rier crashes  required  by  both  standards.  In 
order  to  obtain  realistic  and  reliable  test  results, 
occupant  weight  must  be  in  vehicles  during 
Standard  301  crash  testing.  The  NHTSA  has 
determined  that  unrestrained  dummies  would 
have,  at  most,  slight  vulnerability  to  damage 
during  rear  barrier  crash  tests,  since  the  impact 
is  such  that  the  seats  themselves  serve  as  pro- 
tective restraint  mechanisms.  It  has  therefore 
been  concluded  that  the  best  method  for  includ- 
ing occupant  weight  during  rear  barrier  crash 
testing  is  with  test  dummies. 

Notice  2  specified  that  the  parking  brake  be 
engaged  during  the  rear  moving  barrier  crash 
test.  Ford  requested  in  its  petition  for  recon- 
sideration that  this  requirement  be  changed  in 
order  to  enable  simultaneous  rear  barrier  crash 
testing  with  Standard  207  which  provides  for 
disengagement  of  the  parking  brake  in  its  recent 
proposal.  The  NHTSA  has  decided  to  grant 
Ford's  request.  The  condition  of  the  parking 
brake  during  this  test  sequence  would  not  so 
significantly  affect  the  test  results  as  to  warrant 


PART  571;  S  301-75— PRE  6 


Effective:    September    1,    1975 


retention   of  a   requirement   that   would   prevent 
sinuiltaneous  testing. 

The  Recreational  Vehicle  Institute  objected  to 
the  standard,  arguing  that  it  was  not  cost-effec- 
tive as  applied  to  motor  homes.  RVI  requested 
tliat  different  test  procedures  be  developed  for 
motor  home  manufacturers.  Specifically  it  ob- 
jected to  wliat  it  suggested  was  a  requirement 
for  imnecessary  double  testing  in  situations 
where  the  incomplete  veliicle  has  already  been 
tested  before  the  motor  liome  manufacturer  re- 
ceives it.  RVI  expressed  the  view-  tiiat  the  motor 
home  manufacturer  should  not  liave  to  concern 
himself  witli  compliance  to  tlie  extent  that  he 
nuist  test  the  entire  vehicle  in  accordance  with 
tlie  str.ndard's  test  procedures. 

The  NHTSA  has  found  the  requirements  of 
Standard  301  to  be  reasonable  in  that  they  en- 
force a  level  of  safety  that  has  been  determined 
necessary  and  provide  adequate  lead  time  for 
manufactui'ers  to  develop  methods  and  means  of 
compliance.  The  National  Traffic  and  ]\Iotor 
Vehicle  Safety  Act  does  not  require  a  manu- 
facturer to  test  vehicles  by  any  particular 
method.  It  does  require  that  he  exercise  clue 
cai'e  in  assuring  himself  that  his  vehicles  are 
capable  of  satisfying  the  performance  require- 
ments of  applicable  standards  when  tested  in  the 
manner  prescribed.  This  may  be  accomplished, 
however,  by  whatever  means  the  manufacturer 
reasonably  determines  to  be  reliable.  If  the  final 
stage  manufacturer  of  a  motor  home  concludes 
that  additional  testing  by  him  of  the  entire  ve- 
hicle for  comi)liance  is  unnecessary,  and  he  has 
exei'cised  due  care  in  comiileting  the  vehicle  in  a 
manner  that  continues  its  conformity  to  appli- 
cable standards,  he  is  under  no  obligation  to  re- 
peat the  procedures  of  the  standards. 

RVI  further  pressed  its  contention  that  the 
standard  is  not  cost-beneficial  by  arguing  that 
the  agency  has  not  provided  specific  data  indi- 
cating a  frequency  of  fuel  system  fires  in  motor 
liomes  that  would  justify  the  costs  imposed  by 
the  standard. 

Sufficient  record  evidence  has  been  found  to 
support  the  conclusion  that  fuel  spillage  in  the 
types  of  crashes  with  which  the  standard  deals 
is  a  major  safety  hazard.  Tlie  only  basis  upon 
which  motor  home  manufacturers  could  justify 


the  execption  of  their  vehicles  from  Standard 
301's  requirements  would  be  an  inherent  im- 
munity from  gasoline  spillage.  The  standard 
establislies  a  reasonable  test  of  a  vehicle's  ability 
to  withstand  impacts  without  experiencing  fuel 
loss.  If  a  motor  home  is  designed  in  such  a 
way  as  to  preclude  the  spillage  of  fuel  during 
the  prescribed  test  impacts,  compliance  with  the 
standard  should  present  no  significant  hardship. 

Volkswagen  challenged  the  cost-benefit  ra- 
tionale of  the  more  extensive  performance  re- 
quirements contained  in  Notice  2,  and  proposed 
that  only  the  rear  barrier  crash  be  retained,  if 
sufficient  data  exists  to  support  its  inclusion. 
The  agency  has  carefully  considered  the  issues 
raised  in  the  Volkswagen  petition.  As  discussed 
earlier.  Standard  301  has  been  designed  to  allow 
testing  for  its  requirements  with  some  of  the 
same  barrier  crash  tests  that  are  required  by 
other  standards:  208.  204.  212,  and  207.  This 
should  reduce  substantially  the  costs  of  testing 
to  Standard  301,  especiallj^  when  viewed  on  a 
cost-per-vehicle  basis.  The  NHTSA  has  con- 
cluded that  the  changes  necessary  for  vehicles 
to  comply  with  the  standard  are  practicable  and 
that  the  need  for  such  increased  fuel  system 
integrity  is  sufficient  to  justify  the  costs. 

The  Recreational  Vehicle  Institute  also  urged 
that  the  effective  date  for  motor  homes  be  de- 
layed 1  year  beyond  the  date  set  for  application 
of  the  standard  to  other  vehicles.  RVI  contends 
that  a  uniform  effective  date  for  all  manufac- 
turers will  create  serious  problems  for  the  motor 
home  manufacturer  who  will  not  have  complying 
incomplete  vehicles  available  to  him  until  the 
effective  date  of  the  standard. 

The  NHTSA  finds  RVI"s  argument  lacking 
in  merit.  Adequate  lead  time  has  been  provided 
in  Standard  301  to  allow  final  stage  manufac- 
turers of  multistage  vehicles  to  become  familiar 
with  the  requirements  and  to  assure  themselves 
that  chassis  and  other  vehicle  components  are 
available  sufficiently  in  advance  of  the  effective 
date  to  enable  timely  compliance.  The  availa- 
bility of  complying  incomplete  vehicles  is  a 
situation  that  should  properly  be  resolved  in  the 
commercial  dealings  l)etween  motor  home  manu- 
facturers and  their  suppliers.  If  the  motor  home 
manufacturer  is  unable  to  obtain  complying  in- 


PART  571;  S  301-75— PRE  7 


Effective:   September    1,    1975 


complete  vehicles  far  enoufrh  in  advance  of  tJie 
standard's  efi'ective  date,  he  mifjht,  for  example, 
work  out  an  arranjiement  with  his  siipjilier 
whereby  the  supplier  will  provide  information 
relating  to  the  manner  in  which  the  incomplete 
vehicle  must  be  completed  in  order  to  remain  in 
compliance  with  all  applicable  safety  standards. 
Tlie  lead  time  provided  in  the  standards  is 
planned  to  take  into  account  tlie  needs  of  per- 
sons at  each  stage  of  the  manufacturing  process, 
including  final  stage  manufacturers. 

rfeep,  American  Motors,  and  Toyota  urged  de- 
lays in  the  implementation  of  various  aspects  of 
the  standard.  Jeep  suggested  a  new  schedule 
for  application  of  the  standai'd's  lequirements  to 
nuiltipurpose  i)assenger  vehicles,  trucks,  and 
buses,  stating  that  the  current  lead  time  is  in- 
sufficient to  enable  completion  of  necessary  de- 
sign changes  and  compliance  testing.  American 
Motors  requested  a  1-year  delay  in  the  effective 
date  for  the  static  rollover  test  in  order  to  allow 
satisfactory  completion  of  the  required  Environ- 
mental Protection  Agency  50.000  mile  durability 
test.  Once  vehicles  have  completed  I'equii'ed 
EPA  testing  and  certification,  their  fuel  system 
components  cannot  be  altered.  AMC  says  that 
it  cannot  make  tlie  design  changes  necessary  for 
Standard  301  compliance  in  time  to  utilize  them 
in  this  year's  EPA  tests.  AMC  also  desires  a 
2-year  delay  in  the  frontal  angular,  rear,  and 
lateral  impact  tests,  alleging  that  that  constitutes 
tlie  minimum  time  necessary  to  produce  designs 
that  comply.  Toyota  asked  for  a  delay  in  the 
frontal  angular  ci'ash  test  for  all  passenger  ve- 
hicles until  197s,  in  order  to  allow  them  suffi- 
cient time  to  develop  a  satisfactory  means  of  com- 
pliance with  the  specified  performance  level. 

All  of  these  requests  are  denied.  The  lead  time 
that  has  been  provided  for  compliance  with 
Standard  301  is  found  adequate  and  reasonable. 
The  rollover  requirements  have  been  in  rule  form 
for  over  a  year,  and  the  more  extensive  require- 
ments were  proposed  more  than  3  years  in  ad- 
vance of  their  effective  dates.  Considering  the 
urgent  need  for  stronger  and  more  durable  fuel 
.systems,  further  delay  of  the  effective  dates  is 
not  justified.  On  the  basis  of  all  information 
available,  the  NHTSA  has  determined  that  de- 
velopment of  comjjlying  fuel  systems  can  be 
attained  in  tlie  time  allowed.     In  addition.  Con- 


gress   has    expressed    in    the    recently    enacted      ^ 
amendments  to  the  National   Traffic' and   Motor      ™ 
Vehicle  Safety  Act  its  decision  that  the  effective 
dates  specified   in    Notice   2   should   be   strictly 
adhered  to. 

Toyota  requested  that  the  requirements  of  the 
rear  moving  barrier  crash  not  be  imposed  on 
\eliicles  with  station  wagon  or  hatch-back  bodies, 
alleging  difficulty  in  relocation  of  the  fuel  tank 
to  an  invulnerable  position.  The  request  is  de- 
nied as  the  NHTSA  has  determined  tliat  satis- 
faction of  the  rear  barrier  crash  requirements 
by  station  wagons  and  hatch-backs  is  practicable 
and  necessary. 

Volkswagen  raised  several  objections  in  its  pe- 
tition to  the  static  rollover  test,  including  asser- 
tions tiiat  the  test  does  not  reflect  real  world 
accidents,  and  that  the  test  procedure  is  unclear 
since  the  direction  of  rotation  is  unspecified. 

The  NHTSA  does  not  consider  these  argu- 
ments to  be  germane.  It  is  true  that  the  static 
rollover  test,  like  any  "static"  test,  is  not  de- 
signed as  a  simulation  of  the  actual  behavior  of 
a  vehicle  in  a  dynamic  crash  situation.  It  is 
intended  rather  as  a  laboratory  method  of  quan- 
titatively measuring  the  v-ehicle  properties  that  M 
contribute  to  safety  in  a  range  of  crash  situa-  ^ 
tions.  The  NHTSA  has  found  that  a  vehicle's 
performance  in  the  static  rollover  test  is  directly 
related  to  the  fuel  system  integrity  that  is  the 
goal  of  the  standard,  and  is  an  appropriate 
means  of  measuring  that  aspect  of  performance. 

With  regard  to  the  direction  of  rotation,  the 
NHTSA  has  stipulated  that  only  a  cetrain 
amount  of  fuel  may  escape  during  a  360°  rota- 
tion of  a  vehicle  on  its  longitudinal  axis.  The 
vehicle  must  be  capable  of  meeting  this  perform- 
ance level  regai'dless  of  the  direction  of  its 
rotation. 

British  Leyland  (in  a  jjetition  for  rulemaking) 
and  Volkswagen  requested  revision  of  the  aspect 
of  the  barrier  crash  requirement  limiting  the 
amount  of  fuel  spillage  taking  place  from  impact 
until  motion  of  the  vehicle  has  ceased.  They 
stated  that  the  current  1-ounce  limitation  is  too 
difficult  to  measure  in  the  period  while  the  ve- 
hicle is  moving  and  suggested  that  fuel  spillage 
be  averaged  over  the  period  from  impact  until 
5  minutes  following  the  cessation  of  motion. 


PART  571;  S  301-75— PRE  8 


The  NHTSA  must  deny  this  request.  The 
purpose  of  the  current  limitation  on  the  spillage 
of  fuel  during  the  impact  and  post-impact  mo- 
tion is  to  prohibit  the  sudden  loss  of  several 
ounces  of  fuel  which  might  occur,  as  an  example, 
by  the  displacement  of  the  filler  cap.  Simul- 
taneous loss  of  several  ounces  of  fuel  during  tlie 
impact  and  subsequent  veliicle  motion  could  have 
a  fire-causing  potential,  because  of  sparks  that 
are  likely  to  be  gi\en  off  during  a  skid  or  metal 
contact  between  vehicles. 

Chrysler  petitioned  to  have  the  requirement 
specifying  that  the  moving  barrier  be  guided 
during  the  entire  impact  sequence  deleted  in 
fa\'or  of  a  requirement  that  would  allow  the 
termination  of  guidance  of  the  barrier  imme- 
diately prior  to  impact.  They  argued  that  their 
suggested  procedure  is  more  representative  of 
real  world  impacts. 

The  request  is  denied.  The  condition  that 
there  be  no  transveree  or  rotational  movement  of 
the  barrier,  which  has  been  in  effect  since  Jan- 
uary 1,  1972,  eliminates  random  variations  be- 
tween different  tests  and  therefore  makes  the 
standard  more  repeatable  and  objective  as  re- 
quired by  the  statute. 

Jeep  requested  clarification  that  a  given  vehicle 
is  only  required  to  be  subjected  to  one  of  the  si^ec- 
ified  barrier  impacts  followed  by  a  static  roll- 
over.    This  request  is  granted  as  it  follows  the 


Effective:   September    1,    1975 

agency's  intent  and  the  standard  is  not  specific 
on  that  point.  Section  S6.  is  amended  to  require 
that  a  single  \^ehicle  need  only  be  capable  of 
meeting  a  single  crash  test  followed  by  a  static 
rollover. 

American  Motors  submitted  a  request  that  the 
agency  finds  repetitious  of  previous  petitions, 
urging  that  vehicle  fluids  be  stabilized  at  ambient 
temperatures  prior  to  testing.  In  responding  to 
earlier  petitions  for  reconsideration  from  M\TMA 
and  GM  in  Notice  1,  the  NHTSA  denied  a  re- 
quest for  temperature  specification,  stating  that 
it  intended  that  the  full  spectrum  of  tempera- 
tures encountered  on  the  road  be  reflected  in  the 
test  procedure.  That  continues  to  be  this  agency's 
position. 

In  light  of  the  foregoing  S3.,  S6.,  S6.1,  S6.3, 
ST.1.4,  and  S7.1.5  of  Standard  No.  301,  Fuel  Sys- 
tem Integnty,   (49  CFR  571.301)    are  amended 

Effective  date;  September  1,  1975,  with  addi- 
tional requirements  effective  September  1,  1976 
and  September  1,  1977,  as  indicated. 

(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  No\'ember  15,  1974. 

James  B.  Gregory 
Administrator 

39  F.R.  40857 
November  21,    1974 


PART  571 ;  S  301-75— PRE  9-10 


Effective:   September   1,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  301-75 

Fuel  System  Integrity 
(Docket  No.  73-20;  Notice  6) 


This  notice  amends  Standard  No.  301,  Fuel 
System  Integrity  (49  CFE  571.301),  to  specify 
new  loading  conditions  and  to  establish  a  30- 
minute  fuel  spillage  measurement  period  follow- 
ing barrier  crash  tests. 

On  April  16,  1975,  the  NHTSA  published  a 
notice  (40  F.E.  17036)  proposing  a  revision  of 
the  loading  conditions  and  fuel  spillage  measure- 
ment period  requirement  in  Standard  301.  The 
NHTSA  also  proposed  in  that  notice  an  exten- 
sion of  the  applicability  of  Standard  301  to 
school  buses  with  a  GVWR  in  excess  of  10,000 
pounds.  At  the  request  of  several  Members  of 
Congress,  the  due  date  for  comments  on  the 
school  bus  proposal  was  extended  to  June  26, 
1975,  and  final  rulemaking  action  on  it  will  ap- 
pear in  a  later  Federal  Register  notice. 

It  was  proposed  that  the  current  15-minute 
fuel  spillage  measurement  period  be  extended  to 
30  minutes  in  order  to  allow  more  time  for  leaks 
to  be  located  and  rates  of  flow  to  be  established. 
Measurement  of  fuel  loss  during  only  a  15  minute 
time  period  is  difficult  because  fuel  may  be  es- 
caping from  various  parts  of  the  vehicle  where 
it  is  not  readily  detectable.  Chrysler,  American 
Motors,  and  General  Motors  objected  to  the  pro- 
posed change  and  asked  that  it  either  not  be 
adopted  or  that  adoption  be  delayed  for  one 
year  until  September  1,  1976. 

The  commenters  argued  that  the  revision  was 
unnecessary  and  would  involve  a  change  in  their 
testing  methods.  The  NHTSA  has  fully  consid- 
ered these  arguments  and  does  not  consider  the 
amendment  to  prescribe  a  higher  level  of  per- 
formance. It  concludes  tliat  the  30-minute 
measurement  period  is  necessary  to  achieve  ac- 
curate measurement  of  fuel  loss  and  assessment 
of   vehicle  compliance  and   accordingly   amends 


Standard  301  to  prescribe  the  longer  period  for 
measurement. 

The  April  16,  1975,  notice  also  proposed  a 
change  in  the  Standard  301  loading  conditions 
to  specify  that  50th  percentile  test  dummies  be 
placed  in  specified  seating  positions  during  the 
frontal  and  lateral  barrier  crash  tests,  and  that 
they  be  restrained  by  means  installed  in  the  ve- 
hicle for  protection  at  the  particular  seating 
position.  Currently  the  standard  requires  (dur- 
ing the  frontal  and  lateral  barrier  crash  tests) 
ballast  weight  secured  at  the  specified  designated 
seating  positions  in  vehicles  not  equipped  with 
passive  restraint  systems.  In  vehicles  equipped 
with  passive  restraints,  50th  percentile  test  dum- 
mies are  to  be  placed  in  the  specified  seating 
positions  during  testing. 

In  petitions  for  reconsideration  of  this  amend- 
ment to  Standard  No.  301  (39  F.R.  40857) 
various  motor  vehicle  manufacturers  stated  that 
attachment  of  such  ballast  weight  to  the  vehicle 
floor  pans  during  the  barrier  crashes  would  exert 
unrealistic  stresses  on  the  vehicle  structure  which 
would  not  exist  in  an  actual  crash.  The  NHTSA 
found  merit  in  petitioners'  arguments,  and  its 
proposed  revision  of  the  loading  conditions  is 
intended  to  make  the  crash  tests  more  represen- 
tative of  real-life  situations. 

Only  Mazda  objected  to  the  proposal.  It 
argued  that  curb  weight  be  prescribed  as  the 
loading  condition  so  that  it  could  conduct  Stand- 
ard 301  compliance  testing  concurrently  with 
testing  for  Standards  No.  212  and  204.  Tlie 
NHTSA  does  not  find  merit  in  Mazda's  request 
as  the  Standard  301  loading  condition  is  consid- 
ered necessarj'  to  assure  an  adequate  level  of  fuel 
system  integrity.  Since  the  proposed  loading 
conditions  are  more  stringent  than  a  curb  weight 


PART  571;  S  301-75— PRE  11 


Effective:   September   1,    1975 

condition,  manufacturers  could  conduct  compli- 
ance testing  for  Standards  301,  212,  and  204 
simultaneously.  If  the  vehicle  complied  with  the 
requirements  of  Standards  212  and  204  when 
loaded  according  to  301  specifications,  the  manu- 
facturer presumably  could  certify  the  capability 
of  the  v'ehicles  to  comply  with  the  performance 
requirements  of  212  and  204  when  loaded  to  curb 
weight.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  NHTSA  is 
considering  amending  Standards  212  and  204 
to  specify  the  same  loading  conditions  as  pro- 
posed for  Standard  301. 

All  other  commenters  supported  immediate 
adoption  of  the  proposed  loading  conditions. 
Therefore,  the  NHTSA  adopts  the  loading  con- 
ditions as  they  were  proposed  in  the  April  16, 
1975,  notice. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  S5.5  and 
S7.1.6   of  Motor  Vehicle  Safety   Standard  No. 


301,  Fuel  System  Integrity  (49  CFR  571.301), 
are  amended  to  read  as  follows : 

Effective  date:  Because  this  amendment  re- 
vises certain  requirements  that  are  part  of  49 
CFR  571.301-75,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard 
301-75,  effective  September  1,  1975,  and  creates 
no  additional  burden  upon  any  person,  it  is 
found  for  good  cause  shown  that  an  effective 
date  of  less  than  180  days  after  publication  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  August  1, 1975. 

Robert  L.  Carter 
Acting  Administrator 

40  F.R.  33036 
August  6,  1975 


i 


PART  571;  S  301-75— PRE  12 


Effective;    September    1,    1975 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  301-75 
Fuel  System   Integrity 


5.1  Scope.  This  standard  specifies  require- 
ments for  the  integrity  of  motor  vehicle  fuel 
systems. 

5.2  Purpose.  The  purpose  of  this  standard  is 
to  reduce  deaths  and  injuries  occurring  from 
fires  that  result  from  fuel  spillage  during  and 
after  motor  vehicle  crashes. 

5.3  Application.  [This  standard  apjjlies  to 
passenger  cars,  and  to  multipurpose  passenger 
vehicles,  trucks,  and  buses  that  have  a  GVWR  of 
10,000  pounds  or  less  and  use  fuel  with  a  boiling 
point  above  32°  F.  (39  F.R.  40857— November 
21,  1974.     Effective:  9/1/75)] 

54.  Definition.  "Fuel  spillage"  means  the  fall, 
flow,  or  run  of  fuel  from  the  vehicle  but  does  not 
include  wetness  resulting  from  capillary  action. 

55.  General  requirements. 

55.1  Passenger  cars.  Each  passenger  car 
manufactured  from  September  1,  1975,  to  August 
31,  1976,  shall  meet  the  requirements  of  S6.1  in  a 
perpendicular  impact  only,  and  S6.4.  Each  pas- 
senger car  manufactured  on  or  after  September 
1,  1976,  shall  meet  all  the  requirements  of  S6. 

55.2  Vehicles  with  GVWR  of  6,000  pounds  or 
less.  Each  multipurpose  i:)assenger  vehicle, 
truck,  and  bus  with  a  GVWR  of  6,000  pounds  or 
less  manufactured  from  September  1,  1976,  to 
August  31,  1977,  shall  meet  all  the  requirements 
of  S6.1  in  a  perpendicular  impact  only,  S6.2,  and 
S6.4.  Each  of  these  types  of  vehicles  manufac- 
tured on  or  after  September  1,  1977,  shall  meet 
all  the  requirements  of  S6. 

55.3  Vehicles  with  GVWR  of  more  than  6,000 
pounds  but  not  more  than  10,000  pounds.  Each 
multipurpose  passenger  vehicle,  truck,  and  bus 
with  a  GVWR  of  more  than  6,000  jjounds  but 
not  more  than  10,000  pounds  manufactured  from 


September  1,  1976,  to  August  31,  1977,  shall  meet 
the  requirements  of  S6.1  in  a  jjerpendicular  im- 
pact only.  Each  vehicle  manufactured  on  or 
after  September  1,  1977,  shall  meet  all  the  re- 
quirements of  S6. 

55.4  Fuel  spillage:  Barrier  Crash.  [Fuel  spill- 
age in  any  fixed  or  moving  barrier  crash  test 
shall  not  exceed.  1  ounce  by  weight  from  impact 
imtil  motion  of  the  vehicle  has  ceased,  and  shall 
not  exceed  a  total  of  5  ounces  by  weight  in  the 
5-minute  period  following  cessation  of  motion. 
For  the  subsequent  25-minute  period  fuel  spill- 
age during  any  1-minute  interval  shall  not  ex- 
ceed 1  ounce  by  weight.  (40  F.R.  33036— 
August  6,  1975.    Effective:  9/1/75)] 

55.5  Fuel  spillage:  rollover.  Fuel  spillage  in 
any  rollover  test,  from  the  onset  of  rotational 
motion,  shall  not  exceed  a  total  of  5  ounces  by 
weight  for  the  first  5  minutes  of  testing  at  each 
successive  90°  increment.  For  the  remaining 
testing  period,  at  each  increment  of  90°  fuel 
spillage  during  anj'  1-minute  interval  shall  not 
exceed  1  ounce  by  weight. 

[S6.  Test  requirements.  Each  vehicle  shall  be 
capable  of  meeting  tlie  requirements  of  any  bar- 
rier crash  test  followed  by  a  static  rollover, 
without  alteration  of  the  vehicle  during  the  test 
sequence.  A  particular  vehicle  need  not  meet 
further  requirements  after  having  been  subjected 
to  a  single  barrier  crash  test  and  a  static  roll- 
over test.  (39  F.R.  40857~November  21,  1974. 
Effective:  9/1/75)] 

S6.1  Frontal  barrier  crash.  [When  the  vehicle 
traveling  longitudinally  forward  at  any  speed 
up  to  and  including  30  mph  impacts  a  fixed  col- 
lision barrier  that  is  perpendicular  to  the  line 
of  travel  of  the  vehicle,  or  at  any  angle  up  to  30° 
in  either  direction  from  the  perpendicular  to  the 
line  of  travel  of  the  vehicle,  witii  ballast  weight 


(Rev.    8/1/75) 


PART  571;  S  301-75-1 


EffecHve:   September   1,    1975 


equal  to  that  of  a  50th  percentile  test  dummy 
at  each  front  outboard  designated  seating  posi- 
tion, or,  where  passive  restraints  are  present, 
50th  percentile  test  dummies  as  specified  in  Part 
572  of  this  chapter  at  positions  required  for 
testing  to  Standard  No.  208,  under  the  applicable 
conditions  of  S7,  fuel  spillage  shall  not  exceed 
the  limits  of  S5.4.  (39  F.R.  40857— November 
21,  1974.     EflFective:  9/1/75)] 

56.2  Rear  moving  barrier  crash.  AVhen  the 
vehicle  is  impacted  from  the  rear  by  a  barrier 
moving  at  30  mph,  with  t«st  dummies  as  specified 
in  Part  572  of  this  chapter  at  each  front  out- 
board designated  seating  position,  under  the  ap- 
plicable conditions  of  S7,  fuel  spillage  shall  not 
exceed  the  limits  of  S5.4. 

56.3  Laferal  moving  barrier  crash.  [When  the 
vehicle  is  impacted  laterally  on  either  side  by  a 
barrier  moving  at  20  mph  with  ballast  weight 
equal  to  that  of  a  50th  percentile  test  dummy 
at  each  front  outboard  designated  seating  posi- 
tion, or,  where  passive  restraints  are  present, 
50th  percentile  test  dummies  as  specified  in  Part 
572  of  this  chapter  at  positions  required  for  test- 
ing to  Standard  No.  208,  under  the  applicable 
conditions  of  S7.,  fuel  spillage  shall  not  exceed 
the  limits  of  S5.4.  (39  F.R.  40857— November 
21,  1974.     Effective:  9/1/75)] 

56.4  Static  rollover.  When  the  vehicle  is  ro- 
tated on  its  longitudinal  axis  to  each  successive 
increment  of  90°,  following  each  impact  crash 
of  S6.1,  S6.2,  and  S6.3,  fuel  spillage  shall  not 
exceed  the  limits  of  S5.5. 

S7.  Test  conditions.  The  requirements  of  S5 
and  S6  shall  be  met  under  the  following  condi- 
tions. Where  a  range  of  conditions  is  specified, 
the  vehicle  must  be  capable  of  meeting  the  re- 
quirements at  all  points  within  the  range. 


S7.1    General    test    conditions. 

conditions  apply  to  all  tests. 


The   following 


S7.1.1  The  fuel  tank  is  filled  to  any  level  from 
90  to  95  percent  of  capacity  with  Stoddard 
solvent,  having  the  physical  and  chemical  prop- 
erties of  type  1  solvent,  Table  I  ASTM  Standard 
D4:S4r-7l,  "Standard  Specifications  for  Hydro- 
carbon Dry  Cleaning  Solvents." 


57.1.2  The  fuel  system  other  than  the  fuel 
tank  is  filled  with  Stoddard  solvent  to  its  normal 
operating  level. 

57.1.3  If  the  vehicle  has  an  electrically  driven 
fuel  pump  that  normally  runs  when  the  vehicle's 
electrical  system  is  activated,  it  is  operating  at 
the  time  of  a  barrier  crash. 

57.1.4  [The  parking  brake  is  disengaged  and 
the  transmission  is  in  neutral.  (39  F.R.  40857 — 
November  21,  1974.     Effective:  9/1/75)] 

S7.1 .5.  [The  vehicle,  including  test  devices  and 
instnunentation,  is  loaded  as  follows: 

(a)  Except  as  specified  in  S7.1.1,  a  passenger 
car  is  loaded  to  its  unloaded  vehicle  weight  plus 
its  rated  cargo  and  luggage  capacity  weight,  se- 
cured in  the  luggage  area,  plus  the  necessary 
test  dummies  as  specified  in  S6,  restrained  only 
by  means  that  are  installed  in  the  vehicle  for 
protection  at  its  seating  position. 

(b)  Except  as  specified  in  S7.1.1,  a  multipur- 
pose passenger  vehicle,  truck,  or  bus  with  a 
GV^VR  of  10,000  pounds  or  less  is  loaded  to  its 
unloaded  vehicle  weight,  plus  the  necessary  test 
dummies,  as  specified  in  S6.,  plus  300  pounds"  or 
its  rated  cargo  and  luggage  capacity  weight, 
whichever  is  less,  secured  to  the  vehicle  and  dis- 
tributed so  that  the  weight  on  each  axle  as  meas- 
ured at  the  tire-ground  interface  is  in  proportion 
to  its  GAWR.  If  the  weight  on  any  axle,  when 
the  vehicle  is  loaded  to  unloaded  vehicle  weight 
plus  dummy  weight,  exceeds  the  axle's  propor- 
tional share  of  the  test  weight,  the  remaining 
weight  shall  be  placed  so  that  the  weight  on  that 
axle  remains  the  same.  Each  dummy  shall  be 
restrained  only  by  means  that  are  installed  in 
the  vehicle  for  protection  at  its  seating  position. 
(40  F.R.  33036— August  6,  1975.  Effective: 
9/1/75)] 

S7.1.6  Tires  are  inflated  to  manufacturer's 
Specifications. 

57.2  Lateral  moving  barrier  crash  test  condi- 
tions, The  lateral  moving  barrier  crash  test 
conditions  are  those  specified  in  S8.2  of  Standard 
No.  208,  49  CFR  571.208. 

57.3  Rear  moving   barrier  test  conditions.     The 

rear    moving   barrier   test   conditions    are    those 
specified  in  S8.2  of  Standard  No.  208,  49  CFR 


(Rev.    8/1/75) 


PART  571;  S  301-75-2 


I 


571.208,  except  for  the  positioning  of  the  barrier 
and  the  vehicle.  The  barrier  and  test  vehicle  are 
i:)ositioned  so  that  at  impact — 

(a)  The  vehicle  is  at  rest  in  its  normal  atti- 
tude; 

(b)  The  barrier  is  traveling  at  30  mph  with 
its  face  perpendicular  to  the  longitudinal  center- 
line  of  the  vehicle ;  and 

(c)  A  vertical  plane  through  the  geometric 
center  of  the  barrier  impact  surface  and  perpen- 
dicular to  that  surface  coincides  with  the  longi- 
tudinal centerline  of  the  vehicle. 


Effective:   September   1,    1975 

S7.4  Static  rollover  test  conditions.  The  vehicle 
is  rotated  about  its  longitudinal  axis,  with  the 
axis  kept  horizontal,  to  each  successive  increment 
of  90°,  180°,  and  270°  at  a  uniform  rate,  with 
90°  of  rotation  taking  place  in  any  time  interval 
from  1  to  3  minutes.  After  reaching  each  90° 
increment  the  vehicle  is  held  in  that  position  for 
5  minutes. 


38  F.R.  22397 
August  20,    1973 


► 


(Rev.    11/15/741 


PART  571;  S  301-75-3 


i 


I 


Effactiv*:  Scptambar  1,   1972 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  302 
Flammability  of  Interior  Materials — Passenger  Cars,  Multipurpose  Passenger  Vehicles, 

Trucks,  and  Buses 
(Docket  No.  3-3;  Notice  4) 


This  notice  amends  §  575.21  of  Title  49  of  the 
Code  of  Federal  Regulations  by  adding  a  new 
motor  vehicle  safety  standard,  No.  302,  Flam- 
mability of  Interior  Materials.  Notices  of  pro- 
posed rulemaking  on  the  subject  were  published 
on  December  31,  1969  (34  F.R.  20434)  and  June 
26,  1970  (35  F.R.  10460). 

As  stated  in  the  notice  of  December  31,  1969, 
the  occurrence  of  thousands  of  fires  per  year  that 
begin  in  vehicle  interiors  provide  ample  justifi- 
cation for  a  safety  standard  on  flammability  of 
interior  materials.  Although  the  qualities  of 
interior  materials  cannot  by  themselves  make 
occupants  safe  from  the  hazards  of  fuel-fed  fires, 
it  is  important,  when  fires  occur  in  the  interior 
of  the  vehicle  from  such  sources  as  matches, 
cigarettes,  or  short  circuits  in  interior  wiring, 
that  there  be  sufficient  time  for  the  driver  to  stop 
the  vehicle,  and  if  necessary  for  occupants  to 
leave  it,  before  injury  occurs. 

The  question  on  which  the  public  responses  to 
the  above  notices  differed  most  widely  was  the 
bum  rate  limit  to  be  required.  The  rate  pro- 
posed was  4  inches  per  minute,  measured  by  a 
horizontal  test.  Some  manufacturers  suggested 
maximum  burn  rates  as  high  as  15  inches  per 
minute.  The  Center  for  Auto  Safety,  the  Textile 
Fibers  and  By-Products  Association,  and  the 
National  Cotton  Batting  Institute,  on  the  other 
hand,  suggested  essentially  a  zero  burn  rate,  or 
self-extinguishment,  requirement,  with  a  vertical 
rather  than  a  horizontal  test.  A  careful  study 
was  made  of  the  available  information  on  this 
subject,  including  the  bum  rates  of  materials 
currently  in  use  or  available  for  use,  recommen- 
dations or  regulations  of  other  agencies,  and  the 
economic  and  technical  consequences  of  various 
possible  rate  levels  and  types  of  tests.     A  con- 


siderable amount  of  Bureau-sponsored  research 
has  been  conducted  and  is  continuing  on  the 
subject.  On  consideration  of  this  data,  the  Bu- 
reau has  decided  to  retain  the  4-inch-per-minute 
bum  limit,  with  the  horizontal  test,  in  this 
standard.  It  has  been  determined  that  suitable 
materials  are  not  available  in  suflBicient  quanti- 
ties, at  reasonable  costs,  to  meet  a  significantly 
more  stringent  burn  rate  by  the  effective  date 
that  is  hereby  established.  The  4-uich  rate  will 
require  a  major  upgrading  of  materials  used  in 
many  areas,  and  a  corresponding  improvement 
in  this  aspect  of  motor  vehicle  safety.  It  is  im- 
portant that  this  standard  not  hinder  manufac- 
turers' efforts  to  comply  with  the  crash  protection 
requirements  that  are  currently  being  imposed, 
and  that  in  the  Bureau's  judgment  are  of  the 
greatest  importance.  Further  study  will  be 
made,  however,  of  the  feasibility  of,  and  justifi- 
cation for,  imposing  more  stringent  requirements 
with  a  later  effective  date. 

As  pointed  out  in  several  comments,  the  prob- 
lem of  toxic  combustion  by-products  is  closely 
related  to  that  of  burn  rate.  Release  of  toxic 
gases  is  one  of  the  injury-producing  aspects  of 
motor  vehicle  fires,  and  many  of  the  common 
ways  of  treating  materials  to  reduce  their  bum 
rates  involve  chemicals  that  produce  highly 
poisonous  gases  such  as  hydrogen  chloride  and 
hydrogen  cyanide.  The  problem  of  setting 
standards  with  regard  to  combustion  by-products 
is  difficult  and  complex,  and  the  subject  of  con- 
tinuing research  under  Bureau  auspices.  Until 
enough  is  known  in  this  area  to  form  the  basis 
for  a  standard,  and  to  establish  the  proper  inter- 
action between  burn  rate  and  toxicity,  this  un- 
certainty constitutes  an  additional  reason  for  not 
requiring  self-extinguishing  materials. 


PART  571;  S  302— PRE  1 


Effective   S*pl«mb*r   1,    1972 


The  proposal  specified  a  particular  commercial 
gas  for  the  test  burn  and  several  comments  sug- 
gested problems  in  obtaining  the  gas  for  manu- 
facture testing.  As  is  the  case  with  all  the  motor 
vehicle  safety  standards,  the  test  procedures  de- 
scribe the  tests  that  the  regulated  vehicles  or 
equipment  must  be  capable  of  passing,  when 
tested  by  the  Bureau,  and  not  the  method  by 
which  a  manufacturer  must  ascertain  that  cap- 
ability. Any  gas  with  at  least  as  high  a  flame 
temperature  as  the  gas  described  in  the  standard 
would  therefore  be  suitable  for  manufacturer 
testing.  To  make  this  point  clearer,  and  to  use 
a  more  readily  available  reference  point,  the 
standards  been  reworded  to  specify  a  gas  that 
"has  a  flame  temperature  equivalent  to  that  of 
natural  gas." 

The  dimensions  of  the  enclosure  within  which 
the  test  is  conducted  have  been  changed  from 
those  proposed,  in  order  to  provide  more  draft- 
free  conditions,  and  consequently  more  repeat- 
able  results.  Smaller  cabinets,  furthermore, 
evidently  are  more  generally  available  than 
larger  ones.  Again  it  should  be  noted  that  there 
is  no  necessity  that  manufacturers  duplicate  the 
dimensions  of  the  test  cabinet,  as  long  as  they 
can  establish  a  reasonable  basis  for  concluding 
that  their  materials  will  meet  the  requirements 
when  tested  in  such  a  cabinet. 

Several  comments  questioned  the  need  for 
specifying  the  temperature  and  relative  humidity 
under  which  the  material  is  conditioned  and  the 
test  is  conducted.  The  foregoing  discussions  of 
the  relation  of  the  standard  to  manufacturer 
testing  apply  here  also.  The  specification  of 
temperature  and  relative  humidity  for  condition- 
ing and  testing  is  made  to  preclude  any  argu- 
ments, in  the  face  of  a  compliance  test  failure, 
that  variations  in  test  results  are  due  to  per- 
mitted variations  in  test  conditions.  The  relative 
humidity  specification  has  been  changed  from 
65  percent,  as  proposed,  to  50  percent.  This 
humidity  level  represents  more  closely  the  con- 
ditions encountered  in  use  during  fairly  dry 
weather.  While  it  is  a  slightly  more  stringent 
condition,  it  is  one  in  wide  use  for  materials 
testing,  according  to  the  comments,  and  is  not, 
in  the  judgment  of  the  Bureau,  a  large  enough 
change  in  the  substance  of  the  proposal  to  war- 
rant further  notice  and  opix)rtunity  for  comment. 


Several  comments  suggested  that  the  standard 
should  specify  the  number  of  specimens  to  be  f^ 
tested,  with  averaging  of  results,  as  is  commonly 
found  in  specification-type  standards.  The  legal 
nature  of  the  motor  vehicle  safety  standards  is 
such,  however,  that  sampling  and  averaging 
provisions  would  be  inappropriate.  As  defined 
by  the  National  Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Act,  the  standards  are  minimum  performance 
levels  that  must  be  met  by  every  motor  vehicle 
or  item  of  motor  vehicle  equipment  to  which 
they  apply.  Enforcement  is  based  on  inde- 
pendent Bureau  testing,  not  review  of  manu- 
facturer testing,  and  manufacturers  are  required 
to  take  legal  responsibility  for  every  item  they 
produce.  The  result,  and  the  intent  of  the  Bu- 
reau in  setting  the  standards,  is  that  manufac- 
turers must  establish  a  sufficient  margin  of 
performance  between  their  test  results  and  the 
standard's  requirements  to  allow  for  whatever 
variances  may  occur  between  items  tested  and 
items  produced. 

The  description  of  portions  to  be  tested  has 
been  changed  slightly,  such  that  the  surface  and 
the  underlying  materials  are  tested  either  sepa-       ^ 
rately  or  as  a  composite,  depending  on  whether      ( 
they  are  attached  to  each  other  as  used  in  the      ^ 
vehicle.    In  the  proposal,  surface  and  underlying 
materials  were  to  be  tested  separately  regardless 
of  how   used,  an  element  of  complexity   found 
unnecessary  for  safety  purposes. 

In  response  to  comments  with  respect  to  ma- 
terials that  burn  at  a  decreasing  rate,  to  which 
the  application  of  the  test  is  not  clear,  an  addi- 
tional criterion  has  been  added.  If  material 
stops  burning  before  it  has  burned  for  60  seconds, 
and  does  not  burn  more  than  2  inches,  it  is  con- 
sidered to  meet  the  requirement. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  §  571.21  of 
Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Kegulations,  is  amended 
by  the  addition  of  Standard  No.  302,  Flam- 
mability  of  Interior  Materials. 

Effective  date:  September  1,  1972.  Because 
of  the  extensive  design  changes  that  will  be 
necessitated  by  this  new  standard,  and  the  lead- 
time  consequently  required  by  manufacturers  to 
prepare   for   production,   it  is   found,   for  good 


PART  571;  S  302— PRE  2 


Effective:   September    1,    1972 


) 


cause  shown,  that  an  eflFective  date  later  than  one  Douglas  W.  Toms 

year  from  the  issuance  of  this  notice  is  in  the  Director 

public  interest.  36  F.R.  289 

Issued  on  December  29, 1970.  January  8,  1971 


PART  571;  S  302— PRE  3-4 

231-088   O  -  77  -  70 


o 


( 


( 


Effective:   October   1,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.   302 

Flammability  of  Interior  Materials 
(Docket  No.  3-3;   Notice  7b) 


This  notice  modifies  the  test  procedures  and 
specimen  preparation  requirements  of  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  302,  Flammahility 
of  interior  materials  (49  CFR  571.302).  A  notice 
of  proposed  rulemakinjj  was  issued  on  May  17, 
1973  (38  FR  12934). 

Several  comments  on  the  notice  of  proposed 
rulemaking  suggested  exempting  small  com- 
ponents on  the  basis  of  size  because  of  the  con- 
fusion caused  by  paragraph  S4.1.  This  agency 
has  not  found,  however,  that  the  exemption  of 
a  component  on  the  basis  of  size  is  consistent 
■with  safety.  Rather,  NHTSA  finds  that  if  a 
component  is  too  small  to  produce  an  acceptable 
test  sample,  a  test  sample  consisting  of  the  ma- 
terial from  which  the  component  is  fabricated 
should  be  substituted.  Consequently,  a  new  sec- 
tion S4.1.1  has  been  added  to  require  surrogate 
testing  of  such  components  as  switches,  knobs, 
gaskets,  and  grommets  which  are  considered  too 
small  to  be  effectivelj'  tested  under  the  current 
procedures. 

A  previous  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  (36 
FR  9565)  suggested  a  scheme  for  testing  single 
and  composite  materials  that  would  allow  the 
testing  of  certain  configurations  of  vehicle  in- 
terior materials  not  taken  into  account  under 
the  present  scheme.  Examples  of  such  configura- 
tions are  multi-layered  composites  and  single 
layers  of  underlying  materials  that  are  neither 
padding  nor  cushioning  materials.  Comments  to 
that  notice  argued  that  some  aspects  of  the  pro- 
posed scheme  would  require  some  duplicative 
testing  without  providing  a  measurable  safety 
benefit. 

In  response  to  these  arguments,  it  was  pro- 
posed (38  F.R.  12934)  that  S4.2  be  amended  to 
take  into  account  some  omissions  in  the  present 


scheme  and  to  reduce  the  complexity  of  testing 
single  and  composite  materials.  After  reviewing 
the  comments,  the  proposed  scheme  is  adopted. 
Thus,  the  standard  is  amended  to  require  single 
materials  or  composites  (materials  that  adhere 
at  every  point  of  contact),  any  part  of  which  is 
within  1/^  inch  of  the  surface  of  the  component, 
to  meet  the  bum-rate  requirements.  Materials 
that  are  not  part  of  adhering  composites  are  sub- 
ject to  the  requirements  when  tested  separately. 
Those  materials  that  do  adhere  to  adjacent  ma- 
terials at  every  point  of  contact  are  subject  to 
the  requirements  as  composites  when  tested  with 
the  adjacent  materials.  The  concept  of  "ad- 
herence" would  replace  language  presently  con- 
tained in  the  standard  describing  materials  as 
"bonded,  sewed,  or  mechanically  attached."  An 
illustrative  example  is  included  in  the  text  of 
the  section. 

Several  comments  in  response  to  the  notice  of 
proposed  rulemaking  requested  changes  in  the 
test  cabinet,  as  did  comments  in  response  to  pre- 
vious notices  concerning  this  standard.  The 
XHTSA  has  evaluated  various  recommendations 
and  suggestions  concerning  the  cabinet.  No 
changes  are  proposed  in  this  notice,  however,  as 
sufficient  justification  has  not  been  found  for  a 
design  change  at  this  time. 

Paragraph  S5.2.1  of  the  standard  presently 
provides  that  materials  exceeding  14  ii^ch  in 
thickness  are  to  be  cut  down  to  y^  inch  in  thick- 
ness before  testing.  As  described  in  the  notice 
of  proposed  rulemaking,  cutting  certain  materials 
to  the  prescribed  thickness  produces  a  tufted  sur- 
face upon  which  a  flame  front  may  be  propa- 
gated at  a  faster  rate  than  it  would  be  upon  the 
surface  of  the  material  before  cutting,  there b}' 
creating  an   artificial   test  condition.     In   order 


PART  571;  S  302— PRE  5 


Effective:    October    1,    1975 


to  avoid  this,  the  requirements  for  the  transmis-  In  light  of  the  above,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 

sion  rate  of  a  flame  front  are  amended  in  S4.3  (a)        Standard     No.     302,     49     CFR     §     571.302,     is 


to  exclude  surfaces  created  by  cutting.  amended.  .  .  . 

The  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  points  out  Effective  date:  Oct.  1,  1975. 

that   a    related    problem   has   arisen   concerning  ^g^^^    ^^3^  ^^9^  p^^    L.  89-563,  80  Stat.  718 

which  surfaces  of  a  test  specimen  should  face  the  ^^g  ^.S.C.  1392,  1407) ;  delegation  of  authority 

flame  in  the  test  cabinet.     To  answer  this  ques-  ^^  ^g  CFR  1  51  ) 

tion  and  avoid  unnecessary  test  duplication,  the  iv-r      v,  i7    aq7k 

-  1   -,  .  •  T    ii    J.  i.T.  Assueu  on  jvxarcn  J.*,  i.\)io, 

test  procedures  are  amended  to  provide  that  the 

surface  of  the  specimen  closest  to  the  occupant  _  -o    /-. 

■  ^         1  1        Vi.  James   B.   Gregory 

compartment  air  space   face   downward  on  the  .  ,     ...     , 

'  „  „„       ^  .  .  1        T  1  Administrator 

test  frame.     Ihe  test  specimen  is  produced  by 

cutting  the  material  in  the  direction  that  pro-  40  F.R.  14318 

vides  the  most  adverse  test  results.  March  31,  1975 


i 


PART  571;  S  302— PRE  6 


( 


Effective:    September    16,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  302 

Flammability  of  Interior  Materials 
(Docket  No.  3-3;  Notice  9) 


On  March  31,  1975,  the  National  Highway 
Traffic  Safety  Administration.  (NHTSA)  issued 
a  notice  modifying  the  test  procedures  and  speci- 
men preparation  requirements  of  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  302,  49  CFR  571.302,  Flam- 
mability of  interior  materials  (40  FR  14318). 
Petitions  for  reconsideration  of  the  rule  were 
received  from  American  Motors  Corporation, 
General  Motore  Corporation,  Wliite  Motor  Cor- 
poration, Chrysler  Corporation,  Volkswagen  of 
America,  Inc.,  Toyota  Motor  Sales,  U.S.A.,  Inc., 
Ford  Motor  Company,  and  the  Motor  Vehicle 
Manufacturers  Association  of  the  United  States, 
Inc. 

The  NHTSA  notice  established  a  process  of 
surrogate  testing  for  components  which  were  too 
small  to  test  without  difficulty  using  the  proce- 
dures previously  prescribed  by  Standard  No.  302. 
The  objections  raised  to  this  new  process  by  the 
petitioners  were  that  (a)  the  surrogate  testing 
procedure  is  an  entirely  new  departure,  and  the 
public  should  have  been  afforded  an  opportunity 
for  comment,  (b)  the  results  of  surrogate  testing 
will  in  certain  cases  differ  from  the  results  of 
testing  the  actual  component,  (c)  the  creation  of 
a  surrogate  testing  sample  of  certain  materials, 
such  as  elastic  cord,  is  impossible,  and  (d)  the 
dimensions  of  the  surrogate  sample  are  inappro- 
priate. 

It  should  be  fully  understood  that  small  com- 
ponents which  would  otherwise  be  included 
within  the  purview  of  Standard  No.  302  are  not 
excluded  by  virtue  of  their  size.  Further,  the 
NHTSA  intends  to  utilize  a  surrogate  testing 
procedure,  among  other  testing  procedures,  in 
the  case  of  small  components  as  the  first  step  in 
determining  whether  a  safety  defect  exists  pur- 
suant to  section  152  of  the  National  Traffic  and 


Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act.  Since  the  testing  of 
small  components  is  a  more  difficult  process,  the 
NHTSA  concluded  in  amending  Standard  No. 
302  to  include  the  surrogate  testing  process  that 
the  new  requirement  was  less  stringent  than  that 
currently  required  by  the  standard.  Further,  by 
amending  the  standard  the  industry  could  also 
be  fully  apprised  of  one  of  the  methods  the 
NHTSA  intended  to  use  to  determine  whether  a 
section  152  defect  existed. 

Nonetheless,  it  appears  from  the  petitions  for 
reconsideration  which  were  received  that  a  num- 
ber of  manufacturers  feel  that  they  should  be 
allowed  an  opportunity  for  comment.  The 
NHTSA  concludes  their  request  is  reasonable  and 
the  rule,  as  it  relates  to  surrogate  testing,  is  here- 
by revoked  and  is  reissued  as  a  notice  of  proposed 
rulemaking  in  this  issue  of  the  Federal  Register. 
A  number  of  the  petitioners  questioned  the 
need  for  including  any  small  conlponents  witliin 
the  ambit  of  Standard  No.  302,  citing  the  notice 
of  proposed  rulemaking  (38  FR  12934,  May  17, 
1973)  which  stated  that  certain  small  components 
designed  to  absorb  energy  are  not  fire  hazards. 
Therefore,  the  petitioners  believe  the  NHTSA 
has  reversed  its  previous  position. 

This  understanding  is  correct.  As  the  NHTSA 
said  in  the  preamble  to  the  proposed  amendment 
to  Standard  No.  302,  issued  concurrently  with 
the  amendment  to  the  Standard  (March  31,  1975, 
40  FR  14340)  : 

On  May  11,  1973,  the  NHTSA  issued  a  notice 
(38  FR  12934)  which  proposed,  inter  alia, 
amending  paragraph  S4.1  of  Standard  No.  302 
to  enumerate  the  interior  components  of  vehicle 
occupant  compartment  which  fell  within  the 
ambit  of  the  standard. 


PART  571;  S  302— PRE  7 


Effective:   September    16,    )975 


Comments  to  the  notice,  however,  have  made 
clear  that  the  enumeration  of  components,  even 
with  the  proposed  amendment,  will  continue  to 
confuse  manufacturers  required  to  meet  the 
standard. 

ifc  :t:  *  *  ={=  * 

While  some  materials  exposed  to  the  occupant 
compartment  air  space  are  not  fire  hazards,  the 
burden  of  ascertaining  that  fact  should  properly 
lie  with  the  manufacturer. 

Several  petitions  also  questioned  what  safety 
benefits  would  come  from  applying  the  standard 
to  small  components.  As  petitioner  American 
Motors  pointed  out,  the  pui-pose  of  Standard  No. 
302  is  to  provide  sufficient  time  for  the  occupants 
of  a  vehicle  to  exit  in  case  of  an  interior  fire. 
Thus,  even  small  components  which  are  highly 
flammable  would  hasten  the  spreading  of  fires 
in  motor  vehicles,  resulting  in  a  serious  hazard. 

Testing  frocedures.  Petitioners  pointed  out 
that  while  the  preamble  provides  that  the  sur- 
face of  the  specimen  closest  to  the  occupant  com- 
partment air  space  face  dov.'nward  on  test  frame, 
this  is  not  made  entirely  clear  in  the  body  of  the 
standard  itself.  The  standard  is  amended  to 
clarify  this  matter.  Likewise,  a  definition  of 
the  term  "occupant  compartment  air  space"  is 
added,  although  this  term  was  used  in  the  notice 
of  proposed  rulemaking  without  raising  a  prob- 
lem for  those  commenting. 


Extension  of  effective  date  of  ameridment. 
Several  petitioners  asked  for  an  extension  of  the 
effective  date.  As  the  surrogate  testing  proce- 
dures have  been  revoked  and  reissued  as  a  pro- 
posed rule,  the  NHTSA  concludes  that  an  exten- 
sion of  the  effective  dat«  is  not  necessary. 

Redesignation  of  Docket  3-3;  Notice  7. 
Through  a  clerical  error,  two  notices  were  issued 
with  the  heading,  "Docket  3-3;  Notice  7"  (July 
11,  1973,  38  FR  18564;  March  31,  1975,  40  FR 
14318).  The  notice  appearing  at  38  FR  18564 
is  hereby  redesignated  "Notice  7a"  and  that  ap- 
pearing at  49  FR  14318  is  redesignated  "Notice 
7b." 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Standard  No.  302,  49  CFR  571.302, 
is  amended.  ...        ' 

Effective  date:  September  16,  1975. 

Because  this  amendment  relieves  a  restriction, 
it  is  found  for  good  cause  shown  that  an  im- 
mediate 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  Septem.ber  10,  1975. 

James  B.  Gregory 
Administrator 

September  16,  1975 
40  F.R.  42746 


PART  571;  S  302— PRE  8 


Effective:    December   4,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  302 

Flammability  of  Interior  Materials 
(Docket  No.   3-3;   Notice    11) 


This  notice  establishes  a  new  section,  S3A. 
Defnitions,  in  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard 
No.  302,  49  CFR  571.302. 

On  September  16,  1975,  the  NHTSA  published 
in  the  Federal  Register  its  response  to  a  petition 
for  reconsideration  of  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  302,  Flammability  of  interior'  ma- 
tenals  (40  FR  42746).  The  rule  established  a 
definition  of  the  term  "occupant  compartment  air 
space"  that  was  supposed  to  be  added  to  "S3A. 
Defnitionsy  The  wording  of  the  amendment 
was  faulty,  however,  since  the  Definitions  section 
had  not  yet  been  established  in  Standard  No. 
302.  This  notice  corrects  the  error  by  adding 
that  section  to  the  standard. 

Petitions  have  been  received  from  General 
Motors  Corporation,  Motor  Vehicle  Manufac- 
turers Association,  American  Motors  Corporation, 
and  Ford  Motor  Company  requesting  that  the 
definition  of  "occupant  compartment  air  space" 
in  Notice  9  be  revoked.  These  petitions  will  be 
addressed  in  a  separate  notice.     The  purpose  of 


this  notice  is  only  to  promulgate  the  section  head- 
ing which  was  omitted  in  error  from  Notice  9. 

In  light  of  the  above,  in  place  of  the  amend- 
ment numbered  1.  in  Docket  3-3,  Notice  9  (40 
FR  42746,  September  16,  1975),  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Standard  No.  302  is  amended  by  adding 
a  new  S3A.  Defnitions.  .  .  . 

Effective  date:  December  4,  1975.  Because  this 
amendment  is  of  an  interpretative  nature  and 
makes  no  substantive  change  in  the  rule,  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  CFR  1.51) 

Issued  on  November  28,  1975. 

James  B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

40  F.R.  56667 
December  4,  1975 


PART  571;  S  302— PRE  9-10 


( 


Effective:   September    1,    1972 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARD  NO.  302 

Flammability  of  Interior  Materials — Passenger  Cars,   Multipurpose  Passenger  Vehicles, 

Trucks,  and  Buses 

(Docket  No.  3-3;   Notice  4) 


51.  Scope.  This  standard  specifies  bum  re- 
sistance requirements  for  materials  used  in  the 
occupant  compartments  of  motor  veliicles. 

52.  Purpose.  The  purpose  of  this  standard  is 
to  reduce  the  deaths  and  injuries  to  motor  ve- 
hicle occupants  caused  by  vehicle  fires,  especially 
those  originating  in  the  interior  of  the  vehicle 
from  sources  such  as  matches  or  cigarettes. 

53.  Application.  This  standard  applies  to 
passenger '  cars,  multipurj^ose  passenger  vehicles, 
trucks,  and  buses. 

S3A.  Definitions. 

"Occupant  compartment  air  space"  means  the 
space  within  the  occupant  compartment  that  nor- 
mally contains  refreshable  air.  (40  F.R.  42746 — 
September  16,  1975.  Effective  9/16/75.  40  F.R. 
56667— December  4,  1975.    Effective:  12/4/75) 

54.  Requirements. 

S4.1  The  portions  described  in  S4.2  of  the 
following  components  of  vehicle  occupant  com- 
partments shall  meet  the  requirements  of  S4.3 : 
Seat  cushions,  seat  backs,  seat  belts,  headlining, 
convertible  tojis,  arm  rests,  all  trim  panels  in- 
cluding door,  front,  rear,  and  side  panels,  com- 
partment shelves,  liead  restraints,  floor  coverings, 
sun  visors,  curtains,  shades,  wheel  housing  cov- 
ers, engine  compartment  covers,  mattress  covers, 
and  any  other  interior  materials,  including  pad- 
ding and  crash-deployed  elements,  that  are  de- 
signed to  absorb  energj'  on  contact  by  occupants 
in  the  event  of  a  crash. 

[S4.1.1  Deleted  and  Reserved.  40  F.R.  42746 
—September  16,  1975.  Effective:  9/16/75)] 


[S4.2  Any  portion  of  a  single  or  composite 
material  which  is  within  14  inch  of  the  occupant 
compartment  air  space  shall  meet  the  require- 
ments of  S4.3. 

54.2.1  Any  material  that  does  not  adhere  to 
other  material  (s)  at  every  point  of  contact  shall 
meet  the  requirements  of  S4.3  when  tested  sepa- 
rately. 

54.2.2  Any  material  that  adheres  to  other  ma- 
terials) at  every  point  of  contact  shall  meet 
the  requirements  of  S4.3  when  tested  as  a  com- 
posite with  the  other  material  (s).     Material  A 

Illustrative  Example: 


DEPTH 

(inches) 


Occupant  Compartment  Air  Space 


iji     NON  ADHERING  INTERFACE  Material  tested  SEPARATELY 


has  a  non-adhering  interface  with  material  B 
and  is  tested  separately.  Part  of  material  B  is 
within  14  iiich  of  the  occupant  compartment  air 
space,  and  materials  B  and  C  adhere  at  every 
point  of  contact;  therefore  B  and  C  are  tested 
as  a  composite.  The  cut  is  in  material  C  as 
shown,  to  make  a  specimen  I/2  ii^^h  thick.  (40 
F.R.  14318— March  31,  1975.  Effective: 
10/1/75)] 

[S4.3(a)  When  tested  in  accordance  with  S5, 
material  described  in  S4.1  and  S4.2  shall  not 
burn,  nor  transmit  a  flame  front  across  its  sur- 
face, at  a  rate  of  more  than  4  inches  per  minute. 


(«ev.    11/28/75) 


PART  571;  S  302-1 


Effective:   September    1,    1972 


However,  the  requirement  concernino:  transmis- 
sion of  a  flame  front  shall  not  apply  to  a  surface 
created  by  the  cutting  of  a  test  specimen  for  pur- 
poses of  testing  pursuant  to  S5. 

(b)  If  a  material  stops  burning  before  it  has 
burned  for  60  seconds  from  the  start  of  timing, 
and  has  not  burned  more  than  2  inches  from  the 
point  where  timing  was  started,  it  shall  be  con- 
sidered to  meet  the  burn-rate  requirement  of 
S4.3(a).  (40  F.R.  14318— March  31, 1975.  Effec- 
tive: 10/1/75)] 

S5.  Test  procedure. 
S5.1    Conditions. 

55.1.1  The  test  is  conducted  in  a  metal  cabi- 
net for  protecting  the  test  specimens  from  drafts. 
The  interior  of  the  cabinet  is  15  inches  long,  8 
inches  deep,  and  14  inches  high.  It  has  a  glass 
observation  window  in  the  front,  a  closable 
opening  to  permit  insertion  of  the  specimen 
holder,  and  a  hole  to  accommodate  tubing  for  a 
gas  burner.  For  ventilation,  it  has  a  i^-inch 
clearance  space  around  the  top  of  the  cabinet, 
ten  %-inch-diameter  holes  in  the  base  of  the 
cabinet,  and  legs  to  elevate  the  bottom  of  the 
cabinet  by  three-eighths  of  an  inch,  all  located 
as  shown  in  Figure  1. 

55.1 .2  Prior  to  testing,  each  specimen  is  con- 
ditioned for  24  hours  at  a  temperature  of  70°  F. 
and  a  relative  humidity  of  50  percent,  and  the 
test  is  conducted  under  those  ambient  conditions. 

55.1.3  The  test  specimen  is  inserted  between 
two  matching  U-shaped  frames  of  metal  stock 
1  inch  wide  and  three-eighths  of  an  inch  high. 
The  interior  dimensions  of  the  U-shaped  frames 
are  2  inches  wide  by  13  inches  long.  A  specimen 
that  softens  and  bends  at  the  flaming  end  so  as 
to  cause  erratic  burning  is  kept  horizontal  by 
supports  consisting  of  thin,  heat  resistant  wires, 
spanning  the  width  of  the  U-shaped  frame  under 
the  specimen  at  1-inch  intervals.  A  device  that 
may  be  used  for  supporting  this  type  of  ma- 
terial is  an  additional  U-shaped  frame,  wider 
than  the  U-shaped  frame  containing  the  speci- 
men, spanned  by  10-mil  wires  of  heat-resistant 
composition  at  1-inch  intervals,  inserted  over  the 
bottom  U-shaped  frame. 


55.1.4  A  bunsen  burner  with  a  tube  of  %-inch 
inside  diameter  is  used.  The  gas  adjusting  valve      z' 
is  set  to  provide  a  flame,  with  the  tube  vertical,       s, 
of   11/^   inches   in  height.     The  air  inlet  to  the 
burner  is  closed. 

55.1.5  The  gas  supplied  to  the  burner  has  a 
flame  temperature  equivalent  to  that  of  natural 
gas. 

55.2  Preporation  of  specimens. 

55.2.1  [Each  specimen  of  material  to  be  tested 
shall  be  a  rectangle  4  inches  wide  by  14  inches 
long,  wherever  possible.  The  thickness  of  the 
specimen  is  that  of  the  single  or  composite  ma- 
terial used  in  the  vehicle,  except  that  if  the 
material's  thickness  exceeds  I/2  inch,  the  specimen 
is  cut  down  to  that  thickness  measured  from  the 
surface  of  the  specimen  closest  to  the  occupant 
compartment  air  space.  Where  it  is  not  possible 
to  obtain  a  flat  specimen  because  of  surface  cur- 
vature, the  specimen  is  cut  to  not  more  than  I/2 
inch  in  thickness  at  any  point.  The  maximum 
available  length  or  width  of  a  specimen  is  used 
where  either  dimension  is  less  than  14  inches  or 
4  inches,  respectively,  unless  surrogate  testing  is 
required  under  S4.1.1.  (40  F.R.  14318— March  ^ 
31,1975.    Effective:  10/1/75)]  ( 

55.2.2  [The  specimen  is  produced  by  cutting 
the  material  in  the  direction  that  provides  the 
most  adverse  test  results.  The  specimen  is 
oriented  so  that  the  surface  closest  to  the  occupant 
compartment  air  space  faces  downward  on  the 
test  frame.  (40  F.R.  42746— September  16,  1975. 
Effective:  9/16/75)] 

55.2.3  Material  with  a  napped  or  tufted  sur- 
face is  placed  on  a  flat  surface  and  combed  twice 
against  the  nap  with  a  comb  having  seven  to 
eight  smooth,  rounded  teeth  per  inch. 

55.3  Procedure. 

(a)  Mount  the  specimen  so  that  both  sides  and 
one  end  are  held  by  the  U-shaped  frame,  and  one 
end  is  even  with  the  open  end  of  the  frame. 
'\\Tiere  the  maximum  available  width  of  a  speci- 
men is  not  more  than  2  inches,  so  that  the  sides 
of  the  specimen  cannot  be  held  in  the  U-shaped 
frame,  place  the  specimen  in  position  on  wire 
supports  as  described  in  S5.1.3,  with  one  end 
held  by  the  closed  end  of  the  U-shaped  frame. 


(Rev.  9/16/75) 


PART  571;  S  302-2 


Effective:   September    1,    1972 


(b)  Place  the  mounted  specimen  in  a  hori- 
zontal position,  in  the  center  of  the  cabinet. 

(c)  With  the  flame  adjusted  according  to 
S5.1.4,  position  the  bunsen  burner  and  specimen 
so  that  the  center  of  the  burner  tip  is  three- 
fourths  of  an  inch  below  the  center  of  the  bottom 
edge  of  the  open  end  of  the  specimen. 

(d)  Expose  the  specimen  to  the  flame  for  15 
seconds. 

(e)  Begin  timing  (without  reference  to  the 
period  of  application  of  the  burner  flame)  when 
the  flame  from  the  burning  specimen  reaches  a 
point  11/2  inches  from  the  open  end  of  the  spec- 
imen. 

(f)  Measure  the  time  that  it  takes  the  flame 
to  progress  to  a  point  I14  inches  from  the 
clamped  end  of  the  specimen.  If  the  flame  does 
not  reach  the  specified  end  point,  time  its  pro- 
gress to  the  point  where  flaming  ^tops. 

(g)  Calculate  the  burn  rate  from  the  formula 

B  =  60  X  D 


Where  B  =  burn  rate  in  inches  per  minute, 

D  =  length  the  flame  travels  in  inches,  and 
T  =  tinie    in    seconds    for   the   flame   to   travel   D 
inches. 


1/2  IN. 

VENTILATING 

CLEARANCE 

HEAT 

RESISTANT 

GLASS 

1  1/2  IN 

2  1/2  IN 


3/4  IN.      r^ 

VENTILATION 
HOLES 


36  F.R.  289 
January   8,    1971 


(Rev.    9/16/75) 


PART  571;  S  302-3 


c 


( 


( 


SECTION   III 

•  PART  571— NOTICE  OF  RULING   REGARDING   CHASSIS-CABS 

NOTICE   OF   RULING   REGARDING   CAMPERS   SLIDE-IN 
AND  CHASSIS-MOUNT 

•  PART  572— ANTHROPOMORPHIC  TEST  DUMMY 

•  PART  573— DEFECT  REPORTS 

•  PART  574— TIRE  IDENTIFICATION  AND  RECORDKEEPING 

TIRE  CODE  MARKS 

•  PART  575— CONSUMER  INFORMATION 

•  PART  576— RECORD  RETENTION 

•  PART  577— DEFECT  NOTIFICATION 

•  PART  580— ODOMETER  DISCLOSURE  REQUIREMENTS 

•  PART  582— INSURANCE  COST  INFORMATION   REGULATIONS 

•  PART  590— EMISSION   INSPECTIONS 

•  DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  TREASURY  REGULATION  RELATING  TO 
IMPORTATION  OF  MOTOR  VEHICLES  AND  ITEMS  OF  MOTOR 
VEHICLE  EQUIPMENT 


r 


( 


MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARDS 
Notice  of  Ruling  Regarding  Chassis-Cabs 


Inquiry  has  been  received  from  persons  en- 
gaged in  the  sale  of  trucks,  buses,  and  multi- 
purpose vehicles  regarding  their  legal  responsi- 
bility under  the  National  Traffic  and  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966  for  assuring  that 
vehicles  sold  by  them  are  in  conformity  with  all 
applicable  motor  vehicle  safety  standards.  Such 
persons  commonly  purchase  chassis-cabs  from 
manufacturers  and  bodies  or  work-performing 
and  load-carrying  structures  from  other  manu- 
facturers and  then  combine  the  chassis-cab  with 
the  body  or  other  structure.  A  regulation  is 
being  issued  this  date  by  the  Federal  Highway 
Administration  defining  the  chassis-cab  as  a  ve- 
hicle within  the  meaning  of  the  Act,  requiring 
that  it  meet  all  motor  vehicle  safety  standards 
applicable  on  the  date  of  manufacture  of  the 
chassis-cab."  Under  this  regulation  the  manu- 
facturer of  a  chassis-cab  manufactured  subsequent 
to  January  1,  1968,  will  have  responsibility  for 
compliance  with  all  applicable  motor  vehicle 
safety  standards  as  set  forth  therein  and  for 
certification  of  such  compliance  to  distributors 
and  dealers. 

Section  101(5)  of  the  National  Traffic  and 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  defines  a  "manufac- 
turer" as  any  person  engaged  in  the  "assembling" 
of  motor  vehicles.  Persons  who  combine  chassis- 
cabs  with  bodies  or  similar  structures  are,  there- 
fore, manufacturers  within  the  meaning  of  the 
Act.  Inasmuch  as  the  chassis-cab's  manufacturer 
is  responsible  for  compliance  with  standards 
under  the  regulation  issued  today,  persons  who 
add  bodies  or  other  structures  to  such  chassis- 
cab  are  not  considered  manufacturers  of  the 
chassis-cab  and,  therefore,  will  not  be  responsible 
for  the  conformance  of  the  chassis-cab  to  the 
standards  certified  by  the  manufacturer  of  the 


'  See  F.R.  Doc.  67-15174,  Title  23,  In  Rules  and  Regu- 
lations Section,  supra. 


chassis-cab.  In  numerous  instances  the  chassis- 
cab  will  not  be  capable  of  complying  with  motor 
vehicle  safety  standard  108  because  it  will  not 
be  equipped  with  all  items  of  lighting  equipment 
referred  to  in  such  standard.  Where  vendors 
combine  a  chassis-cab  which  has  not  been  certified 
to  be  in  conformance  with  standard  108,  with  a 
body  or  other  like  structure,  such  vendor  will  be 
responsible  for  compliance  with  the  lighting 
standard,  and  where  such  vendor  sells  the  com- 
bined assemblage  to  another  vendor,  certification 
of  compliance  with  the  lighting  standard  must 
accompany  the  vehicle. 

