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

»•;■•,, • ,•■,■ ■.... * ^ .•

:^^;;

•^:.:S<'^'V/.: ,

'^^"'

\.;V)^':^'J-;

IfV.-'-^.

^^^H

■Tv^.'^-^;- .

^^H '-'«■<'-

^H ' »

^^H

B*-vA'

^^H

R -/:■-:■■

• ,!^.,;v-,■^

■rr

U- J -I ^m'fgm^mmmi^mm

■-■■-'•Tv^:.,.,

. . .'■■■/',■■'

.■•.'.■<'V'«J.)^"
■"■ , '■'■'-X''

;feV^

^% r J •• vf J.

V^^'1

-^^;^.

• ■"'.••v<--^^

• - •• ■ ■ ■■■■ JSii^ •»'(%♦•'•

TD 8.6/2:990/siipp.42

Federal Motor Vehicle Safet...

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards and Regulations

Supplement 42— Amendments
and Interpretations Issued
During 1990

Page Control Chart

(1) PART 531— Passenger Automobile Average Fuel Economy Standards

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 531; PRE 179 through PART
531; PRE 184 behind page in book numbered PART 531; PRE 178.

(b) Substitute attached page numbered PART 531-1 for similarly numbered
page in book.

(2) PART 538— Minimum Driving Range for Dual Energy and Natural Gas Dual
Energy Passenger Cars

Insert attached pages of new PART 538 numbered PART 538; PRE 1
through PART 538-8 behind page in book numbered PART 537-7-8.

(3) PART 544— Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention; Reporting Requirements

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 544; PRE 35 through PART 544;
PRE 38 behind page in book numbered PART 544; PRE 34.

(b) Substitute attached pages numbered PART 544-1 through PART
544-C-l for similarly numbered pages in book.

(4) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110

(a) Insert attached page numbered PART 571; SllO-PRE 9 through PART
571; SllO-PRE 28 behind page in book numbered PART 571;
SllO-PRE 8.

(b) Substitute attached Standard 110 for Standard 110 in book.

(Continued on reverse side)

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and amendments published in this format are for
reference purposes only. They should not be considered as legally binding or be used as a
source of authority in matters of litigation. The United States Code of Federal Regulations is
the only source of legal authority for the standards.

(5) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114

(a) Insert attached page numbered PART 571; S114-PRE 21 through
PART 571; S114-PRE 30 behind page in book numbered PART 571;
S114-PRE 20.

(b) Substitute attached page numbered PART 114-1 for similarly numbered
page in book.

(6) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 571; S213-PRE 67 through
PART 571; S213-PRE 71-72 behind page in book numbered PART 571;
S213-PRE 65-66.

(b) Substitute attached pages numbered PART 571; S213-11 through PART
571; 8213-15 for similarly numbered pages in book.

(7) PART 572— Anthropomorphic Test Dummies

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 572;PRE 83 through PART 572;
PRE 87-88 behind page in book numbered PART 572-PRE 82.

(b) Substitute attached pages numbered PART 572-7 through PART
572-16 for similarly numbered pages in book.

(8) PART 574— Tire Identification and Record Keeping

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 571-PRE 47 through PART
574-PRE 63-64 behind page in book numbered PART 574-PRE
45-46.

(b) Substitute attached PART 574 for PART 574 in book.

(9) PART 591— Importation of Motor Vehicles and Equipment

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 591; -PRE 17 through PART
591; PRE 41-42 behind page in book numbered PART 591; PRE 15-16.

(b) Substitute attached PART 591 for PART 591 in book.

PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 531

Passenger Automobile Average Fuel Economy Standards

(Docket No. LVM 89-01; Notice 2)

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This decision is issued in response to
individual petitions filed by three low volume man-
ufacturers, Officine Maserati S.p.A. (Maserati), Lam-
borghini of North America (Lamborghini), and Lon-
donCoach Co., Inc. (LondonCoach). Each company
requested that it be exempted from the generally
applicable passenger automobile average fuel economy
standards, and sought establishment of lower alterna-
tive standards for each model year (MY) from which it
sought exemption. This notice grants exemptions and
establishes alternative standards as follows:

Lamborghini petitioned to be exempted for MYs
1983 and 1984. This notice grants that exemption
and establishes alternate standards for Lambor-
ghini of 13.7 mpg for MYs 1983 and 1984.

LondonCoach petitioned to be exempted for MYs
1985 through 1987. This notice grants that exemp-
tion and establishes alternate standards for London-
Coach of 21.0 mpg for MYs 1985 through 1987.

Maserati petitioned to be exempted for MYs 1984
and 1985. This notice grants that exemption and
establishes alternate standards for Maserati of 17.9
mpg for MY 1984 and 16.8 mpg for MY 1985.

DATES: Effective Date: April 4, 1990. These exemp-
tions and alternative standards apply to the respec-
tive above mentioned manufacturers for the stated
model years.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA is ex-
empting three low volume manufacturers from the
generally applicable average fuel economy standards
for passenger automobiles and establishing alterna-
tive standards applicable to those companies for the
petitioned model years as follows: Lamborghini for
MYs 1983 and 1984; LondonCoach for MYs 1985
through 1987; and Maserati for MYs 1984 and 1985.
These exemptions are issued under the authority
of section 502(c) of the Motor Vehicle Information
and Co.st Savings Act, as amended ("the Act") (15
U.S.C. 2002(c)). Section 502(c) provides that a pas-
senger automobile manufacturer which manufac-
tures fewer than 10,000 vehicles annually may be
exempted from the generally applicable average fuel
economy standard for a particular model year if that

standard is greater than the low volume manufac-
turer's maximum feasible average fuel economy and
if NHTSA establishes an alternative standard appli-
cable to that manufacturer at its maximum feasible
average fuel economy. In determining the manufac-
turer's maximum feasible average fuel economy,
section 502(e) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 2002(e)) requires
NHTSA to consider:

(1) Tfechnological feasibility;

(2) Economic practicability;

(3) The effect of other Federal motor vehicle stan-
dards on fuel economy; and

(4) The need of the Nation to conserve energy.

This final decision was preceded by proposed deci-
sions announcing the agency's tentative conclusion
that the subject manufacturers should be exempted
from the generally applicable average fuel economy
standards for the petitioned model years, and that
alternative standards should be established for the
manufacturers for each of the model years; 54 FR
40689 (October 3, 1989), for Lamborghini, London-
Coach, and Maserati.

The agency received one comment on the October
3, 1989 notice from Maserati. Maserati endorsed the
establishment of alternative standards for Maserati
for MYs 1984 and 1985, but noted a "typographical
error" in the summary section of the notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) where it was stated
that the proposed alternative standards for Maserati
was 17.3 mpg for MY 1984 and 16.6 mpg for MY
1985 rather than 17.9 mpg for MY 1984 and 16.8
mpg for MY 1985 as shown in the proposed amend-
ment language at the end of the NPRM. The agency
agrees with Maserati that the values in the sum-
mary of the NPRM are outdated. The discrepancy is
that the first set of values were those requested in
Maserati's petition while the second set are values
that reflect Maserati's final adjusted CAFE as con-
firmed by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Since 17.9 mpg for MY 1984 and 16.8 mpg for MY
1985 are the actual final CAFE values for Maserati,
it is these values that will be used as the alternative
fuel economy standards for Maserati.

Therefore, the agency is adopting the tentative
conclusions set forth in the proposed decisions as its

PART 531; PRE 179

final conclusions, for the reasons set forth in the
proposed decisions. Based on the conclusions that
the maximum feasible average fuel economy levels
for each of the petitions during the applicable model
years would be as shown below, that other Federal
motor vehicle standards would not affect achievable
fuel economy beyond the extent considered in this
analysis, and that the national effort to conserve
energy will not be affected by the granting of these
requested exemptions, NHTSA hereby exempts the
three petitioners from the generally applicable aver-
age fuel economy standards and establishes alterna-
tive standards for the three petitioners for the model
years and at the levels shown below.

Section 531.5(b) is amended by revising (bX7) and
by adding (bX8) and (bX9). The introductory text of (b)
is republished to read as follows:

§531.5 Fuel economy standards.

^ i\i: ^ ^ :^

(b) The following manufacturers shall comply with
the standards indicated below for the specified
model years:

(8) Lamborghini of North America

MODEL YEAR

AVERAGE FUEL

ECONOMY STANDARD

(miles per gallon)

1983

13.7

1984

13.7

(9) LondonCoach Co., Inc.

MODEL YEAR

AVERAGE FUEL

ECONOMY STANDARD

(miles per gallon)

1985

21.0

1986

21.0

1987

21.0

Issued on: March 30, 1990

(7) Officine Alfieri Maserati S.p.A.

MODE

L YEAR

AVERAGE FUEL
ECONOMY STANDARD
(miles per gallon)

1978

12.5

1979

12.5

1980

9.5

1984

17.9

1985

16.8

Jeffrey R. Miller
Deputy Administrator

55 F.R. 12485
April 4, 1990

PART 531; PRE 180

PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 531

Passenger Automobile Average Fuel Economy Standards

(Docket No. 90-18; Notice 1)

ACTION: Final decision.

SUMMARY: This decision is issued in response to a
petition filed by Butcher Motors, Inc. (Butcher) re-
questing that it be exempted from the generally appli-
cable average fuel economy standard of 26.0 miles per
gallon (mpg) for model year (MY) 1986, 1987, and 1988
passenger automobiles, and that lower alternative
standards be established for it. This decision exempts
Butcher and establishes alternative standards of 16.0
mpg for MY 1986, 16.0 mpg for MY 1987, and 16.0
mpg for MY 1988. The decision was preceded by
publication of a notice requesting public comments.

DATES: Effective Date: August 21, 1990. These
exemptions and alternative standards apply to
Butcher for Model Years 1986, 1987 and 1988.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA is ex-
empting Butcher from the generally applicable aver-
age fuel economy standard for 1986, 1987 and 1988
model year passenger automobiles and establishing an
alternative standard applicable to Butcher for those
model years. This exemption is issued under the au-
thority of section 502(c) of the Motor Vehicle Informa-
tion and Cost Savings Act, as amended ("the Act") (15
U.S.C. 2002(c)). Section 502(c) provides that a passen-
ger automobile manufacturer which manufactures
fewer than 10,000 passenger automobiles annually
may be exempted from the generally applicable aver-
age fuel economy standard for a particular model year
if that standard is greater than the low volume man-
ufacturer's maximum feasible average fuel economy
and if NHTSA establishes an alternative standard for
the manufacturer at its maximum feasible level. Sec-
tion 502(e) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 2002(e)) requires
NHTSA, in determining maximum feasible average
fuel economy, to consider:

(1) Technological feasibility;

(2) Economic practicability;

(3) The effect of other Federal motor vehicle stan-
dards on fuel economy; and

(4) The need of the Nation to conserve energy.
This final decision was preceded by a proposed

decision announcing the agency's tentative conclusion
that Butcher should be exempted from the generally
applicable 1986, 1987 and 1988 passenger automobile

average fuel economy standards, and that an alterna-
tive standard of 16.0 mpg should be established for
Butcher in each of those model years (55 FR 14439,
April 18, 1990). No comments were received on the
proposed decision.

The agency is adopting the tentative conclusions
set forth in the proposed decision as its final conclu-
sions, for the reasons set forth in the proposed
decision. Based on the conclusions that the maxi-
mum feasible average fuel economy level for Butcher
in Model Years 1986, 1987 and 1988 is 16.0 mpg,
that other Federal motor vehicle standards will not
affect achievable fuel economy beyond the extent
considered in the proposed decision, and that the
national effort to conserve energy will not be af-
fected by granting this requested exemption,
NHTSA hereby exempts Butcher from the generally
applicable passenger automobile average fuel econ-
omy standard for the 1986, 1987 and 1988 model
years and establishes an alternative standard of 16.0
miles per gallon for Butcher for each of those years.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 531
is amended by adding §531.5(bXll) to read as fol-
lows. The introductory text of (b) is shown for the
convenience of the reader and remains unchanged.

(b) The following manufacturers shall comply with
the standards indicated below for the specified model
years:

(11) Butcher Motors, Inc.
MODEL YEAR

1986
1987
1988

Issued on: August 14, 1990

AVERAGE FUEL
ECONOMY STANDARD
(miles per gallon)

16.0
16.0
16.0

Jeffrey R. Miller
Deputy Administrator

55 F.R. 34017
August 21, 1990

PART 531; PRE 181-182

PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE

SAFETY STANDARD NO. 531

Passenger Automobile Average Fuel Economy Standards
(Docket No. LVM 89-01; Notice 6)

ACTION: Final Decision.

SUMMARY: This decision is issued in response to a
petition filed by Rolls-Royce Motors, Ltd. (Rolls-Royce)
requesting that it be exempted from the generally
applicable average fuel economy standard of 27.5 miles
per gallon (mpg) for model year (MY) 1992, 1993, and
1994 passenger automobiles, and that lower alternative
standards be established for it. This decision exempts
Rolls-Royce and establishes alternative standards of
,13.8 mpg for MY 1992. 13.8 mpg for MY 1993, and
13.8 mpg for MY 1994. The decision was preceded by
publication of a notice requesting public comments.

DATES: Effective Date: October 11, 1990. These
exemptions and alternative standards apply to Rolls-
Royce for model years 1992, 1993 and 1994.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA is
exempting Rolls-Royce from the generally applicable
average fuel economy standard for 1992, 1993 and
1994 model year passenger automobiles and
establishing an alternative standard applicable to Rolls-
Royce for those model years. This exemption is issued
under the authority of section 502(c) of the Motor
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, as amended
("the Act"X15 U.S.C. 2002(c)). Section 502(c) provides
that a passenger automobile manufacturer which
manufactures fewer than 10,000 passenger
automobiles annually may be exempted from the
generally applicable average fuel economy standard for
a particular model year if that standard is greater than
the low volume manufacturer's maximum feasible
average fuel economy and if NHTSA establishes an
alternative standard for the manufacturer at its
maximum feasible level. Section 502(e) of the Act (15
U.S.C. 2002(e)) requires NHTSA, in determining
maximum feasible average fuel economy, to consider:

(1) Technological feasibility;

(2) Economic practicability;

(3) The effect of other Federal motor vehicle
standards on fuel economy; and

(4) The need of the Nation to conserve energy.

This final decision was preceded by a proposed
decision announcing the agency's tentative conclusion

that Rolls-Royce should be exempted from the
generally applicable 1992, 1993 and 1994 passenger
automobile average fuel economy standards, and that
an alternative standard of 13.8 mpg should be
established for Rolls-Royce in each of those model years
(55 FR 21626, May 25, 1990). No comments were
received on the proposed decision.