We  are  advised  that  a  substantial  inventory 
of  chassis-cabs  manufactured  prior  to  the  effec- 
tive date  of  the  initial  motor  vehicle  safety 
standards  and  hence  not  required  to  comply  with 
the  same  will  be  held  by  manufacturers,  distrib- 
utors, and  dealers  on  January  1,  1968.  These 
vehicles  may  contain  various  items  of  lighting 
equipment  manufactured  prior  to  the  effective 
date  of  the  lighting  standard  or  be  designed  to 
accept  such  equipment.  Under  these  circum- 
stances, it  does  not  appear  appropriate  to  require 
compliance  with  the  lighting  standard  when  such 
chassis-cabs,  i.e.,  those  manufactured  prior  to 
January  1,  1968,  are  combined  with  bodies  or 
similar  structures.  Section  108(a)(1)  of  the 
Act  also  prohibits  any  person  from  manufac- 
turing for  sale  or  selling  any  motor  vehicle 
manufactured  "after  the  date  any  applicable 
Federal  motor  vehicle  safety  standard  takes  effect 
under  this  title  unless  it  is  in  conformity  with 
such  standard  ***."  Under  this  provision  per- 
sons who  combine  the  chassis-cab  with  a  body 
or  other  structure  will  be  responsible  for  (1) 
compliance  of  the  combined  assemblage  with  any 
motor  vehicle  safety  standard  applicable  to  the 
end  use  of  the  combined  assemblage  in  effect  on 
the  date  of  manufacture  of  the  chassis-cab,  com- 
pliance with  which  has  not  already  been  certified 


PART  671;  (RULING)— 1 


by  the  chassis-cab  manufacturer,  and    (2)   com-  chassis-cab  manufacturer  to  affix  a  label  to  the      /* 

pliance  with  all  applicable  standards  in  effect  on  chassis-cab   which   identifies   the   Federal   motor     ( 

the  date  of  manufacturer  of  the  chassis-cab  to  vehicle  safety  standards  with  which  the  chassis-        "^ 

the  extent  that  the  addition  of  a  body  or  other  cab  fully  complies  for  the  pfincipal  end  uses  of 

structure  to  the  chassis-cab  affects  the  chassis-  such  chassis-cab. 

cab's     previous     conformance     with     applicable  Issued  in  Washington,  D.C.,  on  December  29, 

standards.  1967. 

To    insure    that    the    person    combining    the  ^        11  K    R  "rl     11 

chassis-cab  with  the  body  or  other  structure  has  -r-   i      i  tt-   ^           a'j    •   ■  ^     ^ 

,         ^j.          ,•       ^           111-      ^           ,^1  l^ederal  Highway  Admmistrator 

adequate  information  to  enable  him  to  meet  the  '' 

conditions  specified  above,  the  regulation  being  33  F.R.  29 

issued  concurrently  with  this  ruling  requires  the  January  3,  1968 


( 


PART  571;  (RULING)— 2 


FEDERAL  MOTOR  VEHICLE  SAFETY  STANDARDS 

(FHWA  Ruling  68-1) 

Notice  of  Ruling  Regarding  Campers  Slide-in  and  Chassis-Mount 


This  ruling  is  in  response  to  inquiries  for  a 
clarification  of  the  applicability  of  Federal 
Motor  vehicle  safety  standards  to  certain  items 
of  motor  vehicle  equipment  commonly  known  as 
"campers"  which  are  used  mostly  for  recreational 
purposes. 

A  "camper"  can  be  described  generally  as  a 
portable  structure  designed  to  be  loaded  onto,  or 
affixed  to,  a  motor  vehicle  to  provide  temporary 
living  quarters  for  recreation,  travel,  or  other 
use.  The  ruling  is  concerned  with  two  general 
categories  of  campers.  The  first,  a  "slide-in 
camper",  is  placed  on,  or  slides  onto  a  completed 
vehicle,  usually  a  pickup  truck.  The  second,  a 
"chassis-mount  camper",  is  mounted  on  a  chassis- 
cab. 

In  past  months  the  Bureau  received  a  number 
of  written  inquiries  regarding  the  applicability 
of  the  glazing  material  standard  (No.  205)  to 
slide-in  campers.  These  persons  received  re- 
sponses from  the  Bureau  indicating  that  slide-in 
campers  would  have  to  comply  with  standard  205 
under  certain  specified  conditions.  These  re- 
sponses of  the  Bureau  apparently  received  wide- 
spread dissemination  in  the  industry.  Subse- 
quently, additional  inquiries  were  received  from 
affected  persons  asking  for  clarification  of  the 
Bureau's  earlier  responses  with  respect  to  the 
question  of  whether  standard  205  was  applicable 
to  glazing  materials  contained  in  slide-in  campers 
sold  by  the  manufacturer  of  such  campers  to 
members  of  the  public  and  to  dealers  when  not 
an  integral  part  of  the  vehicle. 

The  Bureau  has  reconsidered  this  question  and 
determined  that  the  glazipg  standard  is  ap- 
plicable to  slide-in  campers. 

Standard  205  is  applicable  to  "glazing  ma- 
terials for  use  in  passenger  cars,  multipurpose 
passenger  vehicles,  motorcycles,  trucks  and  buses." 


The  slide-in  camper  is  an  item  of  motor  vehicle 
equipment  for  use  in  motor  vehicles.  As  such, 
glazing  materials  contained  in  slide-in  campers 
must  comply  with  standard  205  when  such  camp- 
ers are  sold  as  a  separate  unit  as  well  as  when 
attached  to  a  completed  pickup  truck.  Addi- 
tionally, manufacturers  of  slide-in  campers  must 
also  comply  with  the  certification  requirements 
set  forth  in  section  114  of  the  National  Traffic 
and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966  (15  U.S.C. 
1403). 

Review  of  the  Bureau's  prior  communications 
with  affected  persons  indicates  that  such  persons, 
and  others  who  received  notice  of  such  communi- 
cations, could  justifiably  have  concluded  that 
standard  205  was  subject  to  an  interpretation 
which  excluded  its  application  to  slide-in  camp- 
ers sold  directly  to  consumers  or  to  dealers  when 
not  an  integral  part  of  the  pickup  truck.  In 
these  circumstances  the  Bureau  does  not  regard 
it  as  appropriate  that  the  interpretation  of  the 
applicability  of  standard  205,  which  this  ruling 
announces,  should  be  given  retroactive  effect. 
Further,  in  view  of  such  reliance  a  reasonable 
time  should  be  afforded  affected  parties  to  allow 
for  possible  necessary  production  adjustments. 
Accordingly,  it  is  determined  that  with  respect 
to  slide-in  campers,  the  interpretation  announced 
by  this  ruling  shall  not  become  effective  until 
July  1,  1968. 

With  regard  to  the  chassis-mount  camper,  it  is 
an  integral  part  of  the  vehicle  when  attached  to 
a  chassis-cab  as  defined  in  §  371.3(b),  Part  371, 
Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standards  (33 
F.R.  19). 

Persons  who  mount  the  chassis-mount  camper 
to  the  chassis-cab  are  manufacturers  of  vehicles 
within  the  meaning  of  section  102(3)  of  the 
National  Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act 


PART  571;  (RULING)— 3 


231-088  O  -  77  -  71 


of  1966  (15  TJ.S.C.  1392).    As  such,  they  are  to  by  the  manufacturer  of  the  chassis-cab,  and  for      /' 

be  guided  by  the  regulation  and  ruling  on  chassis-  assuring  that  previously  met  standards  have  not      ( 

cabs  issued  December  29,  1967   (33  F.R.  19  and  been  adversely  affected  by  the  addition  of  the 

33  F.R.  29).     Under  this  regulation  and  ruling  chassis-mount  camper. 

persons  combining  a  chassis-cab  manufactured  on  jg^^^^j  -^^  Washington,  D.C.,  on  March  20,  1968. 

or  after  January   1,  1968,  with  a  body  or  like 

structure  (in  this  case  the  chassis-mount  camper)  _        u  ir   R  vi 

are  responsible  for  assuring  that  the  completed  _,   ,      ,  xt-  i           .'  i    •   • 

„,  ,                 ,.         -ii     n         1-     ui     i.     J     J  rederal  Highway  Admmistrator 

assemblage  complies  with  all  applicable  standards  *'        •' 

in   effect   on   the   date   of   manufacture   of   the  33  F.R.  5020 

chassis-cab  which  had  not  previously  been  met  March  26,  1968 


( 


PART  571;  (RULING) 


Effective:   August   1,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  PART  572— ANTHROPOMORPHIC  TEST  DUMMY 
(Docket  No.   73-8;   Notice  2) 


The  purposes  of  this  notice  are  (1)  to  adopt 
a  re<:ulation  that  specifies  a  test  dummy  to 
measure  the  i)erformance  of  vehicles  in  crashes, 
and  (2)  to  incorporate  tlie  dummy  into  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  208  (49  CFR 
§571.208),  for  the  limited  purpose  of  evaluating 
vehicles  with  passive  restraint  systems  manufac- 
tured under  the  first  and  second  restraint 
options  between  August  15,  1973,  and  August  15, 
1975.  The  question  of  the  restraint  system  re- 
quirements to  be  in  effect  after  August  15,  1975, 
is  not  addressed  by  this  notice  and  will  be  the 
subject  of  future  rulemaking  action. 

The  test  dunmiy  regulation  (49  CFR  Part 
572)  and  the  accompanying  amendment  to 
Standard  No.  208  were  proposed  in  a  notice 
published  April  2,  197.3  (38  F.R.  8455).  The 
dmnmy  described  in  the  regulation  is  to  be  used 
to  evaluate  vehicles  manufactured  under  sec- 
tions S4.1.2.1  and  S4.1.2.2,  (the  first  and  second 
options  in  the  period  from  August  15,  1973,  to 
August  15,  1975),  and  the  section  incorporating 
the  dummy  is  accordingly  limited  to  those  sec- 
tions. The  dummy  has  not  been  specified  for 
use  with  any  protection  systems  after  August  15, 
1975,  nor  with  active  belt  systems  under  the 
third  restraint  option  (S4.1.2.3).  The  recent 
decision  in  Ford  v.  NHTSA.  473  F.  2d  1241 
(6th  Cir.  1973),  removed  the  injury  criteria 
from  such  systems.  To  make  the  dummy  ap- 
plicable to  belts  under  the  thii'd  option,  the 
agency  would  have  to  provide  additional  notice 
and   opportunity   for  comment. 

By  invalidating  the  former  test  dummy 
specification,  the  decision  in  Chryfihr  v.  DOT, 
472  F.  2d  659  (6th  Cir.  1972),  affected  the  re- 
straint options  in  effect  before  August  15,  1975, 
as  well  as  the  mandatory  passive  restraint  re- 
quirements that  were  to  be  effective  after  that 
date.  A  manufacturer  who  built  cars  with  passive 


restraints  under  one  of  the  options  would 
therefore  be  unable  to  certify  the  cars  as  com- 
plying with  the  standard,  as  illustrated  by  the 
necessity  for  General  Motors  to  obtain  a  limited 
exemption  from  tlie  standard  in  order  to  com- 
plete the  remainder  of  a  run  of  1,000  air-bag 
equipped  cars. 

The  immediate  purpose  of  this  rulemaking  is 
to  reconstitute  those  portions  of  the  standard 
that  will  enable  manufacturers  to  build  passive 
restraint  vehicles  during  the  period  when  they 
are  optional.  The  test  dummy  selected  by  the 
agency  is  the  "G^I  Hybrid  II",  a  composite 
developed  by  General  Motors  largely  from  com- 
mercially available  components.  GM  had  re- 
quested NHTSA  to  adopt  the  Hybrid  II  on  the 
grounds  that  it  had  been  successfully  used  in 
vehicle  tests  with  passive  restraint  systems,  and 
was  as  good  as,  or  better  than,  any  other  im- 
mediately available  dummy  system.  On  con- 
sideration of  all  available  evidence,  the  NHTSA 
concurs  in  this  judgment.  One  fact  weighing 
in  favor  of  the  decision  is  that  General  Motors 
has  used  this  dummy  to  measure  the  conformity 
of  its  vehicles  to  the  passive  protection  require- 
ments of  Standard  208,  in  preparation  for  the 
announced  introduction  of  up  to  100,000  air- 
bag-equipped  vehicles  during  the  1974  model 
year. 

No  other  vehicle  manufacturer  has  announced 
l)lans  for  the  production  of  passive  restraint 
systems  during  tlie  optional  phase,  nor  has  any 
other  veliicle  manufacturer  come  forward  with 
suggestions  for  alternatives  to  Hybrid  II.  The 
NHTSA  would  liave  considered  other  dummies 
had  some  other  mantifacturer  indicated  that  it 
was  planning  to  produce  passive  restraint  vehicles 
during  the  option  period  and  that  some  other 
dummy  had  to  be  selected  in  order  to  allow 
them  to  proceed  with  their  plans.     If  there  had 


PART  572— PRE  1 


Effective:   August    1,    1973 


been  any  such  plans,  NHTSA  would  have  made 
every  effort  to  insure  that  a  test  device  satisfac- 
tory to  said  manufacturer  would  have  been 
selected. 

This  agency  recognizes  that  since  various 
types  of  dummy  systems  have  been  in  use  under 
the  previous  specification,  any  selection  of  one 
dummy,  as  is  required  by  the  Chrysler  decision, 
will  necessitate  readjustments  by  some  manu- 
facturers. However,  considering  the  quantity  of 
GM's  production,  the  scope  and  advanced  state 
of  its  passive  restraint  development  program, 
and  the  fact  that  the  Hybrid  II  does  not  differ 
radically  from  other  dummies  currently  in  use, 
in  the  NHTSA's  judgment  that  dummy  repre- 
sents the  best  and  least  costly  choice.  That 
conclusion  has  not  been  contradicted  by  the  com- 
ments to  the  docket. 

Tiie  agency  will  not  make  any  final  decision 
regarding  reinstatement  of  mandatory  passive 
restraint  requirements  without  further  notice  and 
opportunity  for  comment.  Should  the  agency 
propose  mandatory  passive  restraint  require- 
ments, the  question  of  the  conformity  of  the 
dummy  that  is  chosen  with  the  instructions  of 
the  court  in  Chrysler  will  again  be  open  for 
comment.  The  NHTSA  strongly  encourages  the 
continuance  of  the  dummy  test  programs  men- 
tioned in  the  comments,  in  the  hope  that  any 
problems  that  may  arise  can  be  identified  and 
resolved  before  the  dummy  specifications  for 
later  periods  are  issued. 

The  Hybrid  II  dummy  has  been  found  by 
NHTSA  to  be  a  satisfactory  and  objective  test 
instrument.  In  sled  and  barrier  tests  conducted 
by  GM  with  the  GM  restraint  systems  and  in 
sled  tests  conducted  by  Calspan  Corp.  on  behalf 
of  NHTSA,  the  Hybrid  II  has  produced  results 
that  are  consistent  and  repeatable.  This  is  not 
to  say  that  each  test  at  the  same  nominal  speed 
and  deceleration  has  produced  identical  values. 

In  testing  with  impact  sleds,  and  to  an  even 
greater  extent  with  crash-tested  vehicles,  the 
test  environment  itself  is  complex  and  necessarily 
subject  to  variations  that  affect  the  results.  The 
test  data  show,  however,  that  the  variance  from 
dummy  to  dummy  in  these  tests  is  sufficiently 
small  that  a  manufacturer  would  have  no  dif- 
ficulty in  deciding  whether  his  vehicle  would 
be  likely  to  fail  if  tested  by  NHTSA. 


The  provisions  of  the  dummy  regulation  have  ^ 
l:)een  modified  somewhat  from  those  proposed  in  | 
the  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking,  largely  as  a 
result  of  comments  from  GM.  Elinor  corrections 
Jiave  been  made  in  the  drawings  and  materials 
specifications  as  a  result  of  comments  by  Gil  and 
the  principal  dummy  suppliers.  The  dimimy 
specification,  as  finally  adopted,  reproduces  the 
Hybrid  II  in  each  detail  of  its  design  and  pro- 
\ides,  as  a  calibration  check,  a  series  of  perform- 
ance criteria  based  on  the  observed  performance 
of  normally  functioning  Hybrid  II  components. 
The  performance  criteria  are  wholly  derivative 
and  are  intended  to  filter  out  dummy  aberrations 
that  escape  detection  in  the  manufacturing 
process  or  that  occur  as  a  result  of  impact 
damage.  The  revisions  in  the  performance 
criteria,  as  discussed  hereafter,  are  intended  to 
eliminate  potential  \ariances  in  the  test  pro- 
cedures and  to  hold  the  performance  of  the  Hy- 
brid II  within  the  narrowest  possible  range. 

General  Motors  suggested  the  abandonment  of 
tiie  definition  of  "upright  position"  in  section 
.'i72.4(c),  and  the  substitution  of  a  setp-up  pro- 
cedure in  section  .572.11  to  serve  both  as  a 
positioning  method  for  the  performance  tests  and  ^ 
as  a  measurement  method  for  the  dummy's  y 
dimensions  as  shown  in  the  drawings.  The 
NHTSA  does  not  object  to  the  use  of  an  ex- 
panded set-u))  procedure,  but  has  decided  to 
retain  the  term  "upright  position"  with  appro- 
])riate  reference  to  the  new  section  572.11  (i). 

The  structural  properties  test  of  section 
.572.5(c),  which  had  proposed  that  the  dummy 
keep  its  properties  after  being  subjected  to  tests 
producing  readings  25  percent  above  the  injury 
criteria  of  Standard  No.  208,  has  been  revised 
to  provide  instead  that  the  properties  must  be 
retained  after  vehicle  tests  in  accordance  with 
Standard  No.  208. 

The  head  performance  criteria  are  adopted  as 
proi)osed.  The  procedures  have  been  amended  to 
insure  that  the  forehead  will  be  oriented  below 
the  nose  prior  to  the  drop,  to  avoid  interference 
from  the  nose.  In  response  to  comments  by  the 
Road  Research  Laboratory,  American  INIotors, 
and  (tM.  an  interval  of  at  least  2  hours  between 
tests  is  specified  to  allow  full  restoration  of 
compressed  areas  of  the  head  skin. 


PART  572— PRE  2 


Effective:   August    1,    1973 


The  neck  performance  criteria  are  revised  in 
several  respects,  in  keeping  with  GM's  recom- 
mendations. The  penduhim  impact  surface, 
shown  in  Figure  4,  has  been  modified  in  ac- 
cordance witii  GM's  design.  The  zero  time  point 
has  been  specified  as  the  instant  the  pendulum 
contacts  the  honeycomb,  the  instructions  for  de- 
termining chordal  displacement  have  been 
modified,  and  the  pulse  shape  of  the  pendulum 
deceleration  curve  has  been  differently  specified. 
The  maximum  allowable  deceleration  for  the 
head  has  been  increased  slightly  to  26g.  In 
response  to  suggestions  by  the  Road  Research 
Laboratory  and  the  Japan  Automobile  Manufac- 
turers Association  (JAMA),  as  well  as  GM,  a 
tolerance  has  been  specified  for  the  pendulum's 
impact  velocity  to  allow  for  minor  variances  in 
the  honeycomb  material. 

With  respect  to  the  thorax  test,  each  of  the 
minor  procedural  changes  requested  by  GM  has 
been  adopted.  As  with  the  head,  a  minimum 
recovery  time  is  specified  for  the  thorax.  The 
seating  surface  is  specified  in  greater  detail,  and 
the  test  probe  orientation  has  been  revised  to 
refer  to  its  height  above  the  seating  surface. 
The  test  probe  itself  is  expressly  stated  to  have  a 
rigid  face,  by  amendment  to  section  572.11, 
thereby  reflecting  the  probes  actually  used  by 
NHTSA  and  GM.  A  rigid  face  for  the  probe 
was  also  requested  by  Mercedes  Benz. 

The  test  procedures  for  the  spine  and  abdomen 
te.sts  are  sj^ecified  in  much  greater  detail  than 
before,  on  the  basis  of  suggestions  by  GM  and 
others  that  the  former  procedures  left  too  much 
room  for  variance.  The  test  fixtures  for  the 
spinal  test  orientation  proposed  by  GM,  and 
its  proposed  method  of  load  application  have 
been  adopted.  Tlie  parts  of  the  dummy  to  be 
as.sembled  for  these  tests  are  specifically  recited, 
and  an  initial  .50°  flexion  of  the  dummy  is  also 
specified.  The  rates  of  load  application  and 
removal,  and  the  method  of  taking  force  readings 
are  each  sjiecified.  The  direction  of  force  ap- 
plication is  clarified  in  response  to  a  comment  by 
Volvo. 

The  abdomen  test  is  amended  with  respect  to 
the  initial  point  of  force  measurement,  to  resolve 
a  particular  source  of  disagreement  between 
G:\r"s  data   and   XHTSA's.     The  boundaries  of 


the  abdominal  force-deflection  curve  are  modified 
to  accord  with  the  measurements  taken  by  GM 
subsequent  to  the  issuance  of  the  notice.  The 
rate  of  force  application  is  specified  as  not  more 
than  0.1  inch  per  second,  in  response  to  com- 
ments  by   Mercedes   Benz,   JAMA,   and   GM. 

Tiie  test  procedures  for  the  knee  tests  are 
revised  to  specify  the  type  of  seating  surface 
used  and  to  control  the  angle  of  the  lower  legs 
in  accordance  witii  suggestions  by  JAMA,  the 
Road  Research  Laboratory,  and  GM.  The  in- 
strumentation specifications  of  section  572.11  are 
amended  to  clarify  the  method  of  attachment 
and  orientation  of  the  thorax  accelerometers  and 
to  specify  the  channel  classes  for  the  chest 
potentiometer,  the  pendulum  accelerometer,  and 
tlie  test  probe  accelerometer,  as  requested  by 
several  comments. 

The  design  and  assembly  drawings  for  the 
test  dummy  are  too  cumbersome  to  publish  in  the 
Federal  Reginter.  During  the  comment  period 
on  the  April  2  notice,  the  agency  maintained 
master  coj^ies  of  the  drawings  in  the  docket  and 
placed  the  reproducible  mylar  masters  from 
which  the  copies  were  made  with  a  commercial 
blueprint  facility  from  wliom  interested  parties 
could  obtain  copies.  The  NHTSA  has  decided 
to  continue  this  practice  and  is  accordingly 
placing  a  master  set  of  drawings  in  the  docket 
and  the  reproducible  masters  for  these  drawings 
with  a  blueprint  facility. 

The  drawings  as  adopted  bj-  this  notice  differ 
only  in  minor  detail  from  those  that  accompanied 
tlie  April  2  notice.  The  majority  of  the  changes, 
incorporated  into  corrected  drawings,  have 
already  been  given  to  those  persons  who  ordered 
copies.  The  letter  of  June  13,  197.3,  that  ac- 
comi)anied  the  corrected  drawings  has  been 
placed  in  the  docket.  The  June  corrections  are 
incorporated  into  the  final  drawing  package. 
-Vdditional  adjustments  are  made  hereby  to  re- 
flect better  the  weight  distribution  of  separated 
segments  of  the  dummy,  to  allow  other  materials 
to  be  used  for  head  ballast,  and  to  specify  the 
instrument  for  measuring  skin  thickness.  The 
details  of  these  changes  are  recited  in  a  memo- 
randum incorjiorated  into  the  drawing  package. 

Each  of  the  final  drawings  is  designated  by 
the    legend    "XHTSA    Release    8/1/73".      Each 


PART  572— PRE  3 


EfF*cNv«:  August   I,    1973 


drawing  so  designated  is  hereby  incori)orated  as 
part  of  the  test  dummy  specifications  of  49  CFR 
Part  572.  Subsequent  changes  in  the  drawings 
will  not  be  made  without  notice  and  opportunity 
for  comment. 

The  incorporation  of  the  Part  572  test  dummy 
into  Standard  No.  208  makes  obsolete  several 
test  conditions  of  the  standard  that  had  been 
adopted  to  supplement  the  former  test  dummy 
specifications.  The  location,  orientation,  and 
sensitivity  of  test  instrumentation  formerly 
specified  by  sections  S8.1.15  through  S8.1.18  are 
now  controlled  by  Part  572  are  are  no  longer 
necessary  within  Standard  No.  208.  Similarly, 
the  use  of  rubber  components  for  the  head,  neck 
and  torso  joints  as  specified  in  Part  572,  supplant 
the  joint  setting  specifications  for  those  joints 
in  section  S8.1.10  of  the  standard.  The  NHTSA 
has  determined  that  the  deletion  of  the  above 
portions  of  the  Standard  No.  208  will  have  no 
effect  on  the  substantive  requirements  of  the 
standard  and  that  notice  and  public  procedure 
thereon  are  unnecessary. 


In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  Title  49, 
Code  of  Federal  Regidations,  is  amended  by  the 
addition  of  Part  572,  Anthropomorphic  Test 
Dummy.  .  .  . 

In  view  of  the  pressing  need  for  a  test  dummy 
to  permit  the  continued  development  of  passive 
restraint  systems,  and  the  fact  that  it  presently 
only  relates  to  a  new  option  for  compliance,  the 
NHTSA  finds  that  there  is  good  cause  to  adopt 
an  immediate  effective  date.  Accordingly,  Part 
572  is  effective  August  1,  1973,  and  the  amend- 
ment to  Standard  208  is  effective  August  15, 1973. 

Issued  under  the  authority  of  sections  103  and 
119  of  the  National  Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Act,  P.L.  89-563,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407, 
and  the  delegation  of  authority  at  38  F.R.  12147. 

Issued  on  July  26,  1973. 

James  E.  Wilson 
Associate  Administrator 
Traffic  Safety  Programs 

38  F.R.  20449 
August  1,   1973 


PART  572— PRE  4 


Effective;   August    1,    1973 


PART  572— ANTHROPOMORPHIC  TEST  DUMMY 


§  572.1  Scope.  This  part  describes  the  50th 
percentile  male  anthropomorphic  test  dummy 
that  is  to  be  used  for  compliance  testing  of  motor 
vehicles  with  motor  vehicle  safety  standards. 

§  572.2  Purpose.  The  design  and  perform- 
ance criteria  specified  in  this  part  are  intended 
to  describe  a  measuring  tool  with  sufficient  preci- 
sion to  give  repetitive  and  correlative  results  un- 
der similar  test  conditions  and  to  reflect  ade- 
quately the  protective  performance  of  a  vehicle 
with  respect  to  human  occupants. 

§  572.3  Application.  This  section  does  not  in 
itself  impose  duties  or  liabilities  on  any  person. 
It  is  a  description  of  a  tool  to  measure  the  per- 
formance of  occupant  protection  systems  required 
by  the  safety  standards  that  incorporate  it.  It  is 
designed  to  be  referenced  by,  and  become  a  part 
of,  the  test  procedures  specified  in  motor  vehicle 
safety  standards  such  as  Standard  No.  208,  Occu- 
pant Crash  Protection. 

§  572.4     Terminology. 

(a)  The  term  "dummy"  refers  to  the  test 
device  described  by  this  part. 

(b)  Terms  describing  parts  of  the  dummy, 
such  as  "head,"  are  the  same  as  names  for  cor- 
responding parts  of  the  human  body. 

(c)  The  term  "upright  position"  means  the 
position  of  the  dummy  when  it  is  seated  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  procedures  of  572.11  (i). 

S  572.5      General   description. 

(a)  The  dummy  consists  of  the  component 
assemblies  specified  in  Figure  1  and  conforms 
to  the  drawings  and  specifications  subreferenced 
by  Figure  1. 

(b)  Adjacent  segments  are  joined  in  a  manner 
such  that  throughout  the  range  of  motion  and 


also  under  crash-impact  conditions  there  is  no 
contact  between  metallic  elements  except  for 
contacts  that  exist  under  static  conditions. 


ARM  ASSY 

SA  150  M070  RIGHT 

SA  IMM0J1  L£FT 


LUMBAR  SPINE 

ASS'V 

SA  ISO  MOSO 


PELVIS  AND 
ABDOMEN  ASS' 
SA  1S0M060 


SHOULDER  THORA: 

ASSY 

SA  )SOM030 


LEG  ASSY 

SA  ISO  M080  RIGHT 

SA  ISOMOei  LEFT 


(c)  The  structural  properties  of  the  dummy 
are  such  that  the  dummy  conforms  to  this  part 
in  every  respect  both  before  and  after  being 
used  in  vehicle  tests  specified  in  Standard  No. 
208  (§571.208). 

§  572.6      Head. 

(a)  The  head  consists  of  the  assembly  shown 
as  number  SA  150  MOlO  in  Figure  1  and  con- 
forms to  each  of  the  drawings  subtended  by 
number  SA  150  MOIO. 

(b)  AVhen  the  head  is  dropped  from  a  height 
of  10  inches  in  accordance  with  paragraph  (c) 
of  this  section,  the  peak  resultant  accelerations 
at  the  head's  center  of  gravity  shall  be  not  less 
tiian  210g,  and  not  more  than  260g.  The  ac- 
celeration/time curve  for  the  test  shall  be 
unimodal  and  shall  lie  at  or  above  the  lOOg  level 
for  an  interval  not  less  than  0.9  milliseconds  and 
not  more  than  1.5  milliseconds. 


PART  572—1 


Effective:   August    1,    1973 


(c)   Test  procedure : 

(1)  Suspend  tlie  liead  as  shown  in  Figure  2, 
so  that  the  lowest  point  on  the  forehead  is  0.5 
inclies  below  the  lowest  point  on  the  dummy's 
nose  when  the  niidsagittal  plane  is  vertical. 

'igurt  2 


STEEL  BLOCK      [ 
2"  X  24"  X  24  ■ 


HEAD  POSITIONING  FOR  DROP  TESTS 


(2)  Drop  the  head  from  the  specified  height 
onto  a  rigidly  supported  flat  horizontal  steel 
plate,  2  inches  thick  and  2  feet  square. 

(3)  Allow  a  time  period  of  at  least  2  hours 
between  successive  tests  on  the  same  head. 

§  572.7     Neck. 

(a)  The  neck  consists  of  the  assembly  shown 
as  number  SA  150  M020  in  Figure  1  and  con- 
forms to  each  of  the  drawings  subtended  by 
number  SA  150  M020. 


(b)  AVhen  the  neck  is  tested  with  the  head  in 
accordance  with  paragraph  (c)  of  this  section, 
the  head  shall  rotate  in  reference  to  the  pendu- 
lum's longitudinal  centerline  a  total  of  68°  ±5° 
about  its  center  of  gravity,  rotating  to  the  ex- 
tent specified  in  the  following  table  at  each 
indicated  point  in  time,  measured  from  impact, 
with  a  chordal  displacement  measured  at  its 
center  of  gravity  that  is  within  the  limits  speci- 
fied. The  chordal  displacement  at  time  T  is 
defined  as  the  straight  line  distance  between  (1) 
the  position  relative  to  the  pendulum  arm  of 
the  head  center  of  gravity  at  time  zero,  and 
(2)  the  position  relative  to  the  pendulum  arm 
of  the  head  center  of  gravity  at  time  T  as 
illustrated  by  Figure  3.  The  peak  resultant  ac- 
celeration recorded  at  the  center  of  gravity  of 
the  head  shall  not  exceed  26g,  measured  relative 
to  the  accerelation  at  time  zero. 


^PENDULUM 
PIVOT  POINT 


HEAD  ROTATION  ANGLE 


CHORDAL 
DISPLACEMENT 


HEAD  POSITION 
AT  TIME  "0" 


FIGURE  NO  3 
NECK  COMPONENT  TEST 


PART  572—2 


Effective:   August    1,    1973 


Chordal 

Time  (ms) 

Displacement 

Rotation  (degrees) 

±  (2  +  .08T) 

(inches  ±  0.5) 

0 

0 

0.0 

30 

30 

2.6 

60 

46 

4.8 

Maximum 

60 

5.5 

60 

75 

4.8 

30 

95 

2.6 

0 

112 

0.0 

(c)  Test  procedure: 

(1)  Mount  the  head  and  neck  on  a  rigid 
pendulum  as  specified  in  Figure  4,  so  that  the 
head's  midsagittal  plane  is  vertical  and  coin- 
cides with  the  plane  of  motion  of  the  pendu- 
hun's  longitudinal  centerline.  Mount  the  neck 
directly  to  the  pendulum  as  shown  in  Figure  4. 

(2)  Release  the  pendulum  and  allow  it  to 
fall  freely  from  a  height  such  that  the  velocity 
at  impact  is  23.5  zt2.0  feet  per  second  (fps), 
measured  at  the  center  of  the  accelerometer 
specified   in   Figure  4. 

(3)  Decelerate  the  pendulum  to  a  stop  with 
an  acceleration-time  pulse  described  as  follows: 

(a)  Establish  5g  and  20g  levels  on  the 
a  —  t  curve. 

(b)  Establish  ti  at  the  point  where  the 
rising  a  — t  curve  first  crosses  the  5g  level,  tj 
at  the  point  where  the  rising  a  — t  curve  first 
crosses  the  20g  level,  tj  at  the  point  where 
the  decaying  a  — t  curve  last  crosses  the  20g 
level,  and  t^  at  the  point  where  the  decaying 
a  — t  curve  last  crosses  the  5g  level. 

(c)  t^  — ti  shall  be  not  more  than  3  milli- 
seconds. 

(d)  t-,  — t^.  sliall  be  not  less  than  25  mili- 
seconds  and  not  more  tlian  30  milliseconds. 

(e)  t^  — t,,  shall  be  not  more  than  10  milli- 
seconds. 

(f)  The  average  deceleration  between  t^ 
and  t;,  shall  be  not  less  than  20g  and  not 
more  than  24g. 

(4)  Allow  the  neck  to  flex  without  impact 
of  the  head  or  neck  witli  any  object  other  than 
the  pendulum  arm. 

(5)  Measure  the  acceleration  of  the  pendu- 
lum with  instrumentation  that  has  a  frequency 


response  of  the  channel  class  60,  SAE  Recom- 
mended Practice  J211a,  December  1971. 

§  572.8     Thorax. 

(a)  The  thorax  consists  of  the  assembly  shown 
as  number  SA  150  M030  in  Figure  1,  and  con- 
forms to  each  of  the  drawings  subtended  by 
number  SA  150  M030. 

(b)  The  thorax  contains  enough  unobstructed 
interior  space  behind  the  rib  cage  to  permit  the 
midpoint  of  the  sternum  to  be  depressed  2  inches 
without  contact  between  the  rib  cage  and  other 
parts  of  the  dummy  or  its  instrumentation,  ex- 
cept for  instruments  specified  in  subparagraph 
(d)(7)  hereunder. 

(c)  When  impacted  by  a  test  probe  conform- 
ing to  §  572.11(a)  at  14  fps  and  at  22  fps  in 
accordance  with  paragraph  (d)  of  this  section, 
the  thorax  shall  resist  with  forces  measured  by 
the  test  probe  of  not  more  than  1400  pounds  and 
2100  poimds,  respectively,  and  shall  deflect  by 
amounts  not  greater  than  1.0  inches  and  1.6 
inches,  respectively.  The  internal  hysteresis  in 
each  impact  shall  not  be  less  than  50%. 

(d)  Test   Procedure: 

(1)  Seat  the  dummy  in  the  upright  position 
on  a  smooth,  flat,  rigid  horizontal  surface 
without  back  support  and  extend  the  arms  and 
legs  horizontally  forward  parallel  to  the 
midsagittal  plane. 

(2)  Place  the  longitudinal  center  line  of  the 
test  probe  so  that  it  is  17.7  ztO.l  inches  above 
the  seating  surface  at  impact. 

(3)  Orient  tlie  test  probe  so  that  at  impact 
its  longitudinal  centerline  is  horizontal  and 
in  tlie  dununy's  midsagittal  plane. 

(4)  Adjust  the  dunmiy  so  that  the  surface 
area  on  the  thorax  immediately  adjacent  to 
tlie  projected  longitudinal  center  line  of  the 
test  probe  is  vertical. 

(5)  Impact  the  thorax  with  the  test  probe 
moving  horizontally  at  the  specified  velocity. 

(6)  Guide  the  probe  during  impact  so  that 
it  moves  witli  no  significant  lateral,  vertical, 
or  rotational  mo\ement. 

(7)  Measure  the  horizontal  deflection  of  the 
sternum  relative  to  the  thoracic  spine  in  line 
with  the  longitudinal  center  line  of  the  probe 


PART  572—3 


EfFectiva:   August    1,    1973 


FIGURE  NO.  4 
NECK  COMPONENT  TEST 


STRUCTURAL 
TUBE 


INERTIAL  PROPERTIES  OF  PENDULUM 
WITHOUT  TEST  SPECIMEN. 

WEIGHT  65.2  LBS. 

MOMENT  OF  INERTIA  24.5  LBFT  SEC^ 
ABOUT  PIVOT  AXIS 


ACCELEROMETER 


CGOF  PENDULUM 
APPARATUS  WITHOUT 
TEST  SPECIMEN 


ALUMINUM  HONEYCOMB 
(HEXCELL  1.8LBS/CU.  FT.) 
REF. 


•  3"  X  6"  X  3/8"  PLATE    (SHARP  EDGES) 
'3/4"    ^  CG  OF  TEST  SPECIMEN 


PART  572-4 


Effccllva:   August    1,    1973 


$ 


FIGURE  NO  i 


FIGURE  NO  S 
FIGURE  NO  T 


FIGURE  NO  a 


NK  ROO 
DRAWING  NO  SA  tSflM007 
9IEEI  1, 


LUMBAR  FLEXION  TEST 


using    a    potentiometer    mounted    inside    the 
thorax. 


(8)  Measure  hysteresis  by  determining  the 
ratio  of  the  area  between  the  loading  and  un- 
loading portions  of  the  force  deflection  curve 
to  the  area  under  the  loading  portion  of  the 
curve. 

(9)  Allow  a  time  period  of  at  least  30 
minutes  between  successive  tests  on  the  skrrie 
thorax. 

§  572.9     Lumbar  spine,  abdomen,  and   pelvis. 

(a)  The  lumbar  spine,  abdomen,  and  pelvis 
consist  of  the  assemblies  designated  as  numbers 
SA  150  M050  and  SA  150  M060  in  Figure  1 
and  conform  to  the  drawings  subtended  by  these 
numbers. 

(b)  When  subjected  to  a  static  force  in  ac- 
cordance with  paragraph  (c)  of  this  section, 
tlie  lumbar  spine  assembly  shall  flex  by  an 
amount  that  permits  the  rigid  thoracic  spine  to 
rotate  from  its  nominal  position  by  the  number 
of  degrees  shown  below  at  each  specified  force 


FIGURE  NO  6 


SUPPORT  BRACKET 
LUMBAR  TEST  FIXTURE 


i 


n 


r-U- 


'±  _t.^ 


6/8  WIDE  SLOT 


-v^ 


-3-1/4 •> 


3:3---(H2» 


T 


•  3/8  WIDE  SLOT 

6X  6STRUCTURAL  STL    ANGLE 


STOCK  7  1/2  LONG 
TO  ANGLE 


TOLERANCE  >   1/32" 


PART  572—5 


EffecMve:   August   I,    1973 


level,  and  sliall  straighten  upon  removal  of  the 
force  so  that  the  thoracic  spine  returns  to  within 
10  degrees  of  its  nominal  position. 


Flexion  (degrees) 


Force  (  ±  ti  pounds) 


0 
20 
30 
40 


0 
26 
33 
41 


( c )  Test  procedure : 

(1)  Assemble  the  thorax,  lumbar  spine, 
pelvic,  and  upper  leg  assemblies  (above  the 
femur  force  transducers),  omitting  other  as- 
semblies, place  them  on  the  rigid  horizontal 
fixture  shown  in  Figure  5  with  the  mounting 
brackets  for  the  lumbar  test  fixture  illustrated 
in  Figures  6  to  9,  and  restrain  the  pelvis  firmly 
in  place. 


< 


FIGURE  NO.   7 
MOUNTING  BRACKET-LUMBAR  TEST  FIXTURE 


13/32 


1-9/16+  1/32 

.       i                                    r 

3^/0            1 

:ii                      1 

1                             ♦ 

1/4 


■• 6  •  5/8 

f»-1/4 

/ 

V 

1 

3/4 
t 

,-            / 

' 

9/32  DRILL  THRU 
4  PLACES 


■S/16-24  TAP  THRU 
WELDED  CONSTRUCTION 


TOLERANCE  +  1/64" 
MATERIAL:  STEEL 


PAKT  572—6 


FIGURE  NO  8 
BEDPLATE  •  LUMBAR  TEST  FIXTURE 


EfFecMve:    August    1,    1973 


9/16  DRILL  THRU 
2  PLACES 


■■■■■MB 


w*«p 


3-1/2- 


9/16  DRILL  THRU 
4  PLACES 


9/16  DRILL  HOLE  t- 


MATL:    STEEL  ■  1/4  THICK  PLATE  &  2  X  2  1/4  WALL  Stt  TUBINb 
WELDED  CONSTRUCTION 


TOLERANCE  :t  1/32" 


PART  572—7 


Effective:   August    1,    1973 


FIGURE  NO.  9 
PUSH  PLATE  ■  LUMBAR  TEST  FIXTURE 


7/32  WIDE  SLOT 
2  PLACES 


1/4 


- 1/8  SPH.  RADIUS 
3/8  DIA. 


7/8  -J 


\ 


3-1/2 


-tSPH.  R.&  LENGTH  OF 
3/8  DIA.  ROD 


WELDED  CONSTRUCTION 


TOLERANCE:  t  1/64" 
MATERIAL:  STEEL 


(2)  Attach  the  rear  mounting  of  the  pelvis 
to  the  pelvic  instrument  cavity  rear  face  at  the 
four  14"  cap  screw  holes  and  attach  the  front 
mounting  at  the  femur  axial  rotation  joint. 
Tighten  the  mountings  so  that  the  pelvic- 
lumbar  adapter  is  horizontal  and  adjust  the 


femur   friction   plungers   to    120    inch-pounds 
torque. 

(3)  Flex  the  thorax  forward  50°  and  re- 
turn it  to  its  upright  position,  with  the  rear 
face  of  the  chest  accelerometer  mounting 
cavity  3°  forward  o^  vertical  as  shown  in 
Figure  11. 


PART  572—8 


EffecHva:   Auguil    1,    1973 


(4)  Apply  a  forward  force  perpendicular  to 
the  thorax  instrument  cavity  rear  face  parallel 
to  and  symmetrical  about  the  midsagittal  plane 
15  inches  above  the  top  surface  of  the  pelvic- 
lumbar  adapter.  Apply  the  force  at  a  rate 
of  not  more  than  2°  per  second,  stabilize  the 
dummy  at  each  flexion  increment  specified  in 
paragraph  (b)  and  record  the  force  with  an 
instrument  mounted  to  the  thorax  with  a  ball 
joint  as  shown  in  Figure  5. 

(d)  When  the  abdomen  is  subjected  to  a 
static  force  in  accordance  with  paragraph  (e) 
of  this  section,  the  abdominal  force-deflection 
curve  shall  be  within  the  bounds  shown  in 
Figure  10. 


metrical  about  the  midsagittal  plane,  with  its 
longitudinal  centerline  horizontal  and  perpen- 
dicular to  the  midsagittal  plane  at  a  point  9.2 
inches  above  the  bottom  line  of  the  buttocks, 
measured  with  the  dummy  in  the  upright 
position. 

(8)  Establish  the  zero  deflection  point  as 
the  point  at  which  the  cylinder  first  contacts 
the  dummy. 

(4)  Apply  a  vertical  downward  force 
through  the  cylinder  at  a  rate  of  not  more  than 
0.1  inch  per  second. 

(5)  Guide  the  cylinder  so  that  it  moves 
without  significant  lateral  or  rotational  move- 
ment. 


FIGURE  NO.  10 
ABDOMEN  COMPONENT  TEST 


110 


100     — 


FORCE        50 
(LBS.) 


.63 


.125  0.25 


0.50  0.75 

DISPLACEMENT    INCHES 


1.00 


1.30 


(e)   Test  procedure: 

(1)  Place  the  assembled  thorax,  lumbar- 
spine  and  pelvic  asemblies  in  a  supine  position 
on  a  rigid  horizontal  surface. 

(2)  Place  a  rigid  cylinder  6  inches  in 
diameter  and  18  inches  long  transversely  across 
the    abdomen,   so    that    the   cylinder    is    sym- 


§  572.10     Limbs. 

(a)  The  limbs  consist  of  the  assemblies  shown 
as  numbers  SA  150  M070,  SA  150  M071,  SA 
150  :M080,  and  SA  150  MOSl  in  Figure  1  and 
conform  to  the  drawings  subtended  by  these 
numbers. 


PART  572—9 


Effective:   August    1,    1973 


FIGURE  No.  11 

UPRIGHT  SEATED  POSITION  FOR  LINEAR  MEASUREMENTS 


VERTICAL  MATING  SURFACE  OF  SKULL 
PARALLEL  TO  THE  VERTICAL  BACKLINE 


.25" 
SPACER  (RE 


TANGENT 


ARM 
ELEVATION 
PIVOT 


SHOULDER  YOKE  UPPER  SURFACE 
HORIZONTAL  AND  CENTERED  AT 
MID  -  TRAVEL  IN  ANTERIOR  -  POS  - 
TERIOR  DIRECTION. 


LUMBAR  -  PELVIC  ADAPTOR 
UPPER  SURFACE  HORIZONTAL 


PART  572—10 


Effective:    August    1,    1973 


(b)  When  each  knee  is  impacted  at  6.9  ft/sec. 
^  in  accordance  with  paragraph  (c)  of  this  section, 
^     the  maximum   force  on  the  femur  sliall  be  not 

more  than  2500  pounds  and  not  less  than  1900 
pounds,  with  a  duration  above  1000  pounds  of 
not  less  than  1.7  milliseconds. 

(c)  Test  procedure: 

(1)  Seat  the  d>unmy  in  the  upright  position 
without  back  support  on  a  flat  rigid  steel  seat 
tliat  is  17.3  ±0.2  inches  above  a  horizontal 
surface.  Place  the  feet  and  knees  4  inches 
apart,  measured  at  the  respective  pivot  bolts, 
with  the  lower  legs  vertical  ±2°,  measured  by 
the  lines  from  the  midpoints  of  the  knee  pivots 
to  the  midpoints  of  the  ankle  pivots,  and  the 
feet   resting  on  a  horizontal  surface. 

(2)  Position  the  dummy  so  that  the  rear- 
most surfaces  of  the  lower  legs  are  not  less 
than  5  inches  and  not  more  than  6  inches 
forward  of  the  forward  edge  of  the  seat. 

(3)  Align  the  test  probe  specified  in 
§  572.11(a)  so  that  at  impact  its  longitudinal 
centerline  coincides  within  ±2°  with  the 
longitudinal  centerline  of  the  femur. 

(4)  Impact   the    knee    with    the   test    probe 
I           moving     horizontally     and     parallel     to     the 

midsagittal   plane  at  the  specified   velocity. 

(5)  Guide  the  probe  during  impact  so  that 
it  moves  with  no  significant  lateral,  vertical, 
or  rotational   movement. 

§572.11      Test  conditions   and   instrumentation. 

(a)  The  test  probe  used  for  thoracic  and  knee 
impact  tests  is  a  cylinder  6  inches  in  diameter 
that  weighs  51.5  pounds  including  instrumenta- 
tion. Its  impacting  end  has  a  flat  right  face 
that  is  rigid  and  that  has  an  edge  radius  of  0.5 
inches. 

(b)  Accelerometers  are  mounted  in  the  head 
on  tlie  horizontal  trans\erse  bulkhead  shown  in 
the  drawings  subreferenced  under  assembly  No. 
SA  l.")0  MOlO  in  Figure  1,  so  tliat  their  sensitive 
axes  intersect  at  a  jwint  in  the  midsagittal  plane 
0.5  inches  above  the  liorizontal  bulkliead  and  1.9 
inches  forward  of  tlie  vertical  mating  surface  of 
the  skull  with  tlie  skull  cover,  and  so  that  their 
seismic  mass  centers  are  in  a  plane  parallel  to 
the  upper  surface  of  the  bulkhead.  One  ac- 
celerometer    is    aligned    witli    its    sensitive    axis 


perpendicular  to  the  horizontal  bulkhead  in  the 
midsagittal  plane  and  with  its  seismic  mass 
center  not  more  than  0.3  inches  from  the  axial 
inter.section  point.  Another  accelerometer  is 
aligned  with  its  sensitive  axis  parallel  to  the 
liorizontal  bulkhead  and  perpendicular  to  the 
midsagittal  plane,  and  with  its  seismic  mass 
center  not  more  than  1.3  inches  from  the  axial 
intersection  point.  A  third  accelerometer  is 
aligned  with  its  sensitive  axis  parallel  to  the 
liorizontal  bulkhead  in  the  midsagittal  plane, 
and  with  its  seismic  mass  center  not  more  than 
1.3  inches  from  the  axial  intersection  point. 

(c)  Accelerometers  are  mounted  in  the  thorax 
by  means  of  a  bracket  attached  to  the  rear 
vertical  surface  (hereafter  "attachment  surface") 
of  the  thoracic  spine  so  that  their  sensitive  axes 
intersect  at  a  point  in  the  midsagittal  plane  0.8 
inches  below  the  upper  surface  of  the  plate  to 
which  the  neck  mounting  bracket  is  attached  and 
3.2  inches  perpendicularly  forward  of  the  sur- 
face to  which  the  accelerometer  bracket  is 
attached.  One  accelerometer  has  its  sensitive 
axis  oriented  parallel  to  the  attachment  surface 
in  tlie  midsagittal  plane,  with  its  seismic  mass 
center  not  more  than  1.3  inches  from  the  inter- 
section of  the  sensitive  axes  specified  above. 
Another  accelerometer  has  its  sensitive  axis 
oriented  parallel  to  the  attachment  surface  and 
l)erpendicular  to  the  midsagittal  plane,  with  its 
seismic  mass  center  not  more  than  0.2  inches 
from  the  intersection  of  the  sensitive  axes 
specified  above.  A  third  accelerometer  has  its 
sensitive  axis  oriented  perpendicular  to  the  at- 
tachment surface  in  the  midsagittal  plane,  with 
its  seismic  mass  center  not  more  than  1.3  inches 
from  the  intersection  of  the  sensitive  axes  speci- 
fied above.  Accelerometers  are  oriented  with  the 
dummy  in  the  upright  position. 

(d)  A  force-sensing  device  is  mounted  axially 
in  each  femur  shaft  so  that  the  transverse  center- 
line  of  the  sensing  element  is  4.25  inches  from 
tiie  knee's  center  of  rotation. 

(e)  The  outputs  of  acceleration  and  force- 
.sensing  de\ices  installed  in  the  dummy  and  in 
the  test  apparatus  specified  by  this  Part  are 
recorded  in  individual  data  channels  that  con- 
form to  tlie  requirements  of  SAE  Recommended 
Practice  J211a,  December  1971,  with  channel 
classes  as  follows: 


PART  572—11 


EfFccHv*:   August    1,    1973 


(1)  Head  acceleration — Class  1000. 

(2)  Pendulum  acceleration — Class  60. 

(3)  Thorax  acceleration — Class  180. 

(4)  Thorax  compression — Class  180. 

(5)  Femur  force— Class  600. 

(f)  The  mountings  for  sensing  devices  have 
no  resonance  frequency  within  a  range  of  3  times 
the  frequency  range  of  the  applicable  channel 
class. 

(g)  Limb  joints  are  set  at  Ig,  barely  restrain- 
ing the  weight  of  the  limb  when  it  is  extended 
horizontally.  The  force  required  to  move  a  limb 
segment  does  not  exceed  2g  throughout  the  range 
of  limb  motion. 

(h)  Performance  tests  are  conducted  at  any 
temperature  from  66°  F.  to  78°  F.  and  at  any 
relative  humidity  from  30%  to  70%. 

(i)  For  the  performance  tests  specified  in 
sections  572.8  and  572.10,  the  test  dummy  is 
positioned  in  accordance  with  Figure  11  as 
follows : 

( 1 )  The  dummy  is  placed  on  the  test  surface 
so  that  its  midsagittal  plane  is  vertical. 

(2)  The  pelvis  is  adjusted  so  that  the  upper 
surface  of  the  lumbar-pelvic  adapter  is 
horizontal. 

(3)  The  shoulder  yokes  are  adjusted  so  that 
they  are  at  the  midpoint  of  their  anterior 
posterior  travel  with  their  upper  surfaces 
horizontal. 

(4)  The  dummy  is  adjusted  so  that  its 
shoulders  and  buttocks  are  tangent  to  a 
transverse  horizontal  plane. 

(5)  The  upper  legs  are  positioned  sym- 
metrically about  the  midsagittal  plane  so  that 
the  distance  between  the  knee  pivot  bolt  heads 
is  11.6  inches. 

(j)  The  dummy's  dimensions,  as  specified  in 
drawing  number  SA  150  M002,  are  determined 
as  follows : 

(1)  With  the  dummy  seated  as  specified  in 

paragraph     (i),    the    head    is    adjusted    and 


secured  so  that  its  occiput  is  1.7  inches  forward 
of    the    transverse    vertical    plane    with    the   / 
vertical  mating  surface  of  the  skull  with  its 
cover  parallel  to  the  transverse  vertical  plane. 

(2)  The  thorax  is  adjusted  and  secured  so 
that  the  rear  surface  of  the  chest  accelerometer 
mounting  cavity  is  inclined  3°  foi'wafd  of 
vertical. 

(3)  Chest  and  waist  circumference  and 
chest  depth  measurements  are  taken  with  the 
dummy  positioned  in  accordance  with  (1)  and 
(2). 

(4)  The  chest  skin  and  abdominal  sac  are 
remoN-ed  and  all  following  measurements  are 
made  without  them. 

(5)  Seated  height  is  measured  from  the 
seating  surface  to  the  uppermost  point  on  the 
head-skin  surface. 

(6)  Shoulder  pivot  height  is  measured  from 
the  seating  surface  to  the  center  of  the  arm 
elevation  pivot. 

(7)  H-point  locations  are  measured  from  the 
seating  surface  to  the  center  of  the  holes  in  the 
pelvis  flesh  covering  in  line  with  the  hip 
motion  ball. 

(8)  Knee  pivot  distance  from  the  backline  is     f 
measured  to  the  center  of  the  knee  pivot  bolt 
head. 

(9)  Knee  pivot  distance  from  floor  is  meas- 
ured from  the  center  of  the  knee  pivot  bolt 
head  to  the  bottom  of  the  heel  when  the  foot 
is  horizontal  and  pointing  forward. 

(10)  Shoulder  width  measurement  is  taken 
at  arm  elevation  pivot  center  height  with  the 
centerlines  between  the  elbow  pivots  and  the 
shoulder  pivots  vertical. 

(11)  Hip  width  measurement  is  taken  at 
widest  point  of  pelvic  section. 

(k)  The  dummy  is  clothed  in  form  fitting 
cotton  stretch  garments  with  short  sleeves  and 
mid-calf  length  pants. 

38  F.R.  20449 
August    1,    1973 


PART  572—12 


Effscllv*:   Odeb*!    I,    1971 


$ 


PREAMBLE  TO  PART  573— DEFECT  REPORTS 


(Docket  No.  69-31;  Notice  No.  2) 

On  December  24,  1969,  a  notice  of  proposed       proposed,  the  time  for  initially  filing  the  report 


rulemaking  entitled,  "Defect  Reports",  was  pub- 
lished in  the  Federal  Register  (34  F.R.  20212). 
The  notice  proposed  requirements  for  reports 
and  information  regarding  defects  in  motor 
vehicles,  to  be  submitted  to  the  National  High- 
way Traffic  Safety  Administration  by  manufac- 
turers of  motor  vehicles  pursuant  to  sections  112, 
113,  and  119  of  the  National  Traffic  and  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Act  (16  U.S.C.  1401,  1402,  and 
1407). 

The  notice  requested  comments  on  the  pro- 
posed requirements.  All  comments  received  have 
been  considered  and  some  are  discussed  below. 

Several  comments  asked  whether  both  the 
fabricating  manufacturer  and  the  importer  of 
imported  vehicles  were  required  to  comply  with 
all  the  proposed  requirements.  A  similar  ques- 
tion was  asked  in  regard  to  manufacturers  of 
incomplete  vehicles  and  subsequent  manufac- 
turers of  the  same  vehicles.  In  response  to  the 
comments,  §  573.3  provides  that  in  the  case  of 
imported  vehicles,  compliance  by  either  the 
fabricating  manufacturer  or  the  importer  of  the 
imported  vehicle  with  §§  573.4  and  573.5  of  this 
part,  with  respect  to  a  particular  defect,  shall  be 
considered  compliance  by  both.  In  the  case  of 
vehicles  manufactured  in  two  or  more  stages, 
compliance  by  either  the  manufacturer  of  the  in- 
complete vehicle  or  one  of  the  subsequent  manu- 
facturers of  the  vehicle  with  §§  573.4  and  573.5 
of  this  part,  with  respect  to  a  particular  defect, 
shall  be  considered  compliance  by  both  the  in- 
complete vehicle  manufacturer  and  the  subse- 
quent manufacturers. 

Many  comments  requested  that  the  time  for 
the  initial  filing  of  the  direct  information  report 
be  increased  to  allow  opportunity  for  the  exten- 
sive and  complex  testing  often  necessary  to  deter- 
mine   whether   a    defect   is   safety-related.     As 


was  within  5  days  after  the  discovery  of  a  defect 
that  the  manufacturer  subsequently  determined 
to  be  safety-related.  In  response  to  these  com- 
ments, §  573.4(b)  provides  that  the  report  shall 
be  submitted  by  the  manufacturer  not  more  than 
5  days  after  he  or  the  Administrator  has  deter- 
mined that  a  defect  in  the  manufacturer's  ve- 
hicles relates  to  motor  vehicle  safety. 

Several  comments  requested  the  deletion  of  one 
or  more  items  of  information  proposed  for  inclu- 
sion in  the  defect  information  report.  Objec- 
tions to  providing  an  evaluation  of  the  risk  of 
accident  due  to  the  defect,  a  list  of  all  incidents 
related  to  the  defect,  and  an  analysis  of  the 
cause  of  the  defect  were  based  on  the  ground  that 
the  information  would  be  inherently  speculative. 
The  proposed  requirements  for  these  three  items 
of  information  have  been  deleted.  In  place  of 
the  list  of  incidents,  §  573.4(c)  (6)  requires  a 
chronology  of  all  principal  events  that  were  the 
basis  for  the  determination  of  the  existence  of 
a  safety-related  defect.  In  accordance  with  the 
deletion  of  the  list  of  incidents,  the  provision  in 
the  proposal  requiring  quarterly  reports  to  con- 
tain information  concerning  previously  unre- 
ported incidents  has  also  been  deleted. 

Several  comments  stated  that  the  requirement 
in  the  proposal  for  the  submission  of  a  copy  of 
all  communications  sent  to  dealers  and  pur- 
chasers concerning  a  safety-related  defect  would 
create  an  unreasonable  burden  on  the  manufac- 
turers. The  comments  reported  that  the  manu- 
facturers would  be  required  to  submit  to  the 
Administration  a  large  volume  of  useless  cor- 
respondence between  the  manufacturers  and  in- 
dividual dealers  or  purchasers.  To  mitigate  this 
problem,  §  573.4(c)  (8)  provides  that  the  manu- 
facturers shall  submit  to  the  Administration 
only  those  communications  that  are  sent  to  more 


PART  573— PRE  1 


Effective:  October   1,    1971 


than  one  dealer  or  purchaser.  For  the  same  rea- 
son, the  requirement  in  §  573.7  that  a  manufac- 
turer submit  a  copy  of  all  communications,  other 
than  those  required  under  §  573.4(c)  (8),  regard- 
ing any  defect,  whether  or  not  safety-related,  in 
his  vehicles,  is  also  limited  to  communications 
sent  to  more  than  one  person. 

Many  comments  requested  that  a  regular 
schedule  for  submitting  quarterly  reports  be  es- 
tablished. They  suggested  that  this  be  accom- 
plished by  requiring  that  the  first  quarter  for 
submitting  a  quarterly  report  with  respect  to  a 
particular  defect  be  the  calendar  quarter  in 
which  the  defect  information  report  for  the 
defect  is  initially  submitted.  As  proposed,  the 
first  quarter  began  on  the  date  on  which  the  de- 
fect information  report  was  initially  submitted. 
Several  of  these  comments  also  objected  to  the 
proposed  requirements  for  submitting  both 
quarterly  reports  and  annual  defect  summaries 
on  the  ground  that  the  latter  would  be  partially 
redundant.  In  response  to  these  comments,  the 
proposed  requirement  for  filing  a  separate  series 
of  quarterly  reports  for  each  defect  notification 
campaign  has  been  deleted.  Instead,  §  573.5(a) 
requires  that  each  manufacturer  submit  a 
quarterly  report  not  more  than  25  working  days 
after  the  close  of  each  calendar  quarter.  The  in- 
formation specified  in  §  573.5(c)  is  required  to  be 
provided  with  respect  to  each  notification 
campaign,  beginning  with  the  quarter  in  which 
the  campaign  was  initiated.  Unless  otherwise 
directed  by  the  Administration,  the  information 
for  each  campaign  is  to  be  included  in  the 
quarterly  reports  for  six  consecutive  quarters  or 
until  corrective  action  has  been  completed  on  all 


defective  vehicles  involved  in  the  campaign, 
whichever  occurs  sooner. 

The  proposed  requirement  for  filing  annual 
summaries  has  been  deleted.  Instead,  §  573.5 
(d)  requires  that  the  figures  provided  in  the 
quarterly  reports  under  paragraph  (c)  (5),  (6), 
(7),  and  (8)  of  §  573.5  be  cumulative.  In  addi- 
tion, §  573.5(b)  requires  that  each  quarterly  re- 
port contain  the  total  number  of  vehicles  pro- 
duced during  the  quarter  for  which  the  report  is 
submitted. 

Several  changes  have  been  made  for  the  pur- 
pose of  clarification,  §  573.4(c)  (8)  requires 
that  manufacturers  submit  three  copies  of  the 
communications  specified  in  that  section.  In 
response  to  questions  concerning  the  use  of  com- 
puters for  maintaining  owner  lists,  a  reference  to 
computer  information  storage  devices  and  card 
files  has  been  added  to  §  573.6  to  indicate  that 
they  are  suitable.  A  reference  to  first  purchasers 
and  subsequent  purchasers  to  whom  a  warranty 
has  been  transferred,  and  any  other  owners 
known  to  the  manufacturer,  has  been  added  to 
the  same  section  to  make  clear  that  the  owner 
list  is  required  to  include  both  types  of  pur- 
chasers as  well  as  other  known  owners. 


Effective  date: 


October  1,  1971. 


Issued  on  February  10,  1971. 

Douglas  W.  Toms, 

Acting  Administrator,  National  High- 
way   Traffic    Safety    Administration. 

36  F.R.  3064 
February    17,    1971 


PART  573— PRE  2 


Effective:   May   6,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  PART  573— DEFECT  REPORTS 

(Docket  No.  69-31;   Notice   5) 


This  notice  amends  the  Defect  Reports  regula- 
tion (49  CFR  Part  573)  to  require  manufactur- 
ers to  submit  vehicle  identification  numbers  as 
part  of  the  information  furnished  by  them  to  the 
NHTSA.  A  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  re- 
garding this  subject  was  published  November  7, 
1972  (37F.R.  23650). 

The  purpose  of  including  VIN's  in  defect  re- 
ports would  be  to  improve  the  notification  of 
owners  of  vehicles  involved  in  safety  defect  noti- 
fication campaigns.  The  State  Farm  Insurance 
Company  had  suggested,  for  example,  that  in- 
surance companies  could  use  VIN's  to  identify 
vehicles  which  they  insure,  and  to  themselves 
notify  owners  of  record.  The  Center  for  Auto 
Safety  also  requested  the  inclusion  of  VIN's  in 
I  defect  reports,  so  it  could  more  readily  inform 
persons  who  inquire  whether  particular  vehicles 
were  subject  to  campaigns.  Other  possible  uses, 
it  was  noted,  would  be  that  State  and  local  in- 
spection facilities  could  determine,  as  part  of 
inspection  programs,  whether  particular  vehicles 
had  been  subjected  to  campaigns,  and  if  so, 
whether  they  had  been  repaired. 

The  proposal  would  have  required  the  submis- 
sion in  the  "defect  information  report"  (§  573.4), 
within  five  days  of  the  defect  determination,  of 
the  vehicle  identification  number  for  each  vehicle 
potentially  affected  by  the  defect.  It  also  pro- 
posed to  substitute  "line"  for  "model"  as  one  of 
the  identifying  classifications  describing  poten- 
tially affected  vehicles. 

The  comments  demonstrated  that  the  vehicle 
identification  number  is  a  useful  tool  for  locating 
second  and  later  owners  of  vehicles.  In  a  study 
conducted  by  the  Ford  Motor  Company  and  the 
State  Farm  Insurance  Company,  a  fairly  signifi- 
cant percentage  of  owners  who  either  had  not 
received  or  responded  to  the  initial  notification 


mailed  by  the  manufacturer  did  respond  to  sub- 
sequent letters  sent  on  the  basis  of  the  VIN. 

As  a  result  of  comments  received,  however,  the 
NHTSA  has  decided  that  vehicle  identification 
numbers  should  only  be  required  to  be  supplied 
in  the  second  "quarterly  report",  approximately 
six  months  after  a  campaign  is  initiated,  rather 
than  in  the  defect  information  report  as  pro- 
posed. Only  the  VIN's  for  vehicles  not  repaired 
by  that  date  are  required  to  be  provided.  The 
NHTSA  believes  this  approach  will  provide  the 
safety  benefits  to  be  derived  from  having  pub- 
licly available  lists  of  defective  vehicle  VIN's 
and  will  also  reduce  duplication  and  facilitate 
the  agency's  efforts  to  compile  and  report  the 
information. 

The  NHTSA  requests  that  vehicle  identifica- 
tion numbers  be  submitted  in  a  form  suitable  for 
automatic  data  processing  (magnetic  tape,  discs, 
punched  cards,  etc.)  when  more  than  500  num- 
bers are  reported  for  any  single  campaign.  "WHiile 
not  required  by  this  notice,  the  use  of  automatic 
data  processing  for  large  campaigns  will  facili- 
tate the  dissemination  of  the  information  for  the 
agency.  The  agency  may  include  specific  re- 
quirements in  this  regard  at  a  later  time. 

The  comments  argued  that  the  benefits  of  hav- 
ing VIN's  available  during  the  initial  stages  of 
a  campaign  are  limited,  and  that  the  compilation 
of  identification  numbers  for  every  vehicle  in  a 
campaign  would  create  significant  problems  for 
manufacturers  related  to  conducting  campaigns. 
The  NHTSA  believes  these  comments  to  have 
merit.  It  is  clear  that  the  chief  use  of  VIN's 
will  be  to  notify  other  than  first  purchasers, 
i.e.,  owners  of  older  vehicles,  as  the  names  of 
these  owners  will  not  be  available  to  manufac- 
turers. By  delaying  the  furnishing  of  VIN's 
until  the  filing  of  the  second  quarterly  report, 
the  VIN's  reported  will  represent  to  a  greater 


PART  573— PRE  3 


Effective:  May   6,    1974 


degree  the  names  and  addresses  of  second  and 
later  owners.  The  later  reporting  will  also  re- 
duce the  possibility  that  first  purchasers  will 
receive  duplicate  notices. 

Many  comments  challenged  generally  the  util- 
ity of  the  VIN  in  notification  campaigns.  Other 
comments  complained  that  insurance  companies 
might  abuse  the  information;  for  example,  by 
cancelling  policies  on  defective  vehicles.  Still 
others  believed  VIN's  to  be  privileged  proprie- 
tary information,  both  taken  separately  and 
when  combined  with  other  information  submit- 
ted pursuant  to  Part  573. 

While  it  is  true  that  the  effectiveness  of  the 
requirement  will  depend  to  an  extent  upon  the 
voluntary  activities  of  third  parties,  the  NHTSA 
does  not  view  this  as  a  reason  not  to  issue  the 
requirement.  The  offers  of  insurance  companies 
and  other  groups  to  participate  in  notification 
campaigns  appear  to  be  reasonable  and  properly 
motivated.  There  has  been  no  evidence  brought 
to  the  NHTSA's  attention  to  support  the  allega- 
tions of  possible  misuse  of  the  information  by 
insurance  companies. 

The  agency  also  cannot  agree  that  information 
identifying  defective  vehicles  is  or  relates  to  pro- 
prietary information.  The  comments  on  this 
point  seem  to  equate  what  may  be  embarrassing 
information     with     notions    of    confidentiality. 


There  is  no  basis  under  existing  statutory  defini- 
tions   of    confidentiality    for    including    witliin   / 
them    VIN's    or   other    information    identifying    ^ 
defective  vehicles. 

The  proposed  substitution  of  "line"  for 
"model"  in  the  descriptive  information  for  ve- 
hicles was  opposed  in  one  comment  because  the 
term  "line"  is  apparently  more  suited  for  pas- 
senger cars  than  other  vehicle  types.  The  com- 
ment indicated  that  "model"  is  a  more  appro- 
priate term  for  trucks.  In  light  of  this  comment, 
the  terms  are  specified  as  alternatives  in  the 
regulation. 

In  light  of  the  above,  Part  573  of  Title  49, 
Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  "Defect  Reports," 
is  amended.  .  .  . 

Effective  date :  May  6,  1974. 

(Sections  103,  112,  113,  and  119,  Pub.  L.  89- 
563,  80  Stat.  718;  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1402, 
1407,  and  the  delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR 
1.51  Office  of  Management  and  Budget  Approved 
04-R5628.) 


Issued  on  January  30,  1974. 


James  B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

39  F.R.  4578 
February  5,  1974 


PART  573— PRE  4 


Effective:   August   6,1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  PART  573— DEFECT  REPORTS 
(Docket  No.  69-31;   Notice  6) 


This  notice  responds  to  petitions  for  reconsid- 
eration of  the  amendment  of  49  CFR  Part  573, 
"Defect  Eeports,"  requiring  tlie  submission  to 
NHTSA  of  the  vehicle  identification  numbers 
(VIN)  of  motor  vehicles  found  to  contain  safety 
related  defects.  The  amendment  was  published 
February  5,  1974  (39  F.R.  4578).  Except  inso- 
far as  granted  by  this  notice,  the  requests  of  the 
petitioners  are  denied. 

Two  petitions  for  reconsideration,  one  from 
Greneral  Motors  Corporation  and  the  other  from 
Chrysler  Corporation,  were  received.  Both  pe- 
titions objected  to  the  requirement  that  VIN's 
be  reported  in  the  second  quarterly  report  filed 
subsequent  to  the  initiation  of  the  defect  notifi- 
cation campaign.  Both  pointed  out  that  the 
NHTSA  had  stated  in  the  amendment  published 
February  5,  1974,  that  it  was  desirable  to  defer 
reporting  VIN's  until  six  montlis  had  passed 
from  the  time  a  notification  campaign  had  begun. 
Both  petitioners  argued  that  the  time  for  filing 
the  second  quarterly  report  is  frequently  less 
than  six  months,  and  suggested  that  the  third 
quarterly  report  rather  than  the  second  was  the 
more  appropriate  quarterly  report  to  contain 
vehicle  identification  numbers.  General  Motors 
indicated  that  the  average  elapsed  time  from  the 
initiation  of  a  notification  campaign  to  the  filing 
of  the  second  quarterly  report  is  four  and  one- 
half  months,  while  the  elapsed  time  until  the 
filing  of  the  third  quarterly  report  is,  on  the 
average,  seven  and  one-half  months.  The 
NHTSA  still  believes  it  reasonable  to  allow  a 
six-month  period  from  the  initiation  of  the  cam- 
paign to  elapse  before  VIN's  are  submitted. 
Accordingly,  the  NHTSA  has  granted  the  peti- 
tions insofar  as  they  request  that  VIN's  be  re- 
ported in  the  third  quarterly  report  submitted 
to  NHTSA  by  the  manufacturer. 