The agency is adopting the tentative conclusions set
forth in the proposed decision as its final conclusions,
for the reasons set forth in the proposed decision.
Based on the conclusions that the maximum feasible
average fuel economy level for Rolls-Royce in model
years 1992, 1993 and 1994 is 13.8 mpg, that other
Federal motor vehicle standards will not affect
achievable fuel economy beyond the extent considered
in the proposed decision, and that the national effort
to conserve energy will not be affected by granting this
requested exemption. NHTSA hereby exempts Rolls-
Royce from the generally applicable passenger
automobile average fuel economy standard for the
1992, 1993 and 1994 model years and establishes an
alternative standard of 13.8 miles per gallon for Rolls-
Royce for each of those years.

NHTSA has analyzed this decision, and determined
that neither Executive Order 12291 nor the
Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and
procedures apply, because this decision is not a "rule,"
which term is defined as "an agency statement of
general applicability and future effect." This exemption
is not generally applicable, since it applies only to Rolls-
Royce. If the Executive Order and the Departmental
policies and procedures were applicable, the agency
would have determined that this action is neither
"major" nor "significant." The principal impact of this
exemption is that Rolls-Royce will not be required to
pay civil penalties if they achieve CAFE levels
equivalent to the alternative standards established in
this notice. Since this decision sets an alternative
standard at the level determined to be Rolls-Royce's
maximum feasible average fuel economy, no fuel would
be saved by establishing a higher alternative standard.
The impacts for the public at large will be minimal.

PART 571; S531-PRE 183

The agency has also considered the environmental
implications of this decision in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act and determined
that this decision will not significantly affect the human
environment. Regardless of the fuel economy of a
vehicle, it must pass the emissions standards which
measure the amount of emissions per mile travelled.
Thus, the quality of the air is not affected by this
exemption and alternative standard. Further, since
Rolls-Royce's MY 1992, 1993 and 1994 automobiles
cannot achieve better fuel economy than 13.8 mpg,
granting this exemption will not affect the amount of
gasoline available.

Since the Regulatory Flexibility Act may apply to a
decision exempting a manufacturer from a generally
applicable standard, I certify that this decision will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This decision does not impose
any burden on Rolls-Royce. It does relieve the company
from having to pay civil penalties for noncompliance
with the generally applicable standards for model years
1992, 1993, and 1994. Since the prices of 1992, 1993
and 1994 Rolls-Royce automobiles will not be affected
by this decision, the piu-chasers will not be affected.
Generally, small businesses, small governmental
jurisdictions, and small nonprofit entities are not
purchasers of Rolls-Royce automobiles.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 531
is amended to read as follows.

(b) The following manufacturers shall comply with
the standards indicated below for the specified model
years:

* * * *

(2) Rolls-Royce Motors, Ltd.

MODEL YEAR

AVERAGE FUEL

ECONOMY STANDARD

(miles per gallon)

1978

10.7

1979

10.8

1980

11.1

1981

10.7

1982

10.6

1983

9.9

1984

10.0

1985

10.0

1986

11.0

1987

11.2

1988

11.2

1989

11.2

1990

12.7

1991

12.7

1992

13.8

1993

13,8

1994

13.8

PART 531 -[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 531 continues to
read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2002, delegation of authority
at 49 CFR 1.50.

2. Section 531.5(b) is amended by revising (bX2). The
introductory text of (b) is republished to read as follows:

§ 531.5 Fuel economy standards.

Issued on: September 5, 1990.

Jeffrey R. Miller
Deputy Administrator

55 F.R. 37326
September 11,

1990

PART 571; S531-PRE 184

PART 531— AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS
FOR PASSENGER AUTOMOBILES

S531.1 Scope.

This part establishes average fuel economy
standards pursuant to section 502(a) of the Motor
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, as
amended, for passenger automobiles.

S531.2 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to increase the fuel
economy of passenger automobiles by establishing
minimum levels of average fuel economy for those
vehicles.

S531.3 Applicability.

This part applies to manufacturers of passenger
automobiles.

5531.4 Definitions.

(a) Statutory terms. (1) The terms "average
fuel economy," "manufacture," "manufacturer,"
and "model year" are used as defined in section
501 of the Act.

(2) The terms "automobile" and "passenger
automobile" are used as defined in section 501 of
the Act and in accordance with the determination
in part 523 of this chapter.

(b) Other terms. As used in this part, unless
otherwise required by the context—

(1) "Act" means the Motor Vehicle Informa-
tion and Cost Savings Act, as amended by Pub. L.
94-163.

5531.5 Fuel economy standards.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this
section each manufacturer of passenger auto-
mobiles shall comply with the following standards
in the model years specified:

Average fuel economy

standard (miles

Model year

per gallon)

1978

18.0

1979

19.0

1980

20.0

1981

22.0

1982

24.0

1983

26.0

1984

27.0

1985

27.5

1986

26.0

1987

26.0

1988

26.0

1989

26.5

1990 and thereafter

27.5

(b) The following manufacturers shall comply
with the standards indicated below for the
specified model years:

(1) Aston Martin Lagonda, Inc.

Average Fuel Economy Standard

Model year

Miles per
gallon

1979 11.5

1980 12.1

1981 12.2

1982 12.2

1983 11.3

1984 11.3

1985 11.4

(2) Avanti Motor Corporation.

Average Fuel Economy Standard

Model year

Miles per
gallon

1978 16.1

1979 14.5

1980 15.8

1981 18.2

1982 18.2

1983 16.9

1984 16.9

1985 16.9

PART 531-1

(3) Checker Motors Corporation.

Average Fuel Economy Standard

Model year

Miles per
gallon

1978 17.6

1979 16.5

1980 18.5

1981 18.3

1982 18.4

(4) Dutcher Motors, Inc.

Average Fuel Economy Standard

Model

year

Miles per
gallon

1986.

16.0

1987.

16.0

1988.

16.0

(5) Excalibur Automobile Corporation.
Average Fuel Economy Standard

Model

year

Miles per
gallon

1978 11.5

1979 11.5

1980 16.2

1981 17.9

1982 17.9

1983 16.6

1984 16.6

1985 16.6

(6) Lamborghini of North America

Average Fuel Economy Standard

Model year

Miles per
gallon

1983

13 7

1984

13.7

(7) London Coach Co., Inc.

Average Fuel Economy Standard

Model year

Miles per
gallon

1985

21.0

1986

210

1987

21.0

(8) Officine Alfieri Maserati S.p.A.

Average Fuel Economy Standard

Model year

Miles per
gallon

1978 12.5

1979 12.5

1980 9.5

1984 17.9

1985 16.8

(9) Rolls-Royce Motors, Inc.

Average Fuel Economy Standard

Miles per

Model year gallon

1978 10/7

1979 10.8

1980 11.1

1981 10.7

1982 10.6

1983 9.9

1984 10.0

1985 10.0

1986 11.0

1987 11.2

1988 11.2

1989 11.2

1990 12.7

1991 12.7

11992 13.8

1993 13.8

1994 13.8

(55 F.R. 37326— September 11, 1990. Effective:
October 11, 1990)1

S531.6 Measurement and calculation procedures.

(a) The average fuel economy of all passenger
automobiles that are manufactured by a manufac-
turer in a model year shall be determined in
accordance with procedures established by the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency under section 502(a) (1) of the Act and set
forth in 40 CFR Part 600.

42 F.R. 33534
June 30, 1977

(Rev. 9/11/90)

PART 531-2

PREAMBLE TO PART 538

Minimum Driving Range for Dual Energy and

Natural Gas Dual Energy Passenger Cars

(Docket No. 89-09; Notice 3)
RIN 2127-AD02

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule establishes minimum driving
range standards for the operation of dual energy and
natural gas dual energy passenger automobiles on
non-petroleum fuel. Promulgation of minimum driv-
ing range standards for these vehicles is required by
the 1988 amendments to the Motor Vehicle Informa-
tion and Cost Savings Act. Dual energy passenger
automobiles are those capable of operating on alco-
hol and either gasoline or diesel fuel, and natural
gas dual energy passenger automobiles are those
capable of operating on natural gas and either
gasoline or diesel fuel. The minimum range for dual
energy passenger automobiles is 200 miles, and the
minimum range for natural gas dual energy passen-
ger automobiles is 100 miles. A new passenger
automobile which meets the applicable range and
other criteria established by the 1988 amendments
qualifies to have its fuel economy calculated accord-
ing to a special procedure. Under that procedure, a
relatively high fuel economy figure is assigned the
vehicle thus encouraging its production as a way of
facilitating a manufacturer's compliance with the
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards.

This notice also establishes procedures for manu-
facturers to follow in petitioning the agency to
establish a lower driving range for a particular
model or models of natural gas dual energy passen-
ger automobiles and for the agency to follow in
establishing such lower ranges. It also enables the
agency to set lower ranges for specific models of
natural gas dual energy automobiles on its own
initiative.

This rulemaking was initiated on June 15, 1989
(54 FR 25539), with the publication of a request for
comments on the minimum driving range criteria. A
notice of proposed rulemaking was published on
February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5633).

DATES: These requirements are effective May 29,
1990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule
establishes minimum driving range requirements
for dual energy and natural gas dual energy passen-

ger automobiles. Dual energy passenger automo-
biles are those which are capable of operation on
alcohol and gasoline or diesel fuel. Natural gas (NG)
dual energy passenger automobiles are those which
are capable of operation on natural gas and either
gasoline or diesel fuel. This preamble will use these
terms to distinguish between these two types of
vehicles. The term "dual fuel" vehicles will be used
to refer collectively to both types of vehicles.
1. Statutory Background

Section 6 of the Alternative Motor Fuels Act of
1988 (Pub. L. 100-494, October 14, 1988) amended
the fuel economy provisions of the Motor Vehicle
Information and Cost Savings Act (Cost Savings Act)
by adding a new section 513, containing incentives
for the manufacture of vehicles designed to operate
on alternative motor fuels, including dual fuel vehi-
cles. Section 513 provides, inter alia, that the Secre-
tary of Transportation must establish, by April 16,
1990, two minimum driving ranges, one for dual
energy automobiles when operating on alcohol, and
the other for natural gas dual energy automobiles
when operating on natural gas. In establishing the
driving ranges, the Secretary is required to consider
the purposes of the Alternative Motor Fuels Act,
consumer acceptability, economic practicability,
technology, environmental impacts, safety, drive-
ability, performance, and any other factors the Sec-
retary deems relevant.

The Act and its legislative history make clear that
the driving ranges are to be low enough to encourage
the production of dual fuel passenger automobiles,
yet not so low that motorists would be discouraged
by a low driving range from actually fueling their
vehicles with the alternate fuels. Section 513(hX2XC)
provides that the range for dual energy automobiles
may not be less than 200 miles. Section 513(hX2XB)
allows passenger automobile manufacturers to peti-
tion the agency to set a lower range for a particular
model or models than the general range established
by the agency for all models. However, the range may
not be reduced to less than 200 miles for any model
of dual energy automobile.

Neither minimum driving range is a mandatory

PART 538; PRE 1

requirement, but one of several statutory criteria
which a new passenger automobile must satisfy in
order to fall within the definition in section 513(h)
for dual energy or natural gas dual energy automo-
biles. The other criteria which a passenger automo-
bile must meet in order to be considered a dual
energy automobile are that it be an automobile:
"(i) which is capable of operating on alcohol and
on gasoline or diesel fuel;

(ii) which provides equal or superior energy
efficiency, as calculated for the applicable model
year during fuel economy testing for the Federal
Government, while operating on alcohol as it
does while operating on gasoline or diesel fuel;
(and)

(iii) which, for model years 1993 through 1995,
and, if the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency determines that an extension
of this clause is warranted, for an additional
period ending not later than the end of the last
model year for which section 513(b) and (d)
applies, provides equal or superior energy effi-
ciency, as calculated during fuel economy test-
ing for the Federal Government, while operat-
ing on a mixture of alcohol and gasoline or
diesel fuel containing exactly 50 percent gaso-
line or diesel fuel as it does while operating on
gasoline or diesel fuel[.]"
The other criteria which a passenger automobile
must meet in order to be considered a natural gas
dual energy automobile are that it be an automobile:
"(i) which is capable of operating on natural gas
and on gasoline or diesel fuel; (and)
(ii) which provides equal or superior energy effi-
ciency, as calculated for the applicable model year
during fuel economy testing for the Federal Gov-
ernment, while operating on natural gas as it does
while operating on gasoline or diesel fuel[.]"
By meeting these criteria, dual fuel automobiles
qualify for special treatment in the calculation of
their fuel economy for purposes of their manufactur-
ers' compliance with the Corporate Average Fuel
Economy Standards starting in MY 1993. The fuel
economy of a dual energy passenger automobile
would be the average of two values, the automobile's
fuel economy when operating on gasoline or diesel
fuel, and its fuel economy when operating on alco-
hol. Section 513(a) provides that, for the purposes of
calculating that latter value, a gallon of alcohol is
considered to contain 0.15 gallons of gasoline or
diesel fuel. Thus, an automobile that runs 20 miles
on a gallon of alcohol would be considered to have a
fuel economy of 133 miles per gallon ((1/.15) x (20))
when operating on alcohol.

Similarly, the fuel economy of a natural gas dual
energy passenger automobile would be the average

of two values, the automobile's fuel economy when
operating on gasoline or diesel fuel, and its fuel
economy when operating on natural gas. Section
513(c) provides that, for the purposes of calculating
the fuel economy of an automobile while operating
on natural gas, 100 cubic feet of natural gas is
considered to contain 0.823 gallons equivalent of
natural gas and a gallon equivalent of natural gas is
considered to contain 0.15 gallons of gasoline or
diesel fuel.

Manufacturers can take advantage of these spe-
cial calculation procedures in model years 1993
through 2004. The agency is authorized to extend
this period up to an additional four years if it issues
a rule for that purpose before January 1, 2002.

Section 513(g) limits the CAFE benefit that a
manufacturer can receive in any single model year
from producing automobiles that meet the above
requirements. The total increase permitted in a
manufacturer's Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) is 1.2 miles per gallon in any of model years
1993 through 2004 in which the manufacturer pro-
duced those automobiles and 0.9 miles per gallon in
any of model years 2005 through 2008, if the Secre-
tary determines that an extension of the provision
beyond model year 2004 is warranted.

The agency notes that the statute does not require
that all or even some minimum number or percentage
of a manufacturer's passenger automobiles be capable
of achieving the minimum driving ranges in order for
any of its automobiles to qualify for the incentives.
However, automobiles that do not meet the applicable
minimum driving range do not qualify.

NHTSA concludes that the fuel economy value for
each model type as determined using EPA test
procedures is the appropriate measure for purposes
of section 513. Sections 513(b) and (d) specify that
the measurements are to be made under section
503(d). The latter provides that, except for the pur-
poses of labeling under section 506, the procedures
used shall be those "utilized by the EPA Adminis-
trator for model year 1975 ... or procedures
which yield comparable results."
2. Regulatory Background

As a first step in establishing minimum driving
range criteria for dual fuel vehicles, NHTSA published
a Request for Comments on June 15, 1989 (54 FR
25539). The notice asked several questions regarding
dual energy passenger automobiles and natural gas
dual energy passenger automobiles relative to the
following criteria: consumer acceptability; economic
practicability; technology; environmental impacts;
safety; driveability; and performance.