Chrysler  objected  to  the  VIN  reporting  re- 
quirement generally,  on  the  basis  that  it  is  un- 
necessary and  will  not  produce  the  desired 
results.  It  is  requested  tliat  an  evaluation  of  the 
usefulness  of  the  requirement  be  conducted  after 
it  is  in  effect,  and  that  appropriate  modifications 
be  made  if  the  requirement  fails  to  achieve  the 
desired  results.  General  Motors  requested  that 
NHTSA  maintain  a  public  record  of  requests  for 
VIN's  so  that  future  consideration  can  be  given 
to  the  extent  that  the  data  is  useful,  and  to  whom 
it  is  useful.  The  NHTSA  believes  that  public 
availability  of  VIN's  will  facilitate  locating  and 
repairing  defective  vehicles  no  longer  in  the 
hands  of  first  purchasers.  At  the  same  time  it 
agrees  to  conduct  an  evaluation  of  the  efficacy  of 
the  requirement  once  it  is  in  effect.  The  extent 
of  usage  is  a  relevant  aspect  of  an  evaluation  of 
this  type,  and  tlie  NHTSA  sees  no  prohibition 
against  maintaining  a  public  record  of  requests 
for  the  information. 

The  amended  regulation  will  be  effective 
August  6,  1974,  and  as  such  will  require  all  tliird 
quarterly  repoi-ts  submitted  to  NHTSA  on  or 
after  tliat  date  to  contain  appropriate  vehicle 
identification  numbers.  The  effective  date  has 
been  changed  from  May  6,  1974,  as  a  result  of 
tlie  change  requiring  the  third  rather  than  the 
second  quarterly  report  to  contain  VIN's.  As  a 
practical  matter,  VIN's  will  be  required  to  be 
reported  in  the  third  quarterly  report  for  all 
defect  notification  campaigns  initiated  on  or 
after  January  1,  1974  (NHTSA  campaign  num- 
bers 74—0001  and  subsequent  campaigns). 

In  light  of  the  above,  49  CFR  Part  573,  Defect 
Reports,  is  amended  by  revising  §  573.5(e)  .... 


PART  573— PRE  5 


Effective:    August   6,1974 

Effective  date :  August  6,  1974.  Issued  on  May  6,  1974.                                                  (7 

(Sees.  103,  112,  113,  and  119,  Pub.  L.  89-563,  V^ 

80  Stat.  718;   15  U.S.C.   139a,  1401,  1402,  1407,  (jene  G.  Mannella 

and  the  delegation  of  autliority  at  49  CFR  1.51;  ^<=*^^"g  Administrator 

Office    of    Management    and    Budget    approved  39  F.R.  16469 

04-R5628.)  May  9,  1974 


PART  573— PRE  6 


( 


Effective:   December    10,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  PART  573— DEFECT  REPORTS 

(Docket  No.  74-7;   Notice   2) 


This  notice  amends  Part  573 — "Defect  Re- 
ports" by  revokinfr  tlie  requirement  that  manu- 
facturei"s  of  motor  \ehicles  report  quarterly  to 
the  National  Highway  Traffic  Safety  Administra- 
tion production  figui-es  for  vehicles  manufactured 
or  imported  during  the  calendar  quarter.  A 
notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  in  which  this 
amendment  was  projjosed  was  jjuhlished  January 
15,  1974  (39  FR  1863). 

The  NHTSA  is  revoking  the  requirement  for 
the  reporting  of  quarterly  production  figures  be- 
cause it  has  foiuid  that  the  value  of  the  informa- 
tion has  not  justified  the  burden  on  manufac- 
turers of  providing  it.  This  amendment  will 
eliminate  the  need  for  manufacturers  to  file 
quarterly  reports  unless  they  are  conducting  no- 
tification campaigns  during  the  calendar  quarter. 

The  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  of  January 
15,  1974,  proposed  to  extend  the  applicability  of 
the  Defect  Reports  regulations  to  include  manu- 
facturers of  motor  vehicle  equipment,  and  to 
modify  the  information  required  to  be  reported. 
Since  the  issuance  of  this  proposal.  Congress  has 
amended  sections  of  tlie  National  Traffic  and 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  which  deal  with  manu- 
facturers' responsibilities  for  safety  related  de- 
fects in  motor  vehicles  and  motor  \ehicle 
equipment.  (Pub.  L.  93-492,  Oct.  27,  1974) 
These  amendments  to  the  Safety  Act  in  part 
enlarge  the  responsibilities  of  manufacturers  of 
motor  vehicle  equipment  for  safety  related  de- 
fects. Ultimately  the  Defect  Reports  regulations 
will  reflect  completely  the  expanded  scope  of  the 
statutory  amendments.     "Wliile  the  language  of 


the  proposed  rule  of  January  15,  1974,  is  in  most 
cases  sufficiently  broad  to  reflect  these  statutory 
changes,  the  scope  of  the  proposal  under  the 
pre\aous  language  of  the  Safety  Act  is  materially 
different.  Consequently,  the  NHTSA  has  decided 
to  issue  a  further  notice,  witii  opportunity  for 
public  comment,  that  specifically  reflects  the  ex- 
panded scope  of  the  statutory  amendments.  This 
notice  will  be  issued  at  some  time  following  the 
effective  date  (December  26,  1974)  of  the  statu- 
tory amendments. 

The  NHTSA  has  determined,  howe\er,  that 
relief  from  the  production-figures  reporting  re- 
quirements should  not  be  further  deferred,  and 
by  this  notice  deletes  those  requirements  from 
the  Defect  Reports  regulation. 

In  light  of  the  above,  49  CFR  Part  573,  Defect 
Reports,  is  amended  by  revoking  and  reser\'ing 
paragraph  (b)  of  section  573.5  ("Quarterly  re- 
ports"). 

Effective  date:  December  10.  1974.  This 
amendment  relieves  a  restriction  and  imposes  no 
additional  burden  on  any  person.  Consequently 
good  cause  exists  and  is  hereby  found  for  an 
effective  date  less  than  30  days  from  publication. 

(Sees.  108,  112,  113,  119.  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80 
Stat.  718,  15  U.S.C.  1397,  1401,  1402,  1408;  dele- 
gation of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51) 

Issued  on  December  4,  1974. 

James  B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

39  F.R.  43075 
December  10,   1974 


PART  573— PRE  7-8 


( 


( 


Effective:   Octobei    1,    1971 


PART  573— DEFECT  REPORTS 
(Docket  No.  69-31;   Notice  No.   2) 


Sec. 

573.1  Scope. 

573.2  Purpose. 

573.3  Application. 

573.4  Defect  information  report. 

573.5  Quarterly  reports. 

573.6  Owner  lists. 

573.7  Notices,    bulletins    and    other   communica- 

tions. 
573.3     AcJcJress  for  submitting  all  required  reports 
and  other  information. 

Authokitt:  The  provisions  of  this  Part  573 
issued  under  sees.  112,  113,  and  119,  National 
Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966, 
as  amended,  15  U.S.C.  1401,  1402,  1407;  delega- 
tion of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51,  35  F.R.  4955. 

§  573.1      Scope. 

This  part  specifies  manufacturer  requirements 
for  reporting  safety-related  defects  to  the  Na- 
tional Highway  Traffic  Safety  Administration, 
providing  quarterly  rejDorts  on  defect  notification 
campaigns  and  vehicle  production,  providing 
copies  of  communications  with  dealers  and  pur- 
chasers concerning  defects,  and  maintaining 
owner  lists. 

§  573.2      Purpose. 

The  purpose  of  this  part  is  to  enable  the  Ad- 
ministration to  conduct  a  continuing  analysis  of 
the  adequacy  of  manufacturers'  defect  notifica- 
tions and  corrective  action,  and  the  owner  re- 
sponse, and  to  compare  the  defect  incidence  rate 
among  different  groups  of  motor  vehicles. 

§  573.3     Application. 

This  part  applies  to  all  manufacturers  of  com- 
plete or  incomplete  motor  vehicles.  In  the  case 
of  vehicles  manufactured  outside  the  United 
States,  the  term  "vehicles"  herein  refers  to  ve- 


hicles imported  into  the  United  States,  and  com- 
pliance by  either  the  fabricating  manufacturer 
or  the  importer  of  the  vehicle  with  §§  573.4  and 
573.5,  with  respect  to  a  particular  defect,  shall 
be  considered  compliance  by  both.  In  the  case 
of  vehicles  manufactured  in  two  or  more  stages, 
compliance  by  either  the  manufacturer  of  the 
incomplete  vehicle  or  one  of  the  subsequent  manu- 
facturers of  the  vehicle  with  §§  573.4  and  573.5, 
with  respect  to  a  j^articular  defect,  shall  be  con- 
sidered compliance  by  both  the  incomplete  ve- 
hicle manufacturer  and  the  subsequent  manu- 
facturers. 

§  573.4      Defect  information  report. 

(a)  Each  manufacturer  shall  furnish  a  defect 
information  report  to  the  Administration  for 
each  defect  in  his  vehicles  that  he  or  the  Admin- 
istrator determines  to  be  related  to  motor  vehicle 
safety. 

(b)  Defect  information  reports  required  imder 
paragraph  (a)  of  this  section  shall  be  submitted 
not  more  than  5  working  days  after  a  defect  in  a 
vehicle  has  been  determined  to  be  safety-related. 
Items  of  information  required  by  paragraph  (c) 
of  this  section  that  are  not  available  within  that 
period  shall  be  submitted  as  they  become  avail- 
able. Each  manufacturer  submitting  new  infor- 
mation relati\e  to  a  previously  submitted  report 
shall  refer  to  the  notification  campaign  number, 
after  such  number  lias  been  assigned  by  the 
Administration. 

(c)  Except  as  provided  in  paragraph  (b)  of 
this  section,  each  defect  information  report  shall 
contain  the  following  information : 

(1)  Name  of  manufacturer:  The  full  cor- 
jTorate  or  individual  name  of  the  fabricating 
manufacturer  of  the  vehicle  shall  be  spelled 
out,  except  that  such  abbreviations  as  "Co." 
or  "Inc."  and   their   foreign  equivalents,  and 


PART  573—1 


Effective:   October    1,    1971 


the  first  and  middle  initials  of  individuals, 
may  be  used.  In  the  case  of  imported  vehicles 
the  corporate  or  individual  name  of  the  agent 
designated  by  the  fabricating  manufacturer 
pursuant  to  section  110(e)  of  the  National 
Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  (15 
U.S.C.  1399(e))  shall  also  be  indicated.  If 
the  fabricating  manufacturer  is  a  corporation 
that  is  controlled  by  another  corporation  that 
assumes  responsibility  for  compliance  with  all 
requirements  of  this  part,  the  name  of  the 
controlling  corporation  may  be  used. 

[(2)  Identifying  classifications  of  the  ve- 
hicles potentially  affected  by  the  defect,  in- 
cluding make,  line  or  model  as  appropriate, 
model  year  if  appropriate,  any  other  data  nec- 
essary to  describe  the  affected  vehicles,  and  the 
inclusive  dates  (month  and  year)  of  manufac- 
ture. (39  F.R.  4578— February  5,  1974.  Ef- 
fective: 5/6/74)] 

(3)  Total  number  of  vehicles  potentially 
affected  by  the  defect,  and  the  number  in  each 
classification  set  forth  under  subparagraph  (2) 
of  this  paragraph. 

(4)  Estimated  i^ercentage  of  the  potentially 
affected  vehicles  that  contains  the  defect. 

(5)  Description  of  defect,  including  both  a 
brief  summary  and  a  detailed  description, 
with  graphic  aids  as  necessary,  of  the  nature 
and  physical  location  of  the  defect. 

(6)  Chronology  of  all  principal  events  that 
were  the  basis  for  the  determination  of  the 
existence  of  a  safety  defect,  including  all  war- 
ranty claims,  field  service  bulletins  and  other 
information,  with  their  dates  of  receipt. 

(7)  Statement  of  measures  to  be  taken  to 
repair  the  defect. 

(8)  Three  copies  of  all  notices,  bulletins, 
and  other  communications  that  are  sent  to 
more  than  one  dealer  or  purchaser  and  relate 
directly  to  the  defect.  These  copies  shall  be 
submitted  to  the  Administration  not  later  than 
the  time  at  which  they  are  initially  sent  to 
dealers  or  purchasers. 

§  573.5     Quarterly  reports. 

(a)    Each    manufacturer    shall    submit    to    the 
Administration  a  quarterly  report  not  more  than 


25  working  days  after  the  close  of  each  calendar 
quarter. 

(b)  [Reserved.  (39  F.R.  43045— December  10, 
1974.    Effecti\e:  12/10/74)] 

(c)  The  following  information  shall  be  in- 
cluded in  the  qiuirterly  reports,  under  the  num- 
l)ers  and  headings  indicated,  with  respect  to  each 
notification  campaign  for  the  period  of  time 
specified  in  paragraph  (e)  of  this  section: 

(1)  Notification  campaign  number. 

(2)  Date  owner  notification  begun,  and  date 
completed. 

(3)  Number  of  vehicles  involved  in  notifi- 
cation campaign. 

(4)  Number  of  vehicles  known  or  estimated 
to  contain  the  defect. 

(5)  Number  of  vehicles  inspected  by  or  at 
the  direction  of  the  manufacturer. 

(6)  Number  of  inspected  vehicles  found  to 
contain  the  defect. 

(7)  Nmnber  of  vehicles  for  which  corrective 
measures  have  teen  completed. 

(8)  Number  of  vehicles  determined  to  be 
unreachable  for  inspection  due  to  exportation, 
theft,  scrapi)ing  or  for  other  reasons  (specify). 

[(9)  The  vehicle  identification  number  for 
each  vehicle  for  which  corrective  measures  have 
not  been  completed.  (39  F.R.  4578— Febru- 
ary 5,  1974.    Effective:  5/6/74)] 

(d)  If  the  manufacturer  determines  that  the 
original  answers  for  paragraph  (c)  (3)  and  (4) 
of  this  section  are  incorrect,  revised  figures  and 
an  explanatory  note  shall  be  submitted.  If  the 
nature  of  the  defect  prevents  determination  of 
the  number  of  inspected  vehicles  that  are  defec- 
tive, the  manufacturer  shall  submit  a  brief  ex- 
planation. Answers  to  paragraph  (c)  (5),  (6), 
(7),  and  (8)  of  this  section  shall  be  cumulative 
totals. 

[(e)  The  information  specified  in  paragraphs 
(c)(1)  through  (c)(8)  of  this  section  shall  be 
included  in  the  quarterly  reports,  with  respect 
to  each  notification  campaign,  for  six  consecutive 
quarters  beginning  with  the  quarter  in  which  the 
campaign  was  initiated,  or  until  corrective  action 
has  been  completed  on  all  defective  vehicles  in- 
volved in  the  campaign,  whichever  occurs  first. 
The  information  specified  in  paragraph   (c)  (9) 


(Rev.    12/4/74) 


PART  573—2 


Effective:   October    1,    197) 


of  this  section  shall  be  included  only  in  the  third 
quarterly  report  furnished  pursuant  to  this  sec- 
tion. (39  F.R.  16469— May  9,  1974.  Effective: 
8/6/74)] 

§  573.6      Owner  lists. 

Eacji  manufacturer  sliall  maintain  in  a  form 
suitable  for  inspection,  such  as  computer  infor- 
mation storage  devices  or  card  files,  a  list  of  the 
names  and  addresses  of  first  purchasers  or  sub- 
sequent purchasers  to  whom  a  warranty  has  been 
transferred,  and  of  any  other  owners  known  to 
the  manufacturer,  and  the  vehicle  identification 
numbers  for  all  his  vehicles  involved  in  each 
safety  defect  notification  campaign  initiated  after 
the  effective  date  of  this  part.  The  list  shall 
show  the  status  of  inspection  and  defect  correc- 
tion with  respect  to  each  vehicle  involved  in  each 
campaign,  updated  as  of  the  end  of  each  quar- 
terly rejiorting  period  required  in  paragraph  (e) 
of  §  573.5.  The  completed  list  shall  be  retained 
for  5  years  after  the  date  on  which  the  defect 
information  report  is  initially  submitted  to  the 
Administration. 


§  573.7     Notices,    bulletins    and    other    communi- 
cations. 

Each  manufacturer  shall  furnish  the  Admin- 
istration a  copy  of  all  notices,  bulletins,  and 
other  communications,  other  than  those  required 
to  be  submitted  under  §  573.4(c)  (8),  sent  to  more 
than  one  dealer  or  purchaser  of  his  vehicles  re- 
garding any  defect,  whether  or  not  safety-related, 
in  such  vehicles.  These  copies  shall  be  submitted 
monthly  not  more  than  5  working  days  after  the 
close  of  each  month. 

§  573.8      Address   for   submitting   all    required   re- 
ports and  other  information. 

All  required  reports  and  other  information 
shall  be  submitted  to :  Office  of  Comi)liance,  Na- 
tional Highway  Traffic  Safety  Administration, 
Washington,  D.C.  20590. 

36  F.R.  3064 
February  17,   1971 


(Rev.   5/6/74) 


PART  573—3 


Effactiv*:  May  22,   1971 


PREAMBLE  TO  PART  574— TIRE  IDENTIFICATION  AND  RECORDKEEPING 


(Docket  No.  70-12;  Notice  No.  5) 


On  November  10,  1970,  the  National  Highway 
Safety  Bureau  (now  the  National  Highway 
Traffic  Safety  Administration,  or  NHTSA)  pub- 
lished the  Tire  Identification  and  Recordkeeping 
Regulations  (35  F.R.  18116).  Thereafter,  pur- 
suant to  §  553.35  of  the  rulemaking  procedures 
(49  CFR  Part  553,  35  F.R.  5119),  petitions  for 
reconsideration  or  petitions  for  rulemaking  were 
filed  by  the  American  Retreaders'  Association, 
Inc.,  the  Armstrong  Rubber  Co.,  Bandag  Inc., 
the  National  Tire  Dealers  &  Retreaders  Associa- 
tion, Inc.,  the  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.,  the 
Lee  Tire  and  Rubber  Co.,  Chrysler  Corp.,  the 
Rubber  Manufacturers  Association,  Ford  Motor 
Co.,  the  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co.,  Pirelli  Tire 
Corp.,  the  B.  F.  Goodrich  Co.,  Uniroyal  Tire  Co., 
Cooper  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.,  Michelin  Tire  Corp., 
the  Firestone  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.,  White  Motor 
Corp.,  Bert  Schwarz-S&H  Inc.,  and  the  Truck 
Trailer  Manufacturers  Association.  Several  pe- 
titioners requested  the  opportunity  to  demonstrate 
difficulties  they  were  having  meeting  the  regula- 
tion as  issued,  and  as  a  result  a  public  meeting 
was  held  December  21,  1970.  Notice  of  the  meet- 
ing was  published  in  the  Federal  Register  (35 
F.R.  19036)  and  the  transcript  of  the  meeting 
is  in  the  public  docket.  The  substance  of  the 
petitions  and  comments  made  at  the  meeting  have 
been  considered.  Certain  parts  of  the  Tire  Iden- 
tification and  Recordkeeping  Regulation  are 
hereby  amended. 

The  definition  of  "Tire  brand  name  owner"  in 
§  574.3(c)  is  changed  to  make  it  clear  that  a 
person  manufacturing  a  brand  name  tire  that  he 
markets  himself  is  not  a  brand  name  owner  for 
the  purposes  of  this  regulation. 

The  regulation  is  amended  to  except  from  its 
requirements  tires  manufactured  for  pre-1948  ve- 
hicles.    This   exception   is   consistent   with   the 


Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  for  pas- 
senger car  tires  (Standard  No.  109). 

After  consideration  of  the  comments  in  the 
petitions  concerning  the  tire  identification  num- 
ber requirements,  several  changes  have  been  made. 

1.  Section  574.5  is  amended  to  specify  the  num- 
bers and  letters  to  be  used  in  the  identification 
number. 

2.  Figures  1  and  2  are  modified  to  allow  three- 
quarters  of  an  inch,  instead  of  one-half  inch, 
between  the  DOT  sjonbol  and  the  identification 
number  and  between  the  second  and  third  group- 
ing. Tires  with  cross  section  width  of  6  inches 
or  less  may  use  %2-inch  letters.  The  DOT  sym- 
bol may  be  located  to  the  right  of  the  identifica- 
tion number  as  well  as  above,  below,  or  to  the 
left  of  the  identification  number.  Retreaders, 
as  well  as  new  tire  manufacturers,  may  locate  the 
DOT  symbol  above,  below,  to  the  left,  or  to  the 
right  of  the  identification  number.  The  mini- 
mum depth  of  the  identification  number  has  been 
changed  from  0.025  inch  to  0.020  inch,  measured 
from  the  surface  immediately  surrounding  the 
characters. 

3.  The  second  grouping,  identifying  the  tire 
size,  has  been  changed  with  respect  to  retreaded 
tires  to  pro^dde  that  if  a  matrix  is  used  for 
processing  the  retreaded  tire  the  code  must  iden- 
tify the  matrix  used.  The  change  requiring  re- 
treaded  tire  identification  numbers  to  contain  a 
matrix  code  rather  than  a  size  code  was  made 
because,  in  the  event  of  a  defect  notification,  the 
matrix  would  be  a  more  meaningful  method  of 
identifying  the  suspect  tires  and  it  was  consid- 
ered impracticable  to  require  retreaders  to  in- 
clude the  tire  size  in  the  tire-identification 
number. 

4.  The  third  grouping,  for  identifying  the 
significant  characteristics  of  the  tire,  has  been 
changed  to  provide  that  if  a  tire  is  manufactured 


PART  574^PRE  1 


Efftcllvt:  May  22,   1971 

for  a  brand  name  owner  the  code  shall  include 
symbols  identifying  the  brand  name  owner, 
which  shall  be  assigned  by  the  manufacturer 
rather  than  by  the  NHTSA.  Manufacturers  are 
required  to  provide  the  NHTSA  with  the  sym- 
bols assigned  to  brand  name  owners  upon  the 
NHTSA's  request.  This  change  should  result  in 
a  shorter  identification  number  and  allow  manu- 
facturers greater  flexibility  in  the  use  of  the 
third  grouping. 

Standard  No.  109  presently  requires  that  pas- 
senger car  tires  contain  a  DOT  symbol,  or  a 
statement  that  the  tire  complies  with  the  stand- 
ard, on  both  sidewalls  of  the  tire  between  the 
section  width  and  the  bead.  The  requirement 
in  Standard  No.  109  is  being  changed  by  notice 
published  in  this  issue  (36  F.R.  1195  to  provide 
that  the  DOT  symbol  may  be  on  either  sidewall, 
in  the  location  specified  by  this  regulation.  The 
requested  change  that  the  DOT  symbol  be  allowed 
on  tires  for  which  there  is  no  applicable  standard 
in  effect  is  denied,  since  such  use  would  tend  to 
give  consumers  the  impression  those  tires  were 
covered  by  a  Federal  standard. 

Several  petitioners  requested  that  other  DOT 
symbols  (located  as  required  by  the  present 
Standard  No.  109)  be  permitted  to  remain  on 
the  tire  along  with  the  three-digit  manufactur- 
er's code  number  assigned  pursuant  to  that 
standard.  The  Tire  Identification  and  Record- 
keeping regulation  does  not  prohibit  the  con- 
tinued use  of  the  symbol  and  code  number  pro- 
vided the  numbers  are  not  close  enough  to  the 
identification  number  to  be  confused  with  it. 
In  no  event  should  the  three-digit  number,  for- 
merly required  by  Standard  No.  109,  immediately 
follow  the  tire  identification  number. 


As  a  result  of  petitions  by  vehicle  manufac- 
turers the  requirement  in  §  574.10  that  vehicle 
manufacturers  maintain  the  record  of  tires  on 
each  vehicle  shipped  has  been  changed  to  elim- 
inate the  requirement  that  this  information  be 
maintained  by  identification  number.  It  would 
evidently  be  2xtremely  difficult  and  expensive  for 
the  vehicle  manufacturer  to  record  each  tire  iden- 
tification number.  Vehicle  manufacturers  have 
stated  that  their  present  system  provides  records 
that  enable  them  to  notify  the  purchaser  of  a 
vehicle  that  may  contain  suspect  tires. 

Several  petitioners  requested  that  the  effective 
date  of  the  regulation  be  extended  beyond  May  1, 
1971.  The  1970  amendment  to  the  National 
Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  requires 
that  the  provisions  relating  to  maintaining  rec- 
ords of  tire  purchasers  shall  be  effective  not  later 
than  1  year  after  the  date  of  enactment  of  these 
amendments  (May  22,  1971).  It  has  been  deter- 
mined that  in  view  of  the  complexities  involved 
in  establishing  the  recordkeeping  system  re- 
quired and  the  effect  of  the  same  on  existing 
processes,  good  cause  exists  for  making  the  regu- 
lations effective  on  the  latest  date  manufacturers 
are  required  by  statute  to  maintain  records.  It 
is  further  determined  that  a  May  22,  1971,  effec- 
tive date  is  in  the  public  interest. 

Effective  date :  May  22, 1971. 

Issued  on  January  19, 1971. 

Douglas  W.  Toms, 
Acting  Administrator,  National 
Highway  Traffic  Safety  Ad- 
ministration. 

36  F.R.  1196 
January  26,    1971 


PART  574— PRE  2 


Eff*ctlv«:  May  22,    1971 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  PART  574— TIRE  IDENTIFICATION  AND 

RECORDKEEPING 

(Docket  No.  70-12;  Notice  No.  9) 

Amendment  to  Figure  2  Concerning  the  Location  of  the  Tire  Identification  Number 

for  Retreaded  Tires 


The  purpose  of  this  amendment  is  to  provide 
retreaders  with  an  alternative  location  for  the 
placement  of  the  tire  identification  number. 

On  January  26,  1971,  the  National  Highway 
Traffic  Safety  Administration  published  Docket 
No.  70-12,  Notice  No.  5,  a  revised  version  of  the 
Tire  Identification  and  Record  Keeping  Regula- 
tion, 49  CFR  Part  574  (36  F.R.  1196).  Section 
574.5  requires  retreaders  to  permanently  mold  or 
brand  into  or  onto  one  sidewall  a  tire  identifica- 
tion number  in  the  manner  specified  in  Figure 
2  of  the  regulation.  Figure  2  requires  that  the 
tire  identification  number  be  located  in  the  area 
of  the  shoulder  between  the  tread  edge  and  the 
maximum  section  width  of  the  tire.  The  regula- 
tion specified  this  location  because,  generally,  it 
is  the  area  upon  which  retreaders  apply  new  re- 
tread material. 

Bandag,  Inc.,  has  petitioned  for  rulemaking  to 
allow  the  tire  identification  to  be  below  the  sec- 
tion width  of  the  tire.  The  petition  requests  this 
relief  because  the  Bandag  process  only  affects 
the  tread  surface,  a  comparatively  smooth  surface 
is  needed  for  application  of  the  identification 
number,  and  many  casings  have  no  smooth  area 


between  the  tread  edge  and  the  maximum  section 
width. 

Therefore,  in  view  of  the  above,  Figure  2  of 
Part  574  (36  F.R.  1200)  is  hereby  amended  as 
set  forth  below  to  require  that  the  tire  identifica- 
tion number  be  on  one  sidewall  of  the  tire,  either 
on  the  upper  segment  between  the  maximum  sec 
tion  width  and  the  tread  edge,  or  on  the  lower 
segment  between  the  maximum  section  width 
and  bead  in  a  location  such  that  the  number  will 
not  be  covered  by  the  rim  flange  when  the  tire  is 
inflated.  In  no  event  should  the  number  be  on 
the  surface  of  the  scuff  rib  or  ribs. 

Elective  date:  May  22,  1971. 

Because  this  amendment  relieves  a  restriction 
and  does  not  impose  any  additional  burden  on 
any  person  it  is  found  that  notice  and  public 
procedure  thereon  are  unnecessary  and  imprac- 
ticable, and  that,  for  good  cause  shown,  an  effec- 
tive date  less  than  30  days  after  the  date  of 
issuance  is  in  the  public  interest. 

Issued  on  May  21,  1971. 

Douglas  W.  Toms 
Acting  Administrator 


PART  574— PRE  3-4 


231-088   O  -  71  -  73 


( 


EffKHv*:  Nev«mb«r  8,   1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  PART  574— TIRE  IDENTIFICATION  AND  RECORD  KEEPING 

(Docket  No.  70-14;  Notice  15) 


The  purpose  of  this  amendment  to  Part  574 
of  Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Eegiilations,  is  to 
provide  that  the  second  group  of  symbols  within 
the  tire  identification  number  shall,  in  the  case 
of  new  tires,  be  assigned  at  the  option  of  the 
manufacturer  rather  than  conforming  to  the  tire 
size  code  presently  found  in  Table  I  of  the  regu- 
lation. 

Under  the  present  system,  even  if  the  presently 
unassigned  symbols  "O"  and  "K"  are  used,  a 
maximum  of  900  tire  size  codes  can  be  assigned. 
Due  to  the  many  new  tire  sizes  being  introduced, 
it  is  necessary  to  change  the  system  to  allow 
more  flexibility.  Therefore,  Table  I  is  herewith 
deleted,  new  tire  manufacturers  are  allowed  to 
assign  their  own  two-digit  code  for  the  tire  size, 
and  retreaders  are  allowed  to  use  either  a  self- 
assigned  matrix  code  or  a  self-assigned  tire  size 
code.  Each  new  tire  manufacturer  will  still  be 
required  to  use  a  two-symbol  size  code  and  to 
maintain  a  record  of  the  coding  system  used, 
which  shall  be  provided  to  the  National  High- 
way TraflSc  Safety  Administration  upon  written 
request.  It  is  recommended  but  not  required 
that  manufacturers  use  the  code  sizes  previously 
assigned  by  this  agency  for  active  sizes,  and  re- 
use the  codes  for  obsolete  sizes  when  additional 
size  codes  are  needed. 

A  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  on  this  sub- 
ject was  published  on  June  16,  1972  (37  F.R. 
11979).  The  comments  received  in  response  to 
the  notice  have  been  considered  in  the  issuance 
of  this  final  rule.  The  rule  is  issued  as  it  ap- 
peared in  the  proposal  including  the  letter  "T" 
inadvertently  omitted  from  the  proposal. 

Three  of  the  tire  manufacturers  who  com- 
mented favored  the  proposed  change,  and  the 
National  Tire  Dealers  and  Retreaders  Associa- 
tion, the  Japan  Automobile  Manufacturers  Asso- 
ciation   and    The    European    Tyre    and    Rim 


Technical  Organisation  commented  without  ob- 
jection to  the  proposed  change. 

Bandag,  Inc.,  a  retreader  of  tires,  objected  to 
the  proposed  change  on  the  grounds  that  allow- 
ing tire  nianufacturers  to  assign  their  own  tire 
size  code  would  remove  one  of  the  methods  a 
retreader  has  to  determine  the  tire  size  of  a 
casing  to  be  retreaded. 

Mercedes-Benz  of  North  America  and  Volks- 
wagen of  America  did  not  favor  the  change 
because  of  the  possibility  of  confusion  for  the 
vehicle  manufacturer  that  equips  its  vehicle  with 
several  manufacturers'  tires. 

The  principal  objection  raised  by  Bandag 
should  be  considerably  alleviated  by  an  amend- 
ment to  Standard  No.  109  (36  F.R.  24824)  under 
consideration,  which  would  require  tire  manu- 
facturers to  place  the  actual  tire  size,  as  well  as 
other  pertinent  information,  between  the  section 
width  and  the  bead  of  the  tire  so  that  the  infor- 
mation will  be  less  susceptible  to  obliteration 
during  use  or  removal  during  the  retreading 
process. 

With  respect  to  the  conmaent  by  Mercedes- 
Benz  of  North  America  and  Volkswagen  of 
America,  it  was  concluded  that  because  the  exist- 
ing system  does  not  provide  enough  symbols  to 
meet  the  anticipated  introduction  of  new  tire 
sizes,  the  proposed  change  is  necessary.  Mer- 
cedes' recommendation  that  "G",  "Q",  "S",  and 
"Z"  be  added  or  that  a  three-digit  size  code  be 
used  was  rejected,  because  the  additional  symbols 
suggested  are  difficult  to  apply  to  the  tire,  and 
the  addition  of  a  third  symbol  would,  according 
to  the  tire  manufacturers,  be  impractical  and 
inefficient. 

A  list  of  the  tire  size  codes  assigned  up  to  this 
time  is  published  in  the  general  notice  section  of 
this  issue  of  the  Federal  Register  (37  F.R.  23742). 
The  NHTSA  urges  tire  manufacturers  to  use 


PART  574— PRE  5 


Effective:    November   8,    1972 


these  existing  codes  for  tire  sizes  presently  being 
produced  and  to  work  within  their  tire  and  rim 
associations  to  make  code  assignments  for  new 
tire  sizes  on  an  industry-wide  basis  and  reuse 
obsolete  size  codes  wherever  possible.  In  this 
way  the  usefulness  of  the  tire  size  code  to  the 
vehicle  manufacturer  will  be  maintained. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  in  Part  574 
of  Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  Table 
I  is  deleted  and  §  574.5  is  amended  .... 

Effective  date:  November  8,  1972. 

Because  this  amendment  relieves  a  restriction, 
and  because  of  the  immediate  need  for  the  intro- 
duction of  new  tire  size  codes,  it  is  found  for 


good  cause  shown  that  an  effective  date  less  than 
30  days  from  the  date  of  issuance  is  in  the  public 
interest. 

Issued  under  the  authority  of  sections  103, 
112,  113,  119  and  201  of  the  National  Traffic  and 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401, 
1402,  1407  and  1421,  and  the  delegation  of  au- 
thority at  49  CFR  1.51. 

Issued  pn  October  31,  1972. 

Charles  H.  Hartman 
Acting  Administrator 

37  F.R.  23727 
November  8,   1972 


r 


V 


PART  574— PRE  6 


V 


Effactiva:  April   3,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  PART  574— TIRE   IDENTIFICATION  AND   RECORD  KEEPING 

(Docket  No.  71-18;  Notice  7) 


This  notice  amends  Standard  No.  119,  New 
■pneumatic  tires  for  vehicles  other  than  passenger 
cars,  -19  CFR  571.119,  to  specify  lettering  sizes 
and  modified  treadwear  indicator  requirements 
for  tires.  In  addition,  it  amends  Part  574,  Tire 
Identi-fication,  49  CFR  574,  to  permit  the  labeling 
of  certain  tires  with  the  symbol  DOT  prior  to 
the  effective  date  of  the  standard.  This  notice 
also  responds  to  petitions  for  reconsideration  of 
Standard  119  s  effective  date  by  maintaining  the 
present  date  of  March  1,  1975. 

To  avoid  a  costly  production  shutdown  on  the 
effective  date  to  engrave  tire  molds  with  the 
DOT  compliance  symbol  required  by  the  stand- 
ard, the  National  Highway  Traffic  Safety  Ad- 
ministration (NHTSA)  proposed  a  modification 
of  the  Part  574  prohibition  on  the  symbol's  use 
prior  to  the  effective  date  (39  F.R.  3967,  Jan- 
uary 31,  1974).  The  Rubber  Manufacturers 
Association  and  five  tire  manufacturers  agreed 
that  the  DOT  should  be  engraved  on  tire  molds 
prior  to  the  effective  date,  but  objected  to  the 
expense  of  covering  the  DOT  with  a  label  stating 
that  "no  Federal  motor  vehicle  safety  standard 
applies  to  this  tire,"  when  the  DOT  appears  on 
tires  which  (presumably)  satisfy  Standard  119 
requirements.  Firestone  pointed  out  that  the 
large  label  size  could  obscure  other  label  infor- 
mation. Goodrich  noted  that,  as  proposed,  the 
DOT  could  be  molded  on  tires  which  met  no 
standard  and  could  mislead  a  user  if  the  label 
fell  off. 

The  NHTSA  will  not  permit  the  appearance 
of  the  DOT  compliance  symbol  on  any  item  of 
motor  vehicle  equipment  to  which  no  standard 
is  applicable.  The  terms  ''applicability'"  and 
"applies"  have  only  one  meaning  for  Federal 
motor  vehicle  safety  standards:  that  the  vehicle 
or  equipment  concerned  is  subject  to  a  safety 
standard.    To  permit  use  of  the  DOT  symbol  on 


vehicles  or  items  of  motor  vehicle  equipment  to 
which  no  standard  applies  would  confuse  the 
meaning  of  the  symbol  and  the  concept  of  com- 
pliance. 

In  response  to  Firestone  and  Goodrich,  the 
NHTSA  has  modified  the  lettering  size  on  the 
label  and  limited  use  of  the  DOT  symbol  to  tires 
for  which  a  standard  has  been  issued.  With  the 
small  lettering  size,  the  rubber  labels  used  on 
retread  tires  can  be  applied  over  the  DOT  symbol 
in  fulfillment  of  the  requirement.  Another 
method  which  manufacturers  did  not  mention 
but  which  would  be  permissible  is  the  removal 
of  the  DOT  at  the  same  time  imperfections  are 
buffed  off  the  tire. 

All  comments  on  the  proposal  objected  to  the 
specific  location  requirements  for  treadwear  in- 
dicators based  on  the  concept  of  even  tread  wear 
across  the  tread  width.  Goodyear  demonstrated 
in  a  meeting  with  the  NHTSA  Tire  Division  on 
February  13,  1974,  and  detailed  in  its  submission 
to  the  Docket,  the  difficulty  in  equating  ideal  tire 
wear  with  actual  road  experience.  They  recom- 
mended the  simpler  concept  that  a  tire  has  worn 
out  when  any  major  tread  groove  has  only  %c,  in 
tread  remaining.  The  NHTSA  has  concluded 
that  treadwear  indicators  must  be  placed  at  the 
discretion  of  the  manufacturer  to  give  a  person 
inspecting  the  tire  visual  indication  of  whether 
the  tire  has  worn  to  a  certain  tread  depth.  Ac- 
cordingly, the  lateral  location  requirements  for 
treadwear  indicators  have  been  deleted  from  the 
standard. 

There  was  no  discussion  of  the  lettering  size 
and  depth  proposal,  and  these  proposals  are 
adopted  as  proposed. 

The  comments  requested  reconsideration  of  the 
standard's  March  1,  1975,  effective  date  (pub- 
lished February  1,  1974,  39  F.R.  4087),  asserting 
the  need  for  18  months  of  lead  time  following 


PART  574— PRE  7 


Effective:   April   3,    1974 

publication  of  this  notice  to  engrave  tire  molds 
as  required  by  the  standard.  The  NHTSA  has 
found  that  11  months  is  sufficient  leadtime  to 
accomplish  these  changes,  and  accordingly  these 
petitions  are  denied. 

To  correct  an  inadvertent  omission  in  the 
amendment  of  Standard  No.  119  in  response  to 
petitions  for  reconsideration  (39  F.R.  5190, 
February  11,  1974),  superscripts  are  added  to 
Table  III  entries  for  "All  other.  A,  B,  C,  D 
range  tires". 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  Parts  571 
and  574  of  Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations, 
are  amended.  .  . . 

Effective  date:  Standard  No.  119  amendments: 
March  1,  1975.     Part  574  amendment:  April  3, 


1974.  Because  the  Part  574  amendment  creates 
no  additional  burden,  and  because  modification 
of  tire  molds  must  begin  immediately,  it  is  found 
for  good  cause  shown  that  an  effective  date  less 
than  180  days  after  issuance  is  in  the  public 
interest. 

(Sees.  103,  112,  119,  201,  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80 
Stat.  718;  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1407,  1421;  dele- 
gation of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51.) 

Issued  on  March  28,  1974. 

James  B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

39  F.R.  12104 
April  3,  1974 


r 


( 


PART  574— PRE 


Effective:   September   3,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  PART  574— 
TIRE  IDENTIFICATION  AND  RECORDKEEPING 

(Docket  No.   70-12;   Notice   19) 


This  notice  amends  the  Tire  Identification  and 
Recordkeeping  regulation,  49  CFR  Part  574,  to 
establish  an  optional  uni\ersal  registration  for- 
mat for  tire  registration  forms.  It  also  requires 
manufacturers  of  new  tires  to  redirect  registra- 
tion forms  of  other  manufacturers  of  new  tires 
which  have  been  forwarded  to  them  in  eri'or. 

On  March  9,  1973,  the  NHTSA  issued  a  notice 
of  proposed  rulemaking  (38  F.R.  6398)  propos- 
ing a  universal  registration  form  for  tire  identi- 
fication and  record  keeping.  The  notice  was 
issued  in  resi:)onse  to  requests  from  multi-brand 
tire  dealers  who  were  faced  with  a  multiplicity 
of  different  forms  and  procedures  for  tire  regis- 
tration. Currently,  the  regulation  merely  re- 
quires manufacturers  and  retreaders  to  supjily  a 
"means"  of  registration.  The  proposed  rule  also 
envisioned  that  a  copy  of  the  form  would  be 
provided  to  the  first  purchaser  and  that  manu- 
facturers and  retreaders  would  be  required  to 
redirect  registration  forms  which  had  been  for- 
warded to  them  in  error. 

All  comments  received  in  response  to  the  notice 
were  sympathetic  to  tlie  problems  faced  by  the 
multi-brand  dealers,  and  the  majority  were  will- 
ing to  provide  a  "uni^•ersal  form"  if  requested 
by  a  dealer. 

Most  manufacturers,  however,  pointed  out  that 
their  exclusive  dealershijis  had  received  training 
in  the  use  of  the  current  form,  as  had  their  own 
personnel,  and  that  a  total  change-over  would 
work  a  hardship  without  a  concomitant  benefit 
for  single-brand  dealers.  In  view  of  these  com- 
ments, XHTSA  has  decided  to  promulgate  the 
universal  registration  format,  which  appears  as 
Fig.  3,  as  an  optional  format  to  be  followed  if 
requested  by  a  dealer  and  as  a  guide  if  a  dealer 
prefers  to  supply  his  own  forms. 


The  proposal  to  require  tire  manufacturers 
and  retreaders  to  forward  all  misdirected  regis- 
tration forms  within  30  days  was  universally 
opposed  by  new-tire  manufacturers,  who  stated 
that  they  are  currently  participating  in  a  volun- 
tary but  limited  program  for  forwarding  these 
misdirected  forms.  Furthermore,  new-tire  manu- 
facturers believe  they  should  not  be  responsible 
for  misdirected  retreaded  tire  registration  forms, 
as  there  are  o\-er  .5,000  tire  retreaders  in  the 
country  and  such  a  task  would  be  formidable. 
One  new-tire  manufacturer  indicated  that  he  had 
received  over  15,000  misdirected  retreaded  tire 
registration  forms  during  January  1973.  The 
docket  contained  only  one  submission  from  the 
retreading  industry,  and  it  did  not  deal  with  the 
problem  of  misdirected  forms. 

It  also  appears  from  the  comments  received 
and  other  information  available  to  NHTSA  that 
new-tire  manufacturers  maintain  a  computer- 
based  registration  process,  while  only  approxi- 
mately 25%  of  the  retreading  industry  utilizes 
computers  for  this  purpose.  Thus,  the  require- 
ment for  forwarding  all  misdirected  forms  would 
fall  heavily  on  both  segments  of  the  industry, 
new-tire  manufacturers  in  that  most  misdirected 
forms  a[)pear  to  be  sent  to  them  and  retreaders 
in  that  a  majority  are  ill-equipped  to  carry  out 
the  forwarding  functions. 

Therefore,  rather  than  issue  an  all-inclusive 
forwarding  requirement  at  this  time,  NHTSA 
has  decided  to  require  only  that  new-tire  manu- 
facturers redirect  new  tire  registraiton  forms 
erroneously  forwarded  to  them.  Further,  the 
NHTSA  has  determined  that  a  90-day  forward- 
ing period  will  be  sufficient,  rather  than  the  30 
days  originally  proposed.  It  is  expected  that 
the  use  of  the  manufacturer's  logo  on  the  uni- 
versal registration  format  and  increased  vigilance 


PART  574— PRE  9 


Effective:    September   3,    1974 

on  the  part  of  the  industry  will  substantially 
curtail  the  number  of  misdirected  forms.  If  it 
later  appears  that  tire  registrations  are  not  being 
properly  received,  the  NHTSA  intends  to  take 
further  action  in  this  area. 

The  notice  proposed  that  tire  manufacturers 
furnish  their  dealers  with  duplicate  copies  of  the 
registration  form  so  that  a  copy  could  be  given 
to  consumers  at  the  time  of  purchase.  This  i>ro- 
vision  was  objected  to  by  all  new-tire  manufac- 
turers and  the  retreaders'  association.  In  their 
view,  the  increased  expense  served  no  viable 
function  as  Part  .574  currently  requires  all  pur- 
chasers to  be  notified  by  certified  mail  of  safety 
defects.  They  argued  that  tlie  possession  of  a 
duplicate  registration  form  would  not  aid  the 
pui'chaser  in  the  case  of  recall.  The  manufac- 
turers also  said  that  the  completion  of  registra- 
tion forms  is  often  reserved  until  the  end  of  the 
day   or  other  slack   time,  and   further  that   the 


consumer  automatically  recei\-es  a  copy  of  his 
tire  identihcation  number  on  the  guarantee  if 
one  is  given. 

The  XIITSA  finds  these  arguments  to  have 
merit,  and  the  requirement  to  give  the  jiurchaser 
a  copy  of  the  registration  form  is  deleted  from 
the  final  rule. 

In  consideration  of  tlie  foregoing,  49  CFR 
574.7  is  amended 

E-ffective  date :  September  3,  1974. 

(Sees.  103,  112,  113,  119,  201,  Pub.  L.  89-563, 
80  Stat.  718.  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1402,  1407, 
1421;  delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51.) 

Issued  on  May  28,  1974. 

James   B.    Gregory 

Administrator 

39  F.R.  19482 
June  3,  1974 


{ 


PART  574— PRE  10 


( 


Effective:   November    1,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  PART  574-TIRE  IDENTIFICATION   AND  RECORDKEEPING 

(Docket  No.   70-12;   Notice   21) 


This  notice  amends  49  CFR  Part  574  to  pro- 
vide that  the  Universal  Registration  Forms 
snpplied  by  dealers  must  conform  in  size  and  be 
similar  in  format  to  Figure  3  of  the  regulation. 

On  June  2,  1974,  49  CFR  Part  574  was 
amended  to  require  a  Universal  Registration 
Format  when  tire  registration  forms  are  supplied 
by  manufacturers  to  dealei-s  (39  F.R.  19482). 
Three  petitions  for  reconsideration  were  received 
in  response  to  this  notice.  All  three,  Michelin 
Tire  Corporation,  Rubber  Manufacturers  Asso- 
ciation, and  the  Firestone  Tire  and  Rubber  Com- 
pany, requested  that  the  regulation  be  amended 
to  require  that  dealer-supplied  registration  forms 
also  conform  in  size  and  be  similar  in  format  to 
Figure  3  of  the  regulation.  The  petitioners 
pointed  out  that  registration  handling  method- 
ology has  been  standardized  throughout  the  in- 
dustry, and  that  the  use  of  different  sizes  and 
formats  would  be  costly  and  inefficient.  The 
NHTSA  concurs  in  this  assessment,  and  there- 
fore amends  49  CFR  574.7(a)  to  require  that  the 
dealer-supplied  forms  must  conform  in  size  and 
be  similar  in  format  to  Figure  3. 


In  addition,  Firestone  petitioned  to  revise 
Figure  3  slightly  and  to  extend  the  effective  date 
of  the  amendment  to  120  days  after  the  response 
to  the  petitions  for  reconsideration.  Since  49 
CFR  574.7  currently  requires  only  that  the  forms 
be  "similar"  to  Figure  3,  Firestone's  proposed 
modification  is  authorized  by  the  regidation  and 
no  amendment  to  tiie  standard  is  needed.  Fire- 
stone's request  to  extend  the  effective  date  of  the 
standard  is  denied,  as  NHTSA  has  determined 
sufficient  lead  time  was  available  from  the  date 
the  amendment  was  issued  to  prepare  forms. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  the  last  sen- 
tence of  49  CFR  574.7(a)  is  amended.  .  .  . 

Ejfective  date:  November  1,  1974. 

(Sees.  103,  112,  113,  119,  201,  Pub.  L.  89-563, 
SO  Stat.  718,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1402,  1407, 
1421;  delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51.) 

Issued  on  October  29,  1974. 

James  B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

39  F.R.  38658 
November  1,  1974 


PART  574— PRE  11-12 


EffecNva:  May  22,    1971 


PART  574 — TIRE  IDENTIFICATION  AND  RECORDKEEPING 
(Docket  No.  70-12;  Notice  No.  5) 


Sec. 

574.1  Scope. 

574.2  Purpose. 

574.3  Definitions. 

574.4  Applicability. 

574.5  Tire   identification   requirements. 

574.6  Identification  mark. 

574.7  Information  requirements — tire  manufac- 

turers, brand  name  owners,  retreaders. 

574.8  Information    requirements — tire    distribu- 

tors and  dealers. 

574.9  Requirements  for  motor  vehicle  dealers. 

574.10  Requirements  for  motor  vehicle  manufac- 

turers. 

AiTTiioniTY:  The  provisions  of  this  Part  574 
issued  under  sees.  103,  112,  113,  119,  201,  and 
206,  National  Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Act  of  1966,  as  amended,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401, 
1402,  1407,  1421,  and  1426;  delegation  of  author- 
ity at  49  CFR  1.51,  35  F.R.  4955. 

§  574.1      Scope. 

This  part  sets  forth  the  method  by  which 
manufacturers,  brand  name  owners,  and  retread- 
ers shall  identify  tires  for  use  on  motor  vehicles 
and  maintain  records  of  tire  purchasers,  and  the 
method  by  which  distributors  and  dealers  of  new 
and  retreaded  tires  shall  record  and  report  the 
names  of  tire  purchasers  to  manufacturers,  brand 
name  owners  and  retreaders. 

§  574.2      Purpose. 

The  purpose  of  this  part  is  to  facilitate  notifi- 
cation to  purchasers  of  defective  or  nonconform- 
ing tires,  pursuant  to  section  113  of  the  National 
Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966, 
as  amended  (15  U.S.C.  1402)  (hereafter  the  Act), 
so  that  they  may  take  appropriate  action  in  the 
interest  of  motor  vehicle  safety. 

§  574.3      Definitions. 

(a)  Statutory   (tefinitimts.     All   terms  in   this 


part  that  are  defined  in  section  102  of  the  Act 
are  used  as  defined  therein. 

(b)  Motor  vehiele  safety  standard  definitions. 
Unless  otherwise  indicated,  all  terms  used  in  this 
part  that  are  defined  in  the  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standards,  part  571  of  this  subchapter  (herein- 
after the  Standards),  are  used  as  defined  therein. 

(c)  Definitians  used  in  this  part.  (1)  "Mile- 
age contract  purchaser"  means  a  person  who 
purchases  or  leases  tire  use  on  a  mileage  basis. 

(2)  "Tire  brand  name  owner"  means  a  per- 
son, other  than  a  tire  manufacturer,  who  owns 
or  has  the  right  to  control  the  brand  name  of 
a  tire  or  a  person  who  licenses  another  to  pur- 
chase tires  from  a  tire  manufacturer  bearing 
the  licensor's  brand  name. 

(3)  "Tire  purchaser"  means  a  person  who 
buys  or  leases  a  new  or  newly  retreaded  tire, 
or  who  buys  or  leases  for  60  days  or  more  a 
motor  vehicle  containing  a  new  tire  or  a  newly 
retreaded  tire,  for  purix>ses  other  than  resale. 

§  574.4     Applicability. 

This  part  applies  to  manufacturers,  brand 
name  owners,  retreaders,  distributors,  and  dealers 
of  new  and  retreaded  tires  for  use  on  motor  ve- 
hicles manufactured  after  1948  and  to  manufac- 
turers and  dealers  of  motor  vehicles  manufac- 
tured after  1948.  [However,  it  does  not  apply 
to  persons  who  retread  tires  solely  for  their  own 
use.  (36  F.R.  5422— March  23,  1971.  Effective: 
5/22/71)] 

§  574.5     Tire  identification  requirements. 

[Each  tire  manufacturer  shall  conspicuously 
label  on  one  sidewall  of  each  tire  he  manufac- 
tures, except  tires  manufactured  exclusively  for 
mileage  contract  purchasers,  by  permanently 
molding  into  or  onto  the  sidewall,  in  the  manner 
and  location  specified  in  Figure  1,  a  tire  identifi- 
cation number  containing  the  information  set 
forth   in    paragraphs    (a)    through    (d)    of   this 


(Rev.    10/31/72) 


PART  574-1 


Effective:   May   22,    1971 


section.  Each  tire  retreader,  except  tire  retread- 
ers  who  retread  tires  for  their  own  use,  shall 
conspicuously  label  one  sidewall  of  each  tire  he 
retreads  by  permanently  molding  or  branding 
into  or  onto  the  sidewall,  in  the  manner  and 
location  specified  in  Figure  2,  a  tire  identification 
number  containing  the  information  set  forth  in 
paragraphs  (a)  through  (d)  of  this  section.  In 
addition,  the  DOT  symbol  required  by  Federal 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standards  shall  be  located 
as  shown  in  Figures  1  and  2.  The  DOT  symbol 
shall  not  appear  on  tires  to  which  no  Federal 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  is  applicable, 
unless,  in  the  case  of  tires  for  which  a  standard 
has  been  issued  but  which  is  not  yet  effective, 
the  symbol  is  covered  by  a  label  that  is  not  easily 
removable  and  that  states  in  letters  at  least  0.078 
inches  high : 

NO  FEDERAL  MOTOR 

VEHICLE  SAFETY 

STANDARD  APPLIES 

TO  THIS  TIRE 
The  symbols  to  be  used  in  the  tire  identification 
number  for  tire  manufacturers  and  retreaders 
are  "A,  B,  C,  D,  E,  F,  H,  J,  K,  L,  M,  N,  P,  R, 
T,  U,  V,  W,  X,  Y,  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9,  0."  Tires 
manufactured  or  retreaded  exclusively  for  mile- 
age contract  purchasers  are  not  required  to  con- 
tain the  tire  identification  number  if  the  tire 
contains  the  phrase  "for  mileage  contract  use 
only"  permanently  molded  into  or  onto  the  tire 
sidewall  in  lettering  at  least  one-quarter  inch 
high.  (39  F.R.  12104— April  3,  1974.  Effective: 
4/3/74)3 

(a)  First  grouping.  The  first  group,  of  two  or 
three  symbols,  depending  on  whether  the  tire  is 
new  or  retreaded,  shall  represent  the  manufac- 
turer's assigned  identification  mark  (see  §  574.6). 

(b)  Second  grouping.  For  new  tires,  the 
second  group,  of  no  more  than  two  symbols, 
shall  be  used  to  identify  the  tire  size.  For  re- 
treaded  tires,  the  second  group,  of  no  more  than 
two  symbols,  shall  identify  the  retread  matrix 
in  which  the  tire  was  processed  or  a  tire  size  code 
if  a  matrix  was  not  used  to  process  the  retreaded 
tire.  Each  new  tire  manufacturer  and  retreader 
shall  maintain  a  record  of  each  symbol  used,  with 
the  corresponding  matrix  or  tire  size  and  shall 
provide  such  record  to  the  NHTSA  upon  written 
request. 


(c)  Third  grouping.  The  third  group,  con-  ^ 
sisting  of  no  more  than  four  symbols,  may  be  " 
used  at  the  option  of  the  manufacturer  or  re- 
treader as  a  descriptive  code  for  the  purpose  of 
identifying  significant  characteristics  of  the  tire. 
However,  if  the  tire  is  manufactured  for  a  brand 
name  owner,  one  of  the  functions  of  the  third 
grouping  shall  be  to  identify  the  brand  name 
owner.  Each  manufacturer  or  retreader  who 
uses  the  third  grouping  shall  maintain  a  detailed 
record  of  any  descriptive  or  brand  name  owner 
code  used,  which  shall  be  provided  to  the  Bureau 
upon  written  request. 

(d)  Fourth  grouping.  The  fourth  group,  of 
three  symbols,  shall  identify  the  week  and  year 
of  inanufacture.  The  first  two  symbols  shall 
identify  the  week  of  the  year  using  "01"  for  the 
first  full  calendar  week  in  each  year.  The  final 
week  of  each  year  may  include  not  more  than  6 
days  of  the  following  year.  The  third  symbol 
shall  identify  the  year.  (Example:  311  means 
the  31st  week  of  1971,  or  Aug.  1  through  7,  1971; 
012  means  the  first  week  of  1972,  or  Jan.  2 
through  8,  1972.)  The  symbols  signifying  the 
date   of   manufacture   shall   immediately    follow 

the  optional  descriptive  code  (paragraph  (c)  of         t 
this  section).     If  no  optional  descriptive  code  is        \ 
used  the  symbols  signifying  the  date  of  manu- 
facture  shall    be   placed    in   the   area   shown   in 
figures  1  and  2  for  the  optional  descriptive  code. 

§  574.6     IdenHflcation  mark. 

To  obtain  the  identification  mark  required  by 
§  574.5(a),  each  manufacturer  of  new  or  re- 
treaded  motor  vehicle  tires  shall  apply  after 
November  30,  1970,  in  writing,  to  "Tire  Identifi- 
cation and  Recordkeeping,"  National  Highway 
Traffic  Safety  Administration,  400  Seventh  Street 
SW.,  Washington,  D.C.  20590,  identify  himself 
as  a  manufacturer  of  new  tires  or  retreaded  tires, 
and  furnish  the  following  information: 

(a)  The  name,  or  other  designation  identifying 
the  applicant,  and  his  main  office  address. 

(b)  The  name,  or  other  identifying  designa- 
tion, of  each  individual  plant  operated  by  the 
manufacturer  and  the  address  of  each  plant,  if 
applicable. 

(c)  The  type  of  tires  manufactured  at  each 
plant,  e.g.,  passenger  car  tires,  bus  tires,  truck 
tires,  motorcycle  tires,  or  retreaded  tires. 


(Rev.    3/28/74) 


PART  574-2 


Effective:   Moy   22,    1971 


§  574.7  Information  requirements — tire  manu- 
facturers, brand  name  owners,  retread- 
ers. 

[(a)  Eacli  tire  manufacturer,  brand  name 
owner  and  retreader  (hereinafter  referred  to  in 
this  section  and  §  574.8  as  "tire  manufacturer"' 
unless  specified  otherwise),  or  his  designee,  shall 
provide  forms  to  every  distributor  and  dealer 
of  his  tires  who  offers  these  tires  for  sale  or 
lease  to  tire  purchasers,  by  which  the  distributor 
or  dealer  may  record  tlie  information  appearing 
in  paragraphs  (a)(1),  (a)(2)  and  (a)  (;3)  of 
this  section.  Forms  conforming  in  size  and 
similar  in  format  to  Figure  3  shall  be  provided 
to  those  dealers  who  request  them,  or  if  a  dealer 
prefers,  he  may  supply  his  own  form  as  long  as 
it  contains  the  required  information,  conforms 
in  size,  and  is  similar  in   format   to  Figure  3. 

(1)  Name  and  address  of  the  tire  purchaser; 

(2)  Tire  identification  number; 


(3)  Name  and  address  of  the  tire  seller  or 
otiier  means  by  which  the  manufacturer  can 
identify  the  tire  seller. 

(39  C.F.  38658— November  1,  1974.     Effective: 

11/1/74)] 

[(b)  Each  tire  manufacturer  shall  record  and 
maintain  or  have  recorded  and  maintained  for 
him,  the  information  specified  in  paragraph  (a) 
of  this  section  and  shall  not  use  this  information 
for  any  commercial  purpose  detrimental  to  tire 
distributors  or  dealers.  Any  new-tire  manufac- 
turer to  whom  forms  are  mistakenly  returned 
shall  forwai'd  the  new-tire  registration  forms  to 
the  proper  new-tire  manufacturer  within  90  days 
from  receipt  of  the  form. 

(c)  Each  tire  manufacturer  shall  maintain,  or 
have  maintained  for  him,  a  record  of  each  tire 
distributor  or  dealer  who  purchases  tires  directly 
from  him  and  sells  them  to  tire  purchasers,  the 
number    of    tires    inirchased    by   each   such    dis- 


r 


TIRE  IDENTIFICATION 
NUMBER 


SPACING-, 
1''4"MIN  I 
3  4'  MAXl^ 


OPTION  1 

REF.  SYMBOL 


DOTXXXK  :vXXX>(iZ-- 

t 


TIRESIZE 


DATE  OF  MANUFACTURE 


TIRE  TYPE  CODE 
MANUFACTURER'S  (OPTIONAL) 

IDENTIFICATION  MARK 


OPTION  2 


TIRE  IDENTIFICATION 

-« NUMBER . 

SPACING 

T''4"  MIN 
3/4"  MAX 


]. 


SPACING 

1/4"  MIN 
3/4"  MAX 


-X  ' 


ABOVE,  BELOW  OR  TO  THE  LEFT  P\P\T 

OR  RIGHT  OF  TIRE  IDENTIFICATION    U\J    I 
NUMBER 

•5/32"  LETTERING  FOR  TIRES  OF  LESS  THAN 
6.00  INCH  CROSS  SECTION  WIDTH  AS  WELL  AS 
THOSE  LESS  THAN  13"  BEAD  DIAMETER  MAY  BE 
USED 


MIN 


Notes 

1,  Tire  identification  number  shall 
be  in  Futura  Bold.  Modified 
Condensed  or  Gotfiic  characters 
permanently  molded  (0.020  to 
0  040"  deep,  measured  from  the 
surface  immediately  surrounding 
characters)  into  or  onto  tire  at 
indicated  location  on  one  side. 
(See  Note  4) 

2.  Groups  of  symbols  in  the  identification 
number  shall  be  in  the  order  indicated- 
Deviation  from  the  straight  line  arrange 
ment  shown  will  be  permitted  if  required 
to  conform  to  the  curvature  of  the  tire. 

3.  When  Tire  Type  Code  is  omitted,  or  par 
tially  used,  place  Date  of  Manufacture  in 
the  unused  area 

4  Other  print  type  will  be  permit 

ted  if  approved  by  the  administration. 


LOCATE  ALL  REQUIRED  LABELING 
IN  LOWER  SEGMENT  OF  ONE  SIDEWALL 
BETWEEN  MAXIMUM  SECTION  WIDTH 
AND  BEAD  SO  THAT  DATA  WILL  NOT  BE 
OBSTRUCTED  BY  RIM  FLANGE 


FIGURE  1     IDENTIFICATION  NUMBER  FOR  NEW  TIRES 


(Rev.    11/29/74) 


PART  574-3 


Effective:   May   22,    1971 


SPACING 
1/4"  MIN 
3/4"  MAX 


OPTION  1 


REF.  MVSS 
No.  117,56.1 


TIRE  IDENTIFICATION 
NUMBER 


AAA    A  A    AaX 


MANUFACTURER'S 
IDENTIFICATION 
MARK 

TIRE  SIZE 


TIRE 
TYPE  CODE 
(OPTIONAL 


*USE  5./32"  LETTERING  FOR  TIRES  OF  LESS 
THAN  6  00  INCH  CROSS  SECTION  WIDTH  AS 
WELL  AS  THOSE  LESS  THAN  13"  BEAD  DIAMETER. 


LOCATE 

TIRE  IDENTIFICATION 
NUMBER  IN  THIS  AREA 
BUT  NOT  ON  THE 
SCUFF  RIB(S). 


NOTES: 


OPTION  2 


SPACING 

1/4"  MIN 
3/4"  MAX 


TIRE  IDENTIFICATION 
NUMBER 


SPACING 
1/4"   MIN  ■ 
3/4"  MAX 


-  -ir 

i_XXXXX 
^^DOT-R 


AAA 


XXX 


ABOVE,  BELOW  OR  TO  THE  LEFT 
OR  RIGHT  OF  TIRE  IDENTIFICATION 
NUMBER, 


Tire  identification  number  shall  be  in  "Futura 
Bold,  Modified,  Condensed  or  Gothic"  char- 
acters permanently  molded  (0.020  to  0.040" 
deep,  measured  from  the  surface  immediately 
surrounding  characters)  into  or  onto  tire  at 
indicated  location  on  one  side. 
(See  Note  4) 

Groups  of  symbols  m  the  identification  num- 
ber shall  be  in  the  order  indicated.   Deviation 
from  the  straight  line  arrangement  shown  will 
be  permitted  if  required  to  conform  to  the 
curvature  of  the  tire. 

When  Tire  Type  Code  is  omitted,  or  partially 
used,  place  Date  of  Manufacture  in  the  unused 
area. 

Other  print  type  will  be  permitted  if  approved 
by  the  Administration. 


FIGURE  2     IDENTIFICATION  NUMBER  FOR  RETREADED  TIRES 


tributor  or  dealer,  the  number  of  tires  for  which 
reports  have  been  received  from  each  such  dis- 
tributor or  dealer  pursuant  to  paragraph  (a)  of 
§  574.8,  the  total  number  of  tires  sold  by  the  tire 
manufacturer,  and  the  total  number  of  tires  for 
which  reports  have  been  received. 


(d)  Information  required  by  paragraph  (a) 
of  this  section  shall  be  maintained  for  a  period 
of  not  less  than  S  j-ears  from  the  date  the  tire 
manufacturer  or  his  designee  records  the  infor- 
mation submitted  to  him.  (39  F.R.  19482— 
June  3,  1974.    Ertective:  9/3/74)] 


PART  574^ 


Effective:   May    22,    1971 


h 


7  3/8"  ±  1/8" 


/        IMPORTANT      FEDERAL   LAW  REQUIRES 
/           TIRE   IDENTIFICATION  NUMBERS  MUST 
BE   REGISTERED 

IPLEASE  PRINT! 

® 

RETURN  TO 

® 

CUSTOMER'S  NAME 

^    NEW                Q    RETREAD 

ADDRESS 

QTY 

TIRE  IDENTIFICATION  NUMBERS                   1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

1 

MM 

CITY                                                              STATE 

No 

ZIP 

(OPTIONALl 

DATE           1 1 1 1                      FLEET  VEHICLE 

LER 

NUMBER 

SELLERS  NAME  AND/OR  MANUFACTURER  SEL 

ADDRESS 

1 

1 

MM 

J 

CITY                                                                    STATE 

ZIP 

(a)     PREPRINTED  TIRE  MANUFACTURERS' 
LOGO  OR  OTHER  IDENTIFICATION 
AND  MAILING  ADDRESS 


(B)     MICROFILM  NUMBER 

LOCATION   IF  NECESSARY 


A-B  AREAS  TO  SUIT  TIRE 

MANUFACTURERS 

REQUIREMENTS 


FIG   3  ■  UNIVERSAL  FORMAT 


§  574.8      Information    requirements — tire    distribu- 
tors and  dealers. 

(a)  Each  distributor  and  each  dealer  selling 
tires  to  tire  purchasers  shall  submit  the  informa- 
tion specified  in  §  574.7  (a)  to  the  manufacturer 
of  the  tires  sold,  or  to  the  manufacturer's  des- 
ignee. 

(b)  Each  tire  distributor  and  each  dealer  sell- 
inn-  tires  to  tire  purchasei-s  shall  forward  the 
infonnation  specified  in  §  574.7(a)  to  the  tire 
manufacturer,  or  person  maintaining  the  infor- 
mation, not  less  often  than  every  30  days.  How- 
ever, a  distributor  or  dealer  who  sells  less  than 
40  tires,  of  all  makes,  types,  and  sizes  during  a 
30-day  period  may  wait  until  he  sells  a  total  of 
40  tires,  but  in  no  event  longer  than  6  months, 
before  forwarding  the  tire  information  to  the 
respective  tire  manufacturers  or  their  designees. 


(c)  Each  distributor  and  each  dealer  selling 
tires  to  other  tire  distributors  and  dealers  shall 
supply  to  the  tire  distributor  or  dealer  to  whom 
he  sells  tires  a  means  to  record  the  information 
specified  in  g  574.7(a),  unless  such  a  means  has 
been  provided  to  that  distributor  or  dealer  by 
another  person  or  by  a  manufacturer. 

(d)  Each  distributor  and  each  dealer  shall 
immediately  stop  selling  any  group  of  tires  when 
so  directed  by  a  notification  issued  pursuant  to 
section  113  of  the  Act  (15  U.S.C.  1402). 

§  574.9      Requirements  for  motor  vehicle  dealers. 

(a)  Each  motor  \ehicle  dealer  who  sells  a  used 
motor  vehicle  for  purposes  other  than  resale,  or 
who  leases  a  motor  vehicle  for  more  than  60 
days,  that  is  equipped  with  new  tires  or  newly 
retreaded  tires  is  considered,  for  purposes  of  this 


PART  574^5 


Effective:   May   22,    1971 


part,  to  be  a  tii-e  dealer  and  sliall  meet  the  re- 
quirements specified  in  §  574.8. 

(b)  Each  person  selling  a  new  motor  vehicle 
to  first  purchasers  for  purposes  other  than  resale, 
that  is  equipped  with  tires  that  were  not  on  the 
motor  vehicle  when  shipped  by  the  vehicle  manu- 
facturer is  considered  a  tire  dealer  for  purposes 
of  this  part  and  shall  meet  the  requirements 
specified  in  §  574.8. 

§  574.10      Requirements  for  motor  vehicle   manu- 
facturers. 

Each  motor  vehicle  manufacturer,  or  his  des- 
ignee, shall  maintain  a  record  of  tires  on  or  in 
each  vehicle  shipped  by  him  to  a  motor  vehicle 
distributor  or  dealer,  and  shall  maintain  a  record 
of  the  name  and  address  of  the  first  purchaser 
for  purposes  other  than  resale  of  each  vehicle 
equipped  with  such  tires.  These  records  shall 
be  maintained  for  a  period  of  not  less  than  ?> 
years  from  the  date  of  sale  of  the  vehicle  to  the 
first  purchaser  for  purposes  other  than  resale. 

[INTERPRETATION 

Under  section  113(f)  of  the  National  Trafiic 
and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  (15  U.S.C. 
1402(f))  and  Part  574,  it  is  the  tire  manufac- 
turer   who   has    the   ultimate    resiaonsibility    for 


maintaining  the  records  of  first  purchasers. 
Therefore,  it  is  the  tire  manufacturer  or  his  de- 
signee who  must  maintain  these  records.  The 
term  "designee",  as  used  in  the  regidation,  was 
not  intended  to  preclude  multiple  designees;  if 
the  tire  manufacturer  desires,  he  may  designate 
more  than  one  person  to  maintain  the  required 
information.  Furthermore,  neither  the  Act  nor 
the  regulation  prohibits  the  distributor  or  dealer 
from  being  the  manufacturer's  designee  nor  do 
they  prohibit  a  distributor  or  dealer  from  se- 
lecting someone  to  be  the  manufacturer's  de- 
signee provided  the  manufacturer  approves  of 
the  selection. 

With  respect  to  the  possibility  of  manufac- 
turers using  the  maintained  information  to  the 
detriment  of  a  distributor  or  dealer,  the  NHTSA 
will  of  course  investigate  claims  by  distributors 
or  dealers  of  alleged  misconduct  and,  if  the 
maintained  information  is  being  misused,  take 
appropriate  action.  (36  F.R.  9780— May  28, 
1971)] 

36   F.R.   4783 
March   12,  1971 

36  F.R.   13757 
July  24,  1971 

36  F.R.   16510 
August  21,    1971 


PART  574-6 


PREAMBLE  TO  TIRE  CODE  MARKS  ASSIGNED  TO  NEW  TIRE  MANUFACTURERS 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  publish  the 
code  numbers  assigned  to  new-tire  manufacturers 
imder  the  Tire  Identification  and  Recordkeeping 
Regulation,  49  CFR  Part  574  (36  F.R.  1196). 