Comments were received from several manufac-
turers and natural gas associations. Based largely
on information obtained from these comments.

PART 538; PRE 2

NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) on February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5633). This
notice proposed a minimum driving range require-
ment for dual energy passenger automobiles of 200
miles on one tank of alcohol fuel in order to be
treated as a dual energy automobile, and a mini-
mum range of 100 miles between refueling stops for
a passenger automobile operating on natural gas to
be treated as a NG dual energy automobile and thus
qualify for the incentive provided in section 513. The
NPRM also proposed procedures to enable manufac-
turers to petition the agency to set a lower minimum
standard for specific models of NG dual energy
vehicles unable to comply with the generally appli-
cable standard. These procedures would not be avail-
able for dual energy vehicles since the proposed
generally applicable standard was set at the statu-
tory minimum of 200 miles.

As stated in the NPRM, the agency tentatively
concluded these levels satisfy the twin goals of being
low enough to encourage the production of dual fuel
passenger automobiles, yet high enough to ensure
that motorists not be discouraged from actually
fueling and driving those automobiles on the alter-
native fuels.

3. Dual Energy Driving Range Requirements

NHTSA received comments on the NPRM from
General Motors (GM), Ford, Chrysler, Nissan, Volvo,
the Center for Auto Safety (CFAS), the National
Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) and one
individual commenter. GM, Ford, Chrysler, Nissan,
Volvo, and CFAS supported the proposed 200 mile
minimum range. NADA recommended a 250 mile
minimum, while the individual commenter recom-
mended a 275 mile minimum driving range.

In support of the 200 mile minimum, the manu-
facturers indicated that a minimum range above this
level could result in the need for extensive modifica-
tions and redesign of vehicles. Volvo simply indi-
cated that vehicle redesign would be necessary to
accommodate the larger fuel tanks that would be
required. GM stated that its current vehicles do not
have unused space around the fuel tank, and that as
a result, larger fuel tanks would require substantial
redesign, consuming considerable engineering, tool-
ing and testing resources. GM also indicated the
redesign process would be costly, and could delay the
introduction of dual energy vehicles. The company
also noted that the increased cost and resulting price
increase could discourage potential customers from
purchasing the vehicles.

Chrysler stated that while minor increases in fuel
tank capacity (1.5-2.0 gallons) could be accom-
plished for an estimated cost of $20-$25 per vehicle,
more substantial increases would necessitate major
design changes. Chrysler believes that a 5-10 per-
cent increase beyond that stated above could add

$75-$ 100 to the price of these cars. While not provid-
ing specific figures. Ford shared Chrysler's position
that a slight increase in the tank capacity of some
models may be possible at relatively low costs, but
that significant redesign would be necessary to sub-
stantially increase capacity, and that the cost of
doing so would impair the marketability of dual
energy vehicles.

Ford also suggested that NHTSA revise §538.5 of
the proposed rule to refer to "nominal usable fuel
tank capacity" instead of "full tank capacity." The
former has a common industry understanding, and
is used in the manufacturers' applications to EPA for
certification. It also takes into account the fact that
certain areas within each tank design cannot be
filled with fuel (e.g., areas above the filler inlet
opening). NHTSA agrees that this term more accu-
rately reflects usable capacity, and has revised the
final rule accordingly.

Although CFAS supported the 200 mile range, its
support is based on its general opposition to in-
creased use of methanol as a motor fuel, and because
of its opposition to the gi'anting of CAFE credits to
manufacturers of dual fuel vehicles. However, these
issues are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
NHTSA notes, moreover, that the CAFE credits for
manufacturers of dual fuel vehicles complying with
the other requirements set out above are mandated
by statute.

NADA supported a 250 mile range due to concerns
about consumer acceptability. The Association be-
lieves that vehicles capable of only a 200 mile range
will be unacceptable to consumers. In addition,
NADA stated that the vast majority of MY 1989
passenger automobiles could achieve a 250 mile range,
and that those vehicles which are likely candidates for
conversion to dual energy vehicles, but cannot cur-
rently meet that criterion could be modified at a
reasonable cost by MY 1993. NADA disagi-ees with
NHTSA's assumption in the NPRM that the reduced
range of dual energy vehicles would be offset by
improved performance characteristics, because NADA
believes this assiunption is only valid if the alternative
fuels are reasonably available.

The individual commenter recommended a 275
mile minimum range based upon marketing and
geographical concerns. The commenter believes that
a 200 mile range is not practical, and therefore is not
marketable, and that minivans and other vehicles
that blur the "conventional distinction between cars
and trucks" will be the primary candidates for
conversion to dual energy operation. The commenter
maintains that these vehicles have greater fuel
storage capacity. However, no data was supplied to
support this contention. In addition, no information
was provided to support the commenter's claim that
275 miles was an achievable range for the passenger

PART 538; PRE 3

automobiles that are the subject of this rulemaking.
NHTSA notes that under the Cost Savings Act,
minivans and other "hybrid vehicles" are not con-
sidered "passenger automobiles," and are therefore
not subject to the minimum driving range require-
ment or the CAFE incentives.

The commenter had other suggestions for improving
the marketability of dual energy vehicles, including
relaxing safety requirements. Those suggested actions
are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

The substantial majority of commenters supported
NHTSA's proposed 200 mile minimum range for dual
energy passenger automobiles. As noted above, the
purpose behind the minimum range requirement is
to encourage the manufacture and sale of dual
energy vehicles. The agency believes that the range
should be set at a level that would not impose
unreasonable increased costs for fuel tank and struc-
tural changes in order to achieve that range. As
pointed out by several commenters, these costs
would be passed on in the form of higher vehicle
prices to consumers, thereby affecting the competi-
tiveness of these vehicles in the marketplace.
NHTSA believes further that the range should be set
at a level which gives the manufacturers broad
flexibility in selecting the models to be offered with
dual energy capability.

At the same time, NHTSA recognizes the impor-
tance of ensuring that the vehicles produced have a
large enough range so as to be considered practical
choices for consumers. It is likely that some consum-
ers would reject a vehicle capable of only a 200 mile
range.

However, since the range will be a minimum, not
a maximum, and since consumer acceptability will
be an important consideration of manufacturers in
selecting which vehicles to offer with dual energy
capability, the agency anticipates that the vast ma-
jority of dual energy vehicles offered for sale would
likely be capable of driving ranges considerably
higher than this minimum. As Ford noted in its
response to the agency's Request for Comments,
nearly 80 percent of its MY 1989 passenger fleet
would be capable of achieving at least a 250 mile
range if converted to dual energy operation. Like-
wise, GM noted that nearly 70 percent of its MY
1989 fleet would be above that figure. NHTSA be-
lieves that, instead of choosing to make all existing
models available as dual energy models, manufac-
turers are likely to select those models capable of
higher ranges as candidates for dual energy use.
Consumers concerned about the range could choose
those models. Moreover, since these vehicles have
the potential to operate on alcohol, conventional
fuels, or a combination of the two, consumers will

always have the option of using conventional fuel in
those instances where the reduced range is likely to
create unusual problems (e.g., long distance travel
through areas where alcohol fuels may not be easily
available).

Based on its consideration of the available infor-
mation, including the comments received and the
factors set out in the Alternative Fuels Act, the
agency concludes that 200 miles is an appropriate
minimum driving range for dual energy passenger
automobiles. The 200-mile range can be achieved
without any increase in the size of existing fuel
tanks, which would be used for both types of fuel.
Thus, the agency believes the range is consistent
with available technology.