The  Tire  Identification  and  Recordkeeping 
Regulation  (hereafter  Part  574)  requires  that 
new  .tires  manufactured  after  May  22,  1971,  be 
marked  with  a  two-symbol  manufacturer's  code, 
and  that  retreaded  tires  be  marked  with  a  three- 
symbol  manufacturer's  code.  The  manufactur- 
er's code  is  the  first  grouping  within  the  tire 
identification  number  (after  the  symbol  "DOT" 
or  "R"  where  required). 

Under  Part  574  a  separate  code  number  is 
assigned  to  each  manufacturer's  plant.  Table  1 
of  the  notice  lists  the  code  numbers  assigned  and 
the  manufacturer  that  received  each  code  num- 
ber.     Table   2    lists    the   same   information   by 


manufacturer.  Codes  assigned  to  retreaders  will 
be  available  for  inspection  in  the  Docket  Section, 
Room  5217,  400  Seventh  Street  SW.,  Washington, 
D.C.  20590. 

The  codes  assigned  to  new-tire  manufacturers 
replace  the  three-digit  code  numbers  required  on 
new  brand-name  passenger  car  tires  manufac- 
tured prior  to  May  22,  1971,  under  Standard  No. 
109.  (The  list  of  numbers  assigned  under 
Standard  No.  109  was  published  in  the  Federal 
Register  of  July  2,  1968,  34  F.R.  11158.) 

Issued  on  April  14, 1971. 

Rodolfo  A.  Diaz, 

Acting  Associate  Administrator, 

Motor  Vehicle  Programs. 

36  F.R.  7539 
April  21,  1971 


PART  574;  (TIRE  CODE)— PRE  1-2 


231-088   O  -  77  -  74 


PREAMBLE  TO  TIRE  SIZE  CODES 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  publish  an 
updated  list  of  tire  size  codes  assigned  by  the 
National  Highway  Traffic  Safety  Administration 
in  accordance  with  the  Tire  Identification  and 
Record  Keeping  regulation,  49  CFR  Part  574 
(36F.R.  1196). 

The  Tire  Identification  and  Record  Keeping 
regulation  requires  that  a  tire  identification  num- 
ber be  placed  on  new  and  retreaded  tires,  and 
that  the  second  grouping  of  the  number  be  a 
code  that  identifies  the  tire  size  or,  in  the  case 
of  a  retreaded  tire,  the  tire  matrix.  New  tire 
manufacturers  have  up  to  now  been  required  to 
use  a  specific  tire  size  code  assigned  to  the  tire 
size  by  the  NHTSA.  Because  of  the  number  of 
new  tire  sizes  being  introduced  into  the  market, 
the  possible  combinations  of  letters  and  numbers 
have  been  virtually  exhausted. 

In  order  to  accommodate  new  tire  sizes,  the 
regulation  is  being  amended  by  notice  published 
elsewhere  in  this  issue  (37  F.R.  23727),  to  allow 
each  tire  manufacturer  to  assign  a  two-symbol 


size  code  of  his  own  choice,  rather  than  having 
the  number  assigned  by  the  agency.  However, 
it  is  urged  that  manufacturers  maintain  the  as- 
signed tire  size  code  for  existing  tire  sizes,  and 
that  they  reuse  obsolete  tire  size  codes  for  new 
sizes  wherever  possible. 

For  convenience  of  reference,  an  updated  list 
of  the  tire  size  codes  assigned  by  the  NHTSA  is 
published  below  for  the  information  and  guid- 
ance of  tire  manufacturers. 

This  notice  is  issued  under  the  authority  of 
sections  103,  113,  119,  201  and  1402,  1407,  1421 
and  1426;  and  the  delegations  of  authority  at 
49  CFR  1.51  and  49  CFR  501.8. 

Issued  on  October  26,  1972. 

Robert  L.  Carter 
Associate  Administrator 
Motor  Vehicle  Programs 

38  F.R.  23742 
Novembers,  1972 


PART  574;   (TIRE  CODE)— PRE  3-4 


e 


TABLE   1.     LIST  OF  ALPHA-NUMERIC  CODE  ASSIGNMENTS  TO  NEW  TIRE  MANUFACTURERS 
(Based   on   the   following   Alpha-numeric   code  with  letters:  ABCDEFHJKLMNPTUVWXY 

and  Nos.   123456789) 


Code  No.  New  Tire  Manufacturers 

AA The  General  Tire  Co. 

AB The  General  Tire  Co. 

AC The  General  Tire  Co. 

AD -  The  General  Tire  Co. 

AE The  General  Tire  Co.  (Spain). 

AF The  General  Tire  Co.  (Portugal). 

AH The  General  Tire  Co.  (Mexico). 

AJ Uniroyal,  Inc. 

AK Uniroyal,  Inc. 

AL Uniroyal,  Inc. 

AM Uniroyal,  Inc. 

AN Uniroyal,  Inc. 

AP Uniroyal,  Inc. 

AT Avon  Rubber  Co.  (England). 

AU Uniroyal,  Ltd.  (Canada). 

AV The  Sieberline  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

AW Samaon  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.,  Ltd.  (Israel). 

AX Phoenix  Gummiwerke  A.G.  (Germany). 

AY Phoenix  Gummiwerke  A.G.  (Germany). 

BA The  B.  F.  Goodrich  Co. 

BB The  B.  F.  Goodrich  Co. 

BC The  B.  F.  Goodrich  Co. 

BD The  B.  F.  Goodrich  Co. 

BE The  B.  F.  Goodrich  Co. 

BF The  B.  F.  Goodrich  Co. 

BH The  B.  F.  Goodrich  Co.  (Canada). 

BJ -  The  B.  F.  Goodrich  Co.  (Germany). 

BK The  B.  F.  Goodrich  Co.  (Brazil). 

BL -  The  B.  F.  Goodrich  Co.  (Colombia). 

BM The  B.  F.  Goodrich  Co.  (Australia). 

BN The  B.  F.  Goodrich  Co.  (PhUipines). 

BP The  B.  F.  Goodrich  Co.  (Iran). 

BT Semperit  Gummiwerke  A.G.  (Austria). 

BU Semperit  Gummiwerke  A.G.  (Ireland). 

BV I RI  International  Rubber  Co. 

BW The  Gates  Rubber  Co. 

BX The  Gates  Rubber  Co. 

BY The  Gates  Rubber  Co. 

CA The  Mohawk  Rubber  Co. 

CB The  Mohawk  Rubber  Co. 

CC The  Mohawk  Rubber  Co. 

CD Alliance  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.,  Ltd.  (Israel). 

CE The  Armstrong  Rubber  Co. 

CF The  Armstrong  Rubber  Co. 

CH The  Armstrong  Rubber  Co. 

CJ Inoue  Rubber  Co.,  Ltd.  (Japan). 

CK. Not  assigned. 

CL Not  assigned. 

CM Continental  Gummiwerke  A.G.  (Germany). 

CN Continental  Gummiwerke  A.G.  (France). 

CP Continental  Gummiwerke  A.G.  (Germany). 

CT- Continental  Gummiwerke  A.G.  (Germany). 

CU Continental  Gummiwerke  A.G.  (Germany). 

CV The  Armstrong  Rubber  Co. 

CW The  Toyo  Rubber  Industry  Co.,  Ltd.  (Japan). 

CX The  Toyo  Rubber  Industry  Co.,  Ltd.  (Japan). 

CY -   McCreary  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

DA The  Dunlop  Tire  &  Rubber  Corp. 

DB The  Dunlop  Tire  &  Rubber  Corp. 

DC The  Dunlop  Tire  &  Rubber  Corp.  (Canada). 

DD The  Dunlop  Tire  &  Rubber  Corp.  (England). 

DE The  Dunlop  Tire  &  Rubber  Corp.  (England). 

DF The  Dunlop  Tire  &  Rubber  Corp.  (England). 

DH The  Dunlop  Tire  &  Rubber  Corp.  (Scotland). 

DJ The  Dunlop  Tire  &  Rabber  Corp.  (Ireland). 

DK The  Dunlop  Tire  &  Rubber  Corp.  (France). 

DL The  Dunlop  Tire  &  Rubber  Corp.  (France). 

DM The  Dunlop  Tire  &  Rubber  Corp.  (Germany). 

DN The  Dunlop  Tire  &  Rubber  Corp.  (Germany). 


Code  No.  New  Tire  Manufacturers 

DP The  Dunlop  Tire  &  Rubber  Corp.  (England). 

DT The  Dunlop  Tire  &  Rubber  Corp.  (Australia). 

DU The  Dunlop  Tire  &  Rubber  Corp.  (Australia). 

DV Vredestein  (The  Netherlands). 

DW Vredestein  (The  Netherlands). 

DX Vredestein  Radium  (The  Netherlands). 

DY Denman  Rubber  Manufacturing  Co. 

EA Metzeler  A.G.  (Germany). 

EB Metzeler  A.G.  (Germany). 

EC Metzeler  A.G.  (Germany). 

ED Okamoto  Riken  Gomu  Co.,  Ltd.  (Japan). 

EE Nitto  Tire  Co.,  Ltd.  (Japan). 

EF Hung  Ah  Tire  Co.,  Ltd.  (Korea). 

EH Bridgestone  Tire  Co.,  Ltd.  (Japan). 

EJ Bridgestone  Tire  Co.,  Ltd.  (Japan). 

EK Bridgestone  Tire  Co.,  Ltd.  (Japan). 

EL Bridgestone  Tire  Co.,  Ltd.  (Japa«). 

EM Bridgestone  Tire  Co.,  Ltd.  (Japan). 

EN Bridgestone  Tire  Co.,  Ltd.  (Japan). 

EP Bridgestone  Tire  Co.,  Ltd.  (Japan). 

ET Sumitomo  Rubber  Industries,  Ltd.  (Japan). 

EU Sumitomo  Rubber  Industries,  Ltd.  (Japan). 

EV Kleber-Colombes  Co.  (France). 

E W Kleber-Colombes  Co.  (France) . 

EX Kleber-Colombes  Co.  (France). 

EY Kleber-Colombes  Co.  (France). 

FA The  Yokohama  Rubber  Co.,  Ltd.  (Japan). 

FB The  Yokohama  Rubber  Co.,  Ltd.  (Japan). 

FC The  Yokohama  Rubber  Co.,  Ltd.  (Japan). 

FD The  Yokohama  Rubber  Co.,  Ltd.  (Japan). 

FE The  Yokohama  Rubber  Co.,  Ltd.  (Japan). 

FF Michelin  Tire  Corp.  (France). 

FH Michelin  Tire  Corp.  (France). 

FJ Michelin  Tire  Corp.  (France). 

FK ..   Michelin  Tire  Corp.  (France). 

FL Michelin  Tire  Corp.  (France). 

FM Michelin  Tire  Corp.  (France). 

FN Michelin  Tire  Corp.  (France). 

FP Michelin  Tire  Corp.  (Algeria). 

FT Michelin  Tire  Corp.  (Germany). 

FU Michelin  Tire  Corp.  (Germany). 

FV Michelin  Tire  Corp.  (Germany). 

FW Michelin  Tire  Corp.  (Germany). 

FX -  Michelin  Tire  Corp.  (Belgium). 

FY Michelin  Tire  Corp.  (The  Netherlands). 

HA -  Michelin  Tire  Corp.  (Spain). 

HB Michelin  Tire  Corp.  (Spain). 

HC Michelin  Tire  Corp.  (Spain). 

HD Michelin  Tire  Corp.  (Italy). 

HE Michelin  Tire  Corp.  (Italy). 

HF Michelin  Tire  Corp.  (Italy). 

HH Michelin  Tire  Corp.  (Italy). 

HJ Michelin  Tire  Corp.  (United  Kingdom). 

HK Michelin  Tire  Corp.  (United  Kingdom). 

HL Michelin  Tire  Corp.  (United  Kingdom). 

HM., Michelin  Tire  Corp.  (United  Kingdom). 

HN Michelin  Tire  Corp.  (Canada). 

HP Michelin  Tire  Corp.  (South  Vietnam). 

HT CEAT  (Italy). 

HU CEAT  (Italy). 

HV CEAT  (Italy). 

HW Withdrawn. 

HX The  Dayton  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

H  Y The  Dayton  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

J  A The  Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

JB The  Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

JC The  Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

JD The  Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 


PART  674;  (TIRE  CODE)— 1 


Code  No. 

JE 

JF 

JH 

JJ 

JK 

JL 

JM 

JN 

JP- 

JT 

JU 

JV 

JW 

JX 

JY 

KA 

KB 

KC 

KD 

KE 

KF 

KH 

KJ 

KK 

KL 

KM 

KN 

KP 

KT 

KU 

KV 

KW 

KX 

KY 

LA 

LB 

LC 

LD 

LE 

LF 

LH 

LJ 

LK 

LL 

LM 

LN 

LP 

LT 

LU 

LV 


LW-. 
LX-. 
LY.. 

MA.. 

MB.. 

MC. 

MD.. 

ME.. 

MF.. 

MH. 

MJ.. 

MK. 

ML-. 

MM- 

MN. 

MP. 

MT. 

MU. 

MV. 

MW. 

MX. 

MY. 


New  Tire  Manufacturers 

The  Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

The  Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

The  Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

The  Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

The  Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

The  Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

The  Lee  T're  &  Rubber  Co. 

The  Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

The  Lee  Tir?  "-  R>ihb°'  Co. 

The  Lee  Tir    &  Rubber  Co. 

The  Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Canada). 

The  Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Canada). 

The  Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Canada). 

Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Canada). 

Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Argentina). 

Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Australia). 

Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Australia). 

Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Brazil). 

Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Columbia). 

Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Republic  of  Congo). 

Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (France). 

Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Germany). 

Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Germany). 

Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Greece). 

Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Guatemala). 

Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Luxembourg). 

Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (India). 

Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Indonesia). 

Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Italy). 

Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Jamaica). 

Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Mexico). 

Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Peru). 

Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Philippines). 

Lee  Tire  &  Rufber  Co.  (Scotland). 

Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (South  Africa). 

Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Sweden). 

Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Thailand). 

Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Turkey.) 

Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Venezuela.) 

Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (England). 

Uniroyal,  Inc.  (Australia). 

Uniroyal,  Inc.  (Belgium). 

Uniroyal,  Inc.  (Colombia). 

Uniroyal,  Inc.  (France). 

Uniroyal,  Inc.  (Germany). 

Uniroyal,  Inc.  (Mexico). 

Uniroyal,  Inc.  (Scotland). 

Uniroyal,  Inc.  (Turkey). 

Uniroyal,  Inc.  (Venezuela). 

Mansfield-Denman-General  Co.,  Ltd. 
(Canada). 

Trelleborg  Rubber  Co.,  Inc.  (Sweden). 

Mitsuboshi  Belting,  Ltd.  (Japan). 

Miisuboshi  Belting,  Ltd.  (Japan). 

The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

The  Goodvear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Argentina) 

The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.,  (Australia) 

The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Australia). 
.   The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Brazil). 
.  The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Colombia). 


Code  No. 

NA 


New  Tire  Manufacturers 


.  The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Republic 
of  Congo). 

NB The  Goodvear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (England) 

NC The   Goodyear  Tire  &   Rubber  Co.   (France) 

ND The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Germany) 

NE The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Germany). 

NF  The   Goodyear  Tire  &   Rubber  Co.   (Greece). 

NH The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

NJ The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Luxem- 
bourg). 

NK The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (India). 

NL  -   The  Goodyear  Tire  <fe  Rubber  Co.  (Indonesia). 

NM The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Italy). 

NN The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Jamaica). 

NP     The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Mexico). 

NT The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Peru). 

NU The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co  (Philippines). 

NV  .   The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Scotland). 

NW The    Goodyear    Tire   &    Rubber    Co.    (South 

Africa). 

NX The  Goodyear  Tire  &   Rubber  Co.   (Sweden) 

NY The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Thailand) 


■6 


PA 
PB. 
PC 
PD 
PE 
PF. 
PH 


The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Turkey). 
The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Venezuela). 
The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Canada). 
The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Canada). 
The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Canada). 
The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.   (Canada). 


The  Kelly: Springfield  Tire  Co. 

PJ The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

PK The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

PL The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

PM The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

PN The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

PP The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

PT The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

PU The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

PV The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

PW The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

PX The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

PY The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

TA The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

TB The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

TC The  KcUy-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

TD The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

TE The  Kellv-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

TF The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

TH The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

Congo). 

TJ The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

TK The  Kellv-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

TL The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

TM The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

TN The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

TP The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

TT The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

TU The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

TV The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

TW The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

TX The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

TY The  Kellv-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

UA The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

UB The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

UC The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

UD The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

UE The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

UF The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

UH The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

UJ The  Kellv-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

UK The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co., 

UL The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

UM The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

UN The  Kellv-Springfield  Tire  Co. 

UP Copper  fire&  Rubber  Co. 


Argentina). 

Australia). 

Australia). 

Brazil). 

Colombia). 

(Republic  of 

England). 

France). 

Germany). 

Germany). 

Greece). 

Guatemala). 

Luxembourg). 

India). 

Indonesia). 

Italy). 

Jamaica). 

Mexico). 

Peru). 

Philippines). 

Scotland). 

South  Africa). 

Sweden). 

Thailand). 

Turkey). 

Venezuela). 

(Canada). 

Canada). 

Canada). 

Canada). 


PAKT  574;   (TIRE  CODE)— 2 


Code  No.  New  Tire  Manufacturers 

UT Copper  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

UU Carlisle  Tire  &  Rubber  Division  of  Carlisle 

Corp. 

UV Kyowa  Rubber  Industry  Co.,  Ltd.  (Japan). 

UW Not  assigned. 

UX Not  assigned. 

UY Not  assigned. 

VA The  Firestone  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

VB The  Firestone  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

VC The  Firestone  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

VD The  Firestone  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

VE The  Firestone  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

VF The  Firestone  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

VH The  Firestone  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

VJ The  Firestone  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

VK The  Firestone  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

VL The  Firestone  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Canada). 

VM The  Firestone  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Canada). 

VN The  Firestone  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Canada). 

VP The  Firestone  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Italy). 

VT The  Firestone  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Spain). 

VU Withdrawn. 

W The  Firestone  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Sweden). 

VW The  Firestone  Tire  &  Rubber  Co    (Japan). 

VX The  Firestone  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (England). 

VY The  Firestone  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Wales). 

WA The  Firestone  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (France). 

WB The  Firestone  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Costa  Rica). 

WC The  Firestone  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Australia). 

WD The  Firestone  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 

(Switzerland). 


Code  No.  New  Tire  Manufacturers 

WE Withdrawn. 

WF The    Firestone    Tire   &    Rubber    Co.    (Spain). 

WH The  Firestone  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  (Sweden). 

WJ The  Firestone  Tire  &  Riibber  Co.  (Australia). 

WK Pennsylvania    Tire    &    Rubber    Company 

of  Mississippi. 

WL The  Mansfield  Tire  &   Rubber  Co. 

WM Olympic  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  Pty.,  Ltd. 

(Australia). 

WN Olympic  Tire  &  Rubber  Co    Pty.,  Ltd. 

(Australia). 

WP Schenuit  Industries,  Inc. 

WT Madras  Rubber  Factory,  Ltd.  (India). 

WU Not  Assigned. 

WV Not  Assigned. 

WW Not  Assigned. 

WX Not  Assigned. 

WY Not  Assigned. 

XA Pirelli  Tire  Corp.  (Italy). 

XB Pirelli  Tire  Corp.  (Italy). 

XC Pirelli  Tire  Corp.  (Italy). 

XD-.  ...  Pirelli  Tire  Corp.  (Italy). 

XE Pirelli  Tire  Corp.  (Italy). 

XF Pirelli  Tire  Corp.  (Spain). 

XH Pirelli  Tire  Corp.  (Greece). 

XJ Pirelli  Tire  Corp.  (Turkey). 

XK Pirelli  Tire  Corp.  (Brazil). 

XL Pirelli  Tire  Corp.  (Brazil). 

XM Pirelli  Tire  Corp.  (Argentina). 

XN Pirelli  Tire  Corp.  (England). 

XP Pirelli  Tire  Corp.  (England). 

XT Veith-Pirelli  A.G.  (Germany). 


PART  574;   (TIRE  CODE)— 3 


TABLE   2.      LIST     OF     NEW     TIRE     MANUFACTURERS     AND     CORRESPONDING 
IDENTIFICATION   CODE  MARKS 
(Based    on   the   following   Alpha-numeric   code   with    letters: 
ABCDEFHJKLMNPTZVWXY   and   Nos.    123456789) 


Manufacturer  Identification  code 

Alliance    Tire   &    Rubber    Co.,     CD. 
Ltd. 

The  Armstrong  Rubber  Co CE,  CF,  CH,  CV. 

Avon  Rubber  Co AT. 

Bridgestone  Tire  Co.,  Ltd EH,  EJ,  EK,  EL,  EM, 

EN.EP. 

Carlisle  Tire  &  Rubber  Division     UU. 
of  Carlisle  Corp. 

Ceat HT,  HU,  HV. 

Continental  A.G CM,  CN,  CP,  CT,  CU. 

Copper  Tire  &  Rubber  Co UP,  UT. 

The  Dayton  Tire  &  Rubber  Co_   HX,  HY. 

Denman  Rubber  Manufacturing    DY. 
Co. 

The  Dunlap  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.   DA,  DB,  DC,  DD,  DE. 

DF,    DH,   DJ,   DK, 
DL,    DM,    DN,    DP, 
DU. 

The  Firestone  Tire  &  Rubber  Co    VA,  VB,  VC,  VD,  VE, 

VF,  VH,  VJ,  VK, 
VL,  VM,  VN,  VP, 
VT,  VV,  VW,  VX, 
VY,  WA,  WB,  WC, 
WD,   WF,   WH,   WJ. 

The  Gates  Rubber  Co 

The  General  Tire  &  Rubber  Co_ 

The  B.  F.  Goodrich  Co 


Manufacturer 
The  Lee  Tire  &  Rubber  Co_ 


The  Goodyear  Tire  &   Rubber 
Co. 


Hung  Ah  Tire  Co.,  Ltd 

IRI  International  BV.  Rubber 
Co. 

Inoue  Rubber  Co.,  CJ.  Ltd 

The  Kelly-Springfield  Tire  Co.. 


Kleber-Colombes  Co 

Kyowa  Rubber  Ind.  Co.,  Ltd. 


BW,BX,BY 

AA,  AB,  AC,   AD 

1,  AE 

AF,  AH. 

BA,  BB,  BC 

,  BD, 

,  BE, 

BF,     BH, 

B.I, 

BK, 

BL,     BM, 

BN, 

BP. 

MA,     MB, 

MC, 

MD. 

ME,    MF, 

MH, 

M.I, 

MK,  ML, 

MM, 

MN, 

MP,   MT, 

MU, 

MV, 

MW,  MX, 

MY, 

NA, 

NB,    NC, 

ND, 

NE, 

NF,    NH, 

NJ, 

NK, 

NL,    NM, 

NN, 

NP, 

NT,    NU, 

NV, 

NW, 

NX,    NY, 

PA, 

PR, 

PC,    PD,   PE 

EF 

;,  PF 

BV 

CJ 

PH,  PJ,  PK 

,   PL, 

PM, 

PN,     PP, 

PT, 

PU, 

PV,    PW, 

PX, 

PY, 

TA,    TB, 

TC, 

TD, 

TE,     TF, 

TH, 

TJ, 

TK,    TL, 

TM, 

TN, 

TP,     TT, 

TU, 

TV, 

TW,    TX, 

TY, 

UA, 

UB,    UC, 

UD, 

UE, 

UF,    UH, 

U.I, 

UK, 

UL,    UM, 

UN. 

EV,  EW,  EX 

,  EY. 

Madras  Rubber  Factory,  Ltd.. 
The   Mansfield  Tire  &   Rubber 

Co. 
Mansfield-Deman-General  Co., 

Ltd. 
McCreary  Tire  &  Rubber  Co_. 

Metzeler  A.G 

Michelin  Tire  Corp 


Identification  code 

JA,  JB,  JC,  JD,  JE, 
JF,  JH,  JJ,  JK,  JL, 
JM,  JN,  JP,  JT,  JU, 
JV,  JW,  JX,  JY, 
KA,  KB,  KG,  KD, 
KE,  KF,  KH,  KJ, 
KK,  KL,  KM,  KN, 
KP,  KT,  KU,  KV, 
KW,  KX,  KY,  LA, 
LB,  LC,  LD,  LE,  LF. 

WT. 

WL. 

LV. 

CY. 

EA,EB,EC. 
FF,  FH,  FJ,  FK,  FL, 
FM,  FN,  FP,  FT, 
FU,  FV,  FW,  FX, 
FY,  HA,  HB,  HC, 
HD,  HE,  HF,  HH. 
HJ,  HK,  HL,  HM, 
HN,  HP. 

Mitsuboshi  Belting,  Ltd LX,  L  Y. 

The  Mohawk  Rubber  Co_ CA,  CB.,  CC 

Nitto  Tire  Co.,  Ltd _   EE. 

Olcamoto     Riken     Gumo     Co.,     ED. 
Ltd. 

Olympic    Tire    &    Rubber    Co.     WM,  WN. 
Pty.,  Ltd. 

Pennsylvania    Tire    &    Rubber     WK. 
Company  of  Mississippi. 

Phoenix  Gummiwerke  A.G AX  AY. 

Pirelli  Tire  Corp XA,  XB,  XC,  XD,  XE 

XF,    XH,    XJ,    XK, 
XL,  XM,    XN,    XP. 
Samson    Tire    &    Rubber    Co.,     AW. 
Ltd. 

Schenuit  Industries,  Inc.. WP. 

The  Seiberling  Tire  &   Rubber     AV. 
Co. 

Semperit  Gummiwerke  A.G BT,BU. 

Sumitomo  Rubber  Industries...   ET.  EU. 

The  Toyo  Rubber  Industry  Co.,     CW,  CX. 
Ltd. 

Trelleborg  Rubber  Co LW. 

Uniroyal  Inc AJ,  AK,  AL,  AM,  AN, 

AP,  AU,  LH,  LJ, 
LK,  LL,  LM,  LN, 
LP,    LT,    LU. 

Veith-Pirelli  A.G XT. 

Vredestein DV,  DW. 

Vredestein-Radium DX. 

The    Yokohama    Rubber    Co.,     FA,   FB,   FC,   FD,   FE. 
Ltd. 


PART  574;   (TIRE  CODE) 


TABLE  3.     TIRE  SIZE   CODES 


Tire  Size  Tire  Size 

Code  Designation' 

AA 4.00-^ 

AB 3.50-4 

AC 3.00-5 

AD 4.0O-5 

AE 3.50-5 

AF 6.90-6 

AH 3.00-8 

AJ 3.50-6 

AK 4.10-6 

AL 4.50-6 

AM 5.30-6 

AN 6.00-6 

AP 3.25-8 

AT 3.50-8 

AIT 3.00-7 

AV 4.00-7 

AW 4.80-7 

AX 5.30-7 

AY 5.00-8 

Al H60-14 

A2 4.00-8 

A3 4.80-8 

A4 5.70-8 

A5 16.5X6.5-8 

A6 18.5X8.5-8 

A7 CR70-14 

A8 2.75-9 

A9 4.80-9 

BA 6.00-9 

BB 6.90-9 

BO 3.50-9 

BD 4.00-10 

BE 3.00-10 

BF 3.50-10 

BH 5.20-10 

BJ 5.20  RIO 

BK 5.9-10 

BL 5.90-10 

BM 6.50-10 

BN 7.00-10 

BP 7.50-10 

BT 9.00-10 

BU 20.5X8.0-10 

BV 145-10 

BW 145  RIO 

BX 145-10/5.95-10 

BY 4.50-10  LT' 

Bl 5.00-10  LT 

B2 3.00-12 

B3 4.00-12 

B4 4.50-12 

B5 4.80-12 

B6 5.00-12 


Tire  Size 

Tire  Size 

Code 

Designation' 

B7 

_-   5.00  R  12 

B8 

_-    5.20-12 

B9 

._    5.20-12  LT 

CA 

...  5.20  R 12 

CB 

.—  5.30-12 

CC 

.-_  5.50-12 

CD 

—  5.50-12  LT 

CE 

.__  5.50  R  12 

CF 

._-  5.60-12 

CH 

—  5.60-12  LT 

CJ 

.-.  5.60  R  12 

CK 

—  5.9-12 

CL 

..-   5.90-12 

CM 

___  6.00-12 

CN 

—  6.00-12  LT 

CP 

.__   6.2-12 

CT 

.—   6.20-12 

CU 

—  6.90-12 

CV 

—  23.5X8.5-12 

CW 

—  125-12 

CX 

—  125  R  12 

CY 

—  125-12/5.35-12 

CI 

—  135-12 

C2 

—  135  R  12 

C3 

—  135-12/5.65-12 

C4 

—  145-12 

C5 

__.  145  R  12 

C6 

—  145-12/5.95-12 

C7 

—  155-12 

C8 

155  R  12 

C9 

—  155-12/6.15-12 

DA 

_—  4.80-10 

DB 

-__  3.25-12 

DC 

—  3.50-12 

DD 

—  4.50-12  LT 

DE 

5.00-12  LT 

DF 

__-  7.00-12 

DH 

—  5.00-13 

DJ 

—   5.00-13  LT 

DK 

5.00  R  13 

DL 

_—  5.20-13 

DM 

— .  5.20  R 13 

DN 

—  5.50-13 

DP 

—  5.50-13  LT 

DT 

—  5.50  R 13 

DU 

—  5.60-13 

DV 

—  5.60-13  LT 

DW 

.-   5.60  R  13 

DX 

—  5.90-13 

DY 

—  5.90-13  LT 

Dl 

— .  5.90  R  13 

D2 

— .  6.00-13 

D3 

—   6.00-13  LT 

Tire  Size 

Tire  Size 

Code 

Designation' 

D4 

__   6.00 R  13 

D5 

-_   6.2-13 

D6 

.-   6.20-13 

D7 

.—   6.40-13 

D8 

._-   6.40-13  LT 

D9 

—   6.40  R  13 

EA 

6.50-13 

EB 

—  6.50-13  LT 

EC 

.__  6.50-13  ST 

ED 

6..50  R  13 

EE 

6.70-13 

EF 

—  6.70-13  LT 

EH 

—  6.70  R  13 

EJ 

— .  6.9-13 

EK 

6.90-13 

EL 

—   7.00-13 

EM 

—  7.00-13  LT 

EN 

—  7.00  R  13 

EP 

_—   7.25-13 

ET 

7.25  R  13 

EU 

—  7.50-13 

EV 

—   135-13 

EW 

.—  135  R  13 

EX 

—  135-13/5.65-13 

EY 

—   145-13 

El 

.—  145  R  13 

E2 

—  145-13/5.95-13 

E3 

—  150  R  13 

E4 

.-.  155-13 

E5 

.—  155  R  13 

E6 

— .  155-13/6.15-13 

E7 

.— .  160  R  13 

E8 

....  165-13 

E9 

._-.  165  R  13 

FA 

__-   165-13/6.45-13 

FB 

—   165/70  R  13 

FC 

-__    170  R  13 

FD 

_-   175-13 

FE 

.__    175  R  13 

FF 

—   175-13/6.95-13 

FH 

—  175/70  R  13 

FJ 

.-_.  185-13 

FK 

._  185  R  13 

FL 

—   185-13/7.35-13 

FM 

-__  185/70  R  13 

FN 

_—  195-13 

FP 

195  R  13 

FT 

—   195/70  R  13 

FU 

—   D70-13 

FV 

—   B78-13 

FW 

_-.  BR78-13 

FX 

—  C78-13 

FY 

_-   7.50-12 

'  The  letters  "H",  "S",  and  "V"  may  be  included  in  the  tire  size  designation  adjacent  to  or  in  place  of  a  dash 
without  affecting  the  size  code  for  the  designation. 

'As  used  in  this  table  the  letters  at  the  end  of  the  tire  size  indicate  the  following:  LT — Light  Truck,  ML — 
Mining  &   Logging,  MH— Mobile  Home,   ST— Special  Trailer. 


PART  574;   (TIRE  CODE)— 5 


TABLE  3.     TIRE   SIZE   CODES— Continued 


Tire  Size 

Tire  Size 

Code 

Designation' 

Fl 

.  140  R  12 

F2 

.  6.5-13 

F3 

.  185/60  R  13 

F4 

.  A70-13 

F5 

A78-13 

F6 

CR78-13 

F7 

.  2.25-14 

F8 

.  2.75-14 

F9 

.  3.00-14 

HA 

-  6.70-14  LT 

HB 

165-14  LT 

HO 

.  2.50-14 

HD 

.  5.00-14  LT 

HE 

.  5.20-14 

HF 

5.20  R  14 

HH 

5.50-14  LT 

HJ 

5.60-14 

HK 

5.90-14 

HL 

5.90-14  LT 

HM 

-  5.90  R  14 

HN 

.  6.00-14 

HP 

6.00-14  LT 

HT 

6.40-14 

HU 

.  6.40-14  LT 

HV 

6.45-14 

HW 

6.50-14 

HX 

6.50-14  LT 

HY 

6.70-14 

HI 

6.95-14 

H2 

7.00-14 

H3 

7.00-14  LT 

H4 

7.00  R  14 

H5 

7.35-14 

H6 

7.50-14 

H7 

7.50-14  LT 

H8 

7.50  R  14 

H9 

7.75-14 

JA 

7.75-14  ST 

JB 

8.00^14 

JC 

8.25-14 

JD 

8.50-14 

JE 

8.55-14 

JF 

8.85-14 

JH 

9.00-14 

JJ 

9.50-14 

JK 

135-14 

JL 

135  R  14 

JM 

135-14/5.65-14 

JN 

145-14 

JP 

145  R 14 

JT 

145-14/5.95-14 

JU 

.  155-14 

JV 

.  155  R  14 

JW 

155-14/6.15-14 

JX 

155/70  R  14 

JY 

165-14 

Jl 

-  165  R  14 

J2 

-  175-14 

Tire  Size 
Code 


Tire  Size 
Designation' 


J3 175  R  14 

J4 185-14 

J5 185  R  14 

J6 185/70  R  14 

J7 195-14 

J8 195  R  14 

J9 195/70  R  14 

KA 205-14 

KB 205  R  14 

KG 215-14 

KD 215  R  14 

KB 225-14 

KP 225  R  14 

KH 620  R 14 

KJ 690  R 14 

KK AR78-13 

KL 195-14  LT 

KM 185-14  LT 

KN A80-22.5 

KP B80-22.5 

KT C80-22.5 

KU D80-22.5 

KV E80-22.5 

KW F60-14 

KX G60-14 

KY J60-14 

Kl L60-14 

K2 F80-22.5 

K3 G80-22.5 

K4 H80-22.5 

K5 J80-22.5 

K6 A80-24.5 

K7 B80-24.5 

K8 BR78-14 

K9 D70-14 

LA DR70-14 

LB B70-14 

LO BR70-14 

LD F70-14 

LE FR70-14 

LF G70-14 

LH GR70-14 

LJ H70-14 

LK HR70-14 

LL J70-14 

LM JR70-14 

LN L70-14 

LP LR70-14 

LT C80-24.5 

LU D80-24.5 

LV E80-24.5 

LW F80-24.5 

LX G77-14 

LY B78-14 

LI C78-14 

L2 CR78-14 

L3 D78-14 

L4 DR78-14 


Tire  Size  Tire  Size 

Code  Designation' 

L5 B78-14 

L6 ER78-14 

L7 F78-14 

L8 FR78-14 

L9 G78-14 

MA GR78-14 

MB H78-14 

MC HR78-14 

MD J78-14 

ME .IR78-14 

MF 205-14  LT 

MH G80-24.5 

MJ H80-24.5 

MK 7-14.5 

ML 8-14.5 

MM 9-14.5 

MN 6.60  R  15 

MP 2.00-15 

MT 2.25-15 

MU 2.50-15 

MV 3.00-15 

MW 3.25-15 

MX 5.0-15 

MY 5.20-15 

Ml 5.5-15 

M2 5.50-15  L 

M3 5.50-15  LT 

M4 5.60-15 

M5 5.60  R  15 

M6 5.90-15 

M7 5.90-15  LT 

M8 6.00-15 

M9 6.0O-15L 

NA 6.00-15  LT 

NB 6.2-15 

NC 6.40-15 

ND 6.40-15  LT 

NE 6.40  R  15 

NF 6.50-15 

NH 6.50-15  L 

NJ 6.50-15  LT 

NK 6.70-15 

NL 6.70-15  LT 

NM 6.70  R  15 

NN 6.85-15 

NP 6.9-15 

NT 7.00-15 

NU 7.00-15  L 

NV 7.0O-15LT 

NW 7.10-15 

NX 7.10-15  LT 

NY 7.35-15 

Nl 7.50-15 

N2 7.60-15 

N3 7.60  R  15 

N4 7.75-15 

N5 7.75-15  ST 

N6 8.0O-15 


PART  574;   (TIRE  CODE)— 6 


TABLE  3.     TIRE  SIZE  CODES— ConHnued 


Tire  Size  Tire  Size 

Code  Designation' 

N7 8.15-15 

N8 8.20-15 

N9 8.25-15 

PA 8.25-15  LT 

PB 8.45-15 

PC 8.55-15 

PD 8.85-15 

PE 8.90-15 

PF 9.00-15 

PH 9.00-15  LT 

PJ 9.15-15 

PK 10-15 

PL 10.00-15 

PM 7.50-15  LT 

PN 7.00-15  TR 

PP 8.25-15  TR 

PT 9.00-15  TR 

PU 7.50-15  TB 

PV 125-15 

PW 125  R  15 

PX 125-15/5.35-15 

PY 135-15 

PI 135  R  15 

P2 135-15/5.65-15 

P3 145-15 

P4 145  R  15 

P5 145-15/5.95-15 

P6 155-15 

P7 155  R 15 

P8 155-15/6.35-15 

P9 165-15 

TA 165-15  LT 

TB 165  R  15 

TO 175-15 

TD 175  R  15 

TE 175-15/7.15-15 

TF 175/70  R  15 

TH 180-15 

TJ 185-15 

TK 185  R  15 

TL 185/70  R  15 

TM 195-15 

TN 195  R 15 

TP 205-15 

TT 205  R  15 

TU 215-15 

TV 215  R  15 

TW 225-15 

TX 225  R 15 

TY 235-15 

Tl 235  R  15 

T2 J80-24.5 

T3 ER60-15 

T4 D78-13 

T5 A78-15 

T6 DR70-13 

T7 HR60-15 

T8 E60-14 


Tire  Size  Tire  Size 

Code  Designation' 

T9 205/70  R  14 

UA 215/70  R  14 

UB H60-15 

UC E60-15 

UD F60-15 

UE FR60-15 

UF G60-15 

UH GR60-15 

UJ J60-15 

UK L60-15 

UL 4.60-15 

UM 2.75-15 

UN 2.50-9 

UP 2.50-10 

UT 5.00-9 

UU 6.7-10 

UV C70-15 

UW D7&-15 

UX DR7a-15 

UY E70-15 

Ul ER70-15 

■U2 F70-15 

U3 FR70-15 

U4 G70-15 

U5 GR70-15 

U6 H70-15 

U7 HR70-15 

U8 J70-15 

U9 JR70-15 

VA K70-15 

VB KR70-15 

VC L70-15 

VD LR70-15 

VE 17-400  TR 

VF 185-300  TR 

VH 185-300  LT 

VJ AR78-15 

VK BR78-15 

VL C78-15 

VM D7&-15 

VN E78-15 

VP ER78-15 

VT F78-15 

VU FR78-15 

VV G78-15 

VW GR78-15 

VX H78-15 

VY HR78-15 

VI J78-15 

V2 JR78-15 

V3 L78-15 

V4 LR78-15 

V5 N78-15 

V6 17-15  (17-380  LT) 

V7 17-400  LT 

V8 11-15 

V9 11-16 

WA L84-15 


Tire  Size  Tire  Size 

Code  Designation' 

WB 11.00-15 

WC 2.25-16 

WD 2.50-16 

WE 3.00-16 

WF 3.25-16 

WH 3.50-16 

WJ 5.00-16 

WK 5.10-16 

WL 5.50-16  LT 

WM 6.00-16 

WN 6.00-16  LT 

WP 6.50-16 

WT 6.50-16  LT 

WU 6.70-16 

WV 7.00-16 

WW 7.00-16  LT 

WX 7.50-16 

WY 7.50-16  LT 

Wl 8.25-16 

W2 9.00-16 

W3 10-16 

W4 8.25-16  LT 

W5 9.00-16  LT 

W6 11.00-16 

W7 19-400  C 

W8 165-400 

W9 235-16 

XA 185-16 

XB 19-400  LT 

XC G45C-16 

XD E50C-16 

XE F50C-16 

XF 7.00-16  TR 

XH 7.50-16  TR 

XJ 8.00-16.5 

XK 8.75-16.5 

XL 9.50-16.5 

XM 10-16.5 

XN 12-16.5 

XP 185  R  16 

XT 4.50-17 

XU 2.00-17 

XV 2.25-17 

XW 2.50-17 

XX 2.75-17 

XY 3.00-17 

XI 3.25-17 

X2 3.50-17 

X3 6.50-17 

X4 6.50-17  LT 

X5 7.00-17 

X6 7.50-17 

X7 8.25-17 

X8 7.50-17  LT 

X9 225/70  R  14 

YA G50C-17 

YB H50C-17 

YC 195/70  R 15 


PAKT  574;  (TIRE  CODE)— 7 


TABLE  3.     TIRE  SIZE   CODES— Continued 


Tire  Size  Tire  Size 

Code  Designation' 

YD 4.20-18 

YE 8-17.5  LT 

YF 11-17.5 

YH 7-17.5 

YJ 8-17.5 

YK 8.5-17.5 

YL 9.5-17.5 

YM 10-17.5 

YN 14-17.5 

YP 9-17.5 

YT 205/70  R 15 

YU 2.25-18 

YV 2.50-18 

YW 2.75-18 

YX 3.00-18 

YY 3.25-18 

Yl 3.50-18 

Y2 4.00-18 

Y3 4.50-18 

Y4 6.00-18 

Y5 7.00-18 

Y6 7.50-18 

Y7 8.25-18 

Y8 9.00-18 

Y9 10.00-18 

lA 11.00-18 

IB 6.00-18  LT 

IC 6.00-20  LT 

ID L50C-18 

IE 7.00-18  LT 

IF 12-19.5 

IH 2.00-19 

IJ 2.25-19 

IK 2.50-19 

IL 2.75-19 

IM 3.00-19 

IN 3.25-19 

IP 3.50-19 

IT 4.00-19 

lU 11.00-19 

IV 9.5-19.5 

IW 10-19.5 

IX 11-19.5 

lY 7-19.5 

11 7.5-19.5 

12 8-19.5 

13 9-19.5 

14 14-19.5 

15 15-19.5 

16 16.5-19.5 

17 18-19.5 

18 19.5-19.5 

19 6.00-20 

2A 6.50-20 

2B 7.00-20 

2C 7.50-20 

2D 8.25-20 

2E 8.5-20 


Tire  Size  Tire  Size 

Code  Designation' 

2F 9.0O-20 

2H 9.4-20 

2J 10.00-20 

2K 10.3-20 

2L 11.00-20 

2M 11.1-20 

2N 11.50-20 

2P 11.9-20 

2T 12.00-20 

2U 12.5-20 

2V 13.00-20 

2W 14.00-20 

2X 6.50-20  LT 

2y 7.00-20  LT 

21 13/80-20 

22 14/80-20 

23 2.75-21 

24 3.00-21 

25 2.50-21 

26 2.75-20 

27 10.00-22 

28 11.00-22 

29 11.1-22 

3A 11.9-22 

33 12.00-22 

3C 14.00-22 

3D 11.50-22 

3E 4.10-18 

3F 4.10-19 

3H 7-22.5 

3J 8-22.5 

3K 8.5-22.5 

3L 9-22.5 

3M 9.4-22.5 

3N 10-22.5 

3P 10.3-22.5 

3T 11-22.5 

3U 11.1-22.5 

3V 11.5-22.5 

3W 11.9-22.5 

3X 12-22.5 

3Y 12.5-22.5 

31 15-22.5 

32 16.5-22.5 

33 18-22.5 

34 215/70  R  15 

35 225/70  R  15 

36 185/60  R  13 

37 9.00-24 

38 10.00-24 

39 11.00-24 

4A 12.00-24 

43 14.00-24 

4C 3.50-7 

4D 3.00-4 

4E 12.5-24.5 

4F 11-24.5 

4H 12-24.5 


Tire  Size  Tire  Size 

Code  Designation' 

4J 13.5-24.5 

4K 7.00-20  ML 

4L 7.50-20  ML 

4M 8.25-20  ML 

4N 9.00-20  ML 

4P 10.00-20  ML 

4T 10.00-22  ML 

4U 10.00-24  ML 

4V 11.00-20  ML 

4W 11.00-22  ML 

4X 11.00-24  ML 

4y 11.00-25  ML 

41 12.00-20  ML 

42 12.00-21  ML 

43 12.00-24  ML 

44 12.00-25  ML 

45 13.00-20  ML 

46 13.00-24  ML 

47 13.00-25  ML 

48 14.00-20  ML 

49 14.00-21  ML 

5A 14.00-24  ML 

53 14.00-25  ML 

5C 10.3-20  ML 

5D 11.1-20  ML 

5E 12.5-20  ML 

5F 9-22.5  ML 

5H 9.4-22.5  ML 

5J 10-22.5  ML 

5K 10.3-22.5  ML 

5L 11-22.5  ML 

5M 11-24.5  ML 

5N 14-17.5  ML 

5P 15-19.5  ML 

5T 15-22.5  ML 

5U 16.5-19.5  ML 

5V 16.5-22.5  ML 

5W 18-19.5  ML 

5X 18-22.5  ML 

5Y 19.5-19.5  ML 

51 23-23.5  ML 

52 18-21  ML 

53 19.5-21  ML 

54 23-21  ML 

55 6.00-13  ST 

56 7.35-14  ST 

57 8.25-14  ST 

58 7.35-15  ST 

59 8.25-15  ST 

6A 12.00-22  ML 

63 4.30-18 

60 3.60-19 

6D 3.00-20 

6E 4.25-18 

6F MP90-18 

6H 3.75-19 

6J MM90-19 

6K 3.25-7 


PART  574;  (TIRE  CODE)— 8 


TABLE   3.     TIRE   SIZE   CODES— Continued 


Tire  Size  Tire  Size 

Code  Designation' 

6L 2.75-16 

6M_ 4.00-16 

6N 7-9 

6P 25X7.50-15 

6T 27X8.50-15 

6U 27X9.50-15 

6V 29X  12.00-15 

6W 31X  13.50-15 

6X 31X  15.50-15 

6Y C70-14 

61 Xot  Assigned 

62 Not  Assigned 

63 Xot  Assigned 

64 Xot  Assigned 

65 Xot  Assigned 

66 3.40-5 

67 4.10-4 

68 4.10-5 

69 175-14  LT 

7A 11-14 

7B E78-14LT 

7C G78-15LT 

7D H7S-15LT 

7E 180  R  15 

7F 185-16  LT 

7H 205-16  LT 

7J 215-16  LT 

7K F78-16LT 

7L H78-16LT 

7M L78-16LT 

7N 135  RIO 

7P 6.95-14  LT 

7T 7-14.5  MH 

7U 8-14.5  MH 

TV 9-14.5  MH 

7W 4.25/85-18 

7X A7R-14 

7T 7.50-18  MPT 

71 10.5-18  MPT 

72 12.5-18  MPT 

73 12.5-20  MPT 

74 14.5-20  MPT 

75 10.5-20  MPT 

76 10.5-20 

77 8.25-10 

78 150  R  12 

79 150  R  14 

8A 1%-19 

8B 1%-19% 

8C 2-12 

8D 2-16 

8E 2-17 

8F 2-17  R 

8H 2-18 

8J 2-19 

8K 2-19  R 

8L 2-1934 

8M 2-22 


Tire  Size  Tire  Size 

Code  Designation' 

8N 2-22Vi 

8P 214-15 

8T 214-I6 

8U 214-17 

8V 214-I8 

8W 2%-19 

8X 214-19  R 

8Y 214-20 

81 2V2-S 

82 2V2-9 

83 2%-16 

84 2V2-I7 

85 2i/,-18 

86 214-19 

87 21/2-19  R 

88 23/4-9 

89 234-I6 

9A 23/1-17 

9B 234-17  R 

9C 3-10 

9D 3-12 

9E 21x4 

9F 22x4% 

9H 15.50-20 

9J 18.50-20 

9K 19.50-20 

9L 214-14 

9M 21/2-20 

9N 234 -16  R 

9P 234-I8 

9T 10-20 

9U 11-24 

9V 11.25-24 

9W 15x41^-8 

9X 14.75/80-20 

9Y 23x5 

91 25x6 

92 15x4%-8 

93 18x7-8 

94 21x8-9 

95 23x9-10 

96 27x10-12 

97 2.00-15  TR 

98 2.50-15  TR 

99 3.00-15  TR 

OA GR60-14 

OB 560x165-11 

OC 680x180-15 

OD 8.55-15  ST 

OE 3.50-14 

OF 3.25-14 

OH 3.50-15 

OJ AR7(>-13 

OK B60-13 

OL 245/60  R  14 

OM 255/60  R  15 

ON 2%-15 

OP 2.50-20 


Tire  Size  Tire  Size 

Code  Designation' 

OT Not  Assigned 

OU BR60-13 

OV 15.00-20 

OW 16.00-20 

OX 12/80-20 

OY 14/80-24 

01 15.5/80-20 

02 13-22.5 

03 21-22.5 

04 9/70-22.5 

05 10/70-22.5 

06 11/70-22.5 

07 12/70-22.5 

08 13/70-22.5 

09 7.25/75-17.5 

10 8.00/75-17.5 

20 S.75/75-17.5 

30 9.50/75-17.5 

40 7.25/75-16.5 

50 8.00/75-16.5 

60 8.75/75-16.5 

70 9.50/75-16.5 

80 6.70-14  C 

90 7-17.5  C 

RA 125-12  C 

RB 125-13  C 

RC 125-14  C 

RD 125-15  C 

RE 135-12  C 

RF 135-13  C 

RH 135-14  C 

RJ 135-15  C 

RK 145-10  C 

RL 145-12  C 

RM 145-13  C 

RN 145-14  C 

RP 145-15  0 

RT 155-12  0 

RU 155-13  0 

RV 155-14  0 

RW 155-15  0 

RX A60-13 

RY C60-15 

Rl 155-16  0 

R2 165-13  0 

R3 165-16  0 

R4 175-13  0 

R5 175-15  0 

R6 175-16  0 

R7 185-13  0 

R8 185-15  0 

R9 195-15  0 

AO 195-16  0 

BO 205-15  C 

CO 215-14  O 

DO 215-15  0 

EO 225-14  0 

PO 225-15  O 


PART  574;   (TIRE  CODE)— 9 


TABLE   3.     TIRE   SIZE   CODES— ConMnued 


Tire  Size  Tire  Size 

Code  Designation' 

HO 225-16  C 

JO 235-14  C 

KO 235-15  C 

LO 235-16 C 

MO 21^00  C 

NO 3.50-20 

PO 3.75-15 

TO 3.60-18 

UO 3.00-10  C 

VO 4.00-10  C 

WO 4.00-8  C 

XO 4.50-8  C 

YO 265/60  R  14 

AR 215/60  R  15 


Tire  Size  Tire  Size 

Code  Designation' 

BR LR60-15 

OR ER60-15 

DR D60-13 

ER C60-13 

FR D60-14 

HR 175/70  R  14 

JR MN90-18 

KR MR90-18 

LR 4.25-19 

MR 230-15 

NR .5.4-10 

PR ER60-13 

TR FR60-14 

UR C60C-15 


Tire  Size  Tire  Size 
Code               Designation' 

VR 13/80-24 

WR 175-16  0 

XR 195-16  C 

YR BR70-13 

IR 185-15  LT 

2R 13-22.5  ML 

3R MR70-15 

4R E60-26.5 

5R 6.7-12 

6R 5.4-14 

7R 7.4-14 

8R 5.4-16 

9R 4.60-18 


( 


36   F.R.   7539 
April  21,  1971 


PART  574;  (TIRE  CODE)— 10 


Effective:   January    1,    1970 


PREAMBLE  TO  PART  575— CONSUMER  INFORMATION 
Action   on   Petitions  for  Reconsideration — Amendment 


Regulations  requiring  manufacturers  of  pas- 
senger cars  and  motorcycles  to  provide  informa- 
tion on  vehicle  stopping  distance  (§  375.101),  tire 
reserve  load  (§375.102),  and  acceleration  and 
passing  ability  (§375.106)  were  issued  by  the 
Federal  Highway  Administrator  and  published 
in  the  Federal  Register  on  January  25,  1969  (34 
F.R.  1246).  Several  petitions  for  reconsideration 
of  these  regulations  were  received.  In  response 
to  these  petitions,  and  in  order  to  clarify  and 
simplify  the  requirements  and  the  information 
to  be  provided  to  purchasers,  these  regulations 
are  hereby  amended  and  reissued  in  the  form  set 
forth  below. 

§  375.101  Vehicle  stopping  distance.  This  sec- 
tion required  that  manufacturers  state  the  tire 
size,  type  and  size  of  brakes,  method  of  brake 
actuation  and  auxiliary  brake  equipment,  and 
maximum  loaded  and  lightly  loaded  vehicle 
weights.  The  effect  of  stating  these  requirements 
was  to  greatly  restrict  the  grouping  of  vehicles 
and  options  that  was  permitted  for  the  pur- 
poses of  furnishing  information.  It  has  been  de- 
termined that  in  order  to  reduce  the  required 
number  of  different  information  documents,  man- 
ufacturers should  be  permitted  to  group  vehicles 
at  their  discretion,  as  long  as  each  vehicle  in  the 
group  can  meet  or  exceed  the  performance  levels 
indicated,  and  the  vehicles  in  each  group  are 
identified  in  the  terms  by  which  they  are  nor- 
mally described  to  the  public.  The  requirement 
for  specific  descriptive  information  is  therefore 
deleted. 

Since  the  information  must  be  valid  for  all 
vehicles  in  the  group  to  which  it  applies,  the  re- 
quirement that  it  refer  to  the  smallest  tire  size 
oflFered  has  been  found  unnecessary,  and  deleted. 
It  has  also  been  determined  that  variations  in 
stopping  distances  between  different  vehicles  at 
30  mph  are  not  as  meaningful  for  comparison 


purposes  as  those  at  60  mph,  and  therefore  in- 
formation is  required  only  for  the  latter  speed. 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  regulations  estab- 
lish the  conditions  under  which  the  performance 
level  represented  by  the  information  provided 
can  be  met  or  exceeded  by  every  vehicle  to  which 
the  information  applies.  They  do  not  establish 
the  procedures  by  which  manufacturers  should 
generate  the  information,  although  those  pro- 
cedures are  to  be  inferred  from  the  regulations. 
For  example,  both  sections  contain  the  condi- 
tion that  wind  velocity  is  zero.  This  does  not 
mean  that  manufacturers'  tests  must  be  con- 
ducted under  still  air  conditions;  it  means  that 
the  performance  level  established  must  be  attain- 
able by  all  vehicles  in  the  group  under  those 
conditions.  One  obvious  method  of  satisfying  the 
condition  from  the  manufacturer's  standpoint  is 
to  conduct  verification  tests  under  adverse  wind 
conditions  (tailwind  for  braking,  headwind  for 
acceleration).  As  another  example,  the  condition 
that  ambient  temperature  be  between  32°F  and 
100°F  means  that  the  information  presented  must 
be  attainable  by  all  vehicles  in  the  group  at  all 
temperatures  within  that  range  (when  other  con- 
ditions are  as  stated). 

The  amended  section  requires  that  stopping 
distances  be  those  attainable  without  lock-up  on 
any  wheel.  This  condition  is  the  most  mean- 
ingful from  a  safety  standpoint,  since  steering 
control  tends  to  be  lost  when  wheels  are  locked. 
Several  petitioners  submitted  data  showing  min- 
imal differences  in  maximum  and  lightly  loaded 
vehicle  weight  stopping  distances  to  support 
their  request  for  substitution  of  a  single  test 
weight.  Their  results,  however,  were  apparently 
derived  from  tests  conducted  with  locked  wheels, 
under  which  conditions  stopping  distance  be- 
comes a  function  largely  of  vehicle  velocity  and 
the  friction  coefficient  between  the  tire  and  the 


PART  575— PRE  1 


Effective:   January   1,    1970 


road,  and  has  no  relationship  to  vehicle  weight. 
It  is  believed  that  the  condition  of  no  wheel 
lock-up  will  result  in  data  showing  meaningful 
differences  in  stopping  distances  test  weights. 
Accordingly,  the  requirement  of  information  cov- 
ering these  two  vehicle  weight  conditions  is  re- 
tained, and  petitions  on  this  point  are  denied. 

The  section  as  issued  required  performance  in- 
formation for  a  partially  failed  service  brake 
subsystem  ("emergency  brake  system")  only  at 
maximum  loaded  vehicle  weight.  It  has  been  de- 
termined that  in  some  cases  the  most  adverse 
condition  may  occur  at  lighter  loads.  The 
amended  rule  therefore  requires  information  for 
"the  most  adverse  combination  of  maximum  or 
lightly  loaded  vehicle  weight  and  complete  loss 
of  braking  in  one  or  the  other  of  the  vehicle 
brake  subsystems." 

Several  petitioners  suggested  that  information 
be  limited  to  one  test  weight,  instead  of  requiring 
it  for  both  lightly  loaded  and  maximum  loaded 
vehicle  weight.  It  has  been  determined,  how- 
ever, that  information  on  both  conditions  may- 
reveal  vehicles  having  superior  brake  balance,  and 
the  advantage  of  anti-skid  or  load  proportioning 
devices,  and  also  aid  purchasers  who  travel  mainly 
in  one  or  the  other  of  the  loading  conditions.  The 
petitions  to  that  effect  are  therefore  denied. 

S  375.102  Tire  reverse  load.  The  section  re- 
quired that  manufacturers  state  the  niimber  of 
passengers  and  the  cargo  and  luggage  weight 
for  two  different  loading  conditions,  and  the  ac- 
tual vehicle  weight  within  a  range  of  no  more 
than  100  pounds  under  those  conditions.  These 
requirements  restricted  the  grouping  of  vehicles 
and  options  that  was  permitted  for  the  purposes 
of  furnishing  information.  It  has  been  deter- 
mined that  in  order  to  reduce  the  required  num- 
ber of  different  information  documents,  manu- 
facturers should  be  permitted  to  group  vehicles 
by  recommended  tire  size  designations  regard- 
less of  weight,  as  long  as  the  reserve  load  figure 
is  met  or  exceeded  by  every  vehicle  in  the  group. 
The  requirements  for  providing  weight  and  load- 
ing information  are  therefore  deleted. 

Section  375.102  as  issued  required  that  reverse 
load  figures  be  provided  for  the  vehicle  at  nor- 
mal vehicle  weight  (2  or  3  persons  and  no  lug- 
gage )as  well  as  maximum  loaded  vehicle  weight. 
It  also  required  the  furnishing  of  a  "tire  over- 


load percentage",  the  percentage  difference  be-  ^ 
tween  the  load  rating  of  a  tire  at  recommended  H 
inflation  pressures  for  normal  vehicle  weight 
and  the  load  on  the  tire  at  maximum  loaded 
vehicle  weight.  Several  petitions  suggested  that 
the  providing  of  these  various  percentage  figures 
would  tend  to  confuse  persons  to  whom  the  in- 
formation is  furnished,  and  therefore  decrease 
its  usefulness  to  the  consumer.  Representatives 
of  consumer  groups  have  also  suggested,  in  earlier 
proceedings  concerning  the  consumer  information 
regulations,  that  for  maximum  usability  the  in- 
formation should  be  as  simple  and  clear  as  pos- 
sible. In  light  of  these  considerations,  it  has 
been  determined  that  the  tire  reserve  load  figure 
provided  should  be  limited  to  a  single  percentage 
for  each  recommended  tire  size  designation,  at 
maximum  loaded  vehicle  weight  and  the  manu- 
facturer's recommended  inflation  pressure.  The 
requirements  for  tire  reserve  load  at  normal  ve- 
hicle weight  and  for  tire  overload  percentage  ac- 
cordingly are  deleted. 

Two  further  changes  in  the  calculation  methods 
have  been  made  for  simplicity  and  clarity.  In- 
stead of  using  the  actual  load  on  each  wheel  as 
the  basis  for  calculation,  the  wheel  load  figure  is  A 
changed  to  one-half  of  each  axle's  share  of  the  I 
maximum  loaded  vehicle  weight.  This  reflects 
the  method  used  in  Standard  No.  110  for  de- 
termining the  vehicle  maximum  load  on  the  tire. 
Also,  the  denominator  of  the  fraction  repre- 
senting the  tire  reserve  load  percentage  is  changed 
from  the  load  on  the  wheel  to  the  load  rating  of 
the  tire.  A  tire  with  a  load  rating  of  1500 
pounds,  for  example,  used  with  a  wheel  load  of 
900  pounds,  would  have  a  reserve  load  percentage 
of  40%  (600/1500  X  100)  rather  than  66%% 
(600/900  X  100).  The  former  figure  has  been 
determined  to  be  somewhat  more  meaningful  in 
cases  of  large  reserve  loads. 

§  375.106  Acceleration  and  passing  ability. 
The  section  as  issued  required  that  times  be  pro- 
vided for  acceleration  from  20  to  35  mph  and 
from  50  to  80  mph,  and  times  and  distances  for 
prescribed  passing  maneuvers  involving  two  lane 
changes.  On  the  basis  of  petitions  submitted, 
and  further  consideration  of  the  need  for  sim- 
plicity and  clarity  in  the  information  presented, 
it  has  been  determined  that  the  most  useful  in- 
formation would  be  in  the  form  of  passing  dis- 


PART  575— PRE  2 


EfftcHv*:   January    1,    1970 


tances  and  times  for  a  simple  straight-line  pass- 
ing maneuver  at  low  and  high  speeds.  In  order 
to  eliminate  the  difficulties  of  conducting  a  uni- 
form passing  maneuver  involving  a  long  pace 
vehicle  and  a  limiting  of  the  passing  speed  pre- 
cisely to  a  specified  level,  the  information  re- 
quired is  to  be  derived  on  the  basis  of  a  time- 
distance  plot  of  vehicle  performance  at  maximum 
acceleration  from  20  to  35  and  50  to  80  miles  per 
hour. 

For  reasons  discussed  above  in  regard  to  .section 
375.101,  the  requirement  of  providing  the  weight 
of  the  vehicle  is  deleted  from  this  section. 

Because  the  amended  section  does  not  require 
information  relating  to  an  actual  passing  maneu- 
ver, but  only  that  based  on  two  straight-line 
acceleration  maneuvers  with  a  simple  graphic 
computation,  the  exception  of  manufacturers  of 
500  or  fewer  vehicles  annually  from  certain  of  the 
requirements  is  removed  from  this  section. 

Several  petitioners  contended  that  the  re- 
quirement that  information  be  provided  under 
the  condition  of  full-power  operation  of  a  vehicle 
air  conditioner  would  lead  to  variable,  non- 
repeatable  results.  This  may  be  true  of  the  re- 
sults achieved  in  manufacturers'  tests.  The  in- 
formation presented  is  not,  however,  to  be  simply 
the  results  of  manufacturers'  tests,  but  rather  a 
minimum  level  of  performance  that  can  be  met 
or  exceeded  by  every  vehicle  to  which  the  in- 
formation applies.  Manufacturers  are  free,  there- 
fore, to  adjust  the  data  to  account  for  any  varia- 
tion in  results  that  might  be  encountered.  The 
degradation  of  acceleration  ability  by  the  use  of 
an  air  conditioner  may  be  significant  in  some 
cases,  and  therefore  it  is  important  from  the 
standpoint  of  safety  that  it  be  reflected  in  the  in- 
formation provided.  The  petitions  to  the  con- 
trary are  accordingly  denied. 

Some  petitioners  objected  to  the  required  use  of 
a  correction  factor  to  ambient  conditions  in  ac- 
cordance with  SAE  Standard  J816a,  pointing  out 
that  the  factor  was  designed  to  be  applicable  ex- 
clusively to  engine  dynamometer  testing  and  not 
to  road  testing  of  vehicles.    The  contention  has 


been  found  to  have  merit.  In  the  section  as 
amended,  ranges  of  ambient  conditions  of  tem- 
perature, dry  barometric  pressure,  and  relative 
humidity  are  provided,  and  the  information  is 
required  to  be  valid  at  all  points  within  those 
ranges. 

In  addition  to  the  above,  a  new  paragraph  (c), 
containing  specific  definitions,  is  added  to  section 
375.2.  Definitions. 

In  order  to  allow  adequate  time  for  manufac- 
turers to  prepare  the  information,  the  three  sec- 
tions are  eff'ective  for  vehicles  manufactured  on 
or  after  January  1.  1970. 

In  consideration  of  the  above,  49  CFR 
§§  375.101,  375.102,  and  375.106  are  amended,  and 
a  new  paragraph  (c)  is  added  to  §  375.2,  to  read 
as  set  forth  below.  This  notice  of  action  on 
petitions  for  reconsideration  is  issued  under  the 
authority  of  sections  112  and  119  of  the  National 
Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  (15  U.S.C. 
1401.  1407)  and  the  delegation  of  authority  by 
the  Secretary  of  Transportation  to  the  Federal 
Highway  Administrator.  49  CFR  1.4(c). 

Issued :  May  19,  1969. 

F.  C.  Turner 

Federal  Highway  Administrator 


Sec. 

375.1 
375.2 
375.3 
375.4 
375.5 
375.6 


SUBPART  A— GENERAL 

Scope. 

Definitions. 

Matter  Incorporated  by  reference. 

Applicability. 

Separability. 

Requirements. 


SUBPART  B — CONSUMER  INFORMATION  ITEMS 

375.101  Vehicle  Stopping  Distance. 

375.102  Tire  reserve  load. 

375.103  Reserved. 

375.104  Reserved. 

375.105  Reserved. 

365.106  Acceleration  and  passing  ability. 

May  23,  1969 
34  F.R.  8112 


PART  575— PRE  3-4 


231-088   O  -  77  -  75 


i 


EffacHvs:  January    1,    1970 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  PART  575— CONSUMER  INFORMATION 


Amended  regulations  concerning  the  furnishing 
of  consumer  information  for  motor  vehicles,  49 
CFR  §§  375.101,  102,  106,  were  published  in  the 
Federal  Register  of  May  23,  1969  (34  F.R.  8112). 
Sections  375.101,  Vehicle  Stopping  Distance,  and 
375.106,  Acceleration  and  Passing  Ability,  in  sub- 
sections (d)(7)  and  (d)(1)  (vii)  respectively, 
specified  that  the  information  provided  shall  be 
valid  for  road  surfaces  with  a  skid  number  of 
70,  as  measured  in  accordance  with  American 
Society  for  Testing  and  Materials  Method  E-274 
at  40  miles  per  hour,  omitting  water  delivery  as 
specified  in  paragraph  7.1  of  that  Method. 

Several  petitions  for  reconsideration  have  been 
received,  requesting  that  the  skid  number  condi- 
tion be  set  at  higher  level  because  there  are  only 
a  limited  number  of  test  tracks  presently  with 
surfaces  of  that  low  a  skid  number.  It  is  recog- 
nized that  the  level  of  70  may  be  somewhat  lower 
than  many  existing  test  track  and  road  surfaces. 
It  has  been  determined,  in  light  of  the  petitions 
received,  that  the  skid  number  condition  can  be 
set  at  a  somewhat  higher  level  without  detracting 
from  the  value  of  the  information  provided  or 
the  enforceability  of  the  regulations.  Accord- 
ingly, the  figure  "70"  in  sections  375.101(d)(7) 
and  375.106(d)  (1)  (vii)  is  hereby  changed  to 
"75". 


One  petitioner  requested  a  delay  in  the  effec- 
tive date  of  the  regulation  because  of  difficulties 
in  obtaining  equipment  for  the  measurement  of 
skid  number.  In  light  of  the  relaxation  of  the 
skid  number  requirement  embodied  in  this  notice, 
and  the  possibility  of  temporarily  leasing  either 
measuring  equipment  or  test  facilities,  evidenced 
by  fact  that  only  one  such  request  was  received, 
the  request  for  a  delay  in  effective  date  is  denied. 

Since  this  amendment  relaxes  a  requirement 
and  imposes  no  additional  burden  on  any  person, 
notice  and  opportunity  for  comment  thereon  are 
unnecessary  and  the  amendment  is  incorporated 
into  the  above-referenced  regulations  without 
change  in  the  effective  date.  This  notice  of 
amendment  in  response  to  petitioners  for  recon- 
sideration is  issued  under  the  authority  of  sec- 
tions 112  and  119  of  the  National  Traffic  and 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  (15  U.S.C.  1402,  1407) 
and  the  delegation  of  authority  by  the  Secretary 
of  Transportation  to  the  Federal  Highway  Ad- 
ministrator, 49  CFR  §  1.4(c). 

Issued  on  July  14,  1969. 

F.  C.  Turner 

Federal  Highway  Administrator 

34  F.R.  11974 
July  16,  1969 


PART  575— PRE  5-6 


m 


EfTcctIv*;   DcMtnbtr  1,    1969 
January   1,   1970 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  PART  575— CONSUMER  INFORMATION 


Regulations  requiring  manufacturers  of  motor 
vehicles  to  provide  information  to  consumers  con- 
cerning performance  characteristics  of  their  ve- 
hicles were  published  on  January  25,  1969  (34 
F.R.  1246),  and  amended  on  May  23,  1969  (34 
F.R.  8112).  By  notice  of  July  11,  1969  (34  F.R. 
11501)  it  was  proposed  that  the  regulations  be 
amended  to  require  manufacturers  to  provide  the 
information  to  prospective  purchasers,  as  well  as 
those  who  have  already  bought  a  vehicle,  and  also 
to  provide  the  information  to  the  Administrator 
30  days  before  the  information  is  required  to  be 
provided  to  purchasers. 

No  general  objections  to  the  proposed  amend- 
ment were  received.  One  manufacturer  objected 
to  the  requirement  of  providing  copies  to  the 
Administrator  30  days  in  advance,  on  the  basis 
that  this  did  not  allow  sufficient  lead  time  from 
the  date  of  the  proposal.  In  light  of  the  fact 
that  the  information  required  to  be  provided 
consists  only  of  performance  figures  that  the 
manufacturer  is  certain  can  be  exceeded  by  its 
vehicles,  that  the  information  must  be  provided 
in  large  quantities  to  dealers  by  January  1,  1970, 
and  that  no  other  manufacturers  evidenced  dif- 
ficulty in  meeting  the  December  1  date,  the  objec- 
tion is  found  not  to  be  meritorious. 

The  Automobile  Manufacturers  Association 
made  two  suggestions  for  changes  to  the  regula- 
tion, both  of  which  have  been  accepted  and  in- 
corporated into  the  regulation.  One  change  adds 
language  to  make  it  clear  that  the  locations  at 
which  the  information  is  to  be  provided  are  out- 
lets with  which  the  manufacturer  has  some  legal 
connection.  The  other  is  that  the  date  on  which 
information  relating  to  newly  introduced  vehicles 


is  required  is  the  "announcement  date",  on  which 
dealers  are  authorized  to  display  and  sell  the 
vehicles. 

The  proposal  stated  that  three  copies  should  be 
submitted  to  the  Administrator  by  December  1, 

1969.  It  has  been  determined  that  in  light  of 
the  need  for  immediate  processing  and  the  large 
amount  of  information  that  will  be  received  at 
that  time,  a  somewhat  larger  number  of  copies 
will  be  needed.  The  number  of  copies  has  been 
changed,  accordingly,  from  three  to  ten.  Since 
the  additional  burden  on  automotive  manufac- 
turers of  providing  these  copies  appears  to  be 
insubstantial,  a  further  notice  of  proposed  rule- 
making is  found  to  be  unnecessary.  Other  minor 
changes  in  wording  are  made  for  clarity. 