Based on the comments received, NHTSA believes
that setting a minimum driving range substantially
higher than 200 miles would, in some instances,
require fuel tanks that would be significantly larger
than current tanks. In order to install a tank of that
size, a manufacturer would have to redesign its
automobiles. As noted in the manufacturer com-
ments discussed above, the costs of doing so could be
significant. In their comments, the manufacturers
expressed a reluctance to redesign their automobiles
and install larger tanks in order to achieve an
alcohol driving range equivalent to that of a petro-
leum fuel passenger automobile. They stated that
such a redesign could be extremely expensive and
could make it necessary to recertify compliance with
applicable Federal safety standards (e.g., FMVSS
301, Fuel System Integrity).

The 200 mile standard means that automobile
manufacturers will not have to make compensatory
design changes to ensure that the weight of a larger
tank loaded to capacity with fuel would not ad-
versely affect the braking, handling or performance
of existing automobiles. A larger tank would exac-
erbate the variation in a vehicle's weight between
the times that it has a full tank and the times that
it has a nearly empty one. Manufacturers must
design vehicles to take into account the effects which
such variations in vehicle weight have on vehicle
handling and braking. In addition, manufacturers
would have to recertify that the vehicle, when loaded
to its maximum weight, still meets all applicable
safety standards.

Driving range for natural gas dual energy
automobiles

The Alternative Fuels Act also requires that a
minimum driving range be established for natural
gas (NG) dual energy automobiles, although it does
not specify that the range must equal or exceed some
minimum value. The NPRM proposed a minimum
range of 100 miles for NG dual energy automobiles.

PART 538; PRE 4

GM, Ford, Chrysler, CFAS, NADA, the American
Gas Association (AGA) and one individual com-
menter provided comments on the proposed range
for NO dual energy vehicles.

GM suggested that the agency does not need to set
a minimum range for NG dual energy automobiles
at this time, but did not take issue with the 100 mile
range coupled with the petition procedure which
would enable manufacturers to petition for a lower
minimum range for specific models of NG dual
energy vehicles. The company pointed out that in-
creasing the range of NG dual energy vehicles would
be accomplished by using more or larger high pres-
sure cylinders. This would result in increased costs
and less storage space, as the cylinders are typically
located in the trunk. GM is also concerned about the
impact on driveability and potential loss of fuel
economy from additional gas cylinders.

NHTSA notes that it has no discretion as to
whether to set a minimum range for NG dual energy
vehicles. Such a range is explicitly required by
section 513(hK2XA) of the Cost Savings Act. The
agency agrees that increasing the driving range of
NG dual energy vehicles by increasing fuel storage
space can have negative impacts on driveability and
fuel economy.

Ford and Chrysler both supported the proposed
range for NG dual energy vehicles, but both noted
that they did not have a great deal of informa-
tion on these vehicles. Ford emphasized that the
costs of conversion to NG dual energy vehicles are
very preliminary, and are likely to exceed by sever-
al times the incremental costs mentioned in the
NPRM.

The AGA supported the proposed minimum range,
and stated that the natural gas industry has con-
cluded that the most cost effective current target for
natural gas use is the fleet vehicle that returns to a
central refueling station after each shift. AGA em-
phasized that it views NG dual energy propulsion as
a technology "bridge" between current technology
and improved future technology.

In its comments, the Association stated that since
the targeted vehicles are those with access to a
centralized refueling facility, they need not exceed
the driving ranges that are now attained with nat-
ural gas conversion equipment now in use. The
comments did not specify what this range is. An-
other consideration raised by the AGA concerned the
use of NG dual energy propulsion in utility vehicle
fleets. The AGA stated that these vehicles are fre-
quently used to provide power for equipment, light-
ing and communications at service locations, and
that this prolonged idling will reduce the effective
driving range of these vehicles. However, NHTSA
notes that the vehicles used in these applications are
not typically passenger automobiles; rather, they are

light trucks or MPVs which are not subject to this
rulemaking.

NADA concurred that NG dual energy vehicles
are likely to be used primarily in fleet service, with
centralized refueling facilities, but did not express
an opinion on the proposed minimum range.

CFAS recommended that the minimum range be
set at 200 miles or slightly lower, because it believes
a 100 mile range is impractical even for fleet appli-
cations, as vehicles would be unable to travel more
than 50 miles away from refueling facilities. While
CFAS says that direct use of natural gas is consider-
ably more efficient than the use of natural gas to
produce methanol, and that natural gas has environ-
mental benefits, it opposes encouraging the use of
natural gas through the granting of CAFE credit.
CFAS believes it is inappropriate for manufacturers
to receive this credit for manufacturing a car that is
likely to see little use with natural gas.

CFAS provided no information to support its rec-
ommendation of a 200 mile range as a practical
range. Based on the information available to it,
NHTSA believes that a minimum range at that level
would be viewed as impractical by manufacturers
and would serve to discourage the production of NG
dual energy vehicles. While CFAS's objections to the
incentives chosen by Congress to encourage the use
of alternative fuels are beyond the scope of this
rulemaking, NHTSA notes that it is unlikely that
consumers would be willing to pay the considerable
increased costs for a NG dual energy automobile
unless they actually intended to operate it on natu-
ral gas. NHTSA thus disagrees with the group's
position that manufacturers will, in effect be receiv-
ing a CAFE "bonus" for producing vehicles that are
unlikely to be operated on natural gas.

The individual commenter recommended that the
minimum range for NG dual energy vehicles be set
at 200 miles for the same reasons that he recom-
mended a higher range for dual energy vehicles.
These are discussed above. Like CFAS, he provided
no information to support his contention that such a
range is achievable. NHTSA disagrees with this
recommendation for the reasons stated above.

NHTSA believes that a 100-mile range will not
lead to the production of vehicles with so low a
natural gas operating range that it would impede
the development and sale of natural gas dual energy
vehicles. The agency notes that a natural gas dual
energy vehicle still has the gasoline fuel tank as a
range extender. In addition, the 100-mile criterion
represents a minimum range that would likely be
exceeded by vehicle manufacturers. Market forces
will assure that vehicles will not be produced unless
purchasers are satisfied with their capabilities.

Based on its consideration of the information
available, including the comments discussed above.

PART 538; PRE 5

and the factors set forth in the Alternative Motor
Fuels Act, the agency concludes that NG dual en-
ergy passenger automobiles can achieve a minimum
driving range of 100 miles while operating on natu-
ral gas.

On average, the cost of natural gas fuel tanks
needed to achieve a 100 mile range would be from
$386-$579, depending on design and construction
material.

In order to achieve a higher range, vehicles would
have to be equipped with additional storage tanks.
Doing this would pose significant problems since
weight and available space are limiting factors. As
noted above, for the 100-mile range, the additional
tanks would cost $386 to $579 and add $46 to
lifetime fuel costs due to the added weight. In
addition, these tanks would reduce available trunk
space by about 3.4 cubic feet. The added weight
would have a negative impact on vehicle perfor-
mance and driveability.

The agency believes that the 100 mile range is
sufficient to meet the needs of the likely purchasers
of natural gas dual energy automobiles. The agency
agrees with the commenters that suggest the most
likely passenger automobiles that would be con-
verted to burn natural gas are fleet passenger auto-
mobiles and taxis because of their high annual fuel
consumption and access to central company-owned
refueling facilities. Access to such facilities would
enable these companies to accommodate the range
established by this rule. This range might be less
adequate for private owners of natural gas passen-
ger automobiles since they may have limited access
to natural gas refueling facilities. Therefore, for the
private owner, driving range is likely to be a major
factor in the selection of a natural gas dual energy
automobile until refueling facilities are more plen-
tiful. The agency believes that the 100 mile range
represents an achievable level, consistent with avail-
able technology which will not be unduly impracti-
cal or have negative impacts upon consumer accept-
ability, vehicle driveability or performance.

Presently, the agency is not aware of any signifi-
cant safety risks associated with alcohol or natural
gas fuel for dual energy passenger automobiles
attributed specifically to the magnitude of vehicle
driving range or fuel tank size. All gasoline and
diesel-powered automobiles are required to comply
with FMVSS No. 301; Fuel System Integrity. Alcohol-
powered vehicles are likewise required to comply
with Standard 301. The natural gas fuel system of a
natural gas dual energy vehicle will not be required
to comply with Standard 301 because that standard
applies only to vehicles which use a fuel having a
boiling point above 32° F, while natural gas has a
boiling point below 32° F. NHTSA expects to publish
advance notices of proposed rulemaking later this

year as part of its effort to determine whether addi-
tional requirements are necessary to enhance the
safety of vehicles operating on alcohol or natural gas.

Procedures establishing lower driving ranges for
particular models of natural gas dual energy
automobiles

Section 513(hX2XBXi) requires that the rule estab-
lishing the driving ranges also allow the agency to
determine that a specific model or model type may
have a lower range than the generally established
range and establish procedures for manufacturers to
petition the agency to specify such a lower range. As
noted above, section 513(hX2XBXii) provides that
lower ranges may not be established for dual energy
automobiles if the agency selects the 200 mile stat-
utory minimum as the driving range for those auto-
mobiles. Since this notice establishes that minimum
value, the petitioning procedures apply only to nat-
ural gas dual energy automobiles. NHTSA received
no comments on the substance of the proposed pro-
cedure for petitions, and the final rule makes no
changes to these procedures.

The procedures specify that petitioning manufac-
turers must address each of the factors which the
agency is required by section 513(hX2XD) to take into
account in establishing lower driving ranges, i.e.,
the purposes of the Alternative Motor Fuels Act of
1988, consumer acceptability, economic practicabil-
ity, technology, environmental impact, safety, drive-
ability, performance, and any other factors the
agency deems relevant. This notice does not estab-
lish any additional factors.

Following its receipt of a petition, the agency will
publish a notice summarizing the petition and invit-
ing public comment. Then the agency will consider
the comments and other available information and
publish a final decision in accordance with section
513(hX2XD).

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR is
amended by adding Part 538 to read as follows:

1. The authority citation for Part 538 reads as
follows:

Authority: Sec. 6, Pub. L. 100-494, 100 Stat. 2448
(15 U.S.C. 2013); delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.

2. A new Part 538 is added to read as follows:

PART 538-DRIVING RANGES FOR DUAL EN-
ERGY AND NATURAL GAS DUAL EN-
ERGY PASSENGER AUTOMOBILES

Sees.

538.1 Scope.

538.2 Purpose.

538.3 Applicability.

538.4 Definitions.

538.5 Driving range.

PART 538; PRE 6

538.6 Measurement of driving range.

538.7 Petitions for reduction of minimum driving
range.

§538.1 Scope.

This part establishes minimum driving range
criteria to aid in identifying passenger automobiles
that are either dual energy automobiles or natural
gas dual energy automobiles. It also establishes
procedures by which manufacturers may petition for
a lower driving range for a specific model of natural
gas dual energy automobile and by which the agency
may grant or deny such petitions.

§538.2 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to specify one of the
criteria in section 513(h) of the Act for identifying
dual energy and natural gas dual energy passenger
automobiles that are manufactured in model years
1993 through 2004. The fuel economy of these pas-
senger automobiles is calculated in a special manner
so as to facilitate the compliance of their manufac-
turers with the Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards set forth in Part 531 of this title and
thereby encourage the production of such vehicles.

§538.3 Applicability.

This part applies to manufacturers of passenger
automobiles that are either dual energy or natural
gas dual energy passenger automobiles manufac-
tured during model years 1993-2004.

§538.4 Definitions.

(a) Statutory terms. (1) The terms dual energy
automobile, natural gas dual energy automobile, and
alcohol are used as defined in section 513 of title V of
the Act.

(2) The terms automobile and passenger automo-
bile, are used as defined in section 501 of the Act and
in accordance with the determinations in part 523 of
this chapter.

(3) The term manufacturer is used as defined in
section 501 of the Act and in accordance with part
529 of this chapter.

(4) The term model year is used as defined in
section 501 of the Act.

(5) As used in this part, unless otherwise required
by the context: Act means the Motor Vehicle Infor-
mation and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513), as
amended.

(b) Other terms. The terms average fuel economy,
fuel economy, and model type are used as defined in
subpart A of 40 CFR part 600.

§ 538.5 Minimum driving range.

(a) The minimum driving range which a passenger
automobile must have in order to be treated as a

dual energy automobile pursuant to section
513(1XC) of the Act is 200 miles when operating on
its nominal usable fuel tank capacity of alcohol fuel.

(b) Except as provided in § 538.7, the minimum
driving range which a passenger automobile must
have in order to be treated as a natural gas dual
energy automobile pursuant to section 513(1XD) of
the Act is 100 miles when operating on its nominal
fuel tank capacity of natural gas.

(c) The Administrator may determine that a spe-
cific model type or types of natiu-al gas dual energy
automobiles may have a lower range than that
specified in paragraph (b) of this section and still
qualify as a natural gas dual energy automobile for
purposes of the section. In making such a determi-
nation, the Administrator takes into account the
factors specified in § 538.7(f).

§ 538.6 Measurement of driving range.

The driving range of a passenger automobile
model type is determined by multiplying the com-
bined EPA city/highway fuel economy when operat-
ing on the alcohol or natural gas fuel by the nominal
usable fuel tank capacity in gallons, of the fuel tank
containing the alcohol or natural gas. The combined
EPA city/highway fuel economy is the value deter-
mined by the procedures established by the Admin-
istrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
under section 503(d) of the Act and set forth in 40
CFR 600.

§ 538.7 Petitions for reduction of minimum driving
range.

(a) A manufacturer of a model type of passenger
automobile capable of operating on both natural gas
and either gasoline or diesel fuel may petition for a
reduced minimum driving range for that model type
in accordance with paragraphs (b) through (c) of this
section.

(b) Each petition shall—

(1) Be addressed to: Administrator, National High-
way Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street SW., Washington, DC 20590.

(2) Be submitted not later than the beginning of
the first model year in which the petitioner seeks to
have the model type treated as a natural gas dual
energy automobile.

(3) Be written in the English language.

(4) State the full name, address, and title of the
official responsible for preparing the petition, and
the name and address of the petitioner.

(5) Set forth in full data, views and arguments of
the petitioner, including the information and data
specified in § 538.7(b) and the calculations and anal-
yses used to develop that information and data. No
documents may be incorporated by reference in a
petition unless the documents are submitted with
the petition.

PART 538; PRE 7

(6) Specify and segregate any part of the informa-
tion and data submitted under this section that the
petitioner wishes to have withheld from public dis-
closure in accordance with Part 512 of this chapter.

(1) Identification of the model type or types for
which a lower driving range is sought under this
section.

(2) For each model type identified in accordance
with paragraph (cXl):

(i) The driving range sought for that model type.

(ii) The number of years for which that driving
range is sought.

(iii) A description of the model type, including car
line designation, engine displacement and type, nat-
ural gas fuel tank location and capacities, transmis-
sion type and average fuel economy when operating
on:

(A) Natural gas, and

(B) Gasoline or diesel fuel.