Effective  Dates:  Subsections  (a)  and  (b)  of 
§  375.6,   Requirements,   are   effective  January   1, 

1970.  Subsection  (c)  of  that  section  is  effective 
December  1,  1969. 

In  light  of  the  foregoing,  Subpart  A — General, 
of  49  CFR  Part  375  is  amended  to  read  as  set 
forth  below.  This  amendment  is  issued  under 
the  authority  of  sections  112  and  119  of  the  Na- 
tional Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  (15 
U.S.C.  1401,  1407),  and  the  delegation  of  au- 
thority from  the  Secretary  of  Transportation 
to  the  Federal  Highway  Administration,  49  CFR 
§  1.4(c). 

Issued  on  October  16,  1969. 

E.  H.  Holmes,  Acting 

Federal   Highway   Administrator 

34  F.R.  17108 
October  22,  1969 


PART  575— PRE  7-8 


Effective:   November  26,    1969 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  PART  575— CONSUMER  INFORMATION 


Motorcycle  Brake  Burnishing  Requirement 


On  May  23,  1969,  the  Federal  Highway  Ad- 
ministration published  49  CFR  §  375.101,  Vehicle 
Stopping  Distance,  of  the  Consumer  Information 
Regulations  (34  F.R.  8112).  Paragraph  (e)- 
(1)  (ii)  of  that  section,  describing  the  burnishing 
procedures  for  motorcycles,  is  as  follows:  "Same 
as  for  passenger  cars,  except  substitute  30  m.p.h. 
for  40  m.p.h.  and  150°  F.  for  250°  F.,  and  main- 
tain hand  lever  force  to  foot  lever  force  ratio 
of  approximately  1  to  2." 

A  manufacturer  has  stated  that  such  a  burnish- 
ing procedure,  which  was  drawn  from  a  draft 
SAE  Recommended  Practice,  would  be  inappro- 
riate  for  its  vehicles,  and  suggests  that  the  re- 
quired burnishing  procedures  should  be  that  rec- 
ommended by  the  manufacturer.  Since  it  appears 
that  a  uniform  burnishing  procedure  suitable  for 
all  motorcycles  has  not  yet  been  developed,  the 
suggestion  is  found  to  have  merit,  to  the  extent 
that  manufacturers  have  recommended  such  pro- 
cedures. A  general  burnishing  procedure  must 
still  be  specified,  however,  for  the  purpose  of 
determining  compliance  of  those  vehicles  for 
which  the  manufacturers  have  not  made  a  proce- 
dure publicly  available.  Accordingly,  subpara- 
graph (e)(1)  (ii)  of  section  375.101  is  hereby 
amended  to  read  as  follows : 

'■'■Motorcycles.  Adjust  and  burnish,  brakes  in 
accordance  with  manufacturer's  recommendations. 
Where  no  burnishing  procedures  have  been  rec- 
ommended by  the  manufacturer,  follow  the  pro- 
cedure specified  above  for  passenger  cars,  except 
substitute  30  m.p.h.  for  40  m.p.h.  and  150°  F. 
and  250°  F.,  and  maintain  hand  lever  force  to 
foot  lever  force  ratio  of  approximately  1  to  2." 

The  Consumer  Information  regulations  require 
manufacturers    to    submit    information    to    the 


FHWA  by  December  2,  1969,  and  it  is  important, 
therefore,  that  this  amendment  to  the  regulations 
be  made  effective  without  delay.  The  regulations 
require  only  that  the  manufacturers  submit  in- 
formation to  purchasers  (and  to  the  FHWA) 
as  to  performance  levels  that  can  be  met  or  ex- 
ceeded by  their  vehicles,  and  it  is  not  necessary 
that  vehicles  be  retested  as  long  as  they  perform 
as  well  under  the  manufacturers'  own  burnishing 
procedures  as  under  the  previously  specified  ones. 
Manufacturers  are,  of  course,  free  to  provide  new 
performance  figures  at  any  time,  under  the  pro- 
cedures specified  in  Part  375.  If  in  a  particular 
case  a  manufacturer  determines  that  its  vehicles 
may  not  be  able  to  meet  the  performance  figures 
provided  when  its  own  recommended  burnishing 
procedures  are  utilized,  and  is  not  able  to  provide 
new  and  appropriate  figures  within  the  time 
specified,  it  should  include  a  notation  to  that  effect 
at  the  time  that  the  figures  are  first  provided  to 
the  FHWA.  The  vehicles  in  question  will  not 
be  considered  to  be  in  violation  of  the  regulations 
if  they  meet  the  performance  figures  provided 
under  the  previously  specified  burnishing  pro- 
cedures, and  if  new  and  corrected  figures  are  pro- 
vided under  section  375.101,  as  amended,  not  later 
than  September  1,  1970. 

Because  of  the  importance  of  providing  to  con- 
sumers by  January  1,  1970,  the  probability  that 
few  if  any  manufacturers  will  be  adversely 
affected  by  the  amendment,  and  the  provisions 
for  relief  included  herein,  notice  and  public  pro- 
cedure thereon  are  found  to  be  impracticable, 
unnecessary,  and  contrary  to  the  public  interest, 
and  the  amendment  described  above  is  made  effec- 
tive on  publication  in  the  Federal  Register. 


(Rev.    11/36/691 


PART  575  —PRE  9 


EffKllvt:   Nevsmbar  26,    1969 

This  amendment  is  issued  under  the  authority  Issued  on  November  24,  1969. 

of  sections  112  and  119  of  the  National  Traffic  „  ^ 

and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966  (15  U.S.C.  *•  7'    ,   ™^  .  ,    .   . 

1401,  1407),  and  the  delegation  of  authority  from  ^^^""'"^  Highway  Admmistrator 
the  Secretary  of  Transportation  to  the  Federal  34  F.R.  18865 

Highway  Administrator,  49  CFR  §  1.4(c).  November  26,  1969 


( 


(««v.  11/26/69)  PART  675— PRE  10 


Effective:   January    1,    1972 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  PART   575— CONSUMER  INFORMATION 

(Availability  Requirements) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  amend  section 
575.6  of  the  Consumer  Information  Regulations 
(49  CFR  Part  575)  to  require  that  the  informa- 
tion supplied  pursuant  to  Subpart  B  of  the  Reg- 
ulations be  provided  in  sufficient  quantity  to 
permit  retention  by  prospective  customers  or 
mailing  to  them  upon  request.  A  notice  of  pro- 
posed rulemaking  was  published  on  January  14, 
1971  (36  F.R.  557),  proposing  to  carry  out  the 
legislative  mandate  of  P.L.  91-625  (84  Stat.  262). 
That  legislation  was  designed  to  remedy  diffi- 
culties resulting  from  the  current  practice  of 
making  consumer  information  available  only  in 
the  showroom,  by  permitting  the  Secretary  to 
require  that  the  information  be  provided  in  a 
printed  format  which  could  be  retained  by  cus- 
tomers who  visit  the  showroom  or  mailed  to 
others  upon  their  request. 

A  limited  number  of  comments  were  received 
in  response  to  the  Notice,  some  of  which  merely 
expressed  support  for  the  additional  require- 
ment. The  Chrysler  Cororation  requested  that 
the  amendment  be  clarified  to  provide  that  tem- 
porary unavailability  would  not  constitute  a 
failure  to  comply  with  the  regulations.  As  is 
noted  in  the  Notice  of  proposed  rulemaking,  the 
uncertainty  of  demand  makes  it  difficult  to  estab- 
lish precise  standards  as  to  what  is  "sufficient." 
It  has  been  determined,  therefore,  that  any  fur- 
ther specification  of  this  provision  would  be  in- 
appropriate  at   this   time.     It   is   intended   that 


manufacturers  and  dealers  will  cooperate  to  take 
all  reasonable  steps  to  ensure  that  a  continuous 
supply  of  the  information  is  available. 

The  Chrysler  Corporation  further  requested 
that  the  regulation  clearly  indicate  that  a  rea- 
sonable charge  can  be  made  for  the  materials. 
The  legislative  history  of  P.L.  91-625  indicates 
that  a  major  purpose  of  the  amendment  was 
to  make  consumer  information  more  easily  avail- 
able to  consumers  in  making  their  purchase.  A 
cliarge  for  consumer  information  on  several 
makes  and  models  of  vehicles  could  present  the 
car  shopper  with  us  great  an  obstacle  to  avail- 
ability of  information  as  is  the  case  with  the 
present  system.  In  view  of  this  purpose  and  the 
general  aim  of  the  consumer  information  regu- 
lations to  provide  for  as  wide  a  dissemination 
of  information  as  possible,  it  has  been  deter- 
mined that  the  retention  copies  should  be  pro- 
vided  without   charge. 

In  consideration  of  the  above,  49  CFR 
576.6(b)   is  amended.  .  .  . 

Effective  date:  January  1,  1972. 

Issued  on  September  28,  1971. 

Douglas  W.   Toms 
Administrator 

36  F.R.  19310 
October   2,    1971 


PART  575— PRE  11-12 


r 


(, 


c 


EffwHva:  March   1,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  PART  575 — CONSUMER  INFORMATION 

(Truck-Camper  Loading) 
(Docket  No.  71-7;  Notke  5) 


This  notice  reissues  the  portion  of  49  CFR 
§571.126,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No. 
126,  Tmcker-Camper  Loading,  that  was  pre- 
viously applicable  to  truck  manufacturers  as 
a  consumer  information  regulation,  49  CFR 
§  575.103,  Tmck-Camper  Loading.  It  also  re- 
sponds to  petitions  for  reconsideration  of  Stand- 
ard No.  126  on  issues  that  are  not  addressed  in 
Notice  4,  which  is  published  in  this  issue  (37  F.R. 
26605). 

Petitions  for  reconsideration  of  Standard  No. 
126  (37  F.R.  16497)  were  filed  by  Chrysler  Cor- 
poration (Chrysler),  Ford  Motor  Company 
(Ford),  General  Motors  Corporation  (GM),  Jeep 
Corporation  (Jeep),  Motor  Vehicle  Manufac- 
turers Association  (MVMA)  Recreational  Vehicle 
Institute,  Inc.  (RVI)  and  Toyota  Motor  Sales 
USA,  Inc.  (Toyota). 

In  response  to  information  contained  in  some 
of  the  petitions,  the  portions  of  the  standard 
previously  applicable  to  truck  manufacturers  are 
being  reissued  under  this  notice  as  a  consumer 
information  regulation  for  the  reasons  stated  in 
Notice  4.  Minor  amendments  are  also  made  to 
the  regulation  on  the  basis  of  some  of  the  peti- 
tions while  the  Administrator  has  declined  to 
grant  rex}uested  relief  from  other  requirements 
of  the  regulation. 

1.  Effective  daie.  GM  has  petitioned  for  a  de- 
layed effective  date.  As  a  truck  manufacturer, 
GM  feels  that  additional  lead  time  is  required 
"to  develop,  process,  and  print  the  necessary  in- 
formation on  an  orderly  basis."  The  Admin- 
istration has  found  for  good  cause  shown  that 
an  effective  date  earlier  than  180  days  after 
issuance  of  Standard  No.  126  was  in  the  public 
interest;  however,  to  allow  truck  manufacturers 
sufficient   time   for   testing   to   determine   cargo 


center  of  gravity  locations  the  effective  date  of 
the  requirements  applicable  to  truck  manufac- 
turers is  being  extended  2  months,  imtil  March 
1,  1973. 

2.  Definitions  and  information.  As  discussed 
in  Notice  4  Ford  objected  to  the  definition  of 
"cargo  weight  rating"  and  the  term  "total  load". 
Standard  No.  126  has  been  amended  to  meet 
Ford's  objections,  and  similar  changes  are  made 
in  the  terminology  of  the  new  truck  consumer 
iilformation  regulation. 

Ford  also  suggests  that  the  phrase  "any  addi- 
tional weight  carried  in  or  on  the  camper"  should 
be  substituted  for  "the  weight  of  camper  cargo, 
and  the  weight  of  passengers  in  the  camper"  in 
paragraph  S5.2.1(d)  of  Standard  No.  126,  now 
§  575.103(e)  (3).  It  believes  the  suggested  lan- 
guage would  be  more  meaningful  to  the  average 
user  and  that  the  present  language  could  be  con- 
strued as  endorsing  the  carrying  of  passengers  in 
campers.  Ford's  request  is  denied.  The  NHTSA 
considers  that  the  specificity  of  references  to 
cargo  and  passengers  is  more  meaningful  to  con- 
sumers than  the  general  reference  to  "any  addi- 
tional weight".  Further,  given  the  prevalence  of 
carrying  passengers  in  campers,  the  NHTSA 
does  not  believe  that  the  present  language  can 
realistically  be  considered  to  have  a  significant 
effect  on  this  practice. 

Both  Ford  and  GM  objected  to  the  paragraph 
requiring  the  manufacturer  to  furnish  trailer 
towing  recommendations,  on  the  grounds  of 
vagueness  and  lack  of  prior  notice  and  oppor- 
tunity to  comment.  The  NHTSA  concurs,  and 
is  deleting  this  requirement. 

Ford  suggests  that  paragraph  S5.2.1(a)  of 
Standard  No.  126  (now  §  575.103(e)  (1)  should 
be  revised  to  make  clear  that  the  slide-in  camper 


PART  575— PRE  13 


Effective:  March    1,    1973 

also  has  a  center  of  gravity  designation  deter- 
mined in  accordance  with  the  reguhxtion,  which 
falls  within  the  boundaries  specified  by  the  ve- 
hicle manufacturer.  Since  campers  manufactured 
before  the  efl'ective  date  of  the  regulation  may 
be  mounted  on  trucks  manufactured  after  March 
1,  1973,  Ford's  suggestion  has  not  been  adopted. 

GM  has  petitioned  that  a  warning  be  required 
to  accompany  the  regulation's  information,  stat- 
ing that  the  longitudinal  center  of  gravity  is  only 
one  of  the  many  factors  affecting  the  overall  per- 
formance of  a  vehicle  and  that  other  factors  con- 
cerning vehicle  handling  should  be  considered 
by  the  operator.  The  NHTSA  denies  GM's  pe- 
tition on  this  i)oint.  Proper  loading  and  load 
distribution  in  truck-camper  combinations  is  a 
highly  significant  handling  factor,  and  such  a 
warning  might  cause  a  truck  operator  to  feel 
the  loading  information  presented  is  of  little 
significance.  The  regulation  does  not,  however, 
prohibit  GM  or  other  manufacturers  from  fur- 
nishing such  additional  warnings  if  they  see  fit. 

GM  has  also  asked  for  a  confirmation  of  its 
assumption  that  "the  pictorial  representation  of 


the  recommended  longitudinal  center  of  gravity     f 
zone  for  the  cargo  weight  rating  need  not  be  to      >^ 
scale  but  can  be  generalized  so  long  as  the  lon- 
gitudinal boundaries  of  the  zone  are  clearly  set 
forth."     The   NHSTA   agrees   with   this   inter- 
pretation. 

Effective  Date:  March  1,  1973. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  49  CFR 
Part  575  is  amended  by  adding  a  new  §  575.103, 
Truck-camper  Loading.  .  .  . 

This  notice  is  issued  pursuant  to  the  authority 
of  sections  112  and  119  of  the  National  Traffic 
and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966  ( 15  USC 
1401,  1407)  and  the  delegation  of  authority  at 
49  CFR  1.51. 


Issued  on  December  6,  1972. 


Douglas  W.  Toms 
Administrator 

37  F.R.  26607 
December  14,   1972 


PART  575— PRE  14 


EffacHvo:  April    1,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  PART  575— CONSUMER  INFORMATION 

Truck-Camper  Loading 
(Docket  No.  71-7;  Notice  6) 


This  notice  responds  to  petitions  for  reconsid- 
eration of  49  CFR  §  575.103,  Truck-cam-per  load- 
ing, with  amendments  extending  the  effective 
date  to  April  1,  1973,  and  allowing  optional 
wording  of  certain  statements  until  October  1, 
1973. 

On  December  14,  1972,  Part  575  of  Title  49, 
Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  was  amended  by 
adding  §  575.103  Truck-camper  loading  (37  F.R. 
26607).  The  amendment  was  in  essence  that 
portion  of  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Stand- 
ard No.  126,  Truck-camper  loading  that  applied 
to  manufacturers  of  trucks  accommodating  slide- 
in  campers,  as  originally  published  on  August  15, 

1972  (37  F.R.  16497).  Pursuant  to  49  CFR 
§  553.35,  petitions  for  reconsideration  of  §  575.103 
have  been  filed  by  General  Motors  Corporation 
and  International  Harvester  Company.  Ford 
Motor  Company  has  asked  for  a  clarification. 

In  response  to  information  contained  in  these 
petitions  the  regulation  is  being  amended  in  cer- 
tain respects,  and  a  new  effective  date  of  April  1, 

1973  adopted.  Requested  changes  in  other  re- 
quirements of  the  regulation  are  denied. 

1.  Effective  date:  Both  petitioners  request  de- 
lay of  the  effective  date  of  the  regulation  for  at 
least  60  days,  until  May  1,  1973  at  the  earliest. 
One  reason  for  the  request  is  that  petitioners  had 
printed  their  manuals  on  the  basis  of  the  notice 
of  August  15,  1972,  and  that  the  additional  time 
is  needed  to  print  new  materials  conforming  to 
modified  tezts  published  on  December  14,  1972. 
Greneral  Motors  also  states  that  the  additional 
time  is  needed  to  prepare  and  disseminate  data 
in  a  manner  meeting  the  requirement  that  it  be 
available  to  prospective  purchasers.  'While  data 
has  been  prepared  for  each  truck,  it  has  not  yet 
been  consolidated  into  a  single  sheet  or  pamphlet 


suitable  for  showroom  display  and  availability. 
The  requests  of  both  petitioners  reflect  the  prob- 
ability that  the  material  will  not  be  submitted 
to  the  Administrator  at  least  30  days  before  it  is 
available  to  prospective  purchasers,  as  required 
by  §  575.6(c),  and  the  possibility  that  the  data 
will  not  be  ready  by  March  1, 1973. 

The  NHTSA  has  determined  that  good  cause 
has  been  shown  for  postponement  of  the  effective 
date  until  April  1,  1973.  This  agency  recognizes, 
however,  that  the  minor  textual  changes  made  in 
the  December  notice  create  problems  of  conform- 
ity for  those  manufacturers  who  in  good  faith 
relied  on  the  August  notice  in  ordering  materials. 
Accordingly,  the  regulation  is  being  amended  to 
allow  the  earlier  wording  on  an  optional  basis 
until  October  1,  1973.  These  amendments  permit 
use  of  the  phrase  "total  load"  instead  of  "total 
cargo  load"  in  paragraph  (e)  (3)  where  it  twice 
appears,  and  the  legend  "Aft  End  of  Cargo  Area" 
for  "Rear  End  of  Truck  Bed"  in  Figure  1,  Truck 
Loading  Information.  The  word  "rating"  ap- 
pearing on  the  last  line  of  paragraph  (e)  (5)  is 
properly  "ratings"  as  printed  in  the  August 
notice,  and  a  correction  is  made.  Further,  the 
NHTSA  considers  it  important  that  a  manufac- 
turer fulfill  the  requirements  of  §  575.6(b)  by 
making  information  available  to  prospective  pur- 
chasers when  trucks  manufactured  on  or  after 
April  1,  1973  are  placed  on  sale.  Considering  the 
short  lead  time  between  December  14.  1972  and 
February  1,  1973  and  the  intervening  holidays, 
the  NHTSA  will  not  take  enforcement  action 
with  respect  to  the  furnishing  of  information 
under  §§575.103  and  575.6(c)  prior  to  April  1, 
1973,  if  manufacturers  provide  information  to 
this  agency  as  required  by  those  sections  not  later 
than  the  date  by  which  the  information  must  be 
provided  to  prospective  purchasers. 


PART  575— PRE  15 


Effective;   April    1,    1973 


2.  Administrative  Procedure  Act.  Harvester 
believes  that  the  Administrative  Procedure  Act 
was  violated  in  that  interested  persons  were  not 
provided  an  opportunity  to  comment  upon  pro- 
viding information  under  Part  575  prior  to 
enactment  of  §575.103.  The  NHTSA  views 
Harvester's  comment  as  a  narrow  construction  of 
the  requirements  of  the  Act,  and  disagrees  with 
petitioner's  conclusion.  The  content  of  §  575.103 
was  proposed  on  April  9,  1971  (36  F.K.  6837) 
and  adopted  as  a  safety  standard  on  August  15, 
1972  (37  F.R.  16497).  Pursuant  to  petitions  for 
reconsideration  from  Chrysler  Corporation,  Ford 
Motor  Company,  General  Motors,  Jeep  Corpora- 
tion, and  Motor  Vehicle  Manufacturers'  Associa- 
tion that  Standard  No.  126  would  be  more 
appropriate  as  a  consumer  information  regula- 
tion, the  NHTSA  adopted  §  575.103  on  December 
14,  1972  with  content  virtually  identical  to  that 
issued  in  the  previous  August.  Thus  the  agency 
considers  it  has  met  5  USC  §  553  by  providing 
notice  of  the  terms  and  substance  of  the  rule,  and 
an  opportunity  to  comment.  It  is  true  that  notice 
was  not  provided  on  the  specific  issue  that  dis- 
tinguishes the  consumer  information  regulation 
from  a  motor  vehicle  safety  standard  («.e.,  avail- 
ability of  information  to  a  prospective  purchaser 
and  the  agency  at  specified  time  periods),  but  the 
NHTSA  considers  this  issue  a  minor  one  in  rela- 
tion to  the  regulation  as  a  whole  for  which  ade- 
quate notice  was  given.  In  view  of  the  weight 
of  comment  that  the  standard  should  properly 
be  a  consumer  information  regulation,  no  further 
notice  was  deemed  necessary.    The  NHTSA  has 


already  in  this  notice  indicated  its  willingness  to 
liberally  interpret  §  575.6(c)  because  of  the  time 
factor  involved. 

3.  Clarification.  Ford  Motor  Company  has 
asked  for  a  clarification  of  the  term  "weight  of 
occupants"  used  to  compute  "cargo  weight  rat- 
ing", as  defined  by  the  regulation.  Specifically, 
Ford  inquires  whether  the  weight  is  that  of  a 
95th  percentile  male — that  of  an  "occupant"  as 
defined  by  §  571.3(b) — or  that  of  a  person  weigh- 
ing 150  pounds,  the  figure  applicable  to  other 
consumer  information  regulations  and  u.sed  in  the 
safety  standards. 

The  NHTSA  intended  "weight  of  occupants" 
to  be  the  "normal  occupant  weight"  figure  of 
150  pounds  specified  in  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  110  rather  than  tliat  of  a  95th 
percentile  male,  which  is  greater.  To  clarify  this, 
the  phrase,  "computed  as  150  pounds  times  the 
uiunber  of  designated  seating  positions,"  is  added 
to  the  regulation. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  49  CFR 
§  575.103,  Truck-cam-per  loading.,  is  amended  .... 

Effective  date :  April  1, 1973. 

(Sec.  112  and  119,  Pub.  L.  89-563;  80  Stat.  718, 
15  USC  1401,  and  1407 ;  delegation  of  authority 
at  49  CFR  1.51.) 

Issued  on  February  12, 1973. 

Douglas  W.  Toms 
Administrator 

38  F.R.  4400 
February  14,  1973 


PART  575— PRE  16 


Effective:  February  26,   1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  PART  575— CONSUMER  INFORMATION 

Subpart  A— General 
(Docket  No.  73-5;  Notice   1) 


This  notice  amends  the  definition  section  of  the 
regulation  on  Federal  motor  vehicle  consumer 
information  reflecting  previous  amendments  to 
definitions  in  the  Federal  motor  vehicle  safety 
standards. 

The  definitions  of  "brake  power  unit"  and 
"lightly  loaded  vehicle  weight"  in  49  CFR 
§  575.2(c)  have  been  obsoleted  by  recent  amend- 
ments to  these  terms  in  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standard  No.  105a,  Hydraulic  Brake  Systems 
(37  F.R.  17970).  "Brake  power  unit"  has  been 
redefined  to  more  accurately  describe  the  char- 
acteristics of  the  component  concerned.  The 
term  "curb  weight"  used  in  defining  "lightly 
loaded  vehicle  weight"  has  been  replaced  by  "un- 
loaded vehicle  weight"  (as  defined  in  §  571.3)  as 
a  more  precise  description  of  vehicle  condition. 
Finally,    "Maximiun    sustained    vehicle    speed" 


should  be  grammatically  a  speed  "attainable" 
rather  than  "obtainable". 

Effective  date :  February  28,  1973.  Since  these 
amendments  are  primarily  a  matter  of  form  and 
have  no  significant  effect  on  substantive  require- 
ments, it  is  found  for  good  cause  that  notice  and 
public  procedure  thereon  is  imnecessary,  and  an 
immediate  effective  date  is  in  the  public  interest. 

(Sec.  112,  119  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80  Stat.  718,  15 
U.S.C.  1401,  1407 ;  delegation  of  authority  at  49 
CFR  1.51.) 

Issued  on  February  21, 1973. 

Douglas  W.  Toms 
Administrator 

38  F.R.  5338 
Februory  28,  1973 


PART  575— PRE  17-18 


e 


i 


Effective:  June    II,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  PART  575— CONSUMER  INFORMATION 

Subpart  A — General 
(Docket  72-24;   Notice  2) 


This  notice  amends  49  CFR  575,  Consumer 
Information,  to  require  manufacturers  to  iden- 
tify specially-configured  vehicles  not  available 
for  purchase  by  the  general  public  as  "special 
vehicles"  in  the  information  submitted  to  the 
NHTSA  under  §  575.6(c). 

A  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  to  this  effect 
was  published  on  November  8,  1972  (37  F.R. 
23732).  As  noted  in  that  proposal,  inclusion  of 
these  vehicles  in  compilations  or  rankings  pub- 
lished by  this  agency  as  consumer  information 
serves  no  beneficial  purpose,  and  could  confuse 
the  consumer. 

No  comments  opposed  the  proposal.  General 
Motors  Corporation  commented  that  the  amend- 
ment should  more  clearly  indicate  that  the  spe- 
cial vehicle  identification  requirements  only 
apply  to  the  information  supplied  to  NHTSA 
under  §  575.6(c).  The  new  section  reflects  this 
suggestion. 

Ford  Motor  Company  agreed  with  GM  that 
the  special  vehicle  identification  is  useful  in  in- 
formation supplied  to  NHTSA.  Ford  also  sug- 
gested, however,  that  consumer  information  on 
special  vehicles  need  not  be  included  at  all  in  the 


information  supplied  "on  location"  to  prospec- 
tive purchasers  in  accordance  with  §  575.6(b). 
The  NHTSA  does  not  have  information  at  pres- 
ent to  support  or  repudiate  this  suggestion,  which 
is  beyond  the  scope  of  the  proposal.  If  Ford  or 
any  other  person  wishes  to  petition  for  rule- 
making on  this  subject,  the  agency  will  consider 
it  for  possible  future  rulemaking. 

In  response  to  an  implied  question  by  Truck 
Body  and  Equipment  Association,  Inc.,  the 
amendment  does  not  change  the  applicability  of 
the  Consumer  Information  regulations,  as  set 
forth  in  Subpart  B  of  Part  575. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  49  CFR 
Part  575,  Consumer  Information,  is  amended. . . . 

Effective  date:  June  11,  1973. 

(Sees.  112,  119,  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80  Stat.  718, 
15  U.S.C.  1401,  1407 ;  delegation  of  authority  at 
49  CFR  1.51.) 

Issued  on  May  1,  1973. 

James  E.  Wilson 
Acting  Administrator 

38  F.R.  11347 
May  7,  1973 


PART  575— PRE  19-20 


231-089   O  -  77  . 


f- 


i 


Effective:   September   1,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  PART  575— CONSUMER  INFORMATION 

(Docket  No.  25,  Notice  8) 


This  notice  establishes  a  Consumer  Informa- 
tion regulation  on  Uniform  Tire  Quality  Grad- 
ing. The  notice  is  based  on  proposals  published 
March  7,  1973  (38  F.R.  6194),  and  August  14, 
1973  (38  F.R.  21939).  An  earlier  proposal, 
published  September  21,  1971  (36  F.R.  18751) 
was  later  withdrawn  (April  21,  1972;  37  F.R. 
7903).  Comments  submitted  in  response  to  these 
proposals  have  been  considered  in  the  prepara- 
tion of  this  notice. 

The  regulation  will  require  tire  manufacturers 
and  brand  name  owners  to  provide  relative  grad- 
ing information  for  13-,  14-  and  15-inch  tire  size 
designations  for  tire  traction,  treadwear,  and 
high  speed  performance.  The  respective  grades 
will  be  molded  into  or  onto  the  tire  sidewall, 
contained  in  a  label  affixed  to  each  tire,  and 
provided  for  examination  by  prospective  pur- 
chasers in  a  form  retainable  by  them  at  each 
location  where  tires  are  sold.  The  requirements 
are  effective  with  respect  to  passenger  cars  when 
they  are  equipped  with  new  tires  bearing  quality 
grades. 

Treadwear:  The  regulation  requires  each  tire 
to  be  graded  for  treadwear  performance  using 
numbers  which  indicate  the  percentage  of  tread- 
wear the  tire  will  produce  when  compared  to  the 
treadwear  obtained  from  a  "control  tire"  speci- 
fied in  the  regulation.  Each  tire  will  be  graded 
with  either  the  number  "60",  representing  tread- 
wear performance  less  than  80  percent  of  the 
control  tire's,  or  the  number  "80",  "120",  "160" 
or  "200",  representing  at  least  that  percentage 
of  control  tire  wear.  The  grades  are  fewer  in 
number  and  represent  broader  performance 
ranges  than  those  proposed,  as  a  result  of  com- 
ments that  the  proposed  grades  were  too  numer- 
ous and  would  not  take  into  account  inherent 
diflFerences  in  tire  performance. 


The  method  for  obtaining  treadwear  grades  is 
essentially  that  proposed  in  the  notice  of  March  7, 
1973.  Treadwear  grades  will  be  determined  by 
using  a  convoy  of  up  to  four  identical  passenger 
cars  with  one  vehicle  equipped  with  four  identi- 
cal control  tires,  and  each  of  the  remaining  ve- 
hicles equipped  with  four  identical  manufactur- 
er's tires  (candidate  tires)  having  the  same 
nominal  rim  diameter  as  the  control  tire.  The 
NHTSA  intends  that  the  convoy  vehicles  be 
driven  as  similarly  as  possible  with  respect  to 
such  factors  as  steering  and  braking.  The  ve- 
hicles are  run  for  16,000  miles  over  a  surface 
that  will  produce  control  tire  wear  equal  to  be- 
tween 65  and  85  percent  of  original  tread  depth. 
The  proposal  had  suggested  that  the  tires  be 
worn  to  90  percent  of  tread  depth.  This  per- 
centage has  been  reduced  to  prevent  the  tires 
from  being  worn  below  their  treadwear  indi- 
cators. The  proposal  had  further  suggested  that 
candidate  tires  be  loaded  to  100  percent  of  the 
load  specified  for  their  inflation  pressure  in  the 
1972  Tire  and  Rim  Association  Yearbook.  In 
response  to  comments  that  vehicles  are  rarely 
loaded  to  that  extent  in  practice,  the  load  has 
been  changed  to  90  percent  of  the  load  specified 
for  the  inflation  pressure  in  the  1972  Tire  and 
Rim  Association  Yearbook.  The  NHTSA  be- 
lieves the  road  test  method  for  measuring  tread- 
wear to  be  the  most  satisfactory  that  is  presently 
available.  Moreover,  the  method  has  been  used 
for  many  years  by  tire  manufacturers  to  eval- 
uate the  treadwear  potential  of  newly  developed 
tire  designs  and  compounds. 

Many  comments  agreed  that  a  16,000-mile 
road  test  was  appropriate  for  grading  the  tread- 
wear of  radial  tires.  Some  comments  urged, 
however,  that  only  a  12,000-mile  test  be  specified 
for  bias  and  bias/belted  tires.    The  NHTSA  has 


PART  575— PRE  21 


Effactlvt:  Scplambar  1,   1974 


not  accepted  this  recommendation  ae  it  believes 
the  comparative  data  for  candidate  tires  of  dif- 
ferent construction  types  will  necessarily  be 
more  accurate  if  the  comparisons  are  based  on 
the  same  degree  of  control  tire  wear. 

Certain  comments  referred  to  the  existing  na- 
tional energy  shortage,  requesting  that  the 
agency  take  into  account  the  problems  presented 
by  the  shortage  in  the  final  requirements.  The 
NHTSA  recognizes  the  degree  of  energy  that 
will  be  necessary  to  perform  the  appropriate 
grading  tests,  particularly  with  respect  to  the 
test  for  treadwear  grading.  Research  has  been 
undertaken  and  will  continue  with  a  view  to 
reducing  the  energy  needs  to  establish  treadwear 
performance  without  adversely  affecting  the  va- 
lidity of  test  results.  The  NHTSA  invites  sug- 
gestions or  proposals  in  this  regard,  including 
supportive  data,  directed  to  the  establishment  of 
alternative  methods  or  tests  for  grading  tire 
treadwear. 

Traction:  Each  tire  will  bear  a  traction  grade 
of  "90",  "105",  or  "120",  representing  at  least 
that  percentage  of  control  tire  performance.  The 
test  for  obtaining  traction  grades  is  similar  to 
that  proposed  on  March  7,  1973.  It  utilizes  a 
two-wheeled  test  trailer  built  essentially  to  speci- 
fications in  American  Society  of  Testing  and 
Materials  E-274-70,  Skid  Resistance  of  Paved 
Surfaces  Using  a  FuU-Scale  Tire.  The  test  con- 
sists of  towing  the  trailer  over  specified  wet  test 
surfaces,  equipped  first  with  identical  control 
tires,  and  then  with  identical  candidate  tires  of 
the  same  rim  diameter  as  the  control  tire.  The 
average  coefficient  of  friction  is  computed  when 
one  trailer  wheel  is  locked  on  each  of  the  two 
surfaces  at  20,  40,  and  60  miles  per  hour.  The 
grade,  similarly  to  the  treadwear  grade,  is  the 
comparative  difference  between  candidate  and 
control  tire  performance.  The  final  rule  differs 
from  the  notice  in  that  the  proposed  traction 
grade  representing  less  than  90  percent  of  control 
tire  performance  has  not  been  included.  This 
results  from  the  notice  proposing  to  amend 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109  (49 
CFR  571.109)  (38  F.R.  31841;  November  19, 
1973)  to  require  all  passenger  car  tires  to  achieve 
at  least  this  level  of  control  tire  performance. 
The  NHTSA  expects  that  this  requirement  will 
become   effective   on   the  effective   date   of   this 


regulation,  thereby  necessitating  the  deletion  of     /[] 
the  grade.    The  other  grades  specified  differ  from     F" 
those  proposed  to  the  extent  that  the  range  be- 
tween grades  has  been  increased  to  better  allow 
for  inherent  gradations  in  actual  tire  perform- 
ance. 

Many  comments  urged  that  grading  for  tire 
traction  not  be  established  at  this  time.  The 
comments  argued  that  the  current  state  of  the 
art  has  not  advanced  to  the  point  where  reliable 
and  reproducible  results  can  be  obtained  using 
the  proposed  two-wheel  trailer  method. 

The  NHTSA  believes  the  traction  test  issued 
by  this  notice,  utilizing  the  two- wheeled  trailer, 
is  an  objective  procedure,  capable  of  producing 
repeatable  results,  and  is  therefore  satisfactory 
for  the  purpose  of  measuring  and  grading 
straight-line,  wet-surface  braking  traction.  In 
this  regard,  on  the  basis  of  information  received 
from  General  Motors,  that  company  is  presently 
using  the  identical  methodology  in  the  specifica- 
tions for  tire  traction  for  its  "TPC"  specification 
tire.  This  tire  is  presently  manufactured  by 
numerous  domestic  tire  companies.  Moreover, 
grading  fire  traction  is  a  necessary  adjunct,  in 
the  view  of  NHTSA,  to  grading  tire  treadwear,  / 
for  it  is  commonly  known  that  treadwear  and  t 
traction  performance  result  from  diverse  tire 
properties.  The  two  tests,  therefore,  serve  as  a 
check  that  manufacturers  will  not  design  tires 
that  perform  well  in  one  area  at  the  expense  of 
performance  in  the  other.  The  minimum  trac- 
tion performance  requirement  recommended  by 
the  comments  as  a  substitute  for  traction  grading 
is  insufficient,  in  the  view  of  NHTSA,  to  serve 
this  function  alone. 

Many  comments  stated  that  traction  test  sur- 
faces should  be  defined  by  test  surface  composi- 
tion and  skid  number,  rather  than  by  skid 
number  alone  as  proposed.  It  was  argued  that 
without  a  surface  specification,  reversals  in  tire 
performance  may  occur.  The  NHTSA  agrees 
that  the  inclusion  of  precise  surface  specifications 
may  improve  the  reliability  of  traction  test  re- 
sults. It  has  not  adopted  such  specifications  in 
this  notice  as  they  have  not  been  previously  pro- 
posed. However,  recent  developments  have  been 
made  in  the  establishment  of  test  surfaces  by  the 
Federal  Highway  Administration  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  Transportation.    Test  surfaces  developed 


PART  575— PRE  22 


Effective:   September   1,    1974 


by  that  agency  are  proposed  in  a  notice  issued 
concurrently  with  this  notice  (1061)  for  later 
inclusion  in  the  regulation. 

Some  comments  argued  that  the  description  of 
this  grading  parameter  as  "traction"  was  mis- 
leading, as  the  proposed  test  dealt  only  with  wet 
braking  traction  and  not  dry  pavement  or  cor- 
nering traction.  They  suggested  therefore  that 
the  grading  parameter  be  referred  to  as  braking 
or  stopping  traction,  or  as  "wet-surface  traction." 
The  NHTSA  does  not  dispute  that  these  other 
traction  properties  are  important  aspects  of  tire 
traction,  and  expects  to  add  these  performance 
aspects  to  the  traction  grading  scheme  when  ap- 
propriate test  procedures  are  developed.  The 
NHTSA  does  not  believe,  however,  that  the  de- 
scription of  the  existing  test  as  "traction"  is 
misleading.  The  terminology  suggested  by  the 
comments,  in  the  view  of  NHTSA,  would  be 
over  technical  and  unnecessary. 

High  speed  performance:  High  speed  per- 
formance grades  of  "A",  "B",  or  "C"  are  required 
to  be  afRxed  to  each  tire  based  on  its  performance 
on  the  high  speed  laboratory  test  wheel  which  is 
presently  used  in  testing  for  conformity  to  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109.  The  test 
utilized  is  as  proposed — an  extension  of  the 
Standard  No.  109  high  speed  performance  test. 
A  tire  will  be  graded  "C"  if  it  only  passes  the 
Standard  No.  109  test.  In  order  to  achieve  a 
grade  of  "B",  the  tire  must  run  without  failure 
an  additional  i^  hour  at  425  rpm  and  two  addi- 
tional hours,  one  at  450  rpm  and  the  other  at 
475  rpm.  To  achieve  a  grade  of  "A"  the  tire 
must  be  run  without  failure  an  additional  hour 
at  500  rpm  and  another  hour  at  525  rpm.  The 
NHTSA  has  recently  revised  the  criteria  for  tire 
failure  in  Standard  No.  109  (.38  F.R.  27050; 
September  28,  1973)  and  the  revised  criteria  are 
the  criteria  included  in  this  rule. 

The  principal  comment  regarding  the  proposed 
high  speed  grading  format  was  that  it  should 
consist  of  only  two  grades — one  recommended 
for  general  use  and  the  other  for  use  by  emer- 
gency vehicles.  The  comments  argued  that  fur- 
ther grading  of  high  speed  performance  was 
unnecessary  and  would  promote  high  speed  driv- 
ing. The  NHTSA  views  the  suggested  2-grade 
scheme  as  rendering  any  high  speed  grade  mean- 
ingless for  most  consumers.     Essentially,  it  pro- 


vides no  information  other  than  conformity  to 
Standard  No.  109.  The  NHTSA  believes  driv- 
ing habits  with  respect  to  speed  do  differ  among 
the  driving  population  and  that  the  grading 
scheme  should  be  based  on  that  consideration. 

Control  Tires:  Both  treadwear  and  traction 
grades  are  based  on  comparative  results  using  a 
control  tire  specified  in  the  rule.  The  control 
tires  are  2-ply,  rayon  tires  of  bias  construction, 
in  sizes  6.50  x  13,  7.75  x  14,  and  8.55  x  15.  The 
control  tire  in  each  specified  rim  diameter  will 
be  used  in  testing  all  candidate  tires  having  that 
rim  diameter.  The  precise  specifications  for  the 
tires  are  identical  to  those  proposed. 

Control  tires  will  be  manufactured  pursuant 
to  NHTSA  contract  and  will  be  used  in  NHTSA 
compliance  testing.  They  will  be  made  available 
to  the  industry  for  testing  purposes,  and  the 
NHTSA  will  accept,  for  purposes  of  compliance 
tests,  results  based  upon  their  performance.  The 
agency  may  consider  manufacturers  who  use  dif- 
ferent test  devices  to  have  failed  to  exercise  the 
due  care  contemplated  by  the  National  Traffic 
and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  should  their  tires 
fail  to  perform  to  the  specified  grades  when 
subject  to  agency  tests. 

The  final  rule  modifies  certain  aspects  of  the 
proposed  rule  apart  from  the  grading  tests.  In 
response  to  several  comments,  labels  are  not  re- 
quired to  be  affijted  to  the  tread  surface  of  tires 
which  are  furnished  as  original  equipment  on 
new  vehicles.  These  vehicles  are  generally  driven 
before  sale,  and  labels  on  the  tire  tread  surface 
are  therefore  of  questionable  value.  Information 
on  these  tires  will  still  be  required  to  be  otherwise 
furnished  with  the  vehicle,  and  available  for  re- 
tention by  prospective  purchasers.  The  NHTSA 
did  not,  however,  agree  with  comments  recom- 
mending that  the  affixed  label  requirement  be 
deleted  entirely.  Tires  are  frequently  on  display 
in  sales  outlets,  and  the  affixed  label  will  provide 
consumers  with  the  clearest  understanding  of  the 
grades  applicable  to  a  particular  tire. 

The  grades  molded  onto  the  tire  sidewall  are 
required  to  be  placed  between  the  shoulder  and 
the  maximum  section  width,  rather  than  between 
the  maximum  section  width  and  the  bead  as  pro- 
posed. The  NHTSA  believes  the  grades  should 
apply  only  to  the  original  tire,  and  the  placement 
of    grades    above    the    maximum    section    width 


PART  575— PRE  23 


Effective:   September   1,    1974 

increases  the  likelihood  that  grades  will  be  re- 
moved if  the  tire  is  retreaded. 

Certain  comments  expressed  the  view  that 
providing  information  for  tires  placed  on  new 
vehicles  and  furnishing  that  information  to  the 
NHTSA  30  days  before  the  vehicles  are  available 
to  the  public  is  difficult  to  accomplish  because  of 
the  variety  of  tire  and  vehicle  combinations  in- 
volved. The  NHTSA  does  not  believe  sufficient 
justification  has  been  shown  for  deleting  these 
requirements.  While  some  modification  may  be 
necessary  to  existing  manufacturer  practices,  the 
NHTSA  cannot  agree  that  the  regulation  pre- 
sents unmanageable  problems  for  manufacturers. 

Effective  date:  September  1,  1974.  The 
NHTSA  has  issued  this  notice  pursuant  to  an 
order  of  the  United  States  District  Court  for  the 


District  of  Columbia.    That  order  specifies  that 
the  regulation  take  effect  on  September  1,  1974. 

In  light  of  the  above,  sections  575.4  and  575.6 
are  revised,  and  a  new  section  575.104  "Uniform 
Tire  Quality  Grading",  is  added  in  Chapter  V, 
Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations.  .  .  . 

(Sees.  103,  112,  119,  201,  203;  Pub.  L.  89-563, 
80  Stat.  718,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1407,  1421, 
1423;  delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51.) 


r 


Issued  on  December  28,  1973. 


Jamee  B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

39  F.R.  1037 
January  4,  1974 


PART  575— PRE  24 


Effective:   May   9,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  PART  575— CONSUMER  INFORMATION  REQUIREMENTS 

(Docket  No.  25;  Notice   11) 


This  notice  revokes  the  Uniform  Tire  Quality 
Grading  regulation  published  January  4,  1974 
(39  F.R.  1037),  and  responds  to  petitions  for 
reconsideration  received  with  i-espect  to  the 
regulation. 

The  Uniform  Tire  Quality  Grading  regulation 
specified  tlie  use  of  ''control  tires"  in  the  estab- 
lishment of  grades  for  treadwear  and  traction. 
The  NHTSA  expected  that  control  tires  would 
be  manufactured  by  an  industry  source  pursuant 
to  NHTSA  contract,  and  would  be  available  for 
both  industry  and  government  use.  A  solicita- 
tion for  a  proposal  to  manufacture  control  tires 
was  advertised  to  the  domestic  tire  industry. 
Two  proposals  were  received.  Each,  however, 
has  been  determined  to  be  nonresponsive  to  the 
solicitation,  whicli  has  accordingly  been  can- 
celled. 

Due  to  the  failure  of  NHTSA  to  procure  a 
control  tire,  the  agency  must  revoke  the  Uniform 
Tire  Quality  Grading  regulation  in  its  present 
form.  The  revocation  of  the  regulation  renders 
moot  the  petitions  for  i-econsideration  received. 


On  May  2,  1974,  an  oi'der  was  entered  by  the 
United  States  District  Court  for  the  District  of 
Columbia  in  the  case  of  Nash  v.  Bmiegar  (Civil 
Action  No.  177-73)  requiring  the  NHTSA  to 
issue,  by  June  15,  1974,  a  notice  of  proposed 
rulemaking  for  a  revised  Uniform  Tire  Quality 
Grading  regulation  having  a  proposed  effective 
date  of  May  1,  197.5. 

In  light  of  the  above,  §  575.104  "Uniform  Tire 
Quality  Grading"  of  Chapter  V,  Title  49,  Code 
of  Federal  Regulations,  is  revoked,  etfective 

(Sees.  103.  112,  119,  201,  203;  Pub.  L.  89-563, 
80  Stat.  718,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1407,  1421, 
1423;  delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51.) 

Issued  on  May  6,  1974. 

Gene  G.  Mannella 
Acting  Administrator 

39  F.R.  16469 
May  9,  1974 


PART  57.5— PRE  25-26 


(^ 


Effective:   March    13,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  PART  575— CONSUMER   INFORMATION 

(Docket  No.  74-18;   Notice  2) 


Tliis  notice  amends  Part  575.  Consumer  In- 
formation, so  that  tlie  requirement  tliat  manu- 
facturers have  consumer  information  available 
in  showrooms  does  not  apply  to  special  vehicles 
not  available  to  the  general  public. 

On  April  26,  1974,  the  National  Highway 
Traffic  Safety  Administration  proposed  to  amend 
Part  575  to  provide  consumers  with  information 
for  only  those  vehicles  which  they  were  eligible 
to  purchase  (39  F.E.  147^8).  The  proposal, 
which  was  in  response  to  a  petition  from  Ford 
Motor  Company,  stated  that  information  con- 
cerning special  vehicles  would  continue  to  be 
made  available  to  eligible  purchasers.  Com- 
ments concerning  the  proposal  were  received 
from    American    ^Motors    Corporation,    General 


Motors   Corporation   and    Chrysler   Corporation. 
All  comments  favored  tlie  proposal. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  49  CFR 
575.7  is  amended.  .  .  . 

Ejfective  date:  March  13,  1975.  Because  the 
amendment  relieves  a  restriction,  it  is  found  for 
good  cause  shown  that  an  ett'ective  date  imme- 
diately upon  publication  is  in  the  public  interest. 

(Sees.  103,  112,  114,  203,  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80 
Stat.  718,  15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1407,  1423;  dele- 
gation of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51.) 

Issued  on  Jlarch  7,  1975. 

Noel  C.  Bufe 
Acting  Administrator 

40  F.R.  11727 
March  13,  1975 


PART  575— PRE  27-28 


f 


Effective:   January    1,    1976 
July   1,    1976 
January    I,    1977 
July  1,   1977 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  PART  575— CONSUMER  INFORMATION 

(Docket  No.   25;   Notice    17) 


This  notice  establishes  Uniform  Tire  Quality 
Grading  Standards.  Tlie  notice  is  based  on  pro- 
posals published  June  14,  1974  (39  F.R.  20808, 
Notice  12),  Aujcrust  9,  1974  (39  F.R.  28644, 
Notice  14),  and  January  7,  1975  (40  F.R.  1273, 
Notice  15).  Comments  submitted  in  response  to 
these  proposals  have  been  considered  in  the  prep- 
aration of  this  notice. 

A  rule  on  this  subject  was  issued  on  January 
4,  1974  (39  F.R.  1037).  It  was  revoked  on  May 
9,  1974  (39  F.R.  16469),  due  to  the  inability  of 
the  NHTSA  to  obtain  from  the  tire  industry 
"control  tires"  which  were  to  have  been  used  as 
the  basis  for  determining  the  comparative  per- 
formance grades  for  treadwear  and  traction. 

The  rule  issued  today  requires  manufacturers 
to  provide  grading  information  for  new  passen- 
ger car  tires  in  each  of  the  following  perform- 
ance areas:  treadwear,  traction,  and  temperature 
resistance.  The  respective  grades  are  to  be 
molded  into  or  onto  the  tire  sidewall,  contained 
in  a  label  affixed  to  each  tire  (except  for  OEM 
tires),  and  provided  for  examination  by  prospec- 
tive purchasers  in  a  form  retainable  by  them  at 
each  location  where  tires  are  sold. 

TREADWEAR 

Treadwear  grades  are  based  on  a  tire's  pro- 
jected mileage  (the  distance  which  it  is  expected 
to  travel  before  wearing  down  to  its  treadwear 
indicators)  as  tested  on  a  single,  predetermined 
test  run  of  approximately  6400  miles.  A  tire's 
treadwear  grade  is  expressed  as  the  percentage 
which  its  projected  mileage  represents  of  a 
nominal  30.000  miles,  rounded  off  to  the  nearest 
lower  10%  increment.  For  example,  a  tire  with 
a  projected  mileage  of  24,000  would  be  graded 
"80",  while  one  with  a  projected  mileage  of  40,000 
would  be  graded  "130". 


The  test  course  has  been  established  by  the 
NHTSA  in  the  vicinity  of  San  Angelo,  Texas, 
as  described  in  Appendix  A.  It  is  the  same  as 
that  discussed  at  the  public  briefings  on  this  sub- 
ject which  took  place  July  23  and  July  29,  1974. 
except  that  the  direction  of  travel  has  been  re- 
versed on  the  northwest  loop  to  increase  safety 
by  reducing  the  number  left  turns.  The  course 
is  approximately  400  miles  long,  and  each 
treadwear  test  will  require  16  circuits.  It  is 
anticipated  that  both  the  industry,  at  each  manu- 
facturer's option,  and  the  agency  will  perform 
treadwear  tests  on  this  course;  the  former  for 
establishing  grades,  and  the  latter  for  purposes 
of  compliance  testing,  i.e.,  testing  the  validity 
of  the  grades  assigned.  To  arrange  for  alloca- 
tions of  test  time  at  the  site,  industry  members 
should  contact  the  NHTSA  facility  manager, 
P.O.  Box  6591,  Goodfellow  Air  Force  Base,  San 
Angelo,  Texas  76901;  telephone  (915)  655-0546. 
"\\liile  manufacturers  are  not  required  to  test  on 
the  site,  it  would  be  to  their  advantage  to  do  so, 
since  the  legal  standard  against  which  com- 
pliance with  the  rule  will  be  measured  is  a  tire's 
performance  in  government  tests  on  that  course. 

The  method  of  determining  projected  mileages 
is  essentially  that  proposed  in  Notice  12  as  modi- 
fied by  Notices  14  and  15  in  this  docket.  The 
treadwear  performance  of  a  candidate  tire  is 
measured  along  with  that  of  course  monitoring 
tires  (CMTs)  if  the  same  general  construction 
type  (bias,  bias-belted,  or  radial)  used  to  monitor 
changes  in  course  severity.  The  CMTs  are  tires 
procured  by  the  NHTSA — one  group  each  of 
the  three  general  types — which  are  made  avail- 
able by  the  agency  for  purchase  and  use  by  regu- 
lated persons  at  the  test  site.  To  obtain  course 
monitoring  tires,  regulated  persons  should  con- 
tact the  NHTSA  facility  manager  at  the  above 
address. 


PART  575— PRE  29 


Effective:   January    I,    1976 
July    1,    1976 
January    1,    1977 
July    1,    1977 


Each  test  convoy  consists  of  one  car  equipped 
with  four  CMTs  and  three  or  fewer  other  cars 
equippetl  with  candidate  tires  of  the  same  con- 
struction type.  (Candidate  tires  on  tlae  same 
axle  are  identical,  but  front  tires  on  a  test  vehicle 
may  differ  from  rear  tires  as  lone;  as  all  four 
are  of  the  same  size  designation.)  After  a  two- 
circuit  break-in  period,  the  initial  tread  depth  of 
each  tire  is  determined  by  averajiinfj  the  deptli 
measured  at  six  equally  spaced  locations  in  each 
groove.  At  the  end  of  evei-y  two  circuits  (800 
miles),  each  tire's  tread  depth  is  measured  again 
in  the  same  way,  the  tires  are  rotated,  vehicle 
positions  in  the  convoy  are  rotated,  and  wheel 
alignments  are  readjusted  if  necessary.  At  the 
end  of  the  16-circuit  test,  each  tire's  overall  wear 
rate  is  calculated  from  the  nine  measured  tread 
depths  and  their  corresponding  mileages-after- 
break-in  as  follows:  The  regression  line  which 
"best  fits"  these  data  points  is  determined  by 
applying  the  method  of  least  squares  as  described 
in  Appendix  C;  the  wear  rate  is  defined  as  the 
absolute  value  of  the  slope  of  the  regression  line, 
in  mils  of  tread  depth  per  1000  miles.  This 
wear  rate  is  adjusted  for  changes  in  course  se- 
verity by  a  multiplier  consisting  of  tlie  base  wear 
rate  for  that  type  of  course  monitoring  tire 
divided  by  the  measured  average  of  the  wear 
rates  for  the  four  CMTs  in  that  convoy.  A 
candidate  tii-e's  tread  depth  after  break-in 
(minus  62  mils  to  account  for  wearout  when  the 
treadwear  indicators  are  reached)  divided  by  its 
adjusted  wear  rate  and  multiplied  by  1000,  plus 
800  miles,  yields  its  projected  mileage.  The  pro- 
jected mileage  is  divided  by  30,000  and  multiplied 
by  100  to  determine  the  percentage  which,  when 
rounded  off,  represents  the  candidate  tire's  tread- 
wear  grade. 

A  discussion  of  the  NHTSA  response  to  the 
comments  on  treadwear  grading  follows. 

Duration  of  hreak-in  period  and  test.  The  400 
mile  break-in  period  originally  proposed  in  Notice 
12  was  extended  in  Notice  15  to  800  miles,  to 
permit  the  rotation  of  each  tire  between  axles 
after  400  miles.  The  Rubber  Manufacturers 
Association  (RMA)  suggested  that  a  1600-mile 
break-in,  by  permitting  eacli  tire  to  be  rotated 


once  through  each  position  on  the  test  car,  would 
provide  more  reliable  results.  An  analysis  of  var- 
iance in  a  study  conducted  by  the  NHTSA  showed 
no  significant  variations  in  wear  from  one  side  of 
a  car  to  the  other.  Further,  a  review  of  data 
from  extensive  testing  on  the  San  Angelo  course 
showed  no  anomalies  or  consistent  variations  in 
wear  rate  occurring  after  the  first  800  miles. 
The  NHTSA  is  convinced  tliat  the  800-mile 
break-in  period  is  sufficient  to  allow  a  tire  to 
establish  its  equilibrium  inflated  shape  and  stabi- 
lize its  wear  rate.  Therefore,  the  RMA  sugges- 
tion has  not  been  adopted. 

Many  of  the  comments  to  Notice  12  suggested 
that  testing  distances  greater  than  6400  miles 
are  necessary  for  accurate  tread  life  projections. 
Testing  to  40%,  50%,  and  even  90%  of  wearout 
was  urged.  Unfortunately,  only  the  submission 
of  North  American  Dunlop  was  accompanied  by 
substantive  data.  These  data,  showing  non-linear 
wear  rates,  were  of  questionable  validity  because 
the  tires  were  not  broken  in  prior  to  testing  and 
because  the  data  were  collected  by  different  test 
fleets  in  different  parts  of  the  country.  None- 
theless, as  a  result  of  the  large  number  of  adverse 
comments,  the  NHTSA  requested  further  in- 
formation from  all  knowledgeable  and  concerned 
l^arties  to  document  and  substantiate  the  position 
that  a  longer  treadwear  test  is  necessary.  The 
additional  data  were  requested  in  a  written  in- 
quiry to  the  RMA  and  in  Notice  15.  Because 
of  the  need  to  limit  test  time,  test  cost,  and  fuel 
consumption,  the  objective  was  to  determine  the 
minimum  test  distance  which  can  reliably  pre- 
dict ultimate  tire  treadwear  life. 

The  responses  to  these  requests  have  been  re- 
viewed and  analyzed.  Again,  the  NHTSA  finds 
the  industry  data  and  conclusions  that  greater 
testing  distances  are  necessary  lacking  in  rigor 
and  completeness.  In  most  cases,  the  conditions 
of  the  industry  tests  were  not  disclosed  or  "did 
not  coincide  with  the  prescribed  control  proce- 
dures. Serious  doubt  is  cast  upon  the  conclusions 
because  of  inadequate  information  on  one  or  more 
of  the  following  test  conditions:  changes  in 
weather  and  season,  course  severity,  conformity 
with  prescribed  break-in  period,  mileage  between 


PART  575— PRE  30 


Effective:   January    1,    1976 
July   1,    1976 
January    1,     1977 
July   1,    1977 


readinfrs,  method  of  projected  mileajre,  size  of 
convoy,  number  of  tires  tested,  iiiid  uniformity 
and  frequency  of  tread  depth  measurement. 

A  controlled  test  protrram  recently  completed 
by  the  NHTSA  was  desiffned  to  test  the  hypoth- 
esis that  the  rate  of  wear  of  tires  is  constant  after 
an  800-mile  break-in.  The  desi<in  and  conclu- 
sions of  the  test  are  discussed  in  detail  in  a  paper 
by  Brenner,  Scheiner,  and  Kondo  ("Uniform 
Tire  Quality  Grading;  Effect  of  Status  of  Wear 
on  Tire  Wear  Rate,"  NHTSA  Tcchncial  Note 
T-lOU,  March,  1975 — General  Reference  entry 
no.  42  in  this  docket.)  The  general  conclusions 
of  the  test  are:  (1)  that  the  inherent  rate  of 
wear  of  tires,  after  an  800  mile  break-in  period, 
is  constant  and  (2)  that  the  projected  tread  life 
for  a  tire  estimated  from  a  6,400-mile  test  after 
SOO-mile  break-in  is  accurate  for  all  three  tire 
types.  Accordingly,  the  6,400  mile  test  period 
has  been  retained. 

Grading  based  on  jninimvni  ferfovmanee.  The 
RMA  expressed  strong  disagreement  with  any 
system  in  which  treadwear  grades  are  leased  on  a 
tire  line's  mhximwm  projected  mileage  on  the  San 
Angelo  test  course,  urging  instead  tliat  the  aver- 
age performance  of  a  line  is  a  more  appropriate 
grade.  The  RMA  suggested  further  that  the 
proposed  grading  sj'stem  "ignores  the  bell-shaped 
distribution  curve  which  describes  any  perform- 
ance characteristics  and  would  require  the  down- 
grading of  an  entire  line  of  tires  until  no  portion 
of  the  distribution  curve  fell  below  any  selected 
treadwear  giacle.  notwithstanding  that  the  large 
bulk  of  a  given  group  of  tires  was  well  al)0ve 
the  grade." 

The  XIITSA  rejects  the  arguments  and  tlie 
position  taken  liy  the  industry  on  this  issue.  It 
is  precisely  the  fact  that,  in  iiulustrial  ])i-ocesses 
involving  production  of  large  miml)ers  of  items, 
the  products  group  themselves  into  tlie  so-called 
bell-shaped  or  normal  distribution  which  allows 
for  measurement  of  central  tendency  and  varia- 
tion and  forms  the  basis  of  scientific  quality 
conti'ol. 

Tests  performed  by  the  XIITSA  and  described 
in  the  paper  cited  above  have  shown  conclusively 
tliat  different  production  tires  exhibit  considerable 


differences  in  their  variability  about  their  respec- 
tive average  values.  Thus,  two  different  tire 
brands  might  have  identical  average  values  for 
treadwear,  but  differ  markedly  in  tiieir  variance 
or  standard  deviation.  These  diff'eernces  would 
proliably  be  attributalile  to  differences  in  process 
and  (luality  control. 

Recognition  of  differences  in  inherent  variabil- 
ity among  tire  manufacturers  and  tire  lines  is 
of  the  utmost  importance  to  the  consumer.  The 
average  or  mean  measure  of  a  group  of  tires  does 
not  provide  sufficient  information  to  enable  the 
consumer  to  make  an  informed  choice.  If  one 
tire  on  a  user's  car  wears  out  in  10,000  miles, 
the  fact  that  the  "average"  tire  of  that  type 
wears  to  25,000  miles  in  the  same  driving  environ- 
ment does  not  alter  his  need  to  purchase  a  new 
tire.  Ideally,  the  consumer  might  be  provided 
with  more  information  if  he  were  given  a  meas- 
ure of  the  mean  (central  tendency)  and  standard 
deviation  (variability)  for  each  tire  type,  but  the 
complexity  and  possible  confusion  generated  by 
such  a  system  would  negate  its  advantages.  In 
the  NHTSA's  judgment,  the  most  valuable  single 
grade  for  the  consumer  is  one  corresponding  to 
a  level  of  performance  wihch  he  can  be  reason- 
ably certain  is  exceeded  by  the  universe  popula- 
tion for  that  tire  brand  and  line. 

As  with  the  other  consumer  information  regu- 
lations issued  by  this  agency,  a  grade  represents 
a  minimum  performance  figure  to  which  every 
tire  is  expected  to  conform  if  tested  by  the  gov- 
ernment under  the  procedures  set  forth  in  the 
rule.  Thus,  any  manufacturer  in  doubt  about 
the  performance  capabilities  of  a  line  of  his  tires 
is  free  to  assign'  a  lower  grade  than  what  might 
actually  be  achieved,  and  he  is  expected  to  ensure 
tliat  substantially  all  the  tires  marked  with  a 
particular  grade  are  capable  of  achieving  it. 

Homogeneity  of  course  monitoring  tires. 
Another  aspect  of  tlie  Notice  12  proposal  which 
generated  nnich  controversy  is  the  adoption  by 
the  NHTSA  of  production  tires  for  use  as  course 
monitoring  tires.  The  commenters  suggested  that 
changes  in  course  severity  be  monitored  instead 
by  tires  manufactured  under  rigidly  specified 
conditions  to  ensure  homogeneity.    Because  varia- 


PART  575— PRE  31 


Effective:   January    1,    1976 
July    1,    1976 
January    1,    1977 
July    1,    1977 

tions  in  the  performanre  of  course  monitorinfj 
tires  are  reflected  in  ti-cachvear  projections  for 
all  candidate  tires,  it  follows  that  the  more  homo- 
geneous the  universe  of  the  monitorinn;  tires,  tlie 
moi"e  precisely  the  performance  of  the  candidate 
tires  can  be  graded.  The  XHTSA  is  in  complete 
accord  with  the  industry's  desire  to  minimize  the 
variability  of  tires  cliosen  for  course  monitoring. 
The  development  of  specifications  for  special 
"control  tires",  in  wliich  materials,  processing, 
and  other  conditions  are  rigidly  controlled  to  a 
degree  beyond  that  possible  for  mass  production, 
will  continue.  The  NHTSA  hopes  to  work  with 
the  tire  industry  to  reduce  the  variability  of 
course  monitoring  tires  to  tJie  maximum  extent 
possible.  However,  it  should  be  noted  that  an 
earlier  version  of  this  regulation  had  to  be  re- 
voked due  to  the  difficulty  in  obtaining  such 
"control  tires."  Recent  tests  (sunnnarized  in  the 
paper  cited  above)  demonstrate  that  implementa- 
tion of  a  viable  treadwear  grading  system  need 
not  be  delayed  further,  pending  development  of 
special  tires.  In  these  tests,  the  current  radial 
CMTs — Goodyear  Custom  Steelgards  chosen  from 
a  single,  short  production  run — show  a  coefficient 
of  variation  (standard  deviation  of  wear  rate 
divided  by  mean)  of  4.9%.  This  degree  of  uni- 
formity is  commensurate  with  universally  ac- 
cepted criteria  for  test  control  purposes.  Hence, 
grading  of  radial  tires  may  be  started  imme- 
diately. The  tentatively  adopted  bias  and  bias- 
belted  CMTs  showed  coefficients  of  variation  of 
7.3%  and  12.4%,  respectively.  Existing  test  data 
indicate  that  the  NHTSA  will  be  able  to  identify 
and  procure  other  tires  of  these  two  construction 
types,  exhibiting  homogeneity  comparable  to  the 
current  radial  CMTs,  in  time  for  testing  in 
accordance  with  the  implementation  schedule  set 
out  below.  In  any  event,  the  variability  of  course 
monitoring  tires  will  be  talvcn  into  account  l)y  the 
NHTSA  in  connection  with  its  compliance  test- 
ing. At  worst,  the  degree  of  grading  imprecision 
associated  with  CMT  variability  will  be  no 
greater  than  one-half  the  levels  measured  for 
the  current  bias  and  bias-belted  tire  lots,  because 
the  standard  deviation  for  the  average  of  a  set  of 
four  tires  is  equal  to  one-half  that  of  the  universe 


standard  dev-iation.  It  is  the  NHTSA's  judg- 
ment tliat  treadwear  grades  of  this  level  of  preci- 
sion will  provide  substantially  more  meaningful 
information  to  the  prospective  tire  buyer  than  is 
currently  available. 

To  make  efficient  use  of  the  available  CMTs, 
the  NHTSA  expects  to  conduct  treadwear  tests 
with  used  CMTs,  as  well  as  with  new  ones.  This 
will  not  affect  any  mileage  projections,  because 
the  inherent  wear  rate  of  tires  is  constant  after 
break-in.  Test  results  will  be  discarded  if  the 
treadwear  indicators  are  showing  on  any  of  the 
CMTs  at  the  end  of  a  test. 

The  need  for  three  separate  course  7nonitoring 
tires.  Many  commenters  suggested  that  a  single 
CMT  of  the  bias-ply  type  be  used,  arguing  that 
the  use  of  a  different  CMT  for  each  general  con- 
struction type  would  create  three  separate  tread- 
wear rating  systems.  These  suggestions  ap})ear 
to  result  from  a  misunderstanding  of  the  role  of 
the  coui'so  monitoring  tires.  They  are  not  iised 
as  yardsticks  against  which  candidate  tires  are 
graded.  Instead,  they  ai-e  used  to  monitor 
clianges  in  the  severity  of  the  test  course.  Ex- 
periments performed  by  the  NHTSA  (Brenner, 
F.C.  and  Kondo,  A.,  "Elements  in  the  Road 
Evaluation  of  Tii'e  Wear",  Tire  Science  and 
Technology,  Vol.  I,  No.  1,  Feb.  1973,  p.  17— Gen- 
eral Reference  entiy  no.  17  in  tliis  docket)  show 
that  cliangcs  in  test  course  severity  will  affect 
tires  of  differing  consti'uction  types  to  differing 
degrees.  For  example,  the  improvement  in  pro- 
jected tread  life  fiom  tlie  severest  to  the  mildest 
test  courses  in  the  experiments  was  12%  for  bias 
tires,  yet  it  was  91%  for  bias-belted  tires  and 
140%  for  radial  tires.  In  fact,  a  variety  of 
factors  influence  course  severity,  each  having 
different  relative  effects  on  the  various  tire  types. 
Thei'efoi'e,  the  use  of  a  single  course  monitoring 
tire  on  courses  of  varying  severity,  or  even  on  a 
given  course  wliose  severity  is  subject  to  varia- 
tion due  to  weather  and  road  wear,  would  not 
pei'mit  the  correct  adjustment  of  jneasured  wear 
rates  for  environmental  influences.  Only  with 
a  CMT  for  each  construction  type  can  a  single, 
uniform  treadwear  grading  system  be  established. 


PART  575— PRE  32 


Expression  of  treadwear  grades.  The  system 
of  treadwear  pradinp:  proposed  in  Notice  12  spec- 
ified six  grades,  as  follows: 

Grade  X  (projected  mileage  less  than  15,000) 
Grade  15  (projected  mileage  at  least  15,000) 
Grade  25   (         "  "  "       "     25,000) 

Grade  35   (         "  "         "       "     35,000) 

Grade  45   (         "  "         "      "     45,000) 

Grade  60   (         "  "         "      "     60,000) 

Among  the  objections  to  this  proposal  was  that 
small  differences  in  actual  treadwear  in  the  vi-. 
cinity  of  grade  boundaries  would  be  misrepre- 
sented as  large  differences  because  of  the  breadth 
of  the  predetermined  categories.  The  NHTSA 
was  also  concerned  that  the  broad  categories 
could  in  some  cases  reduce  the  desirable  competi- 
tive impact  of  the  treadwear  grading  system  if 
tires  of  substantially  differing  treadwear  per- 
formance were  grouped  in  the  same  grade.  For 
these  reasons,  a  relatively  continuous  grading 
system  was  proposed  in  Notice  15,  in  which  tires 
would  be  graded  with  two  digit  numbers  repre- 
senting their  minimum  projected  mileages  in 
thousands  of  miles  as  determined  on  the  San 
Angelo  test  course.  The  major  objection  to  both 
of  these  proposals  was  that  grades  expressing 
projected  mileages  would  lead  consumers  to  ex- 
pect every  tire  to  yield  its  indicated  mileage. 
The  manufacturers  were  especially  concerned 
that  this  would  subject  them  to  implied  warranty 
obligations,  despite  the  disclaimer  on  the  label. 
The  NHTSA  remains  convinced  that  treadwear 
grades  which  are  directly  related  to  projected 
mileages  ai-e  the  most  appropriate  way  of  ex- 
pressing treadwear  performance.  To  overcome 
any  possible  misinterpretation  by  consumers,  the 
grading  system  established  today  is  changed 
from  that  of  Notice  15  to  indicate  relative  per- 
formance on  a  percentage  basis,  as  described 
above.  This  decision  is  based  in  part  upon  the 
fact  that  testing  performed  to  date  on  the  Sa"n 
Angelo  course  has  given  projected  mileages  that 
are  generally  higher  tlian  those  the  average  user 
will  obtain ;  i.e.,  it  appears  to  be  a  relatively  mild 
course. 


Effective:   January    I,    1976 
July    1,    1976 
January    1,    1977 
July   1,    1977 

Wheel  alignment  procedure.  Test  vehicle 
wheel  alignment  procedures  received  considerable 
comment.  Notice  12  proposed  alignment  to  ve- 
hicle manufacturer's  specifications  after  vehicle 
loading.  Notice  15  proposed  that  this  be  done 
before  loading,  and  that  the  measurements  taken 
after  loading  be  used  as  a  basis  for  setting  align- 
ment for  the  duration  of  the  test.  The  majority 
of  the  commenters  strongly  favored  a  return  to 
the  original  procedure.  The  NHTSA  takes  par- 
ticular cognizance  of  the  fact  that  those  com- 
menters who  have  actually  tried  both  procedures 
in  testing  at  San  Angelo  find  the  procedure  of 
Notice  12  to  be  satisfactory  and  practicable,  and 
that  of  Notice  15  to  be  unusable.  NHTSA  repre- 
sentatives at  San  Angelo  have  reported  satis- 
factory operation  on  a  variety  of  vehicles  using 
the  originally  proposed  procedure,  and  have  not 
observed  any  uneven  tire  wear  that  would  indi- 
cate alignment  problems.  For  these  reasons,  the 
final  rule  prescribes  alignment  procedures  which 
are  identical  with  those  proposed  in  Notice  12. 

Tire  rotation  procedure.  Several  commenters 
objected  to  using  the  proposed  "X"  rotation 
procedure  for  testing  radial  tires.  The  NHTSA 
is  aware  that  this  procedure  differs  from  that 
recommended  by  many  groups  for  consumers' 
use.  While  some  vehicle  and  tire  manufacturers 
recommend  that  radial  tires  be  rotated  only  fore- 
aft,  others  recommend  no  rotation  at  all  and 
yet  others  are  silent  on  the  subject.  The  primary 
reason  for  these  other  methods  appears  to  be  to 
improve  passenger  comfort  by  reducing  vibra- 
tion. No  data  have  been  submitted,  however,  to 
suggest  that  the  proposed  method  has  any  adverse 
or  uneven  effect  on  radial  tire  wear.  Further, 
this  method  has  the  advantage,  for  treadwear 
testing,  of  balancing  out  any  side-to-side  or  axle 
wear  differences  attributable  to  the  vehicle  or  to 
the  course.  Accordingly,  the  proposed  tire  rota- 
tion method  has  been  adopted  without  change. 

Choice  of  grooves  to  he  measured.  Some  com- 
menters suggested  that  treadwear  projections  be 
calculated  from  measurements  of  the  most  worn 
grooves  on  candidate  tires,  rather  than  from  the 
averages  of  measurements  made  in  all  grooves. 


PART  575— PRE  33 


Effective:   January    1,    1976 
July    1,    1976 
January   1,    1977 
July    1,    1977 

It  was  argued  that,  because  many  States  require 
replacement  of  passenger  car  tires  when  tread- 
wear  indicators  appear  in  any  two  adjacent 
grooves,  the  proposed  method  of  calculation 
would  yield  misleadingly  high  projections.  Anal- 
ysis of  projections  based  on  both  methods 
(Brenner.  F.C.  and  Kondo.  A.,  "Patterns  of 
Tread  Wear  and  Estimated  Tread  Life,''  Ti7x 
Science  and  Technology^  Vol.  2,  No.  1.  1973 — 
General  Reference  entry  no.  27  in  this  docket) 
shows  a  high  correlation  between  the  resulting 
tire  rankings.  Because  the  treadwear  grading 
system  established  today  is  based  on  relative 
performance,  there  is  no  disadvantage  in  adopting 
the  proposed  method.  On  a  related  issue,  the 
E.T.R.T.O.  pointed  out  that  some  grooves  near 
the  tire  shoulder  which  are  designed  only  for 
esthetic  reasons  exhibit  practically  no  wear,  and 
suggested  that  measurements  be  made  only  in 
those  grooves  which  contain  treadwear  indicators. 
This  suggestion  has  been  adopted. 

Calculation  of  projected  mileage.  Several 
methods  for  calculating  the  tire  wear  rates  to  be 
used  in  determining  projected  mileages  were  con- 
sidered. Notice  12  proposed  calculating  the 
geometric  mean  of  the  wear  rates  measured  for 
each  800-mile  increment.  This  approach  was 
rejected  because  the  geometric  mean  is  extremely 
sensitive  to  inaccurate  readings  in  any  single 
measurement.  Use  of  the  arithmetic  mean  of 
the  incremental  wear  rates  appears  to  be  the 
general  industry  practice.  Unfortunately,  how- 
ever, the  intermediate  readings  have  no  effect  on 
such  a  calculation,  because  the  result  is  a  func- 
tion only  of  the  initial  tread  depth  (after 
break-in)  and  that  measured  6,400  miles  later. 
Therefore,  a  wear  rate  calculated  by  the  industry 
method  is  extremely  sensitive  to  errors  in  these 
two  measurements.  In  Notice  15,  the  NHTSA 
proposed  that  wear  i-ate  be  calculated  by  the 
least-squares  regression  method,  as  described 
above.  This  approach  has  the  advantage  of 
weighting  all  measurements  and  minimizing  the 
effect  of  inaccurate  readings,  so  it  has  been 
adopted. 


Differing  tires  on  a  single  test  vehicle.  Uni- 
royal  and  the  E.T.E.T.O.  argued  that  each  test 
convoy  vehicle  should  be  equipped  with  four  iden- 
tical tires;  the  reason  given  was  that  otherwise, 
the  performance  of  a  candidate  tire  would  be  a 
function  of  tlie  tires  chosen  by  the  NHTSA  for 
use  on  the  other  axle  of  the  test  vehicle  during 
compliance  testing.  The  NHTSA  is  unaware  of 
any  data  that  support  this  position.  The  iiile 
adopted  today  requires  that  all  vehicles  in  a  single 
convoy  be  equipped  with  tires  of  the  same  general 
construction  type,  and  that  all  tires  on  a  single 
vehicle  be  of  the  same  size  designation.  In  exten- 
sive testing  at  San  Angelo  witji  this  procedure, 
none  of  the  suggested  undesirable  variations  has 
been  observed. 

Differing  test  vehicles  in  a  single  convoy.  Sev- 
eral commenters  suggested  that  the  rale  specify 
that  all  vehicles  in  a  given  convoy  be  identical, 
to  reduce  variations  in  projected  treadlife.  The 
NHTSA  is  in  complete  agreement  with  the 
premise  that  those  variables  which  can  be  iden- 
tified and  which  can  affect  treadwear  I'esults 
should  be  conti-olled  as  closely  as  is  feasible. 
Variations  in  vehicle  type,  however,  do  not  ap- 
pear to  produce  significant  variations  in  tread- 
wear projections.  Nevertheless,  to  minimize 
such  variations,  tires  will  be  tested  for  compliance 
only  on  \-ehicles  for  which  they  are  available  as 
original  equipment  or  recommended  replacement 
options.  Where  practical,  all  vehicles  in  a  given 
convoy  will  be  of  the  same  make.  However,  to 
test  tires  designed  for  the  range  of  wheel  sizes 
available,  the  suggested  method  would  require  a 
proliferation  of  course  monitoring  tires,  one  for 
each  coml)ination  of  wheel  size  and  construction 
type.  Therefore,  the  suggestion  has  not  been 
adopted. 

Accuracy  of  tread  depth  jneasvrements.  The 
RMA  suggested  that  the  interval  between  meas- 
urements be  increased  to  1,600  miles  to  reduce  the 
effects  of  measurement  error.  However,  if  this 
interval  were  used  instead  of  800  miles,  only  five 
readings  would  be  obtained  in  the  6,400  mile 
treadwear  test,  so  errors  in  any  one  reading 
would  result  in  a  greater  overall  error.  A  re- 
cently completed  study  (Kondo,  A.  and  Brenner, 


PART  575— PRE  34 


F.C.,  "Report  on  Round-Robin  Groove  Depth 
Measuring  Hxperinicnt,"  NHTSA  Technical  Note 
T-1012,  March  1975 — General  Reference  entry 
no.  44  in  this  docket)  shows  that  variations 
amont;:  measurements  of  tlie  same  tread  depth  by 
different  operators  do  not  present  a  serious  prob- 
lem. The  study  found  that  the  only  significant 
variations  in  measurement  results  occur  as  a  re- 
sult of  differences  in  measuring  techniques 
between  different  laboratories.  Since  these  tech- 
niques are  consistent  within  a  given  laboratory, 
the  different  laboratories  arrive  at  the  same  re- 
sults in  terms  of  the  slope  of  the  tread  depth 
regression  line  that  is  the  basis  of  the  treadwear 
grade. 

TRACTION 

Traction  grades  are  based  on  a  tire's  traction 
coefficient  as  measured  on  two  wet  skid  pads,  one 
of  asphalt  and  one  of  concrete.  Because  a  method 
for  producing  identical  skid  test  surfaces  at  dif- 
ferent sites  has  not  yet  been  developed,  the 
NHTSA  has  established  two  skid  pads,  described 
in  Appendix  B.  near  the  treadwear  test  course  in 
San  Angelo.  These  pads  represent  typical  high- 
way surfaces.  The  asphalt  surface  has  a  traction 
coefficient,  when  tested  wet  using  the  American 
Society  for  Testing  and  Materials  (ASTM) 
E  501  tire,  of  0.50  ±0.10.  The  concrete  surface 
was  described  in  Notice  12  as  having  a  traction 
coefficient,  when  similarly  tested,  of  0.47  ±  0.05. 
Due  to  surface  polishing,  this  coefficient  has  de- 
clined and  stabilized  at  0.35  ±  0.10.  As  with 
the  treadwear  course,  these  pads  are  available 
for  use  by  manufacturers  as  well  as  the  agency. 
For  allocations  of  test  time,  industry  members 
should  contact  the  NHTSA  facility  manager  at 
the  above  address. 

Before  each  candidate  tire  test,  the  traction 
coefficient  of  each  surface  is  measured  with  two 
ASTM  tires  to  monitor  variations  in  the  surface, 
using  a  two-wheeled  test  trailer  built  in  ac- 
cordance with  ASTM  Method  E-274-70.  Tlie 
candidate  tire's  traction  coefficient  is  similarly 
measui'ed  on  each  surface,  and  then  adjusted  by 
adding  a  fixed  coefficient  (0.50  for  asphalt,  0.35 


Effective:    January    1,    1976 
July   1,    1976 
January    1,    1977 
July   1,    1977 

for  concrete)  and  subtracting  the  average  co- 
efficient olitained  from  measurements  with  the 
two  ASTM  tires. 

The  tire  industry's  major  objection  to  the  pro- 
posed rule  was  that,  with  four  possible  grades 
for  traction,  two  tires  might  be  graded  differently 
without  a  meaningful  difference  in  their  per- 
formance. The  RMA  suggested  a  scheme  with 
two  grade  categories  above  a  minimum  require- 
ment. The  rule  issued  today,  by  setting  two 
threshold  levels  of  performance,  establishes  three 
grades:  "0",  for  performance  below  the  first 
threshold;  "*",  for  performance  above  the  first 
threshold;  and  "**"\  for  performance  above  the 
second  threshold.  The  NHTSA  is  convinced  that 
the  grades  thus  defined  reflect  significant  differ- 
ences in  traction  performance. 

Firestone  suggested  that  further  testing  may 
demonstrate  that  only  one  pad  is  necessary  to 
give  the  best  and  most  consistently  repeatable 
results.  However,  the  ranking  of  a  group  of 
tires  based  on  their  performance  on  one  surface 
can  differ  from  their  ranking  on  another  surface. 
In  fact,  one  tire  manufacturer  suggested  that  an 
additional  surface  of  low  coefficient  be  included 
in  the  testing  scheme  for  this  reason.  The 
NHTSA  agrees  that  an  additional  surface  may 
increase  the  utility  of  the  traction  grading  sys- 
tem, and  anticipates  a  proposal  to  implement  this 
suggestion  in  the  future. 

The  suggestion  of  Pirelli,  that  measurements 
lie  made  during  the  period  between  0.5  and  1.5 
seconds  after  wheel  lockuj)  instead  of  tlie  period 
lietween  0.2  and  1.2  seconds,  has  been  adopted. 
To  permit  more  efficient  use  of  the  skid  pads,  the 
rule  specifies  a  test  sequence  which  differs  slightly 
from  that  originally  proposed:  instead  of  being 
tested  repeatedly  on  the  asphalt  pad  and  then 
repeatedly  on  the  concrete  pad,  each  tire  is  run 
alternately  over  the  two  pads.  A  change  in 
paragraph  (f)  (2)  (i)  (A)  permits  tires  to  be  con- 
ditioned on  the  test  trailer  as  an  alternative  to 
conditioning  on  a  passenger  car.  Another  change 
facilitates  the  use  of  trailers  with  instrumenta- 
tion on  only  one  side,  which  had  been  inad- 
vertently precluded  by  the  wording  of  the 
proposed  rule. 


231-088   O  -  77 


PART  575— PRE  35 


Effective:   January    ),    1976 
July    1,    1976 
January    1,    1977 
July    1,    1977 

TEMPERATURE  RESISTANCE 

The  major  objection  to  the  proposed  hifjh 
speed  performance  grading  scheme  was  that  it 
was  neither  necessary  nor  beneficial  to  the  con- 
sumer. Several  commenters  pointed  out  that 
Standard  No.  109  specifies  testing  a  tire  against 
a  laboratory  wheel  at  a  speed  corresponding  to 
85  mph,  and  argued  that  certification  of  a  tire 
to  this  minimum  requirement  provides  the  con- 
sumer with  adequate  information  about  its  per- 
formance at  all  expected  driving  speeds.  They 
suggested  that  only  one  higher  grade  be  estab- 
lished, for  tires  designed  to  be  used  on  emergency 
vehicles.  Some  commenters  indicated  that,  as 
proposed,  the  rule  seemed  to  condone  or  even 
encourage  the  unsafe  operation  of  motor  vehicles 
above  legal  speed  limits.  To  preclude  this  mis- 
interpretation, the  third  tire  characteristic  to  be 
graded  has  been  renamed  "temperature  resist- 
ance". The  grade  is  indicative  of  the  running 
temperature  of  the  tire.  Sustained  high  tem- 
perature can  cause  the  material  of  the  tire  to 
degenerate  and  reduce  tire  life,  and  excessive 
temperature  can  lead  to  sudden  tire  failure. 
Therefore,  the  distinctions  provided  by  three 
grades  of  temperature  resistance  are  meaningful 
to  the  consumer.  Except  for  the  name  change, 
this  aspect  of  quality  grading  has  been  adopted 
as  proposed.  A  grade  of  "C"  corresponds  to  the 
minimum  requirements  of  Standard  No.  109. 
"B"  indicates  completion  of  the  500  rpm  test 
stage  specified  in  paragraph  (g)(9),  while  "A" 
indicates  completion  of  the  575  rpm  test  range. 

PROVISION  OF  GRADING  INFORMATION 

Several  commenters  objected  to  the  proposed 
tread  label  requirement,  suggesting  that  point- 
of-sale  material  such  as  posters  and  leaflets  could 
provide  the  consumer  with  adequate  information 
about  tire  grades.  For  the  reasons  discussed  in 
Notice  12,  the  NHTSA  is  convinced  that  labels 
affixed  to  the  tread  of  the  tire  are  the  only  satis- 
factory method  of  providing  complete  informa- 
tion to  replacement  tire  purchasers.  Therefore, 
the  scheme  for  transmitting  quality  grading  in- 
formation to  consumers,  combining  sidewall  mold- 


ing, tread  labels,  and  point-of-sale  materials,  has 
been  adopted  substantially  as  proposed.  A 
change  in  paragraph  (d)  (1)  (ii)  clarifies  the 
respective  duties  of  vehicle  manufacturers  and 
tire  manufacturers  to  provide  information  for 
prospective  purchasers. 

Several  vehicle  manufacturers  requested  that 
new  vehicles  not  be  required  to  be  equipped  with 
graded  tires  until  six  months  after  the  date  that 
tires  must  be  graded.  These  commenters  appear 
to  have  misunderstood  the  scope  of  the  quality 
grading  standard.  The  NHTSA  expects  that 
tires  which  comply  with  the  standard  will  appear 
on  new  vehicles  as  inventories  of  ungraded  tires 
are  depleted.  Part  575.6  requires  of  the  vehicle 
manufacturer  only  that  he  provide  the  specified 
information  to  purchasers  and  prospective  pur- 
chasers when  he  equips  a  vehicle  with  one  or 
more  tires  manufactured  after  the  applicable 
effective  date  of  this  rule. 

The  NHTSA  has  determined  that  an  Infla- 
tionary Impact  Statement  is  not  required  pur- 
suant to  Executive  Order  11821.  Industry  cost 
estimates  and  an  inflation  impact  review  are  filed 
in  public  Docket  No.  25.  This  review  includes 
an  evaluation  of  the  expected  cost  of  the  rule. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  a  new 
§  575.104,  "Uniform  Tire  Quality  Grading  Stand- 
ards" is  added  to  49  CFR  Part  575.  .  .  . 

Effective  dates.  For  all  requirements  other 
than  the  molding  requirement  of  paragraph 
(d)(l)(i)(A)  :  January  1.  1976.  for  radial  ply 
tires;  July  1,  1976,  for  bias-belted  tires;  January 
1,  1977,  for  bias  ply  tires.  For  paragraph 
(d)  (1)  (i)  (A)  :  July  1,1976.  for  radial  ply  tires; 
January  1,  1977,  for  bias-belted  tires;  July  1, 
1977,  for  bias-ply  tires. 

(Sees.  103,  112,  119,  201,  203;  Pub.  L.  89-563, 
80  Stat.  718  (15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1407,  1421, 
1423) ;  delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51.) 

Issued  on  May  20,  1975. 

James  B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

40  F.R.  23073 
May  28,  1975 


PART  575— PRE  36 


Effective:   January    1,    1976 
July    1,    1976 
January    1,    1977 
July   1,    1977 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  PART  575— CONSUMER  INFORMATION 

(Docket  No.  25;   Notice    18) 


This  notice  republishes,  with  minor  changes, 
paragraphs  (e)  (1)  (v)  and  (f)  (2)  (i)  (B),  Figure 
2,  and  the  appendices  of  §  575.104,  Vrdjorm  Tire 
Quality  Grading  Standards^  which  was  published 
May  28,  1975  (40  F.R.  23073;  Notice  17). 

In  describing  the  rims  on  which  candidate  tires 
are  to  be  mounted.  Notice  17  inadvertently  re- 
ferred to  the  Appendix  to  Standard  No.  110. 
On  February  6,  1975,  the  definition  of  "test  rim" 
in  Standard  No.  109  was  amended  and  the  Ap- 
pendix to  Standard  No.  110  was  deleted  (Docket 
No.  74-25;  Notice  2;  effective  August  5,  1975). 
Under  the  new  definition,  a  "test  rim"  may  be 
any  of  several  widths,  only  one  of  which  is  equal 
to  that  listed  under  the  words  "t«st  rim  width" 
in  Table  I  of  the  Appendix  to  Standard  No.  109. 
Paragraphs  (e)  (1)  (v)  and  (f)  (2)  (i)  (B)  are 
corrected  to  specify  the  rim  mounting  scheme  in 
terms  of  the  new  definition. 

As  Figure  2  was  published  in  the  Federal  Reg- 
ister, the  words  "DOT  Quality  Grades"  appeared 
as  the  Figure's  title.  In  fact,  the  words  are  a 
part  of  the  text  which  must  appear  on  each  tread 
label  required  by  paragraph  (d)(1)(B),  and 
accordingly  the  figure  is  republished  with  the 
correct  title. 

The  treadwear  test  course  described  in  Ap- 
pendix A  is  changed  so  that  the  loops  are  traveled 
in  the  following  order:  south,  east,  and  north- 
west. This  change  is  designed  to  increase  safety 
by  reducing  the  number  of  left  turns.  The  table 
of  key  points  and  mileages  is  revised  to  reflect 


the  change.  Corresponding  changes  are  made  in 
the  numbers  used  to  designate  these  points  in  the 
text  and  in  Figure  3. 

To  prevent  the  bunching  of  test  vehicles  at 
STOP  signs  and  thereby  increase  safety,  the 
speed  to  which  vehicles  must  decelerate  when 
abreast  of  the  direction  sign  is  changed  in  Ap- 
pendix A  to  read  "20  mph". 

The  reference  to  Figure  2  in  the  second  para- 
graph of  Appendix  B  is  corrected  to  indicate 
that  the  asphalt  skid  nad  is  depicted  in  Figure 
4.  The  shading  of  the  skid  pads  is  corrected  to 
correspond  to  the  description  in  the  text. 

The  first  two  paragraphs  of  Appendix  C, 
Method  of  Least  Squares^  were  omitted.  Those 
paragraphs  are  now  inserted  and  the  graph  is 
designated  as  Figure  5. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  paragraphs 
(e)  (1)  (v)  and  (f)  (2)  (i)  (B),  Figure  2,  and  the 
appendices  to  §  575.104  of  Title  49,  Code  of  Fed- 
eral Regulations,  are  republished.  .  .  . 

(Sees.  103,  112,  119,  201,  203;  Pub.  L.  89-563, 
80  Stat.  718  (15  U.S.C.  1392,  1401,  1407,  1421, 
1423) ;  delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51.) 


Issued  on  June  25,  1975. 


James  B.  Gregory 
Administrator 

40  F.R.  28071 
July  3,   1975 


PART  575— PRE  37-38 


( 


Effacllva:   January    1,    1970 


PART  575— CONSUMER  INFORMATION 


SUBPART  A— GENERAL 

9  575.1      Scope. 

This  part  contains  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Con- 
sumer Information  Regulations  established  under 
section  112(d)  of  the  National  Traffic  and  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966  (15  U.S.C.  1401(d)) 
(hereinafter  "the  Act"). 

9  575.2     Definitions. 

(a)  Statutory  definitions.  All  terms  used  in 
this  part  that  are  defined  in  section  102  of  the 
Act  are  used  as  defined  in  the  Act. 

(b)  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  definitions. 
Unless  otherwise  indicated,  all  terms  used  in  this 
part  that  are  defined  in  the  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standards,  Part  571  of  this  subchapter  (herein- 
after "The  Standards"),  are  used  as  defined  in 
the  Standards  without  regard  to  the  applicability 
of  a  standard  in  which  a  definition  is  contained. 

(c)  Definitions  xised  in  this  part. 

["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  through  an  auxiliary  device,  with  the 
operator  action  consisting  only  of  modulating  the 
energy  application  level.  (38  F.R.  5338 — Feb- 
ruary 28, 1973.    Effective:  2/28/73)] 

"Lightly  loaded  vehicle  weight"  means — 

(1)  [For  a  passenger  car,  unloaded  vehicle 
weight  plus  300  pounds  (including  driver  and 
instrumentation),  with  the  added  weight  dis- 
tributed in  the  front  seat  area.  (38  F.R.  5338 — 
February  28,  1973.    Effective:  2/28/73)] 

(2)  [For  a  motorcycle,  unloaded  vehicle 
weight  plus  200  pounds  (including  driver  and 
instrumentation),  with  added  weight  distrib- 
uted on  the  saddle  and  in  saddle  bags  or  other 
carrier.  (38  F.R.  5338— February  28,  1973. 
Effective:  2/28/73)] 

"Maximum  loaded  vehicle  weight"  is  used  as 
defined  in  Standard  No.  110. 


"Maximum  sustained  vehicle  speed"  means  that 
speed  attainable  by  accelerating  at  maximum  rate 
from  a  standing  start  for  1  mile. 

"Skid  number"  means  the  frictional  resistance 
measured  in  accordance  with  American  Society 
for  Testing  and  Materials  Method  E-274  at  40 
miles  per  hour,  omitting  water  delivery  as  speci- 
fied in  paragraph  7.1  of  that  Method. 

9  575.3     Matter  incorporated  by  reference. 

The  incorporation  by  reference  provisions  of 
§  571.5  of  this  subchapter  applies  to  this  part. 

[9  575.4     Application. 

(a)  General.  Except  as  provided  in  para- 
graphs (b)  through  (d)  of  this  section,  each 
section  set  forth  in  Subpart  B  of  this  part  applies 
according  to  its  terms  to  motor  vehicles  and  tires 
manufactured  after  the  effective  date  indicated. 

(b)  Military  vehicles.  This  part  does  not  ap- 
ply to  motor  vehicles  or  tires  sold  directly  to  the 
Armed  Forces  of  the  United  States  in  conformity 
with  contractual  specifications. 

(c)  Export.  This  part  does  not  apply  to 
motor  vehicles  or  tires  intended  solely  for  export 
and  so  labeled  or  tagged. 

(d)  Import.  This  part  does  not  apply  to 
motor  vehicles  or  tires  imported  for  purposes 
other  than  resale.  (39  F.R.  1037 — January  4, 
1974.    Effective:  9/1/74)] 

9  575.5     Separability. 

If  any  section  established  in  this  part  or  its 
application  to  any  person  or  circumstances  is  held 
invalid,  the  remainder  of  the  part  and  the  appli- 
cation of  that  section  to  other  persons  or  circum- 
stances is  not  affected  thereby. 

[9  575.6      Requirements. 

(a)  At  the  time  a  motor  vehicle  is  delivered 
to  the  first  purchaser  for  purposes  other  than 
resale,  the  manufacturer  of  that  vehicle  shall 
provide  to  that  purchaser,  in  writing  and  in  the 
English   language,  the  information  specified  in 


(Ray.   12/28/73) 


PART  575-1 


Effactlva:   January    1,    1970 


Subpart  B  of  this  part  that  is  applicable  to  that 
vehicle  and  its  tires.  The  document  provided 
with  a  vehicle  may  contain  more  than  one  table, 
but  the  document  must  clearly  and  uncondition- 
ally indicate  which  of  the  tables  applies  to  the 
vehicle  and  its  tires. 

Example  1 :  Manufacturer  X  furnishes  a  docu- 
ment containing  several  tables,  which  apply  to 
various  groups  of  vehicles  that  it  produces.  The 
document  contains  the  following  notation  on  its 
front  page:  "The  information  that  applies  to 
this  vehicle  is  contained  in  Table  5."  The  nota- 
tion satisfies  the  requirement. 

Examfle  2:  Manufacturer  Y  furnishes  a  docu- 
ment containing  several  tables  as  in  Example  1, 
with  the  following  notation  on  its  front  page : 
Information  applies  as  follows : 
Model  P.  6-cylinder  engine — -Table  1. 
Model  P.  8-cylinder  engine — Table  2. 
Model  Q— Table  3. 

This  notation  does  not  satisfy  the  requirement, 
since  it  is  conditioned  on  the  model  or  the  equip- 
ment of  the  vehicle  with  which  the  document  is 
furnished,  and  therefore  additional  information 
is  required  to  select  the  proper  table. 

(b)  At  the  time  a  motor  vehicle  tire  is  deliv- 
ered to  the  first  purchaser  for  a  purpose  other 
than  resale,  the  manufacturer  of  that  tire,  or  in 
the  case  of  a  tire  marketed  under  a  brand  name, 


the  brand  name  owner,  shall  provide  to  that 
purchaser  the  information  specified  in  Subpart  B 
of  this  part  that  is  applicable  to  that  tire. 

(c)  Each  manufacturer  of  motor  vehicles,  each 
brand  name  owner  of  tires,  and  each  manufac- 
turer of  tires  for  which  there  is  no  brand  name 
owner  shall  provide  for  examination  by  prospec- 
tive purchasers,  at  each  location  where  its  ve- 
hicles or  tires  are  offered  for  sale  by  a  person 
with  whom  the  manufacturer  or  brand  name 
owner  has  a  contractual,  proprietary,  or  other 
legal  relationship,  or  by  a  person  who  has  such  a 
relationship  with  a  distributor  of  the  manufac- 
turer or  brand  name  owner  concerning  the  ve- 
hicle or  tire  in  question,  the  information  specified 
in  Subpart  B  of  this  part  that  is  applicable  to 
each  of  the  vehicles  or  tires  offered  for  sale  at 
that  location.  The  information  shall  be  provided 
without  charge  and  in  sufficient  quantity  to  be 
available  for  retention  by  prospective  purchasers 
or  sent  by  mail  to  a  prospective  purchaser  upon 
his  request.  With  respect  to  newly  introduced 
vehicles  or  tires,  the  information  shall  be  pro- 
vided for  examination  by  prospective  purchasers 
not  later  than  the  day  on  which  the  manufac- 
turer or  brand  name  owner  first  authorizes  those 
vehicles  or  tires  to  be  put  on  general  public  dis- 
play and  sold  to  consumers. 

(d)  Each  manufacturer  of  motor  vehicles, 
each  brand  name  owner  of  tires,  and  each  manu- 


This  figure  indicates  braking  performance  tfiat  can  be  met  or  exceeded  by  the  vefiicles  to  wtiicfi  it  applies,  wittiout  locking  the  wheels,  under  different 
conditions  of  loading  and  with  partial  failures  of  the  braking  system  The  information  presented  represents  results  obtainable  by  skilled  drivers  under 
controlled  road  and  vehicle  conditions,  and  the  information  may  not  be  correct  under  other  conditions 


Description  of  vehicles  to  which  this  table  applies: 


A    Fully  Operational  Service  Brake  Load 

Light 
f^aximum 


B    Emergency  Service  Brakes  (with  Par- 
tial Service  Brake  System  Failure) 


C.   Brake  Power  Unit  Failure 

Maximum  Load 


3      184 

:a    187 


3    375 


D    451 


100  200  300 

Stopping  Distance  in  Feet  from  60  mph. 


500 


FIGURE  1 


(Rev.    12/28/73) 


PART  575-2 


Effective:   January    I,    1970 


facturer  of  tires  for  which  there  is  no  brand 
name  owner  shall  submit  to  the  Administrator 
10  copies  of  the  information  specified  in  Subpart 
B  of  this  part  that  is  applicable  to  the  vehicles 
or  tires  offered  for  sale,  at  least  30  days  before 
that  information  is  first  provided  for  examina- 
tion by  prospective  purchasers  pursuant  to  para- 
graph (c)  of  this  section.  (39  F.R.  1037— 
January  4,  1974.    Effective:  9/1/74)] 

§  575.7     Special  Vehicles. 

[A  manufacturer  who  produces  vehicles  hav- 
ing a  configuration  not  available  for  purchase  by 
the  general  public  need  not  make  available  to 
ineligible  purchasei's,  pursuant  to  §  575.6(c),  the 
information  for  tliose  vehicles  specified  in  Sub- 
part B  of  this  part,  and  shall  identify  those 
vehicles  when  furnishing  the  information  re- 
quired by  §  575.6(d)  (40  F.E.  11727— March  13, 
1975.    Effective:  3/13/75)] 

SUBPART   B— CONSUMER   INFORMATION   ITEMS 
§  575.101      Vehicle  stopping  distance. 

(a)  Purpose  and  scope.  This  section  requires 
manufacturers  of  passenger  cars  and  motor- 
cycles to  provide  information  on  vehicle  stopping 
distances  under  specified  speed,  brake,  loading 
and  pavement  conditions. 

(b)  Application.  This  section  applies  to  joas- 
senger  cars  and  motorcycles  manufactured  on  or 
after  January  1, 1970. 

(c)  Required  information.  Each  manufac- 
turer shall  furnish  the  information  in  (1) 
through  (5)  below,  in  the  form  illustrated  in 
Figure  1,  except  that  with  respect  to  (2)  and 
(3)  below,  a  manufacturer  whose  total  motor 
vehicle  production  does  not  exceed  500  annually 
is  only  required  to  furnish  performance  in- 
formation for  maximum  loaded  vehicle  weight. 
Each  vehicle  in  the  group  to  which  tlie  informa- 
tion applies  shall  be  capable,  under  the  condi- 
tions specified  in  jjaragraph  (d),  and  utilizing 
the  procedures  specified  in  paragraph  (e),  of 
performing  at  least  as  well  as  the  information 
indicates. 

If  a  vehicle  is  unable  to  reach  the  speed  of 
60  miles  per  hour  (mph),  the  maximum  sustained 
vehicle  speed  shall  be  substituted  for  the  60  mph 
speed  in  the  requirements  specified  below,  and 
in  the  presentation  of  information  as  in  Figure  1, 


with  an  asterisked  notation  in  essentially  the 
following  form  at  the  bottom  of  the  figure:  "The 
maximum  speed  attain.able  by  accelerating  at 
maximum    rate    from   a   standing  start    for  one 

mile."' 

Tlie  weight  requirements  indicated  in  (c)(2), 
(3),  and  (4)  are  modified  by  the  fuel  tank  con- 
dition specified  in  (d)  (4)  below. 

(1)  Vehicle  desciiptian.  The  group  of  ve- 
hicles to  which  the  table  applies,  identified  in 
the  terms  by  which  they  are  described  to  the 
public  by  the  manufacturer. 

(2)  Minimum  stopping  distance  with  fully 
operational  service  hrake  system.  The  mini- 
mimi  stopping  distance  attainable,  expressed 
in  feet,  from  60  mph,  using  the  fully  opera- 
tional service  brake  system,  at  lighth^  loaded 
and  maximum  loaded  vehicle  weight. 

(3)  Minimum  stopping  distance  with  par- 
tially failed  service  hralce  system.  (Applicable 
only  to  passenger  cars  with  more  than  one 
service  brake  subsystem.)  The  minimum  stop- 
ping distance  attainable  using  the  service  brake 
control,  expi-essed  in  feet,  from  60  mph,  for 
tlie  most  adverse  combination  of  maximum  or 
lightly  loaded  ^•ehicle  weight  and  complete 
loss  of  braking  in  any  one  of  the  vehicle  brake 
subsystems. 

(4)  Minimum  stopping  distance  icith  inop- 
erative hrake  power  unit.  (Applicable  only  to 
vehicles  equi^aped  with  brake  power  unit.) 
The  minimum  stopping  distance,  expressed  in 
feet,  from  60  mph,  using  the  service  brake 
system,  at  maximum  loaded  vehicle  weight, 
with  the  brake  power  unit  rendered  inoperative 
by  disconnection  of  its  power  supply,  and  with 
any  residual  power  reserve  capability  of  the 
disconnected  system  exhausted.  If  the  vehicle 
has  more  than  one  independent  unit,  the  figure 
shall  represent  the  most  adverse  performance 
with  any  one  of  the  imits  disconnected. 

(5)  Notice.  The  following  notice:  "This 
figure  indicates  braking  performance  that  can 
be  met  or  exceeded  by  the  veliicles  to  which  it 
applies,  without  locking  the  wlieels,  under  dif- 
ferent conditions  of  loading  and  with  partial 
failures  of  the  braking  system.  The  informa- 
tion presented  represents  results  obtainable  by 
skilled  drivers  under  controlled  road  and  ve- 


(Rev.    3/7/75) 


PART  575-3 


Effective:   January    1,    7  970 


hide  conditions,  iind  the  informsition  may  not 
be  correct  under  other  conditions.'" 

(d)  Conditions.  The  data  provided  in  the 
format  of  Figure  1  shall  represent  a  level  of 
performance  that  can  be  equalled  or  exceeded  by 
each  vehicle  in  the  group  to  which  the  table 
applies,  under  the  following  conditions,  utilizing 
the  procedures  set  forth  in  (e)  below: 

(1)  Stops  are  made  without  lock-up  of  any 
wheel,  except  for  momentary  lock-up  caused 
by  an  automatic  skid  control  device. 

(2)  The  tire  inflation  pressure  and  other 
relevant  component  adjustments  of  the  ^-ehicle 
are  made  according  to  the  manufacturer's  pub- 
lished recommendations. 

(3)  For  passenger  cars,  brake  pedal  force 
does  not  exceed  150  pounds  for  any  brake  ap- 
plication. For  motorcycles,  hand  brake  lever 
force  applied  II/4  inches  from  the  outer  end  of 
the  lever  does  not  exceed  55  pounds,  and  foot 
brake  pedal  force  does  not  exceed  90  pounds. 

(4)  Fuel  tank  is  filled  to  any  level  between 
90  and  100  percent  of  capacity. 

(5)  Transmission  is  in  neutral,  or  the  clutch 
disengaged,  during  the  entire  deceleration. 

(6)  The  vehicle  begins  the  deceleration  in 
the  center  of  a  straight  roadway  lane  that  is 
12  feet  wide,  and  remains  in  the  lane  through- 
out the  deceleration. 

(7)  The  roadway  lane  has  a  grade  of  zero 
percent,  and  the  road  surface  has  a  skid  num- 
ber of  75. 

(8)  All  vehicle  openings  (doors,  wnndows, 
hood,  trunk,  convertible  tops,  etc.)  are  in  the 
closed  position  except  as  required  for  instru- 
mentation purposes. 

(9)  Ambient  temperature  is  between  32°F 
and  100°F. 

(10)  Wind  velocity  is  zero. 

(e)  Procedures. 
( 1 )   Burnish. 

(i)  Passenger  cars.  Burnish  brakes  once 
prior  to  first  stopping  distance  test  by  con- 
ducting 200  stops  from  40  mph  (or  maximmn 
sustained  vehicle  speed  if  the  vehicle  is  in- 
capable of  reaching  40  mph)  at  a  deceleration 
rate  of  12  fjisps  in  normal  driving  gear, 
with  a  cooling  interval  between  stops,  ac- 
complished   by    driving    at    40    mph    for    a 


sufficient  distance  to  reduce  brake  tempera- 
ture  to   250° F,  or   for  one  mile,   whichever        , 
occurs   first.     Eeadjust   brakes   according  to        \ 
manufacturer's   recommendations   after  bur- 
nishing. 

(ii)  Motorcycles.  Adjust  and  burnish 
brakes  in  accordance  with  manufacturer's 
recommendations.  Where  no  burnishing  pro- 
cedures have  been  recommended  by  the  manu- 
facturer, follow  the  i>rocedures  specified 
above  for  passenger  cars,  except  substitute 
30  m.p.h.  for  40  m.p.h.  and  150°  F.  for 
250°  F.,  and  maintain  hand  lever  force  to 
foot  lever  force  ratio  of  approximately  1  to  2. 

(2)  Ensure  that  the  temperature  of  the  hot- 
test service  brake  is  between  130°F  and  150°F 
prior  to  the  start  of  all  stops  (other  than 
burnishing  stops),  as  measured  by  plug-type 
thermocouples  installed  according  to  SAE 
Recommended  Practice  .T843a,  June  1966. 

(3)  Measure  the  stojiiping  distance  as  speci- 
fied in  (c)(2),  (3),  and  (4),  from  the  point 
of  application  of  foi'ce  to  the  brake  control  to 
the  point  at  which  the  vehicle  reaches  a  full 
stop. 

§  575.102     Tire   reserve   load. 

(a)  Purfose  and  scope.  This  section  requires  \ 
manufacturers  of  passenger  cars  to  provide  in- 
formation as  to  the  difference,  expressed  as  a 
percentage  of  the  tire  load  rating,  between  the 
load  imposed  on  a  tire  at  maximum  loaded  ve- 
hicle weight  and  the  tire  load  rating  set  forth  in 
Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  109, 

the  tire  size  designations  recommended  for  use 
on  the  vehicle,  and  the  recommended  tire  infla- 
tion pi-essures  under  maximum  loading  conditions. 

(b)  Application.  This  section  applies  to  pas- 
senger cars  manufactured  on  or  after  January  1, 
1970. 

(c)  Required,  information.  Each  manufacturer 
shall  furnish  the  information  in  (1)  through  (5) 
below,  in  the  form  illustrated  in  Figure  1. 
The  table  that  is  provided  for  a  specific  vehicle 
shall  contain  only  information  that  is  applicable 
to  that  vehicle.  The  tire  reserve  load  jiercentage 
given  for  each  tire  size  designation  or  combina- 
tion of  tire  size  designations  shall  not  exceed  the 
lowest  \-alue  that  is  correct  for  all  the  vehicles 
in  the  group  to  which  the  table  applies. 


(Rev.    Apr.    1970) 


PART  575^ 


Effective:  January  1,   1970 


(1)  Vehicle  description.  The  group  of  ve- 
hicles to  which  the  table  applies,  identified  in 
the  terms  by  which  they  are  described  to  the 
public  by  the  manufacturer. 

(2)  Recommended  tire  size  designations. 
All  tire  size  designations  and  combinations  of 
tire  size  designations,  as  listed  in  Standard 
No.  109,  recommended  by  the  manufacturer 
for  use  on  the  vehicle. 

(3)  Recommended  inflation  pressure  for 
maximum  loaded  vehicle  weight.  Vehicle 
manufacturer's  recommended  inflation  pressure 
for  maximum  loaded  vehicle  weight,  for  each 
recommended  tire  size  designation. 

(4)  Tire  reserve  load  percentage.  The  tire 
reserve  load  percentage  for  the  vehicle,  deter- 
mined according  to  paragraph  (d),  for  each 
of  the  tire  size  designations  or  combinations 
of  tire  size  designations  recommended  by  the 
manufacturer. 


(5)   Warning.      The     following    statement, 
placed  in  proximity  to  the  table : 

"WARNING.  Failure  to  maintain  the 
recommended  tire  inflation  pressure  or  to 
increase  tire  pressure  as  recommended  when 
operating  at  maximum  loaded  vehicle  weight, 
or  loading  the  vehicle  beyond  the  capacities 
specified  on  the  tire  placard  affixed  to  the 
vehicle,  may  result  in  unsafe  operating  con- 
ditions due  to  premature  tire  failure,  un- 
favorable handling  characteristics,  and 
excessive  tire  wear.  The  tire  reserve  load 
percentage  is  a  measure  of  tire  capacity,  not 
of  vehicle  capacity.  Loading  beyond  the 
specified  vehicle  capacity  may  result  in 
failure  of  other  vehicle  components." 

(d)  Determination  of  tire  I'eserve  load  per- 
centage. The  tire  reserve  load  percentage  for  a 
vehicle,  required  by  paragraph  (c),  shall  be  de- 
termined as  follows : 


This  table  lists  the  tire  size  designations  recommended  by  the  manufacturer  for  use  on  the  vehicles  to 
which  it  applies,  with  the  recommended  inflation  pressure  for  maximum  loading  and  the  tire  reserve 
load  percentage  for  each  of  the  tires  listed.  The  tire  reserve  load  percentage  indicated  is  met  or  ex- 
ceeded by  each  vehicle  to  which  the  table  applies. 


Description  of  Vehicles  to  Which  this  Table  Applies : 


Recommended  Tire  Size  Designations 

Recommended  Cold  Inflation  Pressure 

Front 

for  Maximum  Loaded  Vehicle  Weight 

Rear 

Tire  Reserve  Load  Percentage* 

*The  difference,  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  tire  load  rating,  between  (a)  the  load  rating  of  a  tire  at  the  vehicle 
manufacturer's  recommended  inflation  pressure  at  the  maximum  loaded  vehicle  weight  and  (b)  the  load  imposed 
upon  the  tire  by  the  vehicle  at  that  condition. 

WARNING.  Failure  to  maintain  the  recommended  tire  inflation  pressure  or  to  increase  tire  pressure 
as  recommended  when  operating  at  maximum  loaded  vehicle  weight,  or  loading  the  vehicle  beyond 
the  capacities  specified  on  the  tire  placard  affixed  to  the  vehicle,  may  result  in  unsafe  operating  con- 
ditions due  to  premature  tire  failure,  unfavorable  handling  characteristics,  and  excessive  tire  wear. 
The  tire  reserve  load  percentage  is  a  measure  of  tire  capacity,  not  of  vehicle  capacity.  Loading  be- 
yond the  specified  vehicle  capacity  may  result  in  failure  of  other  vehicle  components. 


(Rev.    12/6/72) 


PART  575-5 


Effective:   January    1,    1970 


(1)  Determine  Wi,  the  vehicle  maximum 
load  on  the  tire,  for  the  front  and  rear  tires 
respectively.  These  figures  are  determined  by 
distributing  to  each  axle  its  share  of  the  maxi- 
mum loaded  vehicle  weight  and  dividing  that 
share  by  two. 

(2)  Find  Wj,  the  load  rating  for  each  tire 
as  installed,  set  forth  in  Standard  No.  109, 
using  the  vehicle  manufacturer's  recommended 
inflation  pressure  for  maximum  loaded  vehicle 
weight. 

(3)  Calculate  the  tire  reserve  load  percent- 
age for  each  tire  as : 


w,-w 


i  xlOO 


(4)  The  tire  reserve  load  percentage  for  the 
vehicle  is  the  lowest  of  the  percentages  calcu- 
lated in  (3)  for  each  tire  on  the  vehicle. 

[9  575.103  Truck-camper  loading. 

(a)  Scope.  This  section  requires  manufacturers 
of  trucks  that  are  capable  of  accommodating 
slide-in  campers  to  provide  information  on  the 
cargo  weight  rating  and  the  longitudinal  limits 
within  which  the  center  of  gravity  for  the  cargo 
weight  rating  should  be  located. 

(b)  Purpose.  The  purpose  of  this  section  is 
to  provide  information  that  can  be  used  to  reduce 
overloading  and  improper  load  distribution  in 
truck-camper  combinations,  in  order  to  prevent 
accidents  resulting  from  the  adverse  effects  of 
these  conditions  on  vehicle  steering  and  braking. 

(c)  Application.  This  section  applies  to  trucks 
that  are  capable  of  accommodating  slide-in 
campers. 

(d)  Definitions.  "Camper"  means  a  structure 
designed  to  be  mounted  in  the  cargo  area  of  a 
truck,  or  attached  to  an  incomplete  vehicle  with 
motive  power,  for  the  purpose  of  providing 
shelter  for  persons. 

["Cargo  weight  rating"  means  the  value  speci- 
fied by  the  manufacturer  as  the  cargo-carrying 
capacity,  in  pounds,  of  a  vehicle,  exclusive  of  the 
weight  of  occupants,  computed  as  150  pounds 
times  the  number  of  designated  seating  positions. 
(38  F.R.  4400— February  14,  1973.  Effective: 
4/1/73)] 


"Slide-in-camper"  means  a  camper  having  a 
roof,  floor  and  sides,  designed  to  be  mounted 
on  and  removable  from  the  cargo  area  of  a  truck 
by  the  user. 

(e)  Requirements.  Except  as  provided  in 
paragraph  (f)  of  this  section  each  manufacturer 
of  a  truck  that  is  capable  of  accommodating  a 
slide-in  camper  shall  furnish  the  information 
specified  in  (1)  through  (5)  below: 

(1)  [A  picture  showing  the  manufacturer's 
recommended   longitudinal   center   of  gravity 


RECOMMENOEO 
LOCATION  FOR 
CARGO  CENTER 
OF  GRAVITY  FOR 
CARGO  WEIGHT    — 
^  RATING 


TRUCK  LOADING  INFORMATION 


zone  for  the  cargo  weight  rating  in  the  form 
illustrated  in  Figure  1.  The  boundaries  of  the 
zone  shall  be  such  that  when  a  slide-in  camper 
equal  in  weight  to  the  truck's  cargo  weight 
rating  is  installed,  no  gross  axle  weight  rating 
of  the  truck  is  exceeded.  Until  October  1,  1973 
the  phrase  "Aft  End  of  Cargo  Area"  may  be 
used  in  Figure  1  instead  of  "Rear  End  of  Truck 
Bed".  (38  F.R.  4400— February  14,  1973. 
Effective:  4/1/73)] 

(2)  The  truck's  cargo  weight  rating. 

(3)  [The  statements:  "When  the  truck  is 
used  to  carry  a  slide-in  camper,  the  total  cargo 
load  of  the  truck  consists  of  the  manufacturer's 
camper  weight  figure,  the  weight  of  installed 
additional  camper  equipment  not  included  in 
the  manufacturer's  camper  weight  figure,  the 
weight  of  camper  cargo,  and  the  weight  of 
passengers  in  the  camper.  The  total  cargo 
load  should  not  exceed  the  truck's  cargo  weight 
rating  and  the  camper's  center  of  gravity 
should  fall  within  the  truck's  recommended 
center  of  gravity  zone  when  installed."  Until 
October  1,  1973  the  phrase  "total  load"  may  be 


(Rev.  J/ 12/73) 


PART  575-6 


Effective:    January    1,    1970 


used  instead  of  "total  cargo  load".     (38  F.R. 
4400— February  14,  1973.    Effective:  4/1/73)] 

(4)  A  picture  showing  the  proper  match  of 
a  truck  and  slide-in  camper  in  the  form  illus- 
trated in  Figure  2. 


FIGURE  2      EXAMPLE  OF  PROPER  TRUCK  AND  CAMPER  MATCH 

(5)  The  statements:  "Secure  loose  items  to 
prevent  weight  shifts  that  could  affect  the 
balance  of  your  vehicle.  Wlien  the  truck 
camper  is  loaded,  drive  to  a  scale  and  weigh 
on  the  front  and  on  the  rear  wheels  separately 
to  determine  axle  loads.  Individual  axle  loads 
should  not  exceed  either  of  the  gi-oss  axle 
weight  ratings  (GAWR).  The  total  of  the 
axle  loads  should  not  exceed  the  gross  vehicle 
weight  rating  (GVIVR).  These  ratings  are 
given  on  the  vehicle  certification  label  that  is 
located  on  the  left  side  of  the  vehicle,  normally 
the  dash,  hinge  pillar,  door  latch  post,  or  door 
edge  next  to  the  driver.  If  weight  ratings  are 
exceeded,  move  or  remove  items  to  bring  all 
weights  below  the  ratings." 

(f)  If  a  truck  would  accommodate  a  slide-in 
camper  but  the  manufacturer  of  the  truck  recom- 
mends that  the  truck  not  be  used  for  that  purpose, 
the  information  specified  in  paragrai^h  (e)  shall 
not  be  provided  but  instead  the  manufacturer 
shall  provide  a  statement  that  the  truck  should 
not  be  used  to  carry  a  slide-in  camper.  (37  F.R. 
26607— December  14,  1972.     Effective:  3/1/73)] 

§  575.104  Uniform  Tire  Quality  Grading 
Standards 

(a)  Scope.  This  section  requires  motor  ve- 
hicle and  tire  manufacturers  and  tire  brand  name 
owners  to  provide  information  indicating  the 
relative  performance  of  passenger  car  tires  in 
the  areas  of  treadwear,  traction,  and  temperature 
resistance. 


(b)  Purpose.  The  purpose  of  this  section  is  to 
aid  the  consumer  in  making  an  informed  choice 
in  the  purchase  of  passenger  car  tires. 

(c)  Application.  This  section  applies  to  new 
pneumatic  tires  for  use  on  passenger  cars  manu- 
factured after  1948.  However,  this  section  does 
not  apply  to  deep  tread,  winter-type  snow  tires. 

(d)  Requirements. 
(1)  Information. 

(i)  Each  manufacturer  of  tires,  or  in  the 
case  of  tires  marketed  under  a  brand  name, 
each  brand  name  owner,  shall  provide  grad- 
ing information  for  each  tire  of  which  he 
is  the  manufacturer  or  brand  name  owner  in 
the  manner  set  forth  in  paragraphs  (d)  (1) 
(i)(A)  and  (d)  (1)  (i)  (B)  of  this  section. 
The  grades  for  each  tire  shall  be  only  those 
specified  'in  paragraph  (d)  (2)  of  tliis  sec- 
tion. Each  tire  shall  be  able  to  achieve  the 
level  of  perfomiance  represented  by  each 
grade  with  which  it  is  labeled.  An  individ- 
ual tire  need  not,  however,  meet  further  re- 
quirements after  having  been  subjected  to 
the  test  for  any  one  grade. 

(A)  Each  tire  shall  be  graded  with  the 
words,  letters,  symbols,  and  figures  speci- 
fied in  paragraph  (d)  (2)  of  this  section, 
permanently  molded  into  or  onto  the  tire 
sidewall  between  the  tire's  maximum  sec- 
tion width  and  shoulder  in  accordance 
with  one  of  the  methods  described  in 
Figure  1. 

(B)  Each  tire,  except  a  tire  sold  as 
original  equipment  on  a  new  vehicle,  shall 
have  affixed  to  its  tread  surface  in  a  man- 
ner such  that  it  is  not  easily  removable 
a  label  containing  its  grades  and  other 
information  in  the  form  illustrated  in 
Figure  2.  The  treadwear  grade  attributed 
to  the  tire  shall  be  either  imprinted  or 
indeliblj^  stamped  on  the  label  adjacent  to 
the  description  of  the  treadwear  grade. 
The  label  shall  also  depict  all  possible 
grades  for  traction  and  temperature  re- 
sistance. The  traction  and  temperature 
resistance  performance  grades  attributed 
to  the  tire  shall  be  indelibly  circled. 


(Rev.    5/20/75) 


PART  575-7 


Effective:   January    1,    1970 


(ii)  In  the  case  of  infoi'ination  required 
in  accordance  with  §  575.6(c)  of  this  part  to 
be  furnished  to  prospective  purchasers  of 
motor  velaicles  and  tires,  each  veliicle  manu- 
facturer and  each  tire  manufacturer  or 
brand  name  owner  shall  as  part  of  that  in- 
formation list  all  possible  grades  for  trac- 
tion and  temperature  resistance,  and  restate 
verbatim  the  explanations  for  each  per- 
formance area  specified  in  Figure  2.  The 
information  need  not  be  in  the  same  format 
as  in  Figure  2,  but  must  indicate  clearly  and 
unambiguously  the  grade  in  each  perform- 
ance area  for: 

(A)  In  the  case  of  a  vehicle  manufac- 
turer, each  tire  offered  for  sale  on  a  new 
motor  vehicle ;  and 

(B)  In  the  case  of  a  tire  manufacturer 
or  brand  name  owner,  each  tire  of  that 
manufacturer  or  brand  name  owner  of- 
fered for  sale  at  the  particular  location. 

(iii)  In  the  case  of  information  required 
in  accordance  with  §  575.6(a)  of  this  part  to 
be  furnished  to  the  first  purchaser  of  a  new 
motor  vehicle,  each  manufacturer  of  motor 
vehicles  shall  as  part  of  that  information 
list  all  possible  grades  for  traction  and  tem- 
perature resistance  and  restate  verbatim  the 
explanation  for  each  performance  area  spec- 
ified in  Figure  2.  The  information  need 
not  be  in  the  format  of  Figiire  2,  but  must 
clearly  and  unambiguously  indicate  the  qual- 
ity grades  for  the  tires  with  which  the  ve- 
hicle is  equipped. 

(2)  Performance. 

(i)  Treadwear.  Each  tire  shall  be  graded 
for  treadwear  performance  with  the  word 
"TREADWEAR"  followed  by  a  number  of 
two  or  three  digits  representing  the  tire's 
grade  for  treadwear,  expressed  as  a  per- 
centage of  the  NHTSA  nominal  treadwear 
value,  when  tested  in  accordance  with  the 
conditions  and  procedures  specified  in  para- 
graph (e)  of  this  section.  Treadwear  grades 
shall  be  multiples  of  10  {e.g.,  80,  150). 

(ii)  Traction.  Each  tire  shall  be  graded 
for  traction  performance  with  the  word 
"TRACTION,"  followed  by  the  symbols  0, 
*,  or  **  (either  asterisks  or  5-pointed  stars) 


when  the  tire  is  tested  in  accordance  with  the        /^ 
conditions  and  procedures  specified  in  para-       t 
graph  (f)  of  this  section. 

(A)  The  tire  shall  be  graded  0  when 
the  adjusted  traction  coefficient  is  either: 

{1)  0.38  or  less  when  tested  in  accord- 
ance with  paragraph  (f )  (2)  on  the 
asphalt  surface  specified  in  paragraph 
(f )  (1)  (i)  of  this  section,  or 

{2)  0.26  or  less  when  tested  in  accord- 
ance with  paragraph  (f )  (2)  on  the  con- 
crete surface  specified  in  paragraph 
(f)(l)(i)   of  this  section. 

(B)  The  tii'e  may  be  graded  *  only 
when  its  adjusted  traction  coefficient  is 
both : 

(7)  More  than  0.38  when  tested  in 
accordance  with  paragraph  (f ) (2)  on 
the  asphalt  surface  specified  in  para- 
graph  (f)(1)  (i)   of  this  section,  and 

{2)  More  than  0.26  when  tested  in 
accordance  with  paragraph  (f)  (2)  on 
the  concrete  surface  specified  in  para- 
graph (f )  (1)  (i)  of  this  section. 

(C)  The   tire    may   be   graded    **    only 
when    its    adjusted    traction    coefficient   is         ^ 
both : 

(7)  More  than  0.47  when  tested  in  ac- 
cordance with  paragraph  (f) (2)  on  the 
asphalt  surface  specified  in  paragraph 
(f)  (1)  (i)  of  this  section,  and 

{2)  IMore  than  0.35  when  tested  in  ac- 
cordance with  paragraph  (f ) (2)  on  the 
conci'ete  suiface  specified  in  paragraph 
(f)(l)(i)   of  this  section. 

(iii)  Temperature  Resistance.  Each  tire 
sliall  l)e  graded  for  temperature  resistance 
performance  with  the  word  "TEMPERA- 
TURE" followed  by  the  letter  A,  B,  or  C, 
based  on  its  performance  when  the  tire  is 
tested  in  accordance  with  the  procedures 
specified  in  paragraph  (g)  of  this  section. 
A  tire  shall  be  considered  to  have  success- 
fully completed  a  test  stage  in  accordance 
with  this  paragraph  if,  at  the  end  of  the 
test  stage,  it  exhibits  no  visual  evidence  of 
tread,  sidewall,  ply.  cord,  innerliner  or  l^ead 
separation,    chunking,    broken    cords,   crack- 


(Rev.    5/20/75) 


PART  575-8 


EfFeclive:   January   1,    1970 


ing  or  open  splices  as  defined  in  §  571.109 
of  this  chapter,  and  the  tire  pressure  is  not 
less  than  the  pressure  specified  in  paragraph 
(g)  (1)  of  this  section. 

(A)  The  tire  shall  be  graded  C  if  it 
fails  to  complete  the  500  rpm  test  stage 
specified  in  paragraph  (g)  (0)  of  this  sec- 
tion. 

(B)  The  tire  may  be  graded  B  only  if 
it  successfully  completes  the  500  rpm  test 
stage  specified  in  pai'agraph  (g)  (9)  of 
this  section. 

(C)  The  tire  may  be  graded  A  only  if 
it  successfully  completes  the  575  rpm  test 
stage  specified  in  paragraph  (g)  (9)  of 
this  section. 

(e)   Treadtvear   grading   conditions   and  pro- 
cedures 

(1)    Conditions. 

(i)  Tire  treadwear  performance  is  eval- 
uated on  a  specific  roadway  course  ap- 
proximately 400  miles  in  length,  which  is 
established  by  the  XHTSA  both  for  its  own 
compliance  testing  and  for  that  of  regulated 
persons.  The  course  is  designed  to  produce 
treadwear  rates  that  are  generally  repre- 
sentative of  those  encountered  in  public  use 
for  tires  of  differing  construction  types.  The 
course  and  driving  procedures  are  described 
in  Appendix  A. 

(ii)  Treadwear  grades  are  evaluated  by 
first  measuring  tlie  performance  of  a  candi- 
date tire  on  the  government  test  course,  and 
then  correcting  the  projected  mileage  ob- 
tained to  account  for  environmental  varia- 
tions on  the  basis  of  the  performance  of 
course  monitoring  tires  of  the  same  general 
construction  type  (bias,  bias-belted,  or  ra- 
dial) run  in  the  same  convoy.  The  three 
types  of  course  monitoring  tires  are  made 
available  by  the  NHTSA  at  Goodfellow  Air 
Force  Base.  San  Angelo,  Texas,  for  purchase 
by  any  persons  conducting  tests  at  the  test 
course. 

(iii)  In  convoy  tests  each  vehicle  in  the 
same  convoy,  except  for  the  lead  vehicle,  is 
throughout  the  test  within  human  eye  range 
of  the  vehicle  immediately  ahead  of  it. 


(iv)  A  test  convoy  consists  of  no  more 
than  four  passenger  cars,  each  having  only 
rear-wheel  drive. 

(v)  [On  each  convoy  vehicle,  all  tires  are 
mounted  on  identical  rims:  either  a  "test 
rim"  as  defined  with  respect  to  that  tire  in 
paragraph  S3  of  Standard  No.  109  (§  571. 109 
of  this  chapter)  which  is  of  the  width  listed 
for  the  applicable  tire  size  designation  under 
the  words  "test  rim  width"  in  Table  I  of  the 
Appendix  to  Standard  No.  109,  or  such  a 
"test  rim"  having  a  width  within  —0-1-0.50 
inches  of  the  width  listed.  (40  F.R.  28071— 
July  3,  1975.  Effective:  7/3/75)] 
(2)    Treadwear  grading  procedure. 

(i)  Equip  a  convoy  with  course  monitor- 
ing and  candidate  tires  of  the  same  construc- 
tion type.  Place  four  course  monitoring 
tires  on  one  vehicle.  On  each  other  vehicle, 
place  four  candidate  tires  with  identical  size 
designations.  On  each  axle,  place  tires  that 
are  identical  with  respect  to  manufacturer 
and  line. 

(ii)  Inflate  each  candidate  and  each  course 
monitoring  tire  to  an  inflation  pressure  8 
pounds  per  square  inch  less  than  its  maxi- 
mum permissible  inflation  pressure. 

(ii)  Load  each  vehicle  so  that  the  load  on 
each  course  monitoring  and  candidate  tire  is 
85  percent  of  the  load  specified  in  Appendix 
A  of  §  571.109  of  this  chapter  (Standard 
No.  109)  at  the  inflation  pressure  specified 
in  paragraph  (e)  (2)  (ii)  of  this  section. 

(iv)  Adjust  wheel  alignment  to  that  speci- 
fied bj'  the  vehicle  manufacturer. 

(v)  Subject  candidate  and  course  mon- 
itoring tires  to  "break-in"  by  running  the 
tires  in  convoy  for  two  circuits  of  the  test 
roadway  (800  miles).  At  the  end  of  the 
first  circuit,  rotate  each  vehicle's  tires  by 
moving  each  front  tire  to  the  same  side  of 
the  rear  axle  and  each  rear  tire  to  the  oppo- 
site side  of  the  front  axle. 

(vi)  After  break-in,  allow  the  tires  to  cool 
to  the  inflation  pressure  specified  in  para- 
graph (e)  (2)  (ii)  or  for  two  hours,  which- 
ever occurs  first.  Measure,  to  the  nearest 
0.001  inch,  the  tread  depth  of  each  candidate 
and  course  monitoring  tire,  avoiding  tread- 


(Rev.    6/25/75) 


PART  575-9 


Effective:   January    1,    1970 


wear  indicators,  at  six  equally  spaced  points 
in  each  groove.  For  each  tire  compute  the 
average  of  the  measurements.  Do  not  in- 
clude those  shoulder  grooves  which  are  not 
provided  with  treadwear  indicators. 

(vii)  Adjust  wheel  alignment  to  the  manu- 
factui'er's  specifications. 

(viii)  Drive  the  convoy  on  the  test  road- 
way for  6,400  miles.    After  each  800  miles: 

(A)  Following  the  procedure  set  out  in 
paragraph  (e)  (2)  (vi)  of  this  section,  al- 
low the  tires  to  cool  and  measure  the 
average  tread  depth  of  each  tire; 

(B)  Rotate  each  vehicle's  tires  by  mov- 
ing each  front  tire  to  the  same  side  of  the 
rear  axle  and  each  rear  tire  to  the  opposite 
side  of  the  front  axle. 

(C)  Rotate  the  vehicles  in  the  convoy 
by  moving  the  last  vehicle  to  the  lead  posi- 
tion. Do  not  rotate  driver  position  within 
the  convoy. 

(D)  Adjust  wheel  alignment  to  the  ve- 
hicle manufacturer's  specifications,  if  neces- 
sary. 

(ix)  Determine  the  projected  mileage  for 
each  candidate  tire  as  follows: 

(A)  For  each  course  monitoring  and 
candidate  tire  in  the  convoy,  using  the 
average  tread  depth  measurements  obtained 
in  accordance  with  paragraphs  (e)  (2)  (vi) 
of  this  section  and  the  corresponding  mile- 
ages as  data  points,  apply  the  method  of 
least  squares  as  described  in  Appendix  C 
of  this  section  to  determine  the  estimated 
regression  line  of  y  on  x  given  by  the  fol- 
lowing fonnula: 

y  =  a  +  bx 
1000 
where : 

y  =  average  tread  depth  in  mils, 
x  =  miles  after  break-in, 
a  =  y  intercept  of  regression  line  (refer- 
ence tread  depth)  in  mils,  calculated 
using  tlie  method   of  least  squares; 
and 
b=the   slope  of  the   regression   line  in 
mils  of  tread  depth  per  1,000  miles, 
calculated  usine  the  method  of  least 


squares.    This  slope  will  be  negative 
in  value.     The  tire's  wear  rate  is  de-       \ 
fined  as  the  absolute  value  of  the  slope 
of  the  regression  line. 

(B)  Average  the  wear  rates  of  the  four 
course  monitoring  tires  as  determined  in 
accordance  with  paragraph  (e)  (2)  (ix)  (A) 
of  this  section. 

(C)  Determine  the  course  severity  ad- 
justment factor  by  dividing  the  base  wear 
rate  for  the  course  monitoring  tire  (see 
note  below)  by  the  average  wear  rate  for 
the  four  course  monitoring  tires  deter- 
mined in  accordance  with  paragraph 
(e)  (2)  (ix)  (B)  of  this  section. 

NOTE :  The  base  wear  rates  for  the 
course  monitoring  tires  will  be  furnished 
to  the  purchaser  at  the  time  of  purchase. 

(D)  Determine  the  adjusted  wear  rate 
for  each  candidate  tire  by  multiplying  its 
wear  rate  determined  in  accordance  with 
paragraph  (e)  (2)  (ix)  (A)  by  the  course 
severity  adjustment  factor  detennined  in 
accordance  with  paragraph  (e)  (2)  (ix)  (C) 
of  this  section. 

(E)  Determine    the    projected    mileage         ' 
for  each  candidate  tire  using  the  following 
formula : 

Projected  mileage  =  1000  (a-62)  +  800 

h' 
where : 

a=y  intercept  of  regression  line  (refer- 
ence tread  depth)  for  the  candidate 
tire  as  determined  in  accordance  with 
paragraph  (e)  (2)  (ix)  (A)  of  this 
section. 
b'=the  adjusted  wear  rate  for  the  can- 
didate tire  as  determined  in  accord- 
ance with  paragi'aph  (e)(2)(ix)(D) 
of  this  section. 

(F)  Compute  the  percentage  of  the 
NHTSA  nominal  ti-eadwear  value  for  each 
candidate  tire  using  the  following  formula : 

P  =  Projected  Mileage 

30,000  X   100 

Round  off  the  percentage  to  the  nearest 
lower  10%  increment. 


(Rev.   5/20/75) 


PART  575-10 


Effective:    January    1,    1970 


(f)   Traction    grading    conditions    and    pro- 
cedures. 

(1)   Conditions. 

(i)  Tire  traction  performance  is  evaluated 
on  skid  pads  that  are  established,  and  whose 
severity  is  monitored,  by  the  NHTSA  both 
for  its  compliance  testing  and  for  that  of 
regulated  persons.  The  test  pavements  are 
asphalt  and  concrete  surfaces  constructed  in 
accordance  with  the  specifications  for  pads 
"C"  and  "A"  in  the  "Manual  for  the  Con- 
struction and  Maintenance  of  Skid  Sur- 
faces," National  Technical  Information  Sei-v- 
ice  No.  DOT-HS-800-814.  The  surfaces 
have  locked  wheel  traction  coefficients  when 
evaluated  in  accordance  with  paragraphs 
(f)(2)(i)  through  (f )  (2)  (vii)  of  this  sec- 
tion of  0.50  ±  0.10  for  the  asphalt  and 
0.35  ±  0.10  for  the  concrete.  The  location  of 
the  skid  pads  is  described  in  Appendix  B. 

(ii)  The  standard  tire  is  the  American 
Society  for  Testing  and  Materials  (ASTM) 
E  501  "Standard  Tire  for  Pavement  Skid 
Resistance  Tests." 

(iii)  The  pavement  surface  is  wett«d  in 
accordance  with  paragraph  3.5,  "Pavement 
Wetting  System,"  of  ATSM  Method  E  274- 
70,  "Skid  Resistance  of  Paved  Surfaces 
Using  a  Full-Scale  Tire." 

(iv)  The  test  apparatus  is  a  test  trailer 
built  in  conformity  with  the  specifications 
in  paragraph  3,  "Apparatus",  of  ASTM 
Method  E  274-70,  and  instrumented  in  ac- 
cordance with  paragraph  3.3.2  of  that 
method,  except  that  "wheel  load"  in  para- 
graph 3.2.2  and  tire  and  rim  specifications 
in  paragraph  3.2.3  of  that  method  are  as 
specified  in  the  procedures  in  paragraph 
(f )  (2)  of  this  section  for  standard  and  can- 
didate tires. 

(v)  The  test  apparatus  is  calibrated  in 
accordance  with  ASTM  Method  F  377-74, 
"Standard  Method  for  Calibration  of  Brak- 
ing Force  for  Testing  of  Pneumatic  Tires" 
with  the  trailer's  tires  inflated  to  24  psi  and 
loaded  to  1085  pounds. 

(vi)  Consecutive  tests  on  the  same  sur- 
face are  conducted  not  less  than  30  seconds 
apart. 


(vii)  A  standard  tire  is  discarded  in  ac- 
cordance with  ASTM  Method  E  501. 

(2)  Procedure. 

(i)   Prepare  two  standard  tires  as  follows: 

(A)  Condition  the  tires  by  running 
them  for  200  miles  on  a  pavement  surface. 

(B)  [Mount  each  tire  on  a  "test  rim" 
as  defined  in  paragraph  S3  of  Standard 
No.  109  (§571.109  of  this  chapter)  which 
is  of  a  width  within  —0-1-0.50  inches  of 
the  width  listed  for  the  applicable  tire  size 
designation  under  the  words  "test  rim 
width"  in  Table  I  of  the  Appendix  to 
Standard  No.  109.  Then  inflate  the  tire  to 
24  psi.  (40  F.R.  28071— July  3,  1975. 
Effective:  7/3/75)] 

(C)  Statically  balance  each  tire-rim 
combination. 

(D)  Allow  each  tire  to  cool  to  ambient 
temperature  and  readjust  its  inflation  pres- 
sure to  24  psi. 

(ii)  Mount  the  tires  on  the  test  apparatus 
described  in  paragraph  (f)  (1)  (iv)  of  this 
section  and  load  each  tire  to  1085  pounds. 

(iii)  Tow  the  trailer  on  the  asphalt  test 
surface  specified  in  paragraph  (f )  (1)  (i)  of 
this  section  at  a  speed  of  40  mph,  lock  one 
trailer  wheel,  and  record  the  locked-wheel 
traction  coefficient  on  the  tire  associated  with 
that  wheel  between  0.5  and  1.5  seconds  after 
lockup. 

(iv)  Repeat  the  test  on  the  concrete  sur- 
face, locking  the  same  wheel. 

(v)  Repeat  the  tests  specified  in  para- 
graphs (f)(2)  (iii)  and  (f)(2)(iv)  for  a 
total  of  10  measurements  on  each  test  sur- 
face. 

(vi)  Repeat  the  procedures  specified  in 
(f)(2)  (iii)  through  (f)  (2)  (v),  locking  the 
wheel  associated  with  the  other  tire. 

(vii)  Average  the  20  measurements  taken 
on  the  asphalt  surface  to  find  the  standard 
tire  traction  coefficient  for  the  asphalt  sur- 
face. Average  the  20  measurements  taken 
on  the  concrete  surface  to  find  the  standard 
tire  traction  coefficient  for  the  concrete  sur- 
face. 


(Rev.   6/25/75) 


PART  575-11 


Effective:   January    1,    1970 


(viii)  Prepare  two  candidate  tires  of  the 
same  construction  type,  manufacturer,  line, 
and  size  designation  in  accordance  with  para- 
graph (f)(2)(i),  mount  them  on  the  test 
apparatus,  and  test  one  of  them  according 
to  the  procedures  of  paragraphs  (f )  (2)  (ii) 
through  (v)  of  this  section,  except  load  each 
tire  to  85  percent  of  the  load  specified  at 
24  psi  for  the  tires'  size  designation  in 
Appendix  A  of  Standard  No.  109  (§  571.109 
of  this  chapter).  Average  the  10  measure- 
ments taken  on  the  asphalt  surface  to  find 
the  candidate  tire  traction  coefficient  for  the 
asphalt  surface.  Average  the  10  measure- 
ments taken  on  the  concrete  surface  to  find 
the  candidate  tire  traction  coefficient  for  the 
concrete  surface. 


(ix)  Compute  a  candidate  tire's  adjusted 
traction  coefficient  for  asphalt  (ua)  by  the 
following  formula:  \^ 

Measured  candidate  Measured  standard 

Us  =  tire  coefficient        +  0.50  —tire  coefficient 
for  asphalt  for  asplialt 

(x)  Compute  a  candidate  tire's  adjusted 
traction  coefficient  for  concrete  (Uc)  by  the 
following  formula: 


Measured  candidate 
=  tire  coefficient         +  0.35 
for  concrete 


Measured  standard 
-tire  coefficient 
for  concrete 


(g)    Temperature  resistance  grading. 

(1)  Mount  the  tire  on  any  test  rim  as  de- 
fined in  S3  of  Standard  No.  109  (§571.109  of 
this  chapter)    and  inflate  it  to  2  pounds  per 


^«' 


S>^ 


^^\^  ^''*"""'**Tf«/'f/f4,^ 


Curvature  to 
Suit  Mold 


^tf^ 


TREADWEAR   160 
TRACTION  ^^ 
TEMPERATURE    B 


1/4 

nzBi 


1/4       1.0 

1  1/5: 

1/4 


SAMPLE 
Quality  Grad«c 


-2  1/2"  min. 


Locate  quality  grades  between  the 
shoulder  and  the  maximum  section 
width. 


Note:     The  quality  grades  shall  be  m 
"Futura  Bold,  Modified,  Condensed  or 
Gothic"  characters  piermanently  molded 
(.020  to  .040  deep)     mto  or  onto  the 
tire  as  indicated. 


(Rev.    5/20/75) 


FIGURE  1 

PART  575-12 


V 


Effecfive:   January    1,    1970 


square  inch  less  than  its  maximum  permissible 
inflation  pressure. 

(2)  Condition  the  tire-rim  assembly  at  an 
ambient  temperature  of  105°  for  3  hours. 

(3)  Adjust  the  pressure  again  to  2  pounds 
per  square  incli  less  than  the  maximum  per- 
missible inflation  pressure. 

(4)  Mount  the  tire-rim  assembly  on  an  axle, 
and  press  the  tire  read  against  the  surface  of 
a  flat-faced  steel  test  wheel  that  is  67.23  inches 
in  diameter  and  at  least  as  wide  as  the  section 
width  of  the  tire. 

(5)  During  the  test,  including  the  pressure 
measurements  specified  in  paragraphs  (g)(1) 
and  (g)  (3)  of  this  section,  maintain  the  tem- 
perature of  the  ambient  air,  as  measured  12 
inches  from  the  edge  of  the  rim  flange  at  any 
point  on  the  circumference  on  either  side  of 
the  tire,  at  105°  F.  Locate  the  temperature 
sensor  so  that  its  readings  arc  not  affected  by 
heat  radiation,  drafts,  variations  in  the  tem- 


perature of  the  surrounding  air,  or  guards  or 
other  devices. 

(6)  Press  the  tire  against  the  test  wheel  at 
the  load  specified  in  Appendix  A  of  §  571.109 
of  this  chapter  (Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Stand- 
ard No.  109)  for  the  tire's  size  designation 
and  the  inflation  pressure  that  is  8  pounds  per 
square  inch  less  than  the  tire's  maximum  per- 
missible inflation  pressure. 

(7)  Rotate  the  test  wheel  at  250  rpm  for  2 
hours. 

(8)  Remove  the  load,  allow  the  tire  to  cool 
to  105°  F.  or  for  2  hours,  whichever  occurs 
last,  and  readjust  the  inflation  pressure  to  2 
pounds  per  square  inch  less  than  the  tire's  max- 
mum  permissible  inflation  pressure. 

(9)  Reapply  the  load  and  without  interrup- 
tion or  readjustment  of  inflation  pressure,  ro- 
tate the  test  wheel  at  375  rpm  for  30  minutes, 
and  then  at  successively  higher  rates  in  25  rpm 
increments,  each  for  30  minutes,  until  the  tire 
has  run  at  575  rpm  for  30  minutes,  or  to 
failure,  whichever  occurs  first. 


DOT  QUALITY  GRADES 

ALL  PASSENGER  CAR  TIRES  MUST  CONFORM  TO  FEDERAL  SAFETY 
REQUIREMENTS  IN  ADDITION  TO  THESE  GRADES 


Treadwear 


Traction 
** 

* 
0 

Temperature 
A 
B 
C 


The  treadwear  grade  is  a  comparative  rating  based  on  the  wear  rate  of  the 
tire  when  tested  under  controlled  conditions  on  a  specified  government  test 
course.  For  example,  a  tire  graded  200  would  wear  twice  as  well  on  the 
government  course  as  a  tire  graded  100.  The  relative  performance  of  tires 
depends  upon  the  actual  conditions  of  their  use,  however,  and  may  depart 
significantly  from  the  norm  due  to  variations  in  driving  habits,  service  prac- 
tices, and  differences  in  road  characteristics  and  climate. 

The  traction  grades  are  **  (the  highest),  *,  and  0,  and  represent  the  tire's 
ability  to  stop  on  wet  pavements  as  measured  on  asphalt  and  concrete  test 
surfaces.    A  tire  marked  0  for  traction  may  have  poor  traction  performance. 


The  temperature  grades  are  A  (the  highest) ,  B,  and  C,  representing  the  tire's 
resistance  to  the  generation  of  heat  and  its  ability  to  dissipate  heat.  Sustained 
high  temperature  can  cause  the  material  of  the  tire  to  degenerate  and  reduce 
tire  life,  and  excessive  temperature  can  lead  to  sudden  tire  failure.  The  grade 
C  corresponds  to  a  level  of  performance  which  all  passenger  car  tires  must 
meet  under  the  Federal  motor  vehicle  safety  standards.  Grades  B  and  A 
represent  higher  levels  of  performance  than  the  minimum  required  by  law. 

FIGURE  2 


(Rev.    5/20/75) 

231-088   O  -  77  -  78 


PART  575-13 


Effective:   January    1,    1970 


APPENDIX  A 

Treadwear  Test  Course  and 
Driving   Procedures 

INTRODUCTION 

The  test  course  consists  of  three  loops  of  a 
total  of  400  miles  in  the  geographical  vicinity 
of  Goodfellow  AFB,  San  Angelo,  Texas. 

The  first  loop  runs  south  143  miles  through  the 
cities  of  Eldorado,  Sonora,  and  Juno,  Texas,  to 
the  Camp  Hudson  Historical  Marker,  and  re- 
turns by  the  same  route. 

The  second  loop  runs  east  over  Farm  and 
Ranch  Roads  (FM)  and  returns  to  its  starting 
point. 

The  tliird  loop  runs  northwest  to  Water  Val- 
ley, northeast  toward  Robert  Lee  and  returns  via 
Texas  208  to  the  vicinity  of  Goodfellow  AFB. 

ROUTE 

The  route  is  shown  in  Figure  3.  The  table 
identifies  key  points  by  number.  These  numbers 
are  encircled  in  Figure  3  and  in  parentheses  in 
the  descriptive  material  that  follows. 

Southern   Loop 

The  course  begins  at  the  intersection  (1)  of 
Ft.  McKavitt  Road  and  Paint  Rock  Road 
(FM388)  at  the  northwest  corner  of  Goodfellow 
AFB. 

Drive  east  via  FM388  to  junction  with  Loop 
Road  306  (2).  Turn  right  onto  Loop  Road  306 
and  proceed  south  to  junction  with  US  277  (3). 
Turn  onto  US  277  and  proceed  south  through 
Eldorado  and  Sonora  (4),  continuing  on  US  277 
to  junction  with  FM189  (5).  Turn  right  onto 
FM189  and  proceed  to  junction  with  Texas  163 
(6).  Turn  left  onto  Texas  163,  proceed  south 
to  Camp  Hudson  Historical  Marker  (7)  and  U- 
turn  in  highway.  Reverse  route  to  junction  of 
Loop  Road  306  and  FM388  (2). 

Eastern   Loop 

From  junction  of  Loop  Road  306  and  FM388 
(2)  make  right  turn  onto  FM388  and  drive  east 
to  junction  with  FM2334  (13).  Turn  right  onto 
FM2334  and  proceed  south  across  FM765  (14) 
to  junction  of  FM2334  and  US  87  (15).  Make 
U-turn  and  return  to  junction  of  FM388  and 
Loop  Road  306  (2)  by  the  same  route. 


®HO«ERT  LEE 


WATER  VALLEV 


\ 


\n^ 


FOBT  McKAVITT  BOAO  ~!      lC-4^nSn-+^ to* 
GOODFELLOW  AIR  FORCE  BASE  ^','a^    y— I  76S  | 

® 


SAN  ANGELO,  TEXAS 


'  CAMP  HUDSON  SITE 


Northwestern   Loop 

From  junction  of  Loop  Rr.  d  306  and  FM388 
(2),  make  right  turn  onto  Loop  Road  306.  Pro- 
ceed onto  US277,  to  junction  with  FM2105(8). 
Turn  left  onto  FM2105  and  proceed  west  to  junc- 
tion with  US87  (10).  Turn  right  on  US87  and 
proceed  northwest  to  the  junction  with  FM2034 
near  the  town  of  Water  Valley  (11).    Tuni  right 


(Rev.    6/25/75) 


PART  575-14 


Effective:   January    1,    1970 


onto  FM2034  and  proceed  north  to  Texas  208 
(12).  Turn  right  onto  Texas  208  and  proceed 
south  to  junction  with  FM2105  (9).  Turn  left 
onto  FM2105  and  proceed  east  to  junction  with 
US277  (8).  Turn  right  onto  US277  and  proceed 
south  onto  306  to  junction  with  388  (2).  Turn 
right  onto  388  and  proceed  to  starting  point  at 
junction  of  Ft.  McKavitt  Road  and  FM388  (1). 

DRIVING   INSTRUCTIONS 

The  drivers  slmll  run  at  posted  speed  limits 
throughout  the  course  unless  an  unsafe  condition 
arises.  If  such  condition  arises,  the  speed  should 
be  reduced  to  the  maximum  safe  operating  speed. 

BRAKING   PROCEDURES  AT  STOP  SIGNS 

There  are  a  number  of  intersections  at  which 
stops  are  required.  At  each  of  these  intersections 
a  series  of  signs  is  placed  in  a  fixed  order  as 
follows : 

Sign  Legend 
Highway  Intersection  1000    (or  2000)    Feet 

STOP    AHEAD 
Junction  XXX 
Direction  Sign    (Mereta-*) 
STOP    or    YIELD 

PROCEDURES 

1.  Approach  eacli  intersection  at  the  posted 
speed  limit. 

2.  When  abreast  of  the  STOP  AHEAD 
sign,  apply  the  brakes  so  that  the  veliicle  de- 
celerates smootlily  to  20  mph  wlien  abreast  of 
the  direction  sign. 


3.  Come  to  a  complete  stop  at  the  STOP  sign 
or  behind  any  veliicle  already  stopped. 

KEY  POINTS  ALONG  TREADWEAR 

TEST  COURSE,  APPROX.  MILEAGES, 

AND  REMARKS 


Mileages      Remarks 

1  Ft.  McKavitt  noad  & 

0 

FM388 

2  FM388  &  Loop  306 

3 

STOP 

3  Loop  306  &  US277 

10 

4  Sonora 

72 

5  US277  &  FM189 

88 

6  FM189  &  Texas  163 

124 

7  Historical  Marl<er 

143 

U-TURN 

(Camp   Hudson) 

4  Sonora 

214 

3  Loop  306  &  US277 

276 

2  FM388  &  Loop  306 

283 

13  FM388   &   FM2334 

290 

STOP 

14  FM2334  &  FM765 

292 

STOP 

15  FM2334  &  US87 

295 

STOP  /U-TUB 

14  FM2334  &  FM765 

298 

STOP 

13  FM388  &  FM2334 

300 

STOP 

2  FM388  &  Loop  306 

307 

STOP 

8  US277  &  FM2105 

313 

9  FM2105  &  Texas  208 

317 

STOP 

10  FM2105  &  US87 

320 

STOP 

11  FM2034  &  US87 

338 

12  FM2034  &  Texas  208 

362 

STOP 

9  FM2105  &  Texas  208 

387 

8  FM210.5  &  US277 

391 

YIELD 

2  FM388  &  Loop  306 

397 

1  Ft.  McKavitt  Road  & 

400 

FM388 

(Rev.   6/25/75) 


PART  575-15 


Effective:   January    1,    1970 


APPENDIX  B 

Traction   Skid   Pads 

Two  skid  pads  liave  been  laid  on  an  un- 
used runway  and  taxi  strip  on  Goodfellow  AFB. 
Their  location  is  shown  in  Figure  4. 

The  asphalt  skid  pad  is  600  ft.  x  60  ft.  and  is 
shown  in  black  on  the  runway  in  Figure  4.  The 
pad  is  approached  from  either  end  by  a  75  ft. 
ramp  followed  by  100  ft.  of  level  pavement. 
This  arrangement  permits  the  skid  trailers  to 
stabilize  before  reaching  the  test  area.     The  ap- 


proaches are  shown  on  the  figure  by  the  hash- 
marked  area. 

The  concrete  pad  is  600  ft.  x  48  ft.  and  is  on 
the  taxi  strip.  The  approaches  to  the  concrete 
pad  are  of  the  same  design  as  those  for  the 
asphalt  pads. 

A  two  lane  asphalt  road  has  been  built  to  con- 
nect the  runway  and  taxi  strip.  The  road  is 
parallel  to  the  northeast-southwest  runway  at  a 
distance  of  100  ft.  The  curves  have  super-eleva- 
tion to  permit  safe  exit  from  the  runway  at  op- 
erating speeds. 


CONCRETE  SKJO 
PAVEMENT 


FIGURE  < 


(Rev.    6/25/75) 


PART  575-16 


Effective:   January    1,    1970 


> 


APPENDIX  C 

Method  Of  Least  Squares 

The  method  of  least  squares  is  a  method  of 
calculation  by  which  it  is  possible  to  obtain  a 
reliable  estimate  of  a  true  phyiscal  relationship 
from  a  set  of  data  wliich  involve  random  error. 
The  method  may  be  used  to  establish  a  rejjres- 
sion  line  that  minimizes  the  sum  of  the  squares 
of  the  deviations  of  the  measured  data  points 
from  the  line.  The  regression  line  is  conse- 
quently described  as  the  line  of  "best  fit"  to  the 


data  points.  It  is  described  in  terms  of  its  slope 
and  its  "y"  intercept. 

The  graph  in  Figure  5  depicts  a  regression 
line  calculated  using  the  least  squares  method 
from  data  collected  from  a  hypothetical  tread- 
wear  test  of  6,400  miles,  with  tread  depth  meas- 
urements made  at  every  800  miles. 

In  this  graph,  (xj,  yj)  [j=0,  1,  ...  8]  are  the 
individual  data  points  representing  the  tread 
depth  measurements  (the  overall  average  for  the 
tire  with  6  measurements  in  each  tire  groove) 
at  the  beginning  of  the  test  (after  break-in  and 
at  the  end  of  each  800-mile  segment  of  the  test. 


CO 


a. 

LU 
O 

Q 
< 


(xo.Yo) 


•  (xg.Vg) 


•  Ix7,y7) 


(xe.ys) 


X 


J_ 


800  1600  2400  3200         4000 

MILES 


4800 


5600 


6400     X 


Figure  5 


(Rev.    6/25/75) 


PART  575-17 


Effective:   January    1,    1970 


The  absolute  value  of  the  slope  of  the  regres- 
sion line  is  an  expression  of  the  mils  of  tread 
worn  per  1,000  miles,  and  is  calculated  by  the 
following  formula: 

8  8 


S^.^i  -  \  2''.  J.A 


b  =  1000 


ij=0 


j=0  j=0 


8  /    8         \2 

j=o  yj=o   / 


The  "y"  intercept  of  the  regression  line    (a) 
in  mils  is  calculated  by  the  following  formula : 


^  9     Z^i  9^0    Z^i 


j  =  0 


J  =  0 


§    575.106      Acceleration  and  passing  ability 

(a)  Purpose  and  scope.  This  section  requires 
manufacturers  of  passenger  cars  and  motorcycles 
to  provide  information  on  vehicle  acceleration 
and  passing  ability  under  low  and  high  speed 
conditions. 

(b)  AppJication.  This  section  applies  to  pas- 
senger cars  and  motorcycles  manufactured  on  or 
after  January  1, 1970. 

(c)  Required  in  formation.  Each  manufacturer 
shall  furnish  the  information  in  (1)  through  (3), 
below,  in  the  form  illustrated  in  Figure  1.  Each 
vehicle  in  the  group  to  which  the  table  of  per- 
formance information  applies  shall  be  capable, 
under  the  conditions  specified  in  paragraph  (d), 
of  performing  at  least  as  well  as  the  table  in- 
dicates. 

(1)  Vehicle  description.  The  groujj  of  ve- 
hicles to  which  the  table  applies,  identified  in 
the  terms  by  which  they  are  described  to  the 
public  by  the  manufacturer. 


(2)  Pa.'ising  time  and  distance.  The  time 
in  seconds  and  the  distance  in  feet  hypotheti- 
cal ly  required  to  pass  a  vehicle  55  feet  long 
traveling  at  20  and  50  miles  per  hour  (mph), 
under  the  conditions  of  paragraph  (d).  If 
the  vehicle  for  which  information  is  provided 
would  be  unable  to  perform  a  passing  ma- 
neuver because  it  cannot  exceed  20  or  50  mph, 
the  notation  "not  capable"  shall  be  entered. 

(3)  Notice.  The  following  notice,  placed  in 
proximity  to  the  figure:  "The  information  pre- 
sented represents  results  obtainable  by  skilled 
drivers  under  conti'olled  road  and  vehicle  con- 
ditions, and  the  information  may  not  be  cor- 
rect under  other  conditions." 

(d)   Conditions  and  procedures. 

(1)  Vehicle,  road  and  ambient  conditions. 
The  data  provided  in  the  format  of  Figure  1 
shall  represent  a  level  of  performance  that  can 
be  equalled  or  exceeded  by  each  vehicle  in  the 
group  to  which  tlie  table  applies,  under  the 
following  conditions : 

(i)  Vehicle  is  at  maximum  loaded  vehicle 
weight,  except  that  the  fuel  tank  is  filled  to 
any  level  between  90  and  100  percent  of 
capacity. 

(ii)  Fuel  and  lubricants  are  selected  and 
adjustments  are  made  according  to  the  manu- 
facturer's published  recommendations. 

(iii)  Break-in  period  is  completed  accord- 
ing to  the  manufacturer's  recommendations. 

(iv)  Engine  is  at  normal  operating  tem- 
perature. 

(v)  The  following  accessories  and  equip- 
ment are  operating  at  maximum  power- 
consuming  condition:  Passenger  cars:  air 
conditioner,  or  heater  if  vehicle  is  not 
equipped  with  air  conditioner,  windshield 
wipers,  and  headlamps  on  high  beam.  3/o- 
torcycles :  headlamjas  on  high  beam. 

(vi)  Ambient  temperature  is  between 
59  °F  and  85  °F,  ambient  dry  barometric 
pressure  is  between  28.50  in.  Hg  and  29.50 
in.  Hg,  and  relative  humidity  is  between 
30%  and  60%. 

(vii)  Tiie  roadway  lane  has  a  grade  of 
zero  percent,  and  the  road  surface  has  a  skid 
number  of  75. 

(viii)  Wind  velocity  is  zero. 


(Rev.    6/25/75) 


PART  575-18 


Effective:    January    1,    1970 


THIS  FIGURE   INDICATES  PASSING  TIMES  AND  DISTANCES  THAT  CAN  BE   MET  OR  EXCEEDED  BY  THE  VEHICLES  TO  WHICH  IT  APPLIES    IN  THE 
SITUATIONS  DIAGRAMMED  BELOW 

THE  LOW  SPEED  PASS  ASSUMES  AN  INITIAL  SPEED  OF  20  MPH  AND  A  LIMITING  SPEED  OF  35  MPH    THE  HIGH  SPEED  PASS  ASSUMES  AN  INITIAL 
SPEED  OF  50  MPH  AND  A  LIMITING  SPEED  OF  80  MPH. 

NOTICE     THE   INFORMATION  PRESENTED  REPRESENTS  RESULTS  OBTAINABLE   BY  SKILLED  DRIVERS  UNDER  CONTROLLED  ROAD  AND  VEHICLE 
CONDITIONS    AND  THE  INFORMATION  MAY  NOT  BE  CORRECT  UNDER  OTHER  CONDITIONS 

DESCRIPTION   OF  VEHICLES   TO  WHICH   THIS  TABLE  APPLIES: 

SUMMARY  TABLE: 

LOW  SPEED  PASS    ... FEET:  SECONDS 

HIGH  SPEED  PASS    ...      __  .     FEET:  SECONDS 

LOW-SPEED 

INITIAL    SPEED     20    MPH  LIMITING    SPEED     35    MPH 

TOTAL    PASSING    DISTANCE     FEET    I 

TOTAL    PASSING    TIME,    SECONDS  H 

I  ' '  CONSTANT   20    MPH  ' 

'  55'    TRUCK 


HIGHSPEED 

INITIAL    SPEED     50   MPH 

h 


TOTAL    PASSING    DISTANCE     FEET 
TOTAL    PASSING    TIME,    SECONDS 


LIMITING    SPEED     80    MPH 


r 


:j  - 


CONSTANT    50   MPH 


-M 


FIGURE  1 

(2)  Hypothetical  maneuvers.  The  data  pro- 
vided shall  represent  the  performance  capa- 
bility of  the  vehicle  in  performing  the  two 
hypothetical  maneuvers  described  below.  The 
passing  distances  are  the  distances  traveled  by 
the  passing  vehicle  during  the  maneuvers  de- 
scribed in  (i)  and  (ii).  The  passing  times  are 
the  times  required  to  travel  the  passing  dis- 
tances. 

(i)  The  vehicle  for  which  the  information 
is  provided  ("passing  vehicle")  follows  an- 
other veliicle  ("pace  vehicle")  that  is  55 
feet  long,  with  the  leading  edge  of  the  pass- 
ing vehicle  40  feet  behind  the  trailing  edge 
of  the  pace  vehicle,  and  both  vehicles  trav- 
eling 20  mph.  The  pace  veliicle  travels  at 
constant  speed  throughout.  The  passing 
vehicle  is  in  a  different  lane  from  the  pace 
vehicle.  The  passing  maneuver  begins  when 
the  passing  vehicle  accelerates  at  its  maxi- 
mum rate  up  to  a  limiting  speed  of  35  mph, 
or  to  its  maximum  si)eed  if  less  than  35 
mph.  It  maintains  that  speed,  or  maximum 
acceleration  if  unable  to  reach  either  the 
limiting  or  maximum  speed,  until  the  end 
of  the  maneuver,  whicli  occurs  when  its  trail- 
ing edge  is  40  feet  ahead  of  the  leading  edge 
of  the  pace  vehicle. 


(ii)  Same  as  (i),  with  the  substitution  of 
an  initial  speed  of  50  mph  (instead  of  20 
mph),  a  limiting  speed  of  80  mph  (instead 
of  35  mph),  and  beginning  and  ending  sepa- 
ration of  100  feet  (instead  of  40  feet.) 

(3)  Performance  cletermination.  The  deter- 
mination of  the  vehicle's  passing  times  and 
distances  in  performing  the  hypothetical  ma- 
neuvers described  in  (2)  shall  be  based  on  the 
vehicle's  actual  performance  capability  in  a 
maximum-rate  acceleration,  with  transmission 
in  gear  and  without  use  of  clutch  or  brake 
before  beginning  the  acceleration,  as  follows: 

(i)  Accelerate  the  vehicle  as  rapidly  as 
possible  from  a  constant  speed  of  20  mph 
to  at  least  35  mph,  or  to  the  maximum  speed 
if  it  is  lower  than  35  mph. 

(ii)  Accelerate  the  vehicle  as  rapidly  as 
possible  from  a  constant  speed  of  50  mph 
to  at  least  80  midi  or  to  the  maximum  speed 
if  it  is  lower  than  80  mph. 

(iii)  Record  the  distance  traveled  (D)  as 
a  function  of  time  (T)  as  determined  in 
accordance  with  both  (i)  and  (ii)  above. 

(4)  Graphic  determination  of  passing  tim£ 
and  distance.  Ascertain  the  vehicle's  capabil- 
ity to  perform  the  hypothetical  mane\ivers  by 
the  following  method. 


(Rev.    5/20/75) 


PART  575-19 


Effective:   January    1,    1970 

Syinl)ols:  (All  times  are  in  seconds  and  all 
distances  in  feet.  For  the  purposes  of  the 
determination,  speeds  must  be  converted  to  feet 
per  second.) 

I  =  Separation  between  passing  and  pace  ve- 
hicles at  beginning  and  end  of  the  ma- 
neuver: 40  feet  for  the  low-speed  pass  and 
100  feet  for  the  high-speed  pass 

L=Length  of  tlie  passing  vehicle 

V=Speed  of  the  pace  vehicle:  20  mph  for  the 
low-speed  pass  and  50  m])h  for  the  liigh- 
speed  pass 

D=Distance 
T  =  Time 

(i)  Plot  a  straight  line  having  a  slope 
equal  to  the  speed  (V)  of  the  pace  vehicle, 
starting  at  point  T  =  0,  D  =  2I-l-L  +  5.5,  as 
illustrated  in  Figure  2. 

(ii)  losing  the  data  obtained  in  (d)  (3) 
(iii),  plot  the  distance  vs.  time  curve  for  the 
passing  vehicle  at  maximum  acceleration, 
with  starting  point  at  T  =  0,  D  =  0,  and 
stopping  at  the  ])oint  where  the  vehicle 
reaches  the  limiting  speed  (35  or  80  mph 
respectively)  or  its  maximum  speed  if  lower. 
If  this  curve  intersects  the  ciirve  for  the 
pace  vehicle  plotted  in  (i)  before  the  point 
where  the  passing  vehicle  reaches  the  lim- 
iting or  maximum  speed,  it  need  not  be 
plotted  beyond  the  jioint  of  intersection. 

(iii)  If  the  curve  plotted  in  (ii)  does  not 
intersect  the  curve  for  the  pace  vehicle  be- 


fore the  point  where  the  passing  vehicle 
reaches  the  limiting  or  maxinuun  speed,  ex- 
tend the  passing  vehicle's  curve  from  that 
l)oint  with  a  straight  line  whose  slope  equals 
either  the  limiting  or  maxinuun  speed  re- 
spectively. 

(iv)  The  intersections  of  the  curves  for 
the  pace  vehicle  and  passing  vehicle  ob- 
tained in  either  (ii)  or  (iii),  plotted  for  both 
the  low-s^ieed  and  the  high-speed  pass,  rep- 
resent the  passing  times  and  distances  re- 
quired to  be  provided  in  the  form  of  Figure 
1. 

[Interpretation  of  Availability  Requirements 

The  purpose  of  this  interpretive  notice  is  to 
provide  that  the  requirement  that  copies  of  con- 
simier  information  be  made  available  for  reten- 
tion by  prospective  purchasers,  or  sent  by  mail  at 
such  a  purchaser's  request,  does  not  apply  to 
vehicles  no  longer  in  production  on  January  1, 
1972,  the  effective  date  of  the  requirement. 

In  response  to  the  1970  amendment  of  the 
National  Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act 
(P.L.  91-625,  84  Stat.  262),  the  NHTSA  issued 
on  October  2,  1971  (36  F.R.  19310)  an  amend- 
ment to  the  Consumer  Information  regulations, 
effective  January  1,  1972,  that  requires  informa- 
tion compiled  by  manufacturers  to  be  available 
for  retention  by  prospective  purchasers,  or  for 
mailing  to  them,  in  addition  to  the  previous  re- 
quirement that  such  information  be  available  for 


GRAPHIC  DETERMINATION  OF  PASSING  TIME  AND  DISTANCE 


D  (feet) 


21  -  L  *  55 


PASSING  TIME 


TIME  AND  DISTANCE 
/'OF   THE    PASSING   VEHICLE 


PASSING   DISTANCE 


T  (seconds) 


FIGURE  2 


(Rev.    12/6/72) 


PART  576-20 


EfFeclive:   January    1,    1970 


inspection  by  such  purchasers  at  locations  where 
new  veliicles  are  sold.  The  amendment  provides 
that  tiie  information  be  available  for  retention  or 
mailing  for  "each  vehicle  offei'ed  for  sale"  by 
persons  havinp  certain  lepal  relationships  with 
the  manufacturer. 

It  has  been  brought  to  the  agency's  attention 
that  some  manufactiu'ers  and  dealers  still  have 
new  vehicles  of  previous  model  years  a\ai]able 
for  sale  for  which  retention  copies  have  never 
been  or  are  no  longer  available.  It  is  recognized 
that  the  cost  of  producing  new  information  for 
these  older  vehicles  would  probably  outweigh  the 
benefits  to  consumers. 


Accordingly,  tlie  October  2  amendment  con- 
cerning a\ailahility  of  consumer  information 
for  retention  and  mailing  will  be  considered  etl'ec- 
tive  only  witli  respect  to  vehicle  models  tiiat  are 
l)roduced  or  in  production  on  or  after  January  1, 
1972. 

This  notice  is  issued  i)ursuant  to  sections  112 
and  119  of  the  National  Traffic  and  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Act  (15  U.S.C.  1401,  1407,  and  the 
delegation  of  authority  at  49  CP'R  1.51.) 

Issued  on  December  10,  1971.  (36  F.R.  24004— 
December  17,  1971)] 

34   F.R.  8112 
May  23,    1969 


IRev.   Dec.    1971) 


PART  575-21 


Effective:   August    15,    1974 


PREAMBLE  TO  PART  576— RECORD  RETENTION 
(Docket  No.  74-31;   Notice   1) 


This  notice  establishes  an  immediate  temporary 
requirement  for  retention  by  motor  vehicle  manu- 
facturers of  records  concerning  malfunctions 
that  may  be  related  to  motor  vehicle  safety. 

By  a  separate  notice  published  today,  39  FR 
30048,  the  NHTSA  proposes  to  establish  perma- 
nent requirements  for  the  retention  of  records 
by  manufacturers.  The  proposed  rule  would 
require  motor  veliicle  manufacturers  to  retain 
for  5  years  all  records  in  their  possession  relating 
to  failures,  malfunctions,  or  flaws  that  could  be 
a  causative  factor  in  accidents  or  injuries.  These 
records  are  needed  in  agency  investigations  of 
possible  defects  related  to  motor  vehicle  safety, 
or  of  nonconformity  to  the  safety  standards  and 
regulations.  A  fuller  discussion  of  the  proposal 
is  contained  in  that  notice. 

The  NHTSA  finds  it  important  that  existing 
records  and  those  that  may  be  generated  or  ac- 
quired while  this  nilemaking  is  under  considera- 
tion not  be  disposed  of  prior  to  the  permanent 
effectiveness  of  the  rule.  In  order  to  maintain 
the  status  quo,  therefore,  this  rule  is  issued  to  be 


effective  immediately  upon  posting  for  public 
inspection  at  the  Federal  Register.  For  the 
reasons  stated,  pursuant  to  5  U.S.C.  553(b), 
notice  and  public  procedure  thereon  with  respect 
to  this  interim  notice  are  found  to  be  imprac- 
ticable and  contrary  to  the  public  interest.  This 
rule  in  its  present  form  will  be  effective  only 
until  action  is  taken  upon  the  proposed  perma- 
nent rule  issued  concurrently. 

In  light  of  the  foregoing,  a  new  Part  576, 
Record  Retention^  is  added  to  Title  49,  Code  of 
Federal  Regulations. 

Effective  date :  August  15,  1974. 

AUTHORITY:  Sec.  108,  112,  113,  119,  Pub.  L. 
89-563,  80  Stat.  718,  15  U.S.C.  1397,  1401,  1402, 
1407 ;  delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51. 

Issued  on  August  13,  1974. 

James   B.   Gregory 
Administrator 
39  F.R.  30045 
August  20,  1974 


PART  576— PRE  1-2 


( 


Effective:   August    15,    1974 


PART  576— RECORD  RETENTION 
(Docket  No.  74-13;   Notice   1) 


Sec. 

576.1  Scope. 

576.2  Purpose. 

576.3  Application. 

576.4  Definitions. 

576.5  Basic   Requirement. 

576.6  Records. 

576.7  Retention. 

576.8  Malfunctions  Covered. 

§  576.1  Scope.  This  part  establishes  require- 
ments for  the  retention  by  motor  vehicle  manu- 
facturers of  complaints,  reports,  and  other 
records  concerning  motor  veliicle  malfunctions 
that  may  be  related  to  motor  vehicle  safety. 

§  576.2  Purpose.  The  purpose  of  this  part 
is  to  preserve  records  tliat  are  needed  for  the 
proper  investigation,  and  adjudication  or  other 
disposition,  of  possible  defects  related  to  motor 
vehicle  safety  and  instances  of  nonconformity 
to  the  motor  vehicle  safety  standards  and  asso- 
ciated regulations. 

§  576.3  Application.  This  part  applies  to  all 
manufacturers  of  motor  \-ehicles,  with  respect  to 
all  records  generated  or  acquired  after  August 
15,  1969. 

§  576.4  Definitions.  All  terms  in  this  part 
that  are  defined  in  the  Act  are  used  as  defined 
therein. 

§  576.5  Basic  Requirements.  Each  manufac- 
turer of  motor  vehicles  shall  retain  as  specified 
in  §  576.7  all  records  described  in  §  576.6  for  a 
period  of  5  years  from  the  date  on  which  they 
were  generated  or  acquired  by  the  manufacturer. 


§  576.6  Records.  Records  to  be  retained  by 
manufacturers  under  this  part  include  all  docu- 
mentary materials,  films,  tapes,  and  other  infor- 
mation-storing media  that  contain  information 
concerning  malfunctions  that  may  be  related  to 
motor  vehicle  safety.  Such  records  include,  but 
are  not  limited  to,  communications  from  vehicle 
users  and  memoranda  of  user  complaints;  reports 
and  other  documents  related  to  work  performed 
under,  or  claims  made  under,  warranties;  service 
reports  or  similar  documents  from  dealers  or 
manufacturer's  field  pei-sonnel ;  and  any  lists, 
compilations,  analyses,  or  discussions  of  such 
malfunctions  contained  in  internal  or  external 
correspondence  of  the  manufacturer. 

§  576.7  Retention.  Duplicate  copies  need  not 
be  retained.  Information  may  be  reproduced  or 
transferred  from  one  storage  medium  to  another 
{e.g.,  from  paper  files  to  microfilm)  as  long  as 
no  information  is  lost  in  the  reproduction  or 
transfer,  and  when  so  reproduced  or  transferred 
the  original  form  may  be  treated  as  a  duplicate. 

§  576.8  Malfunctions  covered.  For  purposes 
of  this  part,  "malfunctions  that  may  be  related 
to  motor  vehicle  safety"  shall  include,  with  re- 
spect to  a  motor  vehicle  or  item  of  motor  vehicle 
equipment,  any  failure  or  malfunction  beyond 
normal  deterioration  in  use,  or  any  failure  of 
performance,  or  any  flaw  or  unintended  deviation 
from  design  specifications,  that  could  in  any 
reasonably  foreseeable  manner  be  a  causative 
factor  in,  or  aggravate,  an  accident  or  an  injury 
to  a  person. 

39  F.R.  30045 
August  20,    1974 


PAET  576-1 


i 


i 


Effactiv*:  March  26,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  PART  577— DEFECT  NOTIFICATION 
(Docket  No.  72-7;  Notice  2) 


This  notice  establishes  a  new  regulation  cover- 
ing notifications  of  motor  vehicle  safety  defects 
and  nonconformity  to  safety  standards.  The 
notice  proposing  these  regulations  was  published 
May  17,  1972  (37  F.R.  9783). 

The  regulation  is  intended  to  improve  the  re- 
sponse of  owners  in  vehicle  notification  cam- 
paigns. Data  which  the  NHTSA  has  been  re- 
ceiving on  the  completion  rates  of  notification 
campaigns  show  a  wide  range  of  completion 
rates,  with  campaigns  involving  newer  vehicles, 
and  more  serious  safety  problems,  having  higher 
completion  rates  than  others.  In  many  cam- 
paigns, however,  the  rate  is  alarmingly  low. 

An  examination  of  the  notifications  sent  by 
manufacturers  reveals  wide  disparity  in  emphasis. 
Although  precise  evaluation  of  the  impact  of  no- 
tification letters  is  difficult,  due  to  its  being 
largely  subjective,  the  NHTSA  is  of  the  opinion 
that  many  notifications  have  tended  to  deem- 
phasize  the  safety  problems  involved.  Some 
of  these  notification  letters  are  questionably 
within  the  requirements  of  the  National  Traffic 
and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act,  and  litigation  on 
a  case  by  case  basis  to  improve  them  is  prac- 
ticable. These  regulations  are  intended  to  ensure 
that  all  notification  letters  contain  sufficient  in- 
formation, as  determined  by  NHTSA,  to  prop- 
erly notify  purchasers. 

The  regulation  applies  to  manufacturers  of 
incomplete  and  complete  motor  vehicles,  and 
motor  vehicle  equipment.  In  the  case  of  ve- 
hicles manufactured  in  two  or  more  stages,  com- 
pliance by  any  one  of  the  manufacturers  of  the 
vehicle  is  considered  compliance  by  all.  This 
provision  is  based  on  similar  language  in  the 
Defect  Reports  regulation  (Part  573  of  this  chap- 
ter), and  is  included  in  response  to  comments 
received. 

The  regulation  requires  the  notification  to  con- 
tain  substantially  the  information  specified   in 


the  proposal.  It  requires  each  notification  to 
begin  with  a  statement  that  it  is  sent  pursuant 
to  the  requirements  of  the  National  Traffic  and 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act.  The  NHTSA  did 
not  concur  with  comments  to  the  effect  that  the 
inclusion  of  this  statement  would  not  promote 
the  purpose  of  the  regulation.  The  regulation 
requires  the  notification  to  state  that  the  manu- 
facturer, or  the  National  Highway  Traffic  Safety 
Administrator,  as  the  case  may  be,  has  deter- 
mined that  a  defect  relating  to  motor  vehicle 
safety  (or  a  noncompliance  with  a  motor  vehicle 
safety  standard)  exists  in  the  vehicle  type,  or 
item  of  motor  vehicle  equipment,  with  which  the 
notification  is  concerned.  When  the  manufac- 
turer (or  the  Administrator)  has,  as  part  of  his 
determination,  also  found  that  the  defect  may 
not  exist  in  each  such  vehicle  or  equipment  item, 
he  may  include  a  statement  to  that  effect.  The 
NHTSA  has  decided  to  allow  such  statements 
based  on  comments  that  many  defects  in  fact  do 
not  exist  in  each  vehicle  or  equipment  item  of  the 
group  whose  owners  are  notified. 

The  manufacturer  must  also  describe  the  de- 
fect, evaluate  the  risk  it  poses  to  traffic  safety, 
and  specify  measures  which  the  recipient  should 
take  to  have  it  remedied.  In  each  case,  the  regu- 
lation requires  information  which  the  NHTSA 
has  determined  will  meet  these  objectives.  In 
describing  the  defect,  the  manufacturer  must 
indicate  the  vehicle  system  or  particular  items 
of  equipment  affected,  describe  the  malfunction 
that  may  occur,  including  operating  conditions 
that  may  cause  it  to  occur,  and  precautions  the 
purchaser  should  take  to  reduce  the  likelihood  of 
its  occurrence.  In  providing  that  the  vehicle  sys- 
tem affected  be  mentioned,  the  regulation  reflects 
comments  to  the  effect  that  listing  each  particular 
part  involved  would  be  too  technical  to  be  useful 
to  most  consumers. 


PART  577— PRE  1 


Effacllve:  March  26,   1973 


In  evaluating  the  risk  to  traffic  safety,  the  man- 
ufacturer must  indicate  if  vehicle  ci-ash  is  the  po- 
tential result,  and  whatever  warning  may  occur. 
Where  vehicle  crash  is  not  the  potential  result, 
the  manufacturer  must  indicate  the  general  type 
of  injury  which  the  defect  can  cause.  Although 
many  comments  protested  that  it  was  impossible 
to  predict  a  specific  type  of  injury,  the  NHTSA 
believes  that  manufacturers  can  easily  foresee  the 
general  type  of  injury,  such  as  asphyxiation,  that 
can  result  from  those  defects  which  are  not  ex- 
pected to  result  in  crashes. 

In  stating  measures  to  be  taken  to  repair  the 
defect,  the  requirements  differ  in  the  case  where 
the  manufacturer's  dealei-s  rej^air  tlie  vehicle  free 
of  charge  to  the  purchaser,  where  the  manufac- 
turer merely  offers  to  pay  for  the  repair,  and 
where  he  refuses  to  pay  for  the  repair.  The  pur- 
pose of  this  distinction  is  to  provide  information 
sufficient  to  have  adequate  repairs  made  in  each 
case. 

Where  the  manufacturer's  dealers  repair  the 
vehicle  free  of  charge,  the  notification  must  in- 
clude a  general  description  of  the  work  involved, 
the  manufacturer's  estimate  of  when  his  dealers 
will  be  supplied  with  parts  and  instructions,  and 
his  estimate  of  the  time  reasonably  necessary  to 
perform  the  labor  involved  in  correcting  the  de- 
fect. The  agency's  position  is  that  consumers  are 
entitled  to  know  approximately  when  their  cars 
will  be  repaired  and  how  much  labor  is  needed 
in  order  for  the  repair  to  be  made.  The  NHTSA 
realizes  that  dealers  frequently  retain  vehicles 
longer  than  the  actual  work  involved,  due  to 
difficulties  in  scheduling,  repairs.  However, 
manufacturers  are  free  to  impart  this  informa- 
tion to  consumers  under  the  regulation.  Some 
comments  objected  to  requiring  manufacturers 
to  provide  information  on  when  replacement 
parts  will  be  available,  on  the  basis  that  manu- 
facturers cannot  know,  at  the  time  a  notification 
is  issued,  precisely  when  parts  deliveries  will  be 
made  to  dealers.  To  include  this  information,  it 
is  argued,  would  therefore  delay  the  issuance  of 
the  notification.  The  NHTSA  has  modified  the 
proposed  language  to  allow  manufacturers  to 
"estimate"  when  corrective  parts  will  be  available. 
The  estimate  would  be  based  on  the  manufac- 
turer's knowledge  at  the  time  the  notification  is 
sent,  thereby  eliminating  any  reasons  for  delay. 


When  manufacturers  do  not  provide  for  repairs       ^g 
to  be  made  by  dealers,  the  notification  is  required      ^M 
to  contain,  in  addition,  full  lists  of  parts  and  com-       ^^ 
plete  instructions  on  making  the  repairs.     The 
regulation    also    requires    the    manufacturer    to 
recommend,  generally,  where  the  vehicle  should 
be  repaired,  and  manufacturers  are  free  to  make 
general  and  specific  recommendations.     This  re- 
quirement reflects  the  intent  of  the  proposal  that 
manufacturers  who  believe  particular  repairs  may 
require    special    expertise    should    indicate    that 
fact  to  purchasers. 

Wien  the  manufacturer  does  not  offer  to  pay 
for  repairs,  he  must,  in  addition,  include  full 
cost  information  on  necessary  parts.  The  notice 
would  have  required  the  retail  cost  of  all  parts, 
and  information  on  labor  charges  of  the  manufac- 
turer's dealers  in  the  general  area  of  the  purchaser. 
In  response  to  comments,  the  cost  information  is 
limited  to  the  suggested  retail  price  of  parts. 
Manufacturers  have  indicated  they  do  not  set  ac- 
tual prices  of  parts,  but  do  have  suggested  list 
prices.  With  respect  to  labor  charges,  manufac- 
turers have  indicated  that  labor  charges  vary, 
and  that  requiring  them  to  ascertain  exact  charges 
would  delay  issuance  of  notifications.  The  ^ 
NHTSA  believes  these  comments  to  be  well-  m 
founded,  and  has  dropped  the  proposed  require-  ^ 
ments  regarding  labor  charges.  Consumers  will 
still  have  information  on  costs  of  parts,  and  time 
necessary  for  repairs  to  be  performed,  from 
which  they  can  obtain  a  fair  idea  of  the  cost  of 
a  repair. 

Tlie  reguations  prohibit  the  notification  from 
stating  or  implying  that  the  problem  is  not  a  de- 
fect, or  that  it  does  not  relate  to  motor  vehicle 
safety.  Moreover,  in  those  cases  where  the  noti- 
fication is  sent  pursuant  to  the  direction  of  the 
Administrator,  it  cannot  state  or  imply  that  the 
manufacturer  disagrees  with  the  Administrator's 
finding.  Many  comments  opposed  these  require- 
ments on  the  basis  that  they  unconstitutionally 
limited  manufacturers'  freedom  of  speech.  The 
NHTSA  emphatically  rejects  this  contention. 
Notification  letters  are  not  intended  to  serve  as 
forums  where  manufacturers  can  argue  that  prob- 
lems are  not  safety-related  or  dispute  the  Ad- 
ministration's findings.  Their  purpose  is  to  un- 
ambiguously and  adequately  induce  owners  to 
remedy  a  potentially  hazardous  situation.     The 


PART  577— PRE  2 


NHTSA  is  of  the  opinion  that  there  is  ample 
precedent  that  allows  the  Federal  government  to 
require  manufacturers  to  warn  purchasers  in  a 
particular  manner  that  certain  products  they 
manufacture  may  be  hazardous.  If  a  manufac- 
turer does  not  believe  that  his  condition  is  a 
safety-related  defect,  he  is  not  required  by  law  to 
notify  owners  at  all.  It  is  only  when  he  deter- 
mines that  a  defect  exists  that  he  must  notify  in 
accordance  with  the  regulations.  Similarly,  when 
the  Administrator  has  made  the  finding  that  a 
certain  product  is  defecti\e,  the  manufacturer 
can  administratively  and  judicially  challenge  this 
determination  as  provided  in  the  National  Traffic 
and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  before  sending  a 
notification. 

The  NHTSA  received  other  objections  to  the 
proposed  requirements.  Numerous  tire  manu- 
facturers argued  that  parts  of  the  regulation 
dealing  with  repairs  of  defects  are  inappropriate 
when  applied  to  them,  since  repairs  generally 
meant  replacement.  Certain  manufacturers  of 
lighting  equipment  argued  that  notification  re- 
quirements should  not  apply  to  them  at  all.  The 
NHTSA  disagrees  with  both  of  these  contentions. 
In  the  case  of  tire  manufacturers,  the  NHTSA 
believes  that  the  requirements  can  be  followed. 
If  the  repair  of  a  defective  tire  entails  its  re- 
placement, this  can  certainly  be  stated  within  the 
regulatory  scheme.  Similarly,  lighting  equip- 
ment manufacturers  are  responsible  for  defects 
to  the  same  extent  as  manufacturers  of  other 
equipment.  The  NHTSA  rejects  completely  the 
argument  that  no  lighting  failures  can  be  con- 
sidered safety-related  because  of  the  millions  of 
lights  that  burn  out  every  year  without  resulting 
in  accidents.  The  question  in  each  case  is  not 
whether  a  failure  may  occur,  but  whether  a  defect 
exists,  and  whether  the  defect  may  cause  a  haz- 
ardous situation  to  arise. 

The  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  would 
have  prohibited  manufacturers  from  making 
statements  contemporaneous  with  the  notification 
that  disagreed  with  its  conclusions.  This  pro- 
posal has  not  been  adopted.  After  careful  con- 
sideration, the  NHTSA  has  determined  that  its 
inclusion  is  probably  unnecessary.  The  agency's 
position  is  that  if  notification  letters  clearly  and 
unambiguously  describe  and  evaluate  defects  in 
accordance  with  this  regulation,  other  statements 


EfFeellve:   March   26,    1973 

by  manufacturers  will  not  normally  affect  re- 
actions of  consumers. 

Certain  comments  requested  that  manufac- 
turers be  allowed  to  state  in  the  notification  that 
it  does  not  constitute  an  admission  of  liability  or 
wrongdoing.  The  regulation  does  not  preclude 
the  making  of  such  statements,  as  the  agency 
has  concluded  that  their  inclusion  will  not  sig- 
nificantly deter  owners  from  having  repairs  made. 

One  comment  suggested  that  the  notification 
be  required  to  contain  a  postage-free  card  by 
which  consumers  could  notify  manufacturers 
when  vehicles  had  been  sold  or  otherwise  disposed 
of.  While  the  NHTSA  believes  this  practice 
would  be  ad\-antageous  in  improving  notification 
campaigns,  it  has  concluded  that  such  a  require- 
ment would  be  outside  the  scope  of  the  regula- 
tion, which  is  limited  to  notifications  to  first  pur- 
chasers and  warranty  holders. 

Certain  comments  objected  to  the  regulations 
on  the  ground  that  they  prescribed  a  rigid  format 
in  an  area  where  each  case  must  be  treated  sep- 
arately, and  thus  where  flexibility  was  required. 
The  NHTSA  has  modified  to  some  extent  the 
proposed  restrictions  on  format.  Manufacturers 
are  free,  within  the  limits  established,  to  com- 
pose notifications  to  fit  each  case.  As  issued,  these 
regulations  do  not  require  rigid,  inflexible  letters 
(only  the  first  two  sentences  must  contain  specific 
statements  in  a  set  order),  but  require  that  man- 
ufacturers include  certain  important  items  of  in- 
formation. It  is  hoped  that  manufacturers  in 
meeting  these  requirements  will  provide  required 
information  in  easily  understandable  form. 

In  light  of  the  above,  a  new  Part  577,  "Defect 
Notification"  is  added  to  Chapter  V  of  Title  49, 
Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  to  read  as  set  forth 
as  below. 

Ejfective  date :  March  26,  1973.  Be-cause  these 
requirements  are  not  technical  in  nature,  and  do 
not  require  lead  times  for  compliance,  good  cause 
exists,  and  is  hereby  found,  for  an  effective  date 
less  than  180  days  from  the  day  of  issuance. 

Issued  on  January  17,  1973. 

Douglas  Toms 
Administrator 

38  F.R.  2215 
January  23,  1973 


PART  577— PRE  3^ 


231-088   O  -  77  -  79 


# 


< 


(1 


EffacHv*:  April   17,   1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  PART  577— DEFECT  NOTIFICATION 

(Docket  No.  72-7;  Notice  3) 


This  notice  responds  to  petitions  for  recon- 
sideration of  the  Defect  Notification  regulations, 
published  January  23,  1973  (38  FR  2215).  Peti- 
tions were  received  from  the  Firestone  Tire  and 
Rubber  Company,  Chrysler  Corporation,  the 
Motor  and  Equipment  Manufacturers'  Associa- 
tion, and  the  Recreational  Vehicle  Institute.  .  A 
petition  was  also  received  from  the  Wagner  Elec- 
tric Company.  Although  not  received  within  30 
days  of  the  regulation's  publication  (49  CFR 
553.35),  it  has  been  considered  in  the  preparation 
of  this  notice.  Insofar  as  this  notice  does  not 
grant  the  requests  of  the  petitioners,  they  are 
hereby  denied. 

The  Firestone  Tire  and  Rubber  Company  has 
petitioned  for  reconsideration  of  section  577.6, 
"Disclaimers",  which  prohibits  manufacturers 
from  starting  or  implying  that  the  notification 
does  not  involve  a  safety  related  defect.  Fire- 
stone requested  that  the  provision,  for  Federal 
Constitutional  reasons,  be  dropped  from  the  rule. 
This  request  is  denied.  The  NHTSA  does  not 
believe,  for  the  reasons  set  forth  in  the  notice  of 
January  23,  1973  (38  FR  at  2216),  that  the  pro- 
vision is  violative  of  the  Constitution. 

Chrysler  Corporation  has  requested  that  the 
phrase,  "his  dealers"  be  modified  in  section  577.4- 
(e)(l)(ii),  which  requires  the  manufacturer  to 
estimate  the  date  by  which  his  dealers  will  be 
supplied  with  corrective  parts  and  instructions. 
It  argues  that  the  phrase  "his  dealers"  could  be 
interpreted  to  mean  all  dealers,  regardless  of 
whether  all  of  the  manufacturer's  dealers  are  in- 
volved in  the  campaign.  This  request  is  denied. 
Neither  section  113  of  the  Safety  Act  nor  the 
regulation  require  a  notification  campaign  to  ex- 
tend to  all  of  the  manufacturer's  dealers,  whether 
or  not  they  have  any  involvement  in  a  particular 
campaign.  The  NHTSA  does  not  believe  that 
the  phrase  "his  dealers",  when  read  in  context, 
means  all  of  the  manufacturer's  dealers. 


Chrysler  also  asks  that  special  requirements  be 
specified  for  the  notification  of  "noncompliance 
non-operational  defects",  citing  as  an  example 
the  improper  placement  of  the  VIN  plate  under 
Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Standard  No.  115.  Chrysler 
states  that  existing  provisions  of  the  regulation 
dealing  with  malfimctions  (specifically  577.4- 
(c)(2),  (c)(3),  (c)(4)),  and  evaluating  the  risk 
to  traffic  safety  (sections  577.4(d),  (d)(1), 
(d)(1)  (i),  (d)(1)  (ii),  (d)(2))  are  not  perti- 
nent  to  these  defects.  This  request  is  denied. 
The  NHTSA  does  not  believe  that  separate  re- 
quirements for  notification  of  the  type  of  defect 
described  by  Chrysler  are  either  necessary  or 
desirable.  If  a  particular  defect  does  not  in- 
volve a  malfunction,  to  be  in  compliance  with 
the  regulation  a  manufacturer  should,  in  response 
to  the  appropriate  provisions  of  the  regulation, 
indicate  that  to  be  the  case.  The  NHTSA  be- 
lieves this  approach  will  notify  purchasers  of  the 
defect  as  eflectively  as  separate,  more  specific  re- 
qifirements.  The  NHTSA  does  not  agree  that 
the  relationship  to  safety  of  these  types  of  defects 
should  not  be  evaluated  in  notification  letters, 
similarly  to  other  defects. 

The  Motor  and  Equipment  Manufacturers  As- 
sociation (MEMA  objects  to  the  requirements  of 
sections  577.4(e)(2)  (vi)  and  577.4(e)  (3)  (vi) 
that  the  manufacturer  recommend  whom  the  pur- 
chaser should  have  perform  necessary  repair 
work,  and  requests  that  these  provisions  be  de- 
leted. MEMA  argues  that  the  requirement  is 
anti-competitive  in  that  it  sanctions  the  steering 
of  consumers  to  vehicle  dealerships  for  repairs, 
to  the  detriment  of  the  independent  repair  in- 
dustry, even  when  the  manufacturer  does  not  pay 
for  the  repair.  MEMA  argues  that  original 
equipment  replacement  parts  are  frequently  more 
expensive  than  competitively  produced  parts,  re- 
sulting in  added  costs  to  owners.  It  argues  also 
that  limiting  repairs  to  dealers  precludes  the  use 


PART  577— PRE  5 


MnHv*:  April   17,   l«73 


of  the  full  domestic  repair  industry,  which 
should  be  utilized  fully  given  the  magnitude  of 
recent  notification  campaigns. 

While  the  NHTSA  appreciates  the  concern  of 
this  association  in  not  being  precluded  from  a 
large  market,  the  NHTSA  believes  the  require- 
ment as  issued  to  be  consistent  with  the  National 
Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  and  the 
need  for  motor  vehicle  safety.  The  NHTSA 
has,  in  issuing  the  requirement,  indicated  that 
manufacturers  should  indicate  to  purchasers 
when  special  expertise  may  be  necessary  to  cor- 
rect defects.  The  repairs  in  issue  do  not  involve 
normal  maintenance,  but  constitute  defects  whose 
proper  repair  is  essential  to  the  safety  of  the  na- 
tion's highways.  Frequently  these  repairs  in- 
volve a  higher  degree  of  expertise  and  familiarity 
with  a  particular  vehicle  than  that  required  to 
perform  normal  maintenance.  If  such  expertise 
will  more  likely  be  found  at  dealerships,  in  the 
view  of  the  vehicle  manufacturer,  the  NHTSA 
believes  that  opinion  should  be  imparted  to  pur- 
chasers. 

Moreover,  even  if  the  NHTSA  deleted  the  re- 
quirement the  manufacturer  could  if  he  desired, 
consistently  with  the  regulation,  recommend  a  re- 
pair facility.  The  NHTSA  would  not  prohibit 
the  making  of  such  a  recommendation,  for  it  is 
responsive  to  the  statutory  requirement  that  the 
notification  contain  a  statement  of  the  measures 
to  be  taken  to  repair  the  defect  (15  U.S.C. 
1402(c)).  Moreover,  the  argument  that  the  reg- 
ulation stifles  competition  does  not  appear  to 
have  merit.  In  the  event  the  manufacturer  does 
not  bear  the  cost  of  repair,  the  regulation 
('§  577.4(e)  (3)  (i))  requires  the  manufacturer  to 
provide  the  purchaser  with  the  suggested  list 
price  of  repair  parts.  As  a  consequence,  pur- 
chasers will  be  provided  with  information  with 
which  they  can  "shop",  with  full  knowledge,  for 
the  least  expensive  repair  facilities.  The  peti- 
tion is  accordingly  denied. 

The  Recreational  Vehicle  Institute  (R VI)  has 
petitioned  that  the  requirements  of  both  section 
577.4(a),  requiring  an  opening  statement  that  the 
notification  is  sent  pursuant  to  the  Act,  and  sec- 
tion 577.6,  prohibiting  disclaimers,  be  deleted. 
RVI  argues  such  requirements  may  result  in  de- 
lay by  manufacturers  in  determining  that  defects 


exist,  forcing  the  use  of  administrative  and  legal  ^fl 
procedures  before  purchasers  are  notified.  The  ^Pl 
agency  cannot  accept  the  position  that  the  notifi- 
cation should  be  diluted  because  of  possible  eva- 
sion by  manufacturers.  The  NHTSA  believes 
that  the  need  that  notification  letters  fully  in- 
form purchasers  outweighs  the  possible  problems 
caused  by  manufacturers  delaying  their  notifica- 
tions to  purchasers  until  forced  to  notify  them. 
The  request  is  denied. 

RVI  points  out  that  section  577.4  seems  to  as- 
sume that  defects  will  be  evidenced  by  some 
form  of  mechanical  failure.  It  asks,  therefore, 
whether  a  safety-related  defect  can  exist  where 
proper  corrective  action  to  avoid  an  occurrence 
or  possible  occurrence  is  apjiropriate  maintenance 
or  operational  use.  RVI  also  requests,  if 
NHTSA  adheres  to  its  present  position  regard- 
ing these  issues,  that  it  undertake  rulemaking 
to  define  "safety  related  defect".  For  the  fol- 
lowing reasons,  these  requests  are  denied.  There 
is  no  intent  in  the  regulation  to  limit  the  concept 
of  safety  related  defects  to  those  involving  me- 
chanical failures.  As  stated  above,  in  reply  to 
the  petition  from  Chrysler,  non-mechanical  de-  ^ 
fects  can  be  the  basis  of  defect  notification,  and  fl 
purchasers  can  be  fully  notified  of  them  under  ^ 
the  present  regulatory  scheme.  Moreover,  the 
NHTSA  believes  any  attempt  to  precisely  define 
safety  related  defect  would  be  ill-advised. 
Whether  a  defect  exists  depends  solely  on  the 
facts  of  each  particular  situation.  The  fact  that 
such  determinations  may  encompass  a  wide  va- 
riety of  factual  situations,  and  may  consequently 
be  difficult  to  make,  does  not  mean  that  it  is 
necessary,  desirable,  or  even  possible  to  replace 
the  decision  with  a  simple  formula.  The  NHTSA 
believes,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  relatively  broad 
definition  of  defect  contained  in  the  Safety  Act 
is  best  suited  to  the  wide  variety  of  defective 
conditions  that  may  arise. 

RVI  has  also  pointed  out  that  references  to  a 
manufacturer's  dealers  in  section  577.4(e),  speci- 
fying measures  to  be  taken  to  repair  the  defect, 
overlook  the  fact  that  manufacturers'  dealers  may 
not  always  provide  service  facilities,  or  that 
manufacturers  may  use  service  facilities  other 
than  dealers.  The  NHTSA  agrees  with  RVI, 
and  has  therefore  modified  the  provisions  of  that 


PART  577— PRE  6 


E<f*ctlva:  April    17,    1973 


section  to  include  "other  service  facilities  of  the 
manufacturer",  as  well  as  his  dealers. 

RVI  requested  that  the  regulation  be  amended 
to  permit  compliance  by  either  a  component 
manufacturer  or  a  vehicle  manufacturer,  .vben 
the  defect  involves  a  specific  component.  RVI 
also  requested  that  compliance  be  permitted  by 
either  the  vehicle  alterer  or  the  complete  vehicle 
manufacturer  in  cases  involving  altered  vehicles. 
The  regulations  do  not  prohibit  the  sending  of 
notification  letters  by  persons  other  than  the  ve- 
hicle manufacturer.  Accordingly,  no  modifica- 
tion of  the  regulation  is  called  for.  However, 
manufacturers  who  do  utilize  the  services  of 
others  in  meeting  requirements  still  bear  the  ulti- 
mate responsibility  for  compliance  with  the 
regulation  under  the  National  Traffic  and  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Act. 

The  Wagner  Electric  Company  has  requested 
that  the  provisions  of  the  regulation  regarding 
manufacturers  of  motor  vehicle  equipment  (ex- 
cluding tires)  be  reconsidered  in  light  of  the  fact 
that,  under  present  marketing  procedures,  it  is 
difficult  or  impossible  for  such  manufacturers  to 
notify  jobbers,  installers,  dealers,  or  consumers. 
The  notification  required  by  the  regulation  is 
directed  at  the  notification  sent  to  retail  purchas- 
ers and  not  that  sent  to  distributors  or  dealers 
of  the  manufacturer.  The  notification  of  the 
latter  is  subject  only  to  the  statutory  provision 


of  section  113  of  the  Safety  Act  (15  U.S.C. 
1402).  Moreover,  manufacturers  of  equipment 
(other  than  tires)  who  do  not  have  the  names 
of  first  purchasers  are  not  required  to  notify 
them  either  under  the  National  Traffic  and  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Act  or  the  regulation.  There  is 
consequently  no  need  for  modification  of  the 
regulation  for  the  reasons  presented  by  Wagner, 
and  its  request  is  accordingly  denied. 

In  light  of  the  above,  Part  577  of  Title  49, 
Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  "Defect  Notifica- 
tion", is  amended  .... 

Effective  date:  April  17,  197.3.  These  amend- 
ments impose  no  additional  burdens  on  any  per- 
son, and  serve  only  to  clarify  the  application  of 
existing  requirements  to  specific  situations.  Ac- 
cordingly, notice  and  public  procedure  thereon 
are  unnecessary,  and  good  cause  exists  for  an 
effective  date  less  than  thirty  days  from  the  day 
of  publication. 

(Sec.  108,  112,  113,  119,  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80  Stat. 
718  as  amended,  sec.  2,  4,  Pub.  L.  91-265,  84 
Stat.  262  (15  U.S.C.  1397,  1401,  1402,  1408); 
delegation  of  authority  at  49  CFR  1.51) 

Issued  on  April  10, 1973. 

James  E.  Wilson 
Acting  Administrator 

38   F.R.  9509 
April  17,  1973 


PART  577— PRE  7-8 


^ 


^ 


EfFective:   September    14,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  PART  577— DEFECT  NOTIFICATION 

(Docket  No.  74-42;   Notice  2) 


This  notice  amends  49  CFR  Part  577,  Defect 
Notif  cation^  to  require  that  bilingual  notification 
be  sent  to  owners  in  certain  cases,  and  to  clarify 
the  wording  manufacturers  are  required  to  use 
to  indicate  their  determination  that  a  safety- 
related  defect  exists. 

A  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  on  this  sub- 
ject was  published  on  November  25,  1974,  (39 
F.R.  41182)  and  an  opportunity  afforded  for 
comment.  The  Center  for  Auto  Safety  had 
questioned  the  efficacy  of  defect  notification 
campaigns  in  Puerto  Rico  conducted  in  the  Eng- 
lish language  since  the  primary  language  of  that 
Commonwealth  is  Spanish.  A.  National  High- 
way Traffic  Safety  Administration  (NHTSA) 
survey  in  Puerto  Rico  confirmed  that  there  was 
a  need  for  bilingual  defect  notification.  It  was 
proposed  that  whenever  the  address  of  the  pur- 
chaser is  in  either  the  Commonwealth  of  Puerto 
Rico  or  the  Canal  Zone  the  notification  be  sent 
in  both  the  English  and  Spanish  languages. 

The  notice  also  proposed  clarifying  §  577.4(e) 
(1)  so  that  the  second  paragraph  of  a  notifica- 
tion letter  could  no  longer  be  written  to  reflect 
a  manufacturer's  belief  that  the  cause  of  a  defect 
is  an  item  other  than  that  which  he  manufac- 
tured. 

Only  Chrysler  Corporation  and  Firestone  Tire 
and  Rubber  Company  commented  on  bilingual 
notification.  Both  stated  that  it  was  not  neces- 
sary for  the  Canal  Zone.  Firestone  also  felt 
that  the  requirement  to  translate  the  notification 
would  delay  its  mailing,  and  voiced  the  belief 
that  NHTSA  must  express  the  exact  wording 
in  Spanish  for  §  577.4(a)  and  (b).  Chrysler 
commented  that  it  had  been  providing  bilingual 
notification  to  owners  of  automobiles  purchased 
in  Puerto  Rico  but  that  extensive  and  burden- 
some data-processing  reprogramming  would  be 
required  to  identify  owners  of  vehicles  originally 


purchased  on  the  mainland  and  later  taken  to 
Puerto  Rico. 

The  NHTSA  believes  that  the  language  prob- 
lem is  a  significant  factor  in  the  below-average 
response  to  notification  campaigns  in  Puerto 
Rico,  and  that  owner  response  rate  to  campaigns 
in  the  Canal  Zone  will  improve  if  notifications 
are  provided  in  Spanish  as  well  as  English. 
Information  from  the  Census  Bureau  indicates 
that  more  than  50%  of  the  residents  of  each  area 
speak  Spanish  as  their  primary  language.  Trans- 
lation may  delay  mailing  to  these  areas  a  few 
days,  but  this  is  deemed  inconsequential  com- 
pared with  the  benefits  to  be  derived  by  an  im- 
proved response  to  campaigns.  This  agency 
does  not  consider  that  it  need  specify  the  exact 
wording  in  Spanish  of  §  577.4(a)  and  (b).  If 
it  appears  that  manufacturers  are  providing 
ambiguous  statements  it  will  consider  the  matter 
further.  Finally,  since  section  153(a)(1)  of  the 
National  Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act, 
15  U.S.C.  1413(a)(1),  requires  notification  to  be 
sent  to  the  person  who  is  registered  under  State 
law  as  the  owner  of  the  vehicle  to  be  campaigned, 
Chrysler's  comments  on  reprogramming  of  data 
do  not  appear  to  have  merit. 

This  notice  also  amends  §  577.4(b)  (1),  which 
presently  requires  the  second  sentence  of  the 
notification  to  state  that  the  manufacturer  has 
determined  that  a  defect  which  relates  to  motor 
vehicle  safety  exists  in  its  motor  vehicles  or 
motor  vehicle  equipment.  Certain  notification 
letters  have  characterized  the  defect  as  existing 
in  a  vehicle  or  item  of  equipment  not  manufac- 
tured by  the  manufacturer  making  the  determi- 
nation. The  intent  of  the  section  is  that  a 
manufacturer  of  motor  vehicles  would  state  its 
determination  that  the  defect  exists  in  the  motor 
v'ehicle  it  manufactures,  while  a  manufacturer 
of  motor  vehicle  equipment  would  state  its  de- 


PART  577— PRE  9 


Effective:   September    14,    1975 


termination  that  the  defect  exists  in  the  motor 
vehicle  equipment  it  manufactures.  If  the  manu- 
facturer believes  the  cause  of  the  defect  to  be  an 
item  other  than  that  which  he  manufactured, 
that  information  can  be  imparted  in  the  other 
parts  of  the  notification,  but  not  in  the  second 
paragraph  where  the  content  is  specifically  pre- 
scribed. 

Kelsey-Hayes  Compan}^  and  Skyline  Corpora- 
tion commented  on  the  proposal  to  clarify 
§  577.4(b)(1).  Both  objected  to  it,  feeling  that 
the  present  I'egulation  is  adequate  and  that  the 
mandatory  statement  may  be  prejudicial.  How- 
ever, in  the  opinion  of  this  agency,  manufactur- 
ers witli  limited  experience  in  composing  notifi- 
cation letters  have  in  many  cases  misinterpreted 


§  577.4(b)  (1).  Clarification  of  the  sentence 
should  eliminate  mistakes. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  Part  577  of 
Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  Defect 
Nntif  cation^  is  amended.  . . . 

Effective  date:  September  14,  1975. 

(Sec.  108,  112,  113,  119,  Pub.  L.  89-563,  80 
Stat.  718;  sec.  2,  4,  Pub.  L.  91-265,  84  Stat.  262 
(15  U.S.C.  1397,  1401,  1402,  1407) ;  delegation  of 
authority  at  49  CFR  1.51.) 

Issued  on  June  10,  1975. 

James  B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

40  F.R.  25463 
June  16,  1975 


C 


Effecflve:  March  23,    1973 


PART  577— DEFECT  NOTIFICATION 
(Docket  No.  72-7;   Notice  2) 


Sec. 

577.1  Scope. 

577.2  Purpose. 

577.3  Application. 

577.4  Notification  initiated  by  manufacturer. 

577.5  Notification      pursuant     to     administrative 

proceeding. 

577.6  Disclaimers. 

577.7  Conformity  to  statutory  requirements. 

§  577.1  Scope.  This  part  sets  forth  require- 
ments for  notification  to  first  purchasers  and 
warranty  holders  of  motor  vehicles  and  motor 
vehicle  equipment  of  the  posssibility  of  a  defect 
relating  to  motor  vehicle  safety  or  a  noncom- 
pliance with  a  Federal  motor  vehicle  safety 
standard. 

§  577.2  Purpose.  The  purpose  of  this  part  is 
to  ensure  that  defect  notifications  provide  ade- 
quate information  to  recij^ients,  and  effectively 
motivate  owners  of  potentially  defective  or  non- 
complying  motor  vehicles  or  items  of  motor  ve- 
hicle equipment  to  have  vehicles  and  equipment 
inspected  and,  where  necessary,  repaired  as 
quickly  as  possible. 

§  577.3  Application.  This  part  applies  to 
manufacturers  of  complete  motor  vehicles,  in- 
complete motor  vehicles,  and  motor  vehicle  equip- 
ment. In  the  case  of  vehicles  manufactured  in 
two  or  more  stages,  compliance  by  either  the 
manufacturer  of  the  incomplete  vehicle  or  any 
subsequent  manufacturer  shall  be  considered 
compliance  by  each  of  those  manufacturers. 

§  577.4      Notification  initiated  by  manufacturer. 

^Vlienever  a  manufacturer  of  motor  vehicles 
or  tires  determines  that  a  defect  potentially  ex- 
isting in  any  motor  vehicle  or  item  of  motor  ve- 


hicle equipment  he  produces  relates  to  motor 
vehicle  safety,  he  shall  notify  by  certified  mail 
the  first  purchaser  (where  known)  of  such  ve- 
hicle or  item  of  motor  vehicle  equipment,  and 
any  subsequent  purchaser  to  whom  a  warranty 
on  such  vehicle  or  item  of  equipment  has  been 
transferred.  The  notification  shall  contain  the 
following  information.  In  the  case  of  paragraphs 
(a)  and  (b),  the  information  shall  be  presented 
in  the  form  and  in  the  order  specified.  The  in- 
formation required  in  paragraphs  (c),  (d),  and 
(e)  may  be  presented  in  any  order. 

£^Vhenever  the  address  of  the  purchaser  is  in 
either  the  Commonwealth  of  Puerto  Rico  or  the 
Canal  Zone,  the  notification  shall  be  sent  in  both 
the  English  and  Spanish  languages.  (40  F.R. 
25463— June  16,  1975.     Effective:  9/14/75)] 

(a)  An  opening  statement :  "This  notice  is  sent 
to  you  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  the 
National  Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act." 

(b)  [The  statement:  "(Manufacturer's  name 
or  division)  has  determined  that  a  defect  which 
relates  to  motor  vehicle  safety  exists  in  (identi- 
fied motor  vehicles,  in  the  case  of  notification 
sent  by  a  motor  vehicle  manufacturer;  identified 
motor  vehicle  equipment,  in  the  case  of  notifica- 
tion sent  by  a  motor  vehicle  equipment  manu- 
facturer)." (40  F.R.  25463— June  16,  1975. 
Effective:  9/14/75)] 

^Vhen  the  manufacturer  determines  that  the 
defect  may  not  exist  in  each  such  vehicle  or  equip- 
ment item,  he  may  include,  in  addition,  a  state- 
ment to  that  effect. 

(c)  A  clear  description  of  the  defect,  which 
must  include — 

(1)  Identification  of  the  vehicle  system  or 
particular  item  or  items  of  motor  vehicle  equip- 
ment affected; 

(2)  A  descrii:)tion  of  the  malfunction  that 
may  occur; 


(Rev.   6/10/751 


PART  577-1 


231-088   O  -  77  -  80 


Effective:   March  23,    1973 


(3)  A  statement  of  operating  or  other  condi- 
tions that  may  cause  the  malfunction  to  occur; 
and 

(4)  Precautions,  if  any,  that  the  purcliaser 
should  take  to  reduce  the  chance  that  the  mal- 
function will  occur  before  the  vehicle  is  re- 
paired. 

(d)  An  evaluation  of  the  risk  to  traffic  safety 
reasonably  related  to  the  defect. 

(1)  When  vehicle  crash  is  the  potential  oc- 
currence, the  evaluation  must  include  which- 
ever of  the  following  statements  is  appropriate : 

(i)  That  the  defect  can  cause  vehicle  crash 
without  prior  warning,  or 

(ii)  A  description  of  whatever  warning 
may  occur,  and  a  statement  that  if  this  warn- 
ing is  not  heeded,  vehicle  crash  can  occur. 

(2)  When  vehicle  crash  is  not  the  potential 
occurrence,  the  evaluation  must  include  a  state- 
ment indicating  the  general  type  of  injury  to 
occupants  of  the  vehicle,  or  to  persons  outside 
the  vehicle,  that  can  result  from  the  defect. 

(e)  A  statement  of  measures  to  be  taken  to  re- 
pair the  defect,  in  accordance  with  whichever  of 
the  following  is  appropriate. 

(1)  [When  the  manufacturer  offers  to  repair 
the  defect  through  his  dealers  or  other  service 
facility  of  the  manufacturer  without  charge  to 
the  purchaser,  the  statement  shall  include: 
(38  F.R.  9509— April  19,  1973.  Effective: 
4/17/73)3 

(i)  A  general  description  of  the  work  in- 
volved in  repairing  the  defect ; 

(ii)  [The  manufacturer's  estimate  of  the 
day  by  which  his  dealers  or  other  service 
facility  of  the  manufacturer  will  be  suijplied 
with  parts  and  instructions  for  correcting 
the  defect;  and  (38  F.R.  9509— Ipril  19, 
1973.    Effective:  4/17/73)] 

(iii)  The  manufacturer's  estimate  of  the 
time  reasonably  necessary  to  perform  the 
labor  required  to  correct  the  defect. 

(2)  [When  the  manufacturer  does  not  pro- 
vide for  the  repairs  to  be  performed  by  his 
dealers  or  other  service  facility  of  the  manu- 
facturer, but  will  bear  the  cost  of  the  repair, 
the  statement  shall  include — (38  F.R.  9509— 
April  19,  1973.    Effective:  4/17/73)] 


(i)  The  name  and  part  number  of  each    i 
part  that  must  be  added,  replaced,  or  mod-  f 
ified ;  ^ 

(ii)  A  description  of  any  modifications 
that  must  be  made  to  existing  parts; 

(iii)  Information  on  whei'e  needed  parts 
will  be  available,  including  the  manufac- 
turer's estimate  of  the  day  after  which  they 
will  be  generally  available; 

(iv)  A  detailed  description  (including  ap- 
propriate illustrations)  of  each  step  required 
to  correct  the  defect; 

(v)  The  manufacturer's  estimate  of  the 
time  reasonably  necessary  to  perform  the 
labor  required  to  correct  the  defect;  and 

(vi)  The  manufacturer's  recommendation 
as  to  whom  the  purchaser  should  hu\e  per- 
form the  necessarj'  work. 

(3)   When  the  manufacturer  does  not  bear 
the  cost  of  repair,  the  statement  shall  include — 

(i)  The  name,  j^art  number,  and  suggested 
list  price  of  each  part  that  must  be  added  or 
replaced ; 

(ii)   A    description    of    any    modifications 
that  must  be  made  to  existing  parts,  which      / 
must  also  be  identified  by  name  and   part     N 
number ; 

(iii)  Information  on  where  needed  parts 
will  be  available,  including  the  manufac- 
turer's estimate  of  the  day  after  which  they 
will  be  generally  available; 

(iv)  A  detailed  description  (including  ap- 
propriate illustrations)  of  each  stej)  required 
to  repair  the  defect : 

(v)  The  manufacturer's  estimate  of  the 
time  reasonably  necessary  to  perform  the 
labor  required  to  correct  the  defect;  and 

(vi)  The  manufacturer's  recommendations 
as  to  whom  the  purchaser  should  have  per- 
form the  necessary  work. 

§  577.5  Notification  pursuant  to  administrative 
proceeding.  A  notification  made  by  a  manufac- 
turer of  mot(n-  vehicles  or  motor  vehicle  equip- 
ment as  a  result  of  proceedings  conducted  pur- 
suant to  section  113(e)  of  the  National  Traffic 
and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act,  (15  U.S.C. 
140-2(e)),  shall  be  made  in  the  manner  specified 


(Rev.   4//10/73) 


PART  577-2 


Effecfive:   Morch   23,    1973 


in  §  577.4(a)  through  §r»77.4(e),  except  that  the 
statement  required  pursuant  to  g  577.4(h)  sliall 
indicate  that — 

(a)  The  determination  lias  Iteen  made  \)\  the 
National  Highway  Traffic  Safety  Adminis- 
trator, and 

(b)  If  appropriate,  the  determination  is  of 
noncompliance  with  a  Federal  motor  vehicle 
safety  standard. 

§  577.6  Disclaimers,  (a)  A  notification  sent 
pursuant  to  g  577.4  or  §  577.5  shall  not  contain 
an)'  statement  or  implication  that  the  problem 
discussed  in  the  letter  is  not  a  defect,  that  it  does 
not  relate  to  motor  vehicle  safety,  and,  except 


as  specifically  provided  in  this  part,  that  it  is 
not  present  in  the  purcha.ser's  vehicle. 

(b)  A  notification  sent  pursuant  to  §577.5 
shall  not  state  or  imply  that  the  manufacturer 
disagrees  with  the  Administrator's  finding  of  a 
defect  relating  to  motor  \eliicle  safet}-  or  a  non- 
compliance with  a  Federal  motor  vehicle  safety 
standard. 

§  577.7      Conformity   to   statutory   requirements. 

A  notification  that  docs  not  conform  to  the  re- 
quirements of  this  part  shall  not  be  in  compliance 
with  sections  lOfi  and  11.'5  of  the  National  Traffic 
and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act. 

38  F.R.  2215 
January  23,   1973 


^ 


PART  577-3 


( 


E«F*(tlv«:  March    1,    1973 


PREAMBLE  TO  PART  580— ODOMETER  DISCLOSURE  REQUIREMENTS 

(Docket  No.  72-31;  Notice  2) 


The  purpose  of  this  notice  is  to  estabish  a  reg- 
ulation that  will  require  a  person  who  transfers 
ownership  in  a  motor  vehicle  to  give  his  buyer 
a  written  disclosure  of  the  mileage  the  vehicle 
has  traveled.  The  regulation  carries  out  the  di- 
rective of  section  408(a)  of  the  Motor  Vehicle 
Information  and  Cost  Savings  Act,  Public  Law 
92-513,  86  Stat.  947,  and  completes  the  provi- 
sions of  the  Act  under  Title  IV,  Odometer 
Requirements. 

The  regulation  was  first  proposed  in  a  notice 
published  in  the  Federal  Register  on  December  2, 
1972  (37  F.R.  25727).  As  a  result  of  numerous 
comments  on  the  proposal,  the  regulation  as  is- 
sued today  differs  in  some  respects  from  its  ini- 
tial form. 

As  stated  in  the  proposal,  the  agency's  goals 
were  to  link  the  disclosure  statement  as  closely 
as  possible  to  the  documents  required  for  transfer 
of  ownership,  so  that  buyers  and  sellers  would 
know  of  the  need  for  disclosure,  and  to  do  so  in  a 
manner  that  would  not  introduce  an  additional 
document  into  motor  vehicle  transactions.  The 
agency  therefore  proposed  the  use  of  the  certifi- 
cate of  title  as  the  document  for  odometer  dis- 
closure. 

Upon  review  of  the  comments,  it  became  evi- 
dent that  in  most  jurisdictions  it  would  not  be 
feasible  to  use  the  title  certificate  to  convey  odom- 
eter information.  The  main  drawback  to  its  use 
lies  in  the  prevalence  of  state  laws  providing 
that  if  a  vehicle  is  subject  to  a  lien,  the  title  is 
held  by  the  lienholder.  As  a  result,  it  appears 
that  in  a  majority  of  cases  private  parties  selling 
motor  vehicles  do  not  have  possession  of  a  cer- 
tificate of  title,  and  convey  their  interest  by  other 
means. 

In  those  States  that  permit  the  owner  of  a 
vehicle  subject  to  a  lien  to  retain  the  title,  the 


lienholder  will  be  unable  to  make  the  odometer 
disclosure  on  the  title  if  he  attempts  to  sell  the 
vehicle  after  repossession.  In  many  States, 
furthermore,  the  title  certificate  is  not  large 
enough  to  contain  an  adequate  odometer  dis- 
closure, and  the  existing  data  processing  and 
filing  equipment  would  not  accommodate  an  en- 
larged certificate. 

There  appears  to  have  been  some  apprehension 
that  the  Federal  government  intended  to  compel 
the  States  to  amend  their  certificates  of  title. 
The  Act  does  not,  however,  confer  any  authority 
o\er  the  States  in  this  regard.  Even  if  the  regu- 
lation were  to  require  transferor  disclosure  on  the 
title,  the  States  could  decline  to  provide  a  form 
for  disclosure  on  the  title.  This  voluntary  aspect 
of  the  States'  participation  is  a  further  impedi- 
ment to  the  use  of  the  title  certificate. 

After  review  of  the  problems  created  by  the 
use  of  the  certificate  of  title,  the  agency  has  de- 
cided that  the  purposes  of  the  Act  are  better 
served  by  prescribing  a  separate  form  as  the  dis- 
closure document  in  most  cases.  Section  580.4 
has  been  amended  accordingly.  To  avoid  the 
need  for  duplicate  State  and  Federal  disclosures 
in  States  having  odometer  disclosure  laws  or 
regulations,  the  section  permits  the  State  form 
to  be  used  in  satisfaction  of  the  Federal  require- 
ment, so  long  as  it  contains  equivalent  informa- 
tion and  refers  to  the  existence  of  a  Federal 
remedy. 

It  should  be  noted  that  although  the  certificate 
of  title  is  no  longer  required  to  be  used  for  dis- 
closure, it  can  still  be  used  as  the  disclosure 
document  if  it  contains  the  required  information 
and  if  it  is  held  by  the  transferor  and  given  by 
him  to  the  transferee.  The  basic  concept  is  that 
the  disclosure  must  be  made  as  part  of  the  trans- 
fer, and  not  at  some  later  time. 


PART  580— PRE  1 


EffecHve:  March   1,    1973 


In  addition  to  the  changes  from  the  proposal 
represented  by  the  change  from  the  certificate  of 
title  to  a  separate  form,  there  are  other  differences 
from  the  proposal  in  the  regulation.  For  pur- 
poses of  convenience,  the  following  discussion 
treats  the  amended  sections  in  sequence. 

In  section  580.3,  the  proposed  definition  of 
transferor  might  in  some  jurisdictions  include  a 
person  who  creates  a  security  interest  in  a  vehicle. 
This  type  of  transaction  was  not  intended  to  be 
regulated,  and  the  definitions  have  been  amended 
accordingly. 

In  section  580.4,  in  addition  to  the  changes  dis- 
cussed above,  other  modifications  have  been  made. 
In  response  to  a  comment  suggesting  that  the 
disclosure  would  be  made  after  the  purchaser 
had  become  committed  to  buying  the  vehicle, 
the  order  of  §  580.4(a)  has  been  rearranged  to 
specify  that  the  odometer  disclosure  is  to  be 
made  before  the  other  transfer  documents  are 
executed. 

The  items  listed  under  §  580.4(a)  have  been 
increased  to  allow  for  additional  identification 
of  the  vehicle  and  owner  that  would  be  necessary 
on  a  separate  disclosure  document.  If  the  dis- 
closure is  a  part  of  another  document,  however, 
§  580.4(a)(1)  provides  that  items  (2)  through 
(4)  need  not  be  repeated  if  found  elsewhere  in 
the  document.  A  number  of  comments  noted 
that  the  items  under  (a)  might  often  be  redun- 
dant. 

A  new  paragraph  (b)  has  been  inserted  in 
§  580.4  to  require  a  reference  to  the  sanctions 
provided  by  the  Act.  No  specific  form  is  re- 
quired, but  the  inclusion  of  such  a  statement  is 
considered  essential  to  notify  the  transferee  of 
the  reason  why  he  is  being  given  the  odometer 
information. 

The  former  paragraph  (b)  of  §  580.4  has  been 
renumbered  as  (c),  and  the  alternative  methods 
for  odometer  disclosure  discussed  above  are  found 
as  paragraphs  (d)  and  (e). 

A  new  section,  §  580.5,  Exemptions,  has  been 
added  in  response  to  a  number  of  comments  that 
objected  to  the  application  of  the  requirements 
to  categories  of  vehicles  for  which  the  odometer 
is  not  used  as  a  guide  to  value.  Buses  and  large 
trucks,  for  example,  are  routinely  driven  hun- 
dreds of  thousands  of  miles,   and  their  main- 


tenance records  have  traditionally  been  relied  on  /^ 
by  buyers  as  the  principal  guide  to  their  condi-  \ 
tion.  The  NHTSA  is  in  agreement  with  the 
position  taken  by  Freightliner,  White,  and  the 
National  Association  of  Motor  Bus  Operators, 
and  has  therefore  created  an  exemption  for  larger 
vehicles.  The  exemption  applies  to  vehicles 
having  gross  vehicle  weight  ratings  of  more  than 
16,000  pounds. 

A  second  category  of  exempt  vehicles  has  been 
created  for  antique  vehicles,  whose  value  is  a 
function  of  their  age,  condition,  and  scarcity,  and 
for  which  the  odometer  mileage  is  irrelevant.  A 
third  exempt  category  consists  of  vehicles  that  are 
not  self-propelled,  such  as  trailers,  most  of  which 
are  not  equipped  with  odometers. 

Several  vehicle  manufacturers  stated  that  the 
proposal  would  require  them  to  give  disclosure 
statements  to  their  distributors  and  dealers,  and 
that  such  a  requirement  would  be  both  burden- 
some and  pointless.  Upon  consideration  of  the 
nature  of  manufacturer-dealer  transactions,  it  has 
been  decided  to  exempt  transfers  of  new  vehicles 
that  occur  prior  to  the  first  sale  of  the  vehicle  for 
purposes  other  than  resale. 

The  odometer  disclosure  form  set  forth  in  f 
§  580.6  has  been  reworded  to  make  it  clearer. 
Space  for  additional  information  about  the  ve- 
hicle and  owner  has  been  included  so  that  the 
vehicle  will  be  readily  identifiable  if  the  dis- 
closure statement  becomes  separated  from  the 
other  transfer  documents.  In  accordance  with 
the  instructions  of  the  Act,  the  transferor  is 
directed  to  state  that  the  mileage  is  unknown  if 
he  knows  that  the  actual  mileage  differs  from 
the  mileage  shown  on  the  odometer.  Although 
several  comments  suggested  that  the  true  mileage, 
if  known,  should  be  stated,  such  a  statement  is 
not  provided  for  in  the  Act  and  would  not 
afford  the  buyer  with  reliable  information  about 
the  vehicle. 

The  effective  date  proposed  in  the  notice  was 
to  have  been  six  months  after  issuance.  Two 
States,  perhaps  under  the  impression  that  they 
were  required  to  change  their  forms,  requested 
an  additional  six  months.  Other  comments, 
notably  that  of  the  National  Automobile  Dealers 
Association,  urged  an  immediate  effective  date  in 
order  to  make  the  disclosure  requirements  coin- 


PART  580— PRE  2 


Effective:   March    1,    1973 


cide  with  the  effectiveness  of  the  other  parts  of 
Title  IV  of  the  Act.  Upon  consideration  of  the 
important  contribution  the  disclosure  require- 
ments make  to  the  effectiveness  of  the  Act's 
other  provisions,  it  has  been  decided  that  an  ef- 
fective date  earlier  than  six  months  after  issuance 
is  advisable. 

Accordingly,  the  regulation  is  to  become  effec- 
tive March  1,  1973.  Although  it  is  likely  that 
most  private  persons  will  remain  unaware  of  the 
disclosure  requirements  for  some  time  after 
March  1,  1973,  a  person  who  does  not  know  of 
the  requirement  will  not  have  ''intent  to  defraud'' 
under  section  409(a)  of  the  Act  and  will  there- 
fore not  be  subject  to  liability  solely  because  he 
has  failed  to  make  the  required  statement.  The 
persons  most  immediately  affected  by  the  dis- 
closure requirements  are  commercial  enterprises 
such  as  dealers  and  wholesalers,  and  of  these  the 


largest  group,  represented  by  NADA,  has 
already  indicated  its  desire  for  an  early  effective 
date.  The  earlier  effective  date  is  therefore  con- 
sidered appropriate. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  a  new  Part 
580,  Odometer  Disclosure  Requirements,  is  added 
to  Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  to  read 
as  set  forth  below. 

Issued  under  the  authority  of  section  408(a) 
of  the  Motor  Vehicle  Information  and  Cost 
Savings  Act,  P.L.  92-513,  86  Stat.  947,  and  the 
delegation  of  authority  at  49  C.F.R.  1.51. 

Issued  on  January  23,  1973. 

Douglas  W.  Toms, 
Administrator. 

38   F.R.   2978 
January  31,  1973 


PART  580— PRE  3-4 


(. 


EfFacllv*:  March    1,    1973 


PART  580— ODOMETER  DISCLOSURE  REQUIREMENTS 


§  580.1    Scope. 

This  part  prescribes  rules  requiring  the  trans- 
feror of  a  motor  vehicle  to  make  written  dis- 
closure to  the  transferee  concerning  the  odometer 
mileage  and  its  accuracy,  as  directed  by  section 
408(a)  of  the  Motor  Vehicle  Information  and 
Cost  Savings  Act,  Public  Law  92-513. 

§  580.2   Purpose. 

The  purpose  of  this  part  is  to  provide  each 
purchaser  of  a  motor  vehicle  with  odometer  in- 
formation to  assist  him  in  determining  the  ve- 
hicle's condition  and  value. 

§  580.3  Definitions. 

All  terms  defined  in  Sections  2  and  402  of  the 
Act  are  used  in  their  statutory  meaning.  Other 
terms  used  in  this  part  are  defined  as  follows: 

"Transferor"  means  any  person  who  transfers 
his  ownership  in  a  motor  vehicle  by  sale,  gift,  or 
any  means  other  than  by  creation  of  a  security 
interest. 

"Transferee"  means  any  person  to  whom  the 
ownership  in  a  motor  vehicle  is  transferred  by 
purchase,  gift,  or  any  means  other  than  by 
creation  of  a  security  interest. 

§  580.4  Disclosure   of   odometer   information. 

Except  as  provided  in  §  580.5 — 

(a)  Before  executing  any  transfer  of  owner- 
ship document,  each  transferor  of  a  motor  vehicle 
shall  furnish  to  the  transferee  a  written  statement 
signed  by  the  transferor,  containing  the  follow- 
ing information : 

(1)  The  odometer  reading  at  the  time  of 
transfer;  and,  unless  provided  elsewhere  on  a 
transfer  document  integral  with  the  odometer 
disclosure ; 

(2)  The  date  of  the  transfer; 

(3)  The  transferor's  name  and  current  ad- 
dress; and 


(4)  The  identity  of  the  vehicle,  including  its 
make,  model,  and  body  type,  its  vehicle  identi- 
fication number,  and  its  last  plate  number. 

(b)  In  addition  to  the  information  provided 
under  (a),  the  statement  shall  refer  to  the  Motor 
Vehicle  Information  and  Cost  Savings  Act  and 
shall  state  that  incorrect  information  may  result 
in  civil  liability  under  it. 

(c)  In  addition  to  the  information  provided 
under  (a),  if  the  transferor  knows  that  the 
odometer  reading  differs  from  the  number  of 
miles  the  vehicle  has  actually  traveled,  and  that 
the  difference  is  greater  than  that  caused  by 
odometer  calibration  error,  he  shall  include  a 
statement  that  the  actual  mileage  is  unknown. 

(d)  If  a  document  provided  under  the  laws 
or  regulations  of  the  State  in  which  the  transfer 
occurs  contains  the  statements  required  by  para- 
graphs (a),  (b),  and  (c)  of  this  section,  the 
transferor  may  make  the  disclosure  required  by 
this  section  either  by  executing  the  State  docu- 
ment or  by  executing  the  disclosure  form  specified 
in  §  580.6. 

(e)  If  there  is  no  State  document  as  described 
in  paragraph  (d)  of  this  section,  the  transferor 
shall  make  the  disclosure  required  by  this  section 
by  executing  the  disclosure  form  specified  in 
§  580.6. 

§  580.5   Exemptions. 

Notwithstanding  the  requirements  of  §  580.4 — 

(a)  A  transferor  of  any  of  the  following 
motor  vehicles  need  not  disclose  the  vehicle's 
odometer  mileage: 

( 1 )  A  vehicle  havnng  a  Gross  Vehicle  Weight 
Rating,  as  defined  in  §  570.3  of  this  title,  of 
more  than  16,000  pounds; 

(2)  A  vehicle  that  is  not  self-propelled;  or 

(3)  A  vehicle  that  is  25  years  old  or  older. 


PART  580-1 


Effoctive:   March   1,    1973 

(b)  A  transferor  of  a  new  vehicle  prior  to  its 
first  transfer  for  purposes  other  tlian  resale  need 
not  disclose  the  vehicle's  odometer  mileage. 

§  580  Disclosure   form. 

Odometer  Mileage  Statement 

(Federal  regulations  require  you  to  state  the 
odometer  mileage  upon  transfer  of  ownership. 
An  inaccurate  statement  may  make  you  liable  for 
damages  to  your  transferee,  pursuant  to  §  409(a) 
of  the  Motor  Vehicle  Information  and  Cost 
Savings  Act  of  1972,  Public  Law  92-513.) 

I, ,  state  that  the 

odometer  mileage  indicated  on  the  vehicle  de- 
scribed below  is  miles. 


(Check  the  following  statement,  if  applicable:) 

□  I  further  state  that  the  actual  mileage  differs 
from  the  odometer  reading  for  reasons  other 
than  odometer  calibration  error  and  that  the 
actual  mileage  is  unknown. 


f 


Make 

Body  Type 

Year 

Model' 

Vehicle  Identification  Number 

Last  Plate  Number 

Transferor's  address  __ 
Transferor's  Signature 
Date  of  this  Statement 


38  F.R.  2978 
January  31,  1973 


< 


PART  580-2 


Effective:   February    I,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  PART  582— INSURANCE  COST  INFORMATION   REGULATION 

(Docket  74-40;   Notice  2) 


Tliis  notice  establishes  an  insurance  cost  in- 
formation regulation  pursuant  to  the  IMotor  Ve- 
liicle  Information  and  Cost  Savings  Act  (15 
U.S.C.  1901  et  seq.).  The  regulation  is  based 
upon  a  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  i)ublished 
November  4,  1974  (39  F.R.  38912)  and  comments 
submitted  in  response  to  the  notice. 

The  regulation  will  require  automobile  dealers 
to  distribute  to  prospective  purchasers  informa- 
tion which  compares  differences  in  insurance  costs 
for  different  makes  and  models  of  passenger  motor 
vehicles  Ijased  upon  differences  in  their  damage 
susceptibility  and  crashworthiness.  In  the  ab- 
sence of  insurance  cost  infonnation  that  reflects 
damageability  and  crashworthiness,  this  rule  does 
not,  at  the  present  time,  have  an  effect  on  auto- 
mobile dealers.  Damage  susceptibility  and  crash- 
worthiness  studies  currently  being  conducted  by 
the  NHTSA  are  expected  to  influence  the  in- 
surance rate  structure  by  providing  data  which 
will  enable  the  insurance  industry  to  take  these 
factors  into  account.  As  this  occui-s,  the  NHTSA 
will  prepare  comparative  indices  for  the  dealers 
to  distribute  to  prospective  purchasers. 

Several  comments  on  the  proposed  nilemaking 
discussed  the  merits  of  the  Motor  Vehicle  In- 
formation and  Cost  Savings  Act  and  are  there- 
fore beyond  the  scope  of  this  rulemaking.  Other 
comments  offered  methods  for  performing  the 
damage  susceptibility  and  crashworthiness  stud- 
ies. These  comments  have  been  forwarded  to  the 
technical  staff'  performing  the  studies.  Two  com- 
ments suggested  minor  changes  in  the  text  of  the 
regulation  for  clarity  and  to  make  the  proposed 
regulation  more  consistent  with  the  purposes  of 
the  Act.     These  suggestions  have  been  adopted 


in  the  final  regulation.  Their  effect  is  that  the 
insurance  cost  information  disseminated  by  the 
dealers  would  be  in  the  form  of  comparative 
indices,  based  on  differences  in  damage  suscepti- 
bility and  crashworthiness,  rather  than  simply 
the  insurance  premium  rate  which  is  determined 
by  many  factors. 

(^ne  comment  expressed  the  view  that  provid- 
ing this  information  to  consumers  within  30  days 
after  its  publication  in  the  Federal  Register  was 
an  excessi^-e  burden  upon  the  dealere.  The 
NHTSA  does  not  believe  that  sufficient  justifica- 
tion for  this  position  has  been  made  in  light  of 
the  need  to  provide  the  information  to  the  con- 
sumer in  time  for  it  to  be  of  use  to  him  in  pur- 
chasing an  automobile. 

Therefore,  a  new  Part  582,  Insurance  Cost  In- 
formation^ is  added  in  Chapter  V,  Title  49,  Code 
of  Federal  Regulations,  to  read  as  set  forth  below. 

Efecth-e  date:  Although  the  final  rule  is  effec- 
ti\e  February  1,  1975,  as  specified  in  the  Cost 
Savings  Act.  the  dates  when  automobile  dealers 
will  be  required  to  distribute  insurance  cost  in- 
formation are  dependent  upon  NHTSA  progress 
in  developing  such  information  and  will  be  pub- 
lished at  a  later  date  in  the  Federal  Register. 

(Sec.  201(c),  P.  L.  92-513,  86  Stat.  947  (15 
U.S.C.  1941(e));  delegation  of  authority  at  49 
CFR  1.51). 

Issued  on  January  31,  1975. 

James  B.   Gregory 
Administrator 

40  F.R.  4918 
February  3,  1975 


PART  582— PRE  1-2 


Effective:   February   1,    1975 


PART  582— INSURANCE  COST  INFORMATION  REGULATIONS 


§  582.1  Scope.  This  part  i-equires  automobile 
dealers  to  make  available  to  prospective  pur- 
chasers information  reflecting  dift'erences  in  in- 
surance costs  for  dirt'erent  makes  and  models  of 
passenger  motor  vehicles  based  upon  differences 
in  damage  susceptibility  and  crashwortliiness. 
pursuant  to  section  201(e)  of  the  INIotor  Vehicle 
Information  and  Cost  Savings  Act  (15  U.S.C. 
1941(e)),  herein  "the  Cost  Savings  Act." 

§  582.2  Purpose.  The  purpose  of  this  part  is 
to  enable  prospective  purchasers  to  compare  dif- 
ferences in  auto  insurance  costs  for  the  various 
makes  and  models  of  passenger  motor  vehicles 
based  upon  differences  in  damage  susceptibility 
and  crashworthiness,  and  to  realize  any  savings 
in  collision  insurance  resulting  from  differences 
in  damageability,  and  any  savings  in  medical  pay- 
ment insurance  resulting  from  differences  in 
crasliworthiness. 

§  582.3   Definitions. 

(a)  Statutory  de-finitions.  All  terms  used  in 
this  part  which  are  defined  in  section  2  of  the 
Cost  Savings  Act  are  used  as  so  defined. 

(b)  Defnitions  used  in  this  part. 

(1)  "Automobile  dealer"  means  any  person 
who  engages  in  the  retail  sale  of  new  or  used 
automobiles  as  a  trade  or  business. 

(2)  "Collision  insurance"  means  insurance 
that  reimbui-ses  tlie  insured  party  for  physical 
damage  to  his  property  resulting  from  auto- 
mobile accidents. 


('?>)  "Insurance  cost"  means  the  insurance 
premium  rate,  as  expressed  in  appropriate  in- 
dices, for  collision  and  medical  payment,  includ- 
ing personal  injury  protection  in  no-fault  states. 

(4)  "Medical  payment  insurance"  means  in- 
surance that  reimburses  the  insured  party  for 
medical  expenses  siistained  by  himself,  his 
family,  and  his  i)assengers  in  automobile  acci- 
dents. 

§  582.4   Requirements. 

(a)  Each  autoiuol)ile  dealer  shall  provide  the 
insurance  cost  information  specified  in  §  582.5  for 
examination  by  prospective  purchasers  at  each 
location  where  he  offers  vehicles  for  sale. 

(b)  The  information  shall  be  provided  with- 
out charge  and  in  sufficient  quantity  to  have  it 
available  for  retention  by  prospective  purchasers, 
within  30  days  after  its  publication  in  the  Federal 
Register. 

(c)  The  information  shall  be  in  English  and, 
if  a  significant  portion  of  the  prospective  pur- 
chasers do  not  speak  English,  in  the  non-English 
language  most  widely  spoken  by  prospective  pur- 
chasers. 

§  582.5   Insurance   cost  information   form. 

The  insurance  cost  information  provided  pur- 
suant to  section  582.4  shall  be  presented  as 
follows:  [Form  to  be  specified]. 

40  F.R.  4918 
February  3,  1975 


PART  582-1 


i 


EfFeclive:   July    5,    1975 


PREAMBLE  TO  PART  590— MOTOR  VEHICLE  EMISSIONS  INSPECTION   CRITERIA 

(Docket  No.  72-24;   Notice  2) 


This  notice  issues  a  regulation  to  establish 
emissions  inspection  criteria  for  a  diagnostic  in- 
spection demonstration  projects  funded  pursuant 
to  the  Motor  Vehicle  Information  and  Cost 
Savings  Act  (15  U.S.C.  1901,  et  seq.).  The 
regulation  is  based  upon  a  notice  of  proposed 
rulemaking  published  Jime  11,  1974  (39  F.R. 
20501)  and  upon  comments  submitted  in  response 
to  the  notice,  and  is  issued  in  consultation  with 
the  Administrator  of  the  Environmental  Px'otec- 
tion  Agency. 

Under  Title  15  U.S.C,  Section  1962(a),  a 
State  may  obtain  a  grant  from  the  Federal  gov- 
ernment for  the  purpose  of  establishing  and 
operating  a  diagnostic  inspection  demonstration 
project.  The  purpose  of  the  grant  program  is 
to  explore  the  feasibility  of  using  diagnostic  test 
devices  to  conduct  diagnostic  safety  and  emission 
inspection  of  motor  vehicles.  The  demonstration 
projects  are  also  designed  to  help  the  Federal 
and  State  governments  determine  the  best  means 
of  structuring  safety  and  emissions  inspection 
programs.  Pursuant  to  the  requirements  of 
section  1962(b),  this  rule  establishes  emissions 
inspection  criteria  to  be  met  by  projects  funded 
under  this  program.  The  criteria  established 
govern  the  manner  of  operation  of  five  Feder- 
ally-funded State  diagnostic  inspection  demon- 
stration projects  to  be  conducted  in  Alabama, 
Arizona,  the  District  of  Columbia,  Puerto  Rico, 
and  Tennessee,  and  do  not,  in  themselves,  impose 
requirements  on  any  other  State  or  upon  any 
individual. 

The  subject  most  commonly  discussed  in  the 
comments  was  whether  a  loaded  test  mode  or  a 
high  speed  no  load  test  mode  would  be  more 
effective  than  the  basic  idle-only  mode  inspection 
procedure  in  detecting  vehicles  with  very  lugh 
emission  levels  and  in  diagnosing  problems. 
Because  this  program  calls  for  demonstration 
projects   and   is   in   the   nature   of   a   feasibility 


study,  the  NHTSA  considers  that  the  most  ap- 
propriate course  is  to  compare  the  alternative 
procedures  and,  in  this  way,  generate  data  which 
may  ultimately  resolve  the  question.  Accord- 
ingly, the  States  will  be  allowed  to  choose  be- 
tween loaded-mode  and  no-load  inspection  pro- 
cedures. For  similar  reasons  no-load  inspection 
procedures  will  include  both  low  and  high  speed 
measurements  until  such  time  as  the  data  col- 
lected indicates  that  unloaded  high-speed  meas- 
urements are  unwarranted. 

Since  one  of  the  major  purposes  of  the  pro- 
gram is  to  determine  whether  this  type  of  in- 
spection is  both  feasible  and  cost  beneficial,  the 
criteria  do  not  specify  that  the  emission  levels 
be  the  lowest  attainable,  but  represent  a  fair  bal- 
ance between  low  rejection  rates  which  would 
result  in  limited  program  effectiveness  and  high 
rejection  rates  which  would  result  in  adverse 
public  reaction.  In  the  event  that  the  actual 
rejection  rate  varies  significantly  from  our  esti- 
mate of  approximately  30  percent,  the  emissions 
criteria  will  be  modified  to  bring  the  rate  to  the 
desired  level.  Because  the  emission  criteria  are 
less  stringent  than  those  permitted  under  the 
Federal  Emission  Certification  Test  criteria,  it 
is  not  anticipated  that  conflicting  requirements 
on  engine  design  will  result  from  their  applica- 
tion in  this  program. 

Two  comments  were  addressed  to  the  point 
that  the  mechanical  dynamometer  suggested  for 
use  in  the  loaded  mode  inspection  may  not  simu- 
late normal  road  loading  as  well  as  an  electric 
dynamometer.  The  purpose  of  the  dynamometer 
is  to  provide  an  adequate  load  to  the  engine  to 
allow  detection  of  carburetor  main  and  power 
circuit  malfunctions  and  ignition  misfiring  un- 
der load.  Because  this  function  does  not  require 
true  road  load  duplication  NHTSA  does  not 
consider  that  the  more  expensive  electric  dyna- 
mometer should  be  required. 


PART  590— PRE  1 


Effective:    July   5,    1975 


General  Motors  Corporation  suggested  that 
oxides  of  nitrogen  (NOx)  measurement  be  in- 
cluded in  the  emission  inspection  criteria.  The 
Environmental  Protection  Agency  recommended 
waiting  until  such  time  as  NOx  controlled  ve- 
hicles account  for  a  more  significant  part  of  the 
vehicle  population  in  order  to  make  such  a  pro- 
gram meaningful.  NOx  measuring  instruments 
suitable  for  this  type  of  inspection  have  not 
been  developed  to  a  point  where  low  cost,  i;e- 
liable  instruments  are  readily  available.  Fur- 
thermore, tuning  a  car  without  NO,  conti-ols 
tends  to  increase  the  NOx  emissions  slightly 
while  reducing  the  hydrocarbon  and  carbon 
monoxide  emissions.  Therefore,  NHTSA  agrees 
with  the  EPA  that  until  newer  vehicles  with 
NOx  control  devices  begin  to  account  for  a  more 
substantial  part  of  the  overall  vehicle  popula- 
tion, the  level  of  reduction  of  emissions  of  oxides 
of  nitrogen  that  might  be  obtained  is  not  large 
enough  to  warrant  the  inclusion  of  NOx  inspec- 
tion at  this  time. 

"While  the  criteria  developed  in  this  rulemak- 
ing would  be  appropriate  for  emissions  inspec- 
tion of  light  duty  trucks  and  other  light  duty 
vehicles,  NHTSA  has  decided  not  to  include 
these  vehicles  in  the  data  pool  for  the  demon- 
stration projects.  The  rule  requires  that  the 
idle  speed  of  the  vehicle  at  the  time-  of  inspection 
must  not  be  more  than  100  rpm  greater  than 
that  recommended  by  the  manufacturer.  The 
purpose   of   this   requirement  is  to  ensure  that 


high  idle  speeds  are  not  masking  excessive  idle 
carbon  monoxide  levels.  At  the  suggestion  of 
tlio  American  Motors  Corporation  the  units  of 
measure  for  proposed  emission  levels  are  more 
specifically  identified  than  in  the  notice  of  pro- 
posed rulemaking.  The  unit  of  measurement  of 
carbon  monoxide  concentration  is  Mole  percent, 
while  that  for  hydrocarbon  concentration  is  ppm 
as  hexane. 

Therefore,  a  new  Part  590,  Motor  Vehicle 
Emission  Inspections,  is  added  in  Chapter  V, 
Title  49,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations.  .  .  . 

Effective  date:  This  part  becomes  effective 
July  .5,  1975.  The  notice  of  proposed  rulemak- 
ing/had  proposed  an  effective  date  30  days  after 
issuance  of  the  final  rule.  Because  the  five  States 
that  have  received  grants  have  all  developed 
their  emission  inspection  in  accordance  with  the 
proposed  criteria,  they  will  not  be  adversely  af- 
fected by  an  immediate  effective  date.  Good 
cause  is  accordingly  found  for  an  immediate 
effective  date. 

(Section  302(b)(1),  Pub.  L.  92-513,  86  Stat 
947,  15  U.S.C.  1901;  delegation  of  authority  at 
49  CFE  1.51.) 

Issued  on  June  5,  1975. 

James  B.  Gregory 
Administrator 

40  F.R.  24904 
June  11,  1975 


PAET  590— PBE  2 


EfFeclive:    July   5,    1975 


PART  590— EMISSION   INSPECTIONS 


Sec. 

590.1  Scope. 

590.2  Purpose. 

590.3  Applicability. 

590.4  Definitions. 

590.5  Requirements. 

590.6  No-load    inspection. 

590.7  Loaded-mode   inspection. 

590.8  Inspection   conditions. 

§  590.1      Scope. 

This  part  specifies  standards  and  procedures 
for  motor  vehicle  emission  inspections  by  State 
or  State-supervised  diagnostic  inspection  demon- 
stration projects  funded  under  Title  III  of  the 
Motor  Vehicle  Information  and  Cost  Savings 
Act  (15  U.S.C.  1901,  et  seq.). 

§  590.      Purpose. 

The  purpose  of  this  part  is  to  support  the 
development  of  effective  regulation  of  automo- 
bile exhaust  emissions  and  thereby  improve  air 
quality,  by  establishing  appropriate  uniform 
procedures  for  diagnostic  emission  inspection 
demonstration  projects. 

§  590.3      Applicability. 

Tliis  part  does  not  impose  requirements  on 
any  person.  It  is  intended  to  be  utilized  by 
State  diagnostic  inspection  demonstration  pro- 
jects operating  under  Title  III  of  the  Cost  Sav- 
ings Act  for  diagnostic  emission  inspections  of 
passenger  cars  powered  by  spark-ignition  en- 
gines. 

§  590.4      Definitions. 

All  terms  used  in  this  part  that  are  defined  in 
49  CFR  Part  571,  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Stand- 
ards, are  used  as  defined  in  that  Part. 


§  590.5      Requirements. 

A  diagnostic  inspection  demonstration  project 
shall  test  vehicles  in  accordance  with  either  the 
no-load  inspection  criteria  specified  in  section 
590.6,  or  the  loaded-mode  inspection  criteria 
specified  in  section  590.7. 

§  590.6     No-load   inspection. 

(a)  Criteria.  The  vehicle  must  meet  the  fol- 
lowing criteria  when  tested  by  the  no-load  in- 
spection method. 

(1)  The  vehicle's  idle  speed,  measured  with 
the  transmission  in  the  position  recommended 
by  the  manufacturer  for  adjusting  the  idle 
speed,  shall  not  be  more  than  100  rpm  higher 
than  the  idle  speed  recommended  by  the  manu- 
facturei'. 

(2)  Concentrations  of  emission  samples 
taken  from  each  exhaust  outlet  shall  not  ex- 
ceed the  following  levels : 

(i)  For  model  years  1967  and  earlier: 
hydrocarbons  (HC)  1200  ppm  as  hexane, 
and  carbon  monoxide  (CO)  9.0  mole  per- 
cent. 

(ii)  For  model  years  1968  through  1973: 
HC  600  ppm  as  hexans,  and  CO  7.0  mole 
percent. 

(b)  Method.  No-load  inspection  is  conducted 
by  measuring  two  emission  samples  from  each 
exhaust  outlet.  The  first  emission  sample  is  col- 
lected with  the  vehicle's  transmission  in  neutral 
and  the  engine  operating  at  2250  rpm.  The 
second  sample  is  collected  with  the  vehicle's 
transmission  in  the  position  recommended  by 
the  manufacturer  for  adjusting  the  idle  speed, 
and  the  engine  idling. 

§  590.7     Loaded-mode   inspection. 

(a)  Criteria.  When  the  loaded-mode  inspec- 
tion is  conducted,  concentrations  of  the  emission 


PART  590-1 


Effective:   July   5,    1975 


samples  taken  from  each  exliaust  outlet  for  each 
of  the  three  phases  of  the  drivinf:^  cycle  in  Table 
I,  conducted  in  the  sequence  indicated,  shall  not 
exceed   the   levels  jriven   in  Table  II.     For  the 


purpose  of  determining'  the  weight  classification 
of  a  motor  vehicle  for  the  loaded-mode  inspec- 
tion, 300  pounds  are  added  to  the  vehicle's  un- 
laden curb  weight. 


Table  I 


Driving  cycle  (speed-load  combination) 


Curb  weight  plus  300 
lbs 


1st  phase  high  cruise  2d  phase  low  cruiser  3d  phase  idle 

3,801  lbs  and  up 48  to  .'iO  mi/h  at  27  to  30  hp 32  to  35  mi/h  at  10  to  12  hp At  idle. 

2,801  to  3,800  lbs 44  to  46  mi/h  at  21  to  24  hp 20  to  32  mi/h  at  8  to  10  hp Do. 

2,000  to  2,800  lbs 3G  to  38  mi/h  at  13  to  15  hp 22  to  25  mi/h  at  4  to  6  hp Do. 


High  cruise 


1967  and  earlier  model  years 

HC  900  ppm 

as  hexane 
CO  4.5  mole 

percent 

1968  through  1973 

HC  450  ppm 

as  hexane 
CO  3.75  mole 

percent 


Table  II 
Low  cruise 


HC  900  ppm 
as  hexane 

CO  5.5  mole 
percent 


HC  450  ppm 
as  hexane 

CO  4.25  mole 
percent 


Idle 


HC  1,200  ppm 
as  hexane 

CO  9.0  mole 
percent 


HC  600  ppm 
as  hexane 

CO  7.0  mole 
percent 


(b)  Method.  Loaded-mode  inspection  for  the 
first  two  phases  of  the  driving  cycle  described 
in  Table  I  is  conducted  by  measuring  the  levels 
of  emission  concentrations  from  each  exhaust 
outlet  of  a  motor  vehicle  operated  on  a  chassis 
dynamometer,  with  the  vehicle's  transmission  in 
the  setting  recommended  by  the  vehicle  manu- 
facturer for  the  speed-load  combination  being 
tested.  For  the  idle  phase,  vehicles  with  auto- 
matic transmissions  are  tested  in  drive,  and  ve- 
hicles with  standard  transmissions  are  tested  in 
neutral. 

§  590.8      Inspection   conditions. 

(a)  The  vehicle  engine  is  at  its  normal  oper- 
ating temperature,  as  specified  by  the  vehicle 
manufacturer. 

(b)  An  engine  speed  indicator  with  a  grad- 
uated scale  from  zero  to  at  least  2500  rpm  is 
used  for  the  unloaded  inspection  procedure. 


(c)  The    equipment    used    for    analyzing    the 
emission  concentration  levels — 

(1)  Has  a  warm-up  period  not  to  exceed  30 
minutes; 

(2)  Is  able  to  withstand  sustained  periods 
of  continuous  use; 

(3)  Has  a  direct  and  continuous  meter 
readout  that  allows  readings  for  concentration 
levels  of  carbon  monoxide  (CO)  from  0-10 
mole  percent,  and  of  hydrocarbon  (HC  from 
0-2000  ppm  as  hexane;  and  if  used  for  the 
loaded-mode  inspection,  has  at  least  one  addi- 
tional expanded  direct  and  continuous  readout 
for  concentration  levels  of  carbon  monoxide 
and  of  hydrocarbon,  such  as  from  0-5  mole 
percent  and  from  0-1000  ppm  as  hexane  re- 
spectively ; 

(4)  Has  an  accuracy  of  better  than  ±5% 
of  the  full  scale  reading  for  each  concentration 
range ; 

(5)  Permits  a  reading  for  each  emission 
concentration    level,    within    10    seconds   after 


PART  590-2 


Effective:   July   5,    1975 


the  emission  sample  has  been  taken,  that  is  not  trical  calibration  system  which  itself  is  based 

less  than  90%  of  the  final  reading;  and  on  a  standard  gas. 

(6)  Has  a  calibration  system  using  a  stand-  40  F.R.  24904 

ard  gas,  or  an  equivalent  mechanical  or  elec-  June  11,  1975 


PART  590-3 


i 


Effcctiva:  Dacamber  14,  1968 


PREAMBLE  TO  DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  TREASURY  REGULATION   RELATING  TO  IMPOR- 
TATION OF  MOTOR  VEHICLES  AND  ITEMS  OF  MOTOR  VEHICLE  EQUIPMENT 


On  April  10,  1968,  Public  Law  90-283  was 
enacted  to  amend  the  National  Traffic  and  Motor 
Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966  (15  U.S.C.  1391- 
1409)  by  adding  a  new  section  123.  This  section 
provides  a  procedure  whereby  the  Secretary  of 
Transportation  is  authorized,  upon  petition  by  a 
manufacturer  of  500  or  less  vehicles  annually,  to 
temporarily  exempt  such  vehicles  from  certain 
Federal  motor  vehicle  safety  standards.  The 
procedures  for  temporary  exemption  of  such  ve- 
hicles adopted  by  the  Department,  as  published 
in  the  Federal  Register  on  September  26,  1968 
(33  F.R.  14457),  require  each  exempted  vehicle 
to  bear  a  label  or  tag  permanently  affixed  con- 
taining certain  information  including  a  statement 
listing  the  safety  standards  for  which  an  exemp- 
tion has  been  obtained.  Since  vehicles  so 
exempted  will  no  longer  bear  the  "valid  certifi- 
cation as  required  by  section  114  of  the  National 
Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966 
(15  U.S.C.  1403)"  which  is  required  by  19  CFR 
12.80(b)(1)  if  a  motor  vehicle  offered  for  im- 
portation is  not  to  be  refused  entry,  it  is  deemed 
desirable  to  amend  19  CFR  12.80(b)  to  allow 
entry  of  exempted  vehicles  bearing  the  exemp- 
tion labels  or  tags  required  under  the  regulations 
of  the  Department  of  Transportation  (23  CFR 
217.13). 

In  addition,  the  Automobile  Manufacturer's 
Association,  Inc.,  on  behalf  of  itself  and  its 
member  companies,  has  made  a  showing  of  the 
necessity  of  importing  and  using  for  purposes  of 
test  or  experiment  for  a  limited  time  on  the 
public  roads,  of  a  limited  number  of  nonconform- 
ing motor  vehicles  manufactured  outside  the 
United  States.  The  Association  has  requested 
an  amendment  of  19  CFR  12.80(b)  (2)  (vii) 
which  currently,  among  other  things,  allows  the 
importation  of  such  vehicles  for  such  purposes 
only  upon  a  declaration  by .  the  importer  that 
these  vehicles  will  not  be  licensed  for  use  on  the 
public  roads. 


In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  §  12.80(b) 
is  amended  as  follows : 

Subparagraph  (b)  (1)  is  amended  by  changing 
the  period  following  the  words  "so  labelled  or 
tagged",  to  a  comma  and  (b)  (2)  (vii)  is  amended 
to  read  as  follows: 

§  12.80  Federal  Motor  vehicle  safety  standards. 

***** 

(b)   *     *     * 

(1)  *  *  *  or  (iii)  (for  vehicles  only  which 
have  been  exempted  by  the  Secretary  of  Trans- 
portation from  meeting  certain  safety  stand- 
ards) it  bears  a  label  or  tag  permanently 
affixed  to  such  vehicle  which  meets  the  require- 
ments set  forth  in  the  regulations  of  the  De- 
partment of  Transportation,  23  CFR  217.13. 

(2)  *     *     * 

(vii)  The  importer  or  consignee  is  im- 
porting such  vehicle  or  equipment  item 
solely  for  the  purposes  of  show,  test,  experi- 
>nent,  competition,  repairs  or  alterations  and 
that  such  vehicle  or  equipment  item  will  not 
be  sold  or  licensed  for  use  on  the  public 
roads:  Provided,  That  vehicles  imported 
solely  for  purposes  of  test  or  experiment 
may  be  licensed  for  use  on  the  public  roads 
for  a  period  not  to  exceed  one  year,  where 
such  use  is  an  integral  part  of  tests  or  ex- 
periments for  which  such  vehicle  i.s  being 
imported,  upon  condition  that  the  importer 
attach  to  the  declaration  description  of  the 
tests  or  experiments  for  which  the  vehicle 
is  being  imported,  the  period  of  time  during 
which  it  is  estimated  that  it  will  be  necessary 
to  test  the  vehicle  on  the  public  roads,  and 
the  disposition  to  be  made  of  the  vehicle 
after  completion  of  the  tests  or  experiments. 
*     *     ♦     *     * 

(Sec.  108,  80  Stat.  722,  15  U.S.C.  1397) 
Since  the   first   amendment   is   necessitated  to 
conform   to   regulations   of   the   Department   of 


M.V.  IMPORT— PRE  1 


Effcctiv*:   D*c«mb*r   14,    1968 

Transportation  presently  in  effect  and  the  second  Approved :  November  29,  1968.  ^ 

will    affect    a    very    limited    number  of   persons  Joseph  M.  Bowman,  v 

with  a  legitimate  interest  in  road  testing  non-  Assistant  Secretary  ^ 

conforming  vehicles,  notice  and  public  procedure  of  the  Treasury. 

thereon    is    not    considered   necessary   and   good  Approved:  December  9,  19G8. 

cause  is  found  for  dispensing  with  the  delayed  Lowell  K.  Bridwell, 

effective    date    provision    of    5    U.S.C.  553(d).  Federal  Highway  Administrator. 

Therefore,    the    amendments    shall    be   effective  33  F  R    1 8577 

upon  publication  in  t?ie /i!e«?craZ  ^eowiJen  ,.      '  \       ,^    ,„^„ 

[SEAL]  December   14,   1968 

Lester  D.  Johiison 
Commissioner  of  Customs 


Rf.V.  IMPORT— PRE  2 


Effective:   June    10,    1971 


PREAMBLE  TO  AMENDMENT  TO  DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  TREASURY  REGULATION  RELATING 
TO  IMPORTATION  OF  MOTOR  VEHICLES  AND  ITEMS  OF  MOTOR  VEHICLE  EQUIPMENT 

(T.D.  71-122) 


A  notice  was  published  in  the  Federal  Register 
on  February  18,  1971  (36  F.R.  3121),  that  it 
was  proposed  to  amend  §  12.80  of  the  Customs 
Regulations  (19  CFR  12.80)  to  make  the  follow- 
ing substantive  changes: 

1.  To  provide  that  motor  vehicles  and  motor 
vehicle  equipment  brought  into  conformity  un- 
der bond,  shall  not  be  sold  or  offered  for  sale 
until  the  bond  is  released ; 

2.  To  make  clear  that  the  term  motor  vehicle 
as  used  in  §  12.80  refers  to  a  motor  vehicle  as 
defined  in  the  National  Traffic  and  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Act  of  1966  ; 

3.  To  require  a  declaration  of  conformance 
accompanied  by  a  statement  of  the  vehicle's 
original  manufacturer  as  evidence  of  original 
compliance ; 

4.  To  require  that  declarations  filed  under 
paragraph  (c)  of  §  12.80  be  signed  by  the  im- 
porter or  consignee ;  and 

5.  To  add  a  bond  requirement  for  the  produc- 
tion of  a  declaration  of  original  compliance  and 
a  declaration  of  conformity  after  manufacture. 


Interested  persons  were  given  an  opportunity 
to  submit  relevant  data,  views,  or  arguments. 
No  comments  were  received.  The  amendments 
as  proposed,  with  minor  editorial  changes,  are 
hereby  adopted  as  set  forth  below  to  become 
effective  30  days  after  the  date  of  publication  in 
the  Federal  Register. 

Robert  V.  Mclntyre, 

Acting  Commissioner  of  Customs. 

APPROVED:  April  22,  1971. 

Eugene  T.  Rossides, 

Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

APPROVED:  May  3,  1971. 

Douglas  W.  Toms, 
Acting  Administrator,  National 
Highway  Traffic  Safety  Administra- 
tion. 

36  F.R.  8667 
May  n,  197J 


M.V.  IMPORT— PRE  3-4 


EffecHve:   January    10,    1968 


DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  TREASURY  REGULATION   RELATING  TO  IMPORTATION  OF  MO- 
TOR VEHICLES  AND  ITEMS  OF  MOTOR  VEHICLE  EQUIPMENT 


Notice  of  a  proposal  to  add  §  12.80  to  Part  12 
of  the  Customs  Eegulations  to  prescribe  regula- 
tions providing  for  the  admission  or  refusal  of 
motor  vehicles  or  items  of  motor  vehicle  equip- 
ment which  arc  offered  for  importation  into  the 
United  States  and  which  are  subject  to  Federal 
motor  vehicle  safety  standards  promulgated  by 
the  Department  of  Transportation  in  49  CFR 
Part  571,  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  the  Na- 
tional Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  of 
1966,  was  published  in  the  Federal  Register  for 
November  30,  1967  (32  F.R.  16432).  Interested 
persons  were  given  an  opportunity  to  submit 
relevant  data,  views,  or  arguments  in  writing 
regarding  the  proposed  regulations.  All  com- 
ments received  have  been  carefully  considered. 

In  response  to  those  comments,  in  addition  to 
several  minor  changes,  the  first  paragraph  of 
§  12.80(b)  has  been  amended  to  provide  for  the 
entry,  without  written  declaration,  of  motor  ve- 
hicles and  items  of  motor  vehicle  equipment  in- 
tended for  export  and  so  labeled.  A  new  provision 
is  also  added  (§  12.80(b)  (2)  (iv))  to  provide  for 
the  entry,  upon  written  declaration,  of  new  ve- 
hicles intended  for  resale  which  do  not  fully 
conform  to  the  safety  standards  because  of  the 
absence  of  readily  attachable  equipment  items: 
Provided.,  That  the  importer  or  consignee  under- 
takes to  attach  the  missing  items  before  such 
vehicles  are  offered  to  the  general  public  for  sale. 
Finally,  the  importation  of  nonconforming  ve- 
hicles for  competition  purposes  will  be  permitted 
under  §  12.80(b)  (2)  (vii)  if  the  vehicle  will  not 
be  licensed  for  use  on  the  public  roads. 

Part  12  is  accordingly  amended  to  add  a  new 
centerhead  and  section  as  follows: 

Motor  Vehicles  and  Motor  Vehicle  Equipment 
Manufactured  on  or  after  January  1,  1968 


§  12.80   Federal  motor  vehicle  safety  standards. 

[(a)  Standards  presmbed  by  the  Department 
of  Transportation.  Motor  vehicles  and  motor 
vehicle  equipment  manufactured  on  or  after 
January  1,  1968,  offered  for  sale,  or  introduction 
or  delivery  for  introduction  in  interstate  com- 
merce, or  importation  into  the  United  States 
are  subject  to  Federal  Motor  Vehicle  Safety 
Standards  (hereafter  referred  to  in  this  section 
as  "safety  standards")  prescribed  by  the  Secre- 
tary of  Transportation  under  sections  103  and 
119  of  the  National  Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle 
Safety  Act  of  1966.  (15  U.S.C.  1392,  1407)  as 
set  forth  in  regulations  in  49  CFR  Part  571. 
A  motor  vehicle  hereafter  referred  to  in  this 
section  as  "vehicle"  or  item  of  motor  vehicle 
equipment  (hereafter  referred  to  in  this  section 
as  "equipment  item"),  manufactured  on  or  after 
January  1,  1968,  is  not  permitted  entry  into  the 
United  States  unless  (with  certain  exceptions 
set  forth  in  paragraph  (b)  of  this  section)  it  is 
in  conformity  with  applicable  safety  standards 
in  effect  at  the  time  the  vehicle  or  equipment  item 
was  manufactured. 

(b)  Requirements  for  entry  and  release. 

(1)  Any  vehicle  or  equipment  item  offered 
for  importation  into  the  customs  territory  of 
the  United  States  shall  not  be  refused  entry 
under  this  section  if  (i)  it  bears  a  certification 
label  affixed  by  its  original  manufacturer  in 
accordance  with  section  114  of  the  National 
Traffic  and  IMotor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966 
(15  U.S.C.  1403)  and  regulations  issued  there- 
under by  the  Secretary  of  Transportation  (49 
CFR  Part  567)  (in  tlie  case  of  a  vehicle,  in  the 
fonn  of  a  label  or  tag  permanently  affixed  to 
such  vehicle  or  in  the  case  of  an  equipment 
item,  in  the  form  of  a  label  or  tag  on  such 
item  or  on  the  outside  of  a  container  in  which 
such  item  is  delivered),  or  (ii)  it  is  intended 
solely   for  export,  such   vehicle  or  equipment 


(Rev.   5/11/711 


M.V.  IMPORT-1 


EfFecNve:   January    10,    1968 


item  and  the  outside  of  its  container,  if  any, 
to  be  so  labeled  and  tagged,  or  (iii)  (for  ve- 
hicles only  which  have  been  exempted  by  the 
Secretary  of  Transportation  from  meeting  cer- 
tain safety  standards)  it  bears  a  label  or  tag 
permanently  affixed  to  such  vehicle  which 
meets  the  requirements  set  forth  in  the  regu- 
lations of  the  Department  of  Transportation, 
49  CFR  555.13. 

(2)  Any  such  vehicle  or  equipment  item 
;iot  bearing  such  certification  or  export  label 
shall  be  refused  entry  unless  there  is  filed  with 
the  entry,  in  duplicate,  a  declaration  signed 
by  the  importer  or  consignee  which  states 
that:  (36  F.R.  8667— May  11,  1971.  Effective: 
6/10/71)] 

(i)  Such  vehicle  or  equipment  item  was 
manufactured  on  a  date  when  there  were  no 
applicable  safety  standards  in  force,  a  verbal 
declaration  being  acceptable  at  the  option  of 
the  district  director  of  customs  for  vehicles 
entering  at  the  Canadian  and  Mexican  bor- 
ders; or 

[(ii)  Such  vehicle  or  equipment  item  was 
not  manufactured  in  conformity  with  ap- 
plicable safety  standards  but  has  since  been 
brought  into  conformity,  such  declaration  to 
be  accompanied  by  the  statement  of  the 
manufacturer,  contractor,  or  other  person 
who  has  brought  such  vehicle  or  equipment 
item  into  conformity  which  describes  the 
nature  and  extent  of  the  work  performed ;  or 
(iii)  Such  vehicle  or  equipment  item  does 
not  conform  with  applicable  safety  stand- 
ards, but  that  the  importer  or  consignee  will 
bring  such  vehicle  or  equipment  item  into 
conformity  with  such  safety  standards,  and 
that  such  vehicle  or  equipment  item  will  not 
be  sold  or  offered  for  sale  until  the  bond  (re- 
quired by  paragraph  (c)  of  this  section) 
shall  have  been  released;  or  (36  F.R.  8667 — 
May  11,  1971.    Effective:  6/10/71)] 

(iv)  Such  vehicle  is  a  new  vehicle  being 
imported  for  purposes  of  resale  which  does 
not  presently  conform  to  all  applicable  safety 
standards  because  readily  attachable  equip- 
ment items  are  not  attached,  but  that  there 
is  affixed  to  its  windshield  a  label  stating  the 
safety  standard  with  which  and  the  manner 
in  which  such  vehicle  does  not  conform  and 


that  the  vehicle  will  be  brought  into  con- 
formity by  attachment  of  such  equipment 
items  before  it  will  be  offered  for  sale  to  the 
first  purchaser  for  purposes  other  than  re- 
sale; or 

(v)  The  importer  or  consignee  is  a  non- 
resident of  the  United  States,  importing 
such  vehicle  or  equipment  item  primarily 
for  personal  use  or  for  the  purpose  of  making 
repairs  or  alterations  to  the  vehicle  or  equip- 
ment item,  for  a  period  not  exceeding  1  year 
from  the  date  of  entry,  and  that  he  will  not 
resell  it  in  the  United  States  during  that 
time:  PROVIDED,  That  persons  regularly 
entering  the  United  States  by  a  motor  vehicle 
at  the  Canadian  and  Mexican  borders  may 
apply  to  the  district  director  of  customs  for 
an  appropriate  means  of  identification  to  be 
affixed  to  such  vehicle  which  will  serve  in 
place  of  the  declaration  required  by  this 
paragraph;  or 

(vi)  The  importer  or  consignee  is  a  mem- 
ber of  the  armed  forces  of  a  foreign  country 
on  assignment  in  the  United  States,  or  is  a 
member  of  the  Secretariat  of  a  public  inter- 
national organization  so  designated  pursuant 
to  59  Stat.  069  on  assignment  in  the  United 
States,  or  is  a  member  of  the  personnel  of  a 
foreign  government  on  assignment  in  the 
United  States  who  comes  within  the  class  of 
persons  for  whom  free  entry  of  motor  ve- 
hicles has  been  authorized  by  the  Department 
of  State  and  that  he  is  importing  such  ve- 
hicle or  equipment  item  for  purposes  other 
than  resale;  or 

[(vii)  The  importer  or  consignee  is  im- 
porting such  vehicle  or  equipment  item 
solely  for  the  purpose  of  show,  test,  experi- 
ment, competition,  repairs  or  alterations  and 
that  such  veliicle  or  equipment  item  will  not 
be  sold  or  licensed  for  use  on  the  public 
roads :  PROVIDED :  That  vehicles  imported 
solely  for  purposes  of  test  or  experiment 
may  be  licensed  for  use  on  the  public  roads 
for  a  period  not  to  exceed  one  j'ear,  where 
such  use  is  an  integral  part  of  tests  or  ex- 
periments for  which  such  vehicle  is  being 
imported,  upon  condition  that  the  importer 
attach  to  the  declaration  a  description  of 
the  tests  or  experiments  for  which  the  ve- 


(lUv.  5/11/71) 


M.V.  IMPORT-2 


Efftctiva:   January    10,    1968 


hide  is  being  imported,  the  period  of  time 
during  which  it  is  estimated  that  it  will  be 
necessary  to  test  the  vehicle  on  the  public 
roads,  and  the  disposition  to  be  made  of  the 
vehicle  after  completion  of  the  tests  or  ex- 
periments. (33  F.R.  18577— Dec.  14,  1968)J 
[(viii)  Such  vehicle  which  is  not  manufac- 
tured primarily  for  use  on  the  public  roads 
is  not  a  "motor  vehicle"  as  defined  in  section 
102  of  the  National  TraiRc  and  Motor  Ve- 
hicle Safety  Act  of  1966  (15  U.S.C.  1391); 
or 

(ix)  Such   vehicle   was   manufactured   in 
conformity    with    applicable    safety    stand- 
•    ards,  such  declaration  to  be  accompanied  by 
a  statement  of  the  vehicle's  original  manu- 
facturer as  evidence  of  original  compliance. 

(3)  Any  declaration  given  under  this  sec- 
tion (except  an  oral  declaration  accepted  at  the 
option  of  the  district  director  of  customs  un- 
der subparagraph  (2)  (i)  of  this  paragraph) 
shall  state  the  name  and  United  States  address 
of  the  importer  or  consignee,  the  date  and 
the  entry  number,  a  description  of  any  equip- 
ment item,  the  make  and  model,  engine  serial, 
and  body  serial  numbers  of  any  vehicle  or 
other  identification  numbers,  and  the  city  and 
State  in  which  it  is  to  be  registered  and  prin- 
cipally located  if  known,  and  shall  be  signed 
by  the  importer  or  consignee.  The  district 
director  of  customs  shall  immediately  forward 
the  original  of  such  declaration  to  the  Na- 
tional Highway  Traffic  Safety  Administration 
of  the  Department  of  Transportation. 

(c)  Release  under  bond.  If  a  declaration 
filed  in  accordance  with  paragraph  (b)  of  this 
section  states  that  the  entry  is  being  made  under 
circumstances  described  in  paragraph  (b)  (2) 
(iii),  or  under  circumstances  described  in  para- 
graph (b)  (2)  (ii)  or  (ix)  of  this  section  where 
the  importer  at  time  of  entry  does  not  submit  a 
statement  in  support  of  his  declaration  of  con- 
formity the  entry  shall  be  accepted  only  if  the 
importer  gives  a  bond  on  Customs  Forms  7551, 
7553,  or  7595  for  the  production  of  either  a 
statement  by  the  importer  or  consignee  that  the 
vehicle  or  equii:)ment  item  described  in  the  dec- 
laration filed  by  the  importer  has  been  brought 
into   conformity   with   applicable   safety   stand- 


ards and  identifying  the  manufacturer,  contrac- 
tor, or  other  person  who  has  brought  such  ve- 
hicle or  equipment  item  into  conformity  with 
such  standards  and  describing  the  nature  and 
extent  of  the  work  performed  or  a  statement  of 
the  vehicle  manufacturer  certifying  original  con- 
formity. The  bond  shall  be  in  the  amoimt  re- 
quired under  §  25.4(a)  of  this  chapter.  Within 
90  days  after  such  entry,  or  such  additional 
period  as  the  district  director  of  customs  may 
allow  for  good  cause  shown,  the  importer  or  con- 
signee shall  deliver  to  both  the  district  director 
of  customs,  and  the  National  Highway  TraflSc 
Safety  Administration  a  copy  of  the  statement 
described  in  this  paragraph.  If  such  statement 
is  not  delivered  to  the  district  director  of  cus- 
toms for  the  port  of  entry  of  such  vehicle  or 
equipment  item  within  90  days  of  the  date  of 
entry  or  such  additional  period  as  may  have 
been  allowed  by  the  district  director  of  customs 
for  good  cause  shown,  the  importer  or  consignee 
shall  deliver  or  cause  to  be  delivered  to  the  dis- 
trict director  of  customs  those  vehicles  or  equip- 
ment items,  which  were  released  in  accordance 
with  this  paragraph.  In  the  event  that  any  such 
vehicle  or  equipment  item  is  not  redelivered 
within  5  days  following  the  date  specified  in  the 
preceding  sentence,  liquidated  damages  shall  be 
assessed  in  the  full  amount  of  a  bond  given  on 
Form  7551.  'When  the  transaction  has  been 
charged  against  a  bond  given  on  Form  7553,  or 
7595,  liquidated  damages  shall  be  assessed  in  the 
amount  that  would  have  been  demanded  under 
the  preceding  sentence  if  the  merchandise  had 
been  released  linder  a  bond  given  on  Form  7551. 
(36  F.R.  8667— May  11,  1971.  Effective: 
6/10/71)3 

(d)  Merchandise  refused  entry.  If  a  vehicle 
or  equipment  item  is  denied  entry  under  the  pro- 
visions of  paragraph  (b)  of  this  section,  the 
district  director  of  customs  shall  refuse  to  release 
the  merchandise  for  entry  into  the  United  States 
and  shall  issue  a  notice  of  such  refusal  to  the 
importer  or  consignee. 

(e)  Disposition  of  merchandise  refused  entry 
into  the  United  States;  redelivered  merchandise. 
Vehicles  or  equipment  items  which  are  denied 
entry  under  paragraph  (b)  of  this  section  or 
which  are  redelivered  in  accordance  with  para- 
graph (c)  of  this  section  and  which  are  not  ex- 


(Rev.   5/11/71) 


M.V.  IMPORT-3 


Effactiva:  January   10,   1968 


ported  under  customs  supervision  within  90  days 
from  the  date  of  notice  of  refusal  of  admission 
or  date  of  redelivery  shall  be  disposed  of  under 
customs  laws  and  regulations ;  Provided,  however, 
That  any  such  disposition  shall  not  result  in  an 
introduction  into  the  United  States  of  a  vehicle 
or  equipment  item  in  violation  of  the  National 
Traffic  and  Motor  Vehicle  Safety  Act  of  1966. 

(Sec.  623,  46  Stat.  759,  as  amended,  sec.  108, 
80  Stat.  722;  19  U.S.C.  1623;  15  U.S.C.  1397) 

Since  motor  vehicles  and  items  of  motor  vehicle 
equipment  subject  to  the  standards  prescribed  in 
49  CFR  Part  571,  may  shortly  be  in  transit  to 
United  States  ports  of  entry,  it  is  important  that 
these  regulations  be  put  into  effect  at  the  earliest 
possible  date.    It  is  therefore  found  that  the  ad- 


vance publication  requirement  under  5  U.S.C. 
553  is  impracticable  and  good  cause  is  found  for 
adopting  these  regulations  effective  upon  publi- 
cation in  the  Federal  Register. 

(SEAL) 

Lester  D.  Johnson 
Commissioner  of  Customs 
APPROVED :  January  2,  1968. 

Matthew  J.  Marks, 
Acting  Assistant  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury 
APPROVED :  January  5,  1968. 

Alan  S.  Boyd 

Secretary  of  Transportation 

33  F.R.  360 
Jonuary   10,    1968 


\ 


M.V.  IMPORT-4 


^ 


U.S.  GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE  :  1977     0—231-068 


I 


(^1 


i