(iv) An explanation of why the petitioner cannot
modify the model type so as to meet the generally
applicable minimum range, including the steps
taken by the petitioner to improve the minimum
range of the vehicle, as well as additional steps that
are technologically feasible, but have not been
taken. The costs to the petitioner of taking these
additional steps shall be included.

(3) A discussion of why granting the petition would
be consistent with the following factors:

(i) The purposes of the Alternative Motor Fuels
Act, including encouraging the development and
widespread use of natural gas as a transportation
fuel by consumers, and the production of passenger
automobiles capable of being operated on both nat-
ural gas and gasoline/diesel fuel;

(ii) Consumer acceptability;

(iii) Economic practicability;

(iv) Tbchnology;

(v) Environmental impact;

(vi) Safety;

(vii) Driveability; and

(viii) Performance.

(d) If a petition is found not to contain the infor-
mation required by this section, the petitioner is
informed about the areas of insufficiency and ad-
vised that the petition will not receive further con-
sideration until the required information is received.

(e) The Administrator may request the petitioner
to provide information in addition to that required
by this section.

(f) The Administrator publishes in the Federal

Register a notice of receipt for each petition contain-
ing the information required by this section. Any
interested person may submit written comments
regarding the petition.

(g) In reaching a determination on a petition
submitted under this section, the Administrator
takes into account:

(1) The purposes of the Alternative Motor Fuels Act,
including encouraging the development and wide-
spread use of methanol, ethanol and natural gas as
transportation fuels by consumers, and the production
of alternative fuel powered motor vehicles;

(2) Consumer acceptability;

(3) Economic practicability;

(4) Tbchnology;

(5) Environmental impact;

(6) Safety;

(7) Driveability; and

(8) Performance.

(i) The purposes of the Alternative Motor Fuels Act,
including encouraging the development and wide-
spread use of methanol, ethanol and natural gas as
transportation fuels by consumers, and the production
of alternative fuel powered motor vehicles;

(ii) Consumer acceptability;

(iii) Economic practicability;

(iv) Tbchnology;

(v) Environmental impact;

(vi) Safety;

(vii) Driveability; and

(viii) Performance.

(h) If the Administrator grants the petition, the
petitioner is notified in writing, specifying the
model years for which it applies. He also publishes
in the Federal Register a notice of the grant and the
reasons for it.

(i) If the Administrator denies the petition, the
petitioner is notified in writing. He also publishes in
the Federal Register a notice of the denial and the
reasons for it.

Issued on April 18, 1990

Jeffrey R. Miller
Deputy Administrator

55 F.R. 17611
April 26, 1990

PART 538; PRE 8

PART 538— DRIVING RANGES FOR DUAL ENERGY AND NATURAL GAS
DUAL ENERGY PASSENGER AUTOMOBILES

5538.1 Scope.

This part establishes minimum driving range criter-
ia to aid in identifying passenger automobiles that are
either dual energy automobiles or natural gas dual
energy automobiles. It also establishes procedures by
which manufacturers may petition for a lower driving
range for a specific model of natural gas dual energy
automobile and by which the agency may grant or deny
such petitions.

5538.2 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to specify one of the
criteria in section 513(h) of the Act for identifying dual
energy and natural gas dual energy passenger auto-
mobiles that are manufactured in model years 1993
through 2004. The fuel economy of these passenger
automobiles is calculated in a special manner so as to
facilitate the compliance of their manufacturers with
the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards set
forth in Part 531 of this title and thereby encourage
the production of such vehicles.

5538.3 Applicability.

This part applies to manufacturers of passenger
automobiles that are either dual energy or natural gas
dual energy passenger automobiles manufactured
during model years 1993-2004.

5538.4 Definitions.

(a) Statutory terms. (1) The terms "dual energy
automobile," "natural gas dual energy automobile,"
and "alcohol" are used as defined in section 513 of
Title V of the Act.

(2) The terms "automobile" and "passenger auto-
mobile," are used as defined in section 501 of the Act
and in accordance with the determinations in Part 523
of this chapter.

(3) The term "manufacturer" is used as defined in
section 501 of the Act and in accordance with Part 529
of this chapter.

(4) The term "model year" is used as defined in
section 501 of the Act.

(5) As used in this part, unless otherwise required
by the context: "Act" means the Motor Vehicle Infor-
mation and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513), as
amended.

(b) Other terms. The terms "average fuel economy,"
"fuel economy," and "model type" are used as defined
in Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 600.

5538.5 Minimum driving range.

(a) The minimum driving range which a passenger
automobile must have in order to be treated as a dual
energy automobile pursuant to section 513(1XC) of the
Act is 200 miles when operating on its nominal usable
fuel tank capacity of alcohol fuel.

(b) Except as provided in § 538.7, the minimum
driving range which a passenger automobile must have
in order to be treated as a natural gas dual energy
automobile pursuant to section 513(1XD) of the Act is
100 miles when operating on its nominal fuel tank
capacity of natural gas.

(c) The Administrator may determine that a spec-
ific model type or types of natural gas dual energy
automobiles may have a lower range than that speci-
fied in paragraph (b) and still qualify as a natural gas
dual energy automobile for purposes of the section. In
making such a determination, the Administrator takes
into account the factors specified in § 538.7(f).

5538.6 Measurement of driving range.

The driving range of a passenger automobile model
type is determined by multiplying the combined EPA
city/highway fuel economy when operating on the
alcohol or natural gas fuel by the nominal usable fuel
tank capacity in gallons, of the fuel tank containing the
alcohol or natural gas. The combined EPA city/high-
way fuel economy is the value determined by the proce-
dures established by the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency under section 503(d)
of the Act and set forth in 40 CFR 600.

5538.7 Petitions for reduction of minimum driving

range.

(a) A manufacturer of a model type of passenger
automobile capable of operating on both natural gas

PART 538-1

and either gasoline or diesel fuel may petition for a
reduced minimum driving range for that model type
in accordance with paragraphs (b)-(c).

(b) Each petition shall—

(1) Be addressed to: Administrator, National High-
way Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

(2) Be submitted not later than the beginning of the
first model year in which the petitioner seeks to have
the model type treated as a natural gas dual energy
automobile.

(4) State the full name, address, and title of the offi-
cial responsible for preparing the petition, and the
name and address of the petitioner.

(5) Set forth in full data, views and arguments of the
petitioner, including the information and data specified
in § 53B.7(b) and the calculations and analyses used to
develop that information and data. No documents may
be incorporated by reference in a petition unless the
documents are submitted with the petition.

(6) Specify and segregate any part of the informa-
tion and data submitted under tWs section that the peti-
tioner wishes to have withheld from public disclosure
in accordance with Part 512 of this chapter.

(1) Identification of the model type or types for
which a lower driving range is sought under this
section.

(2) For each model type identified in accordance with
paragraph (cXl):

(i) The driving range sought for that model type.

(ii) The number of years for which that driving
range is sought.

(iii) A description of the model type, including car
line designation, engine displacement and type, natural
gas fuel tank location and capacities, transmission type
and average fuel economy when operating on (1) natur-
al gas, and (2) on gasoline or diesel fuel.

(iv) An explanation of why the petitioner cannot
modify the model type so as to meet the generally ap-
plicable minimum range, including the steps taken by
the petitioner to improve the minimum range of the
vehicle, as well as additional steps that are technologi-
cally feasible, but have not been taken. The costs to
the petitioner of taking these additional steps shall be
included.

(3) A discussion of why granting the petition would
be consistent with the following factors:

(i) The purposes of the Alternative Motor Fuels
Act, including encouraging the development and

widespread use of natural gas as a transportation fuel
by consumers, and the production of passenger automo-
biles capable of being operated on both natural gas and
gasoline/diesel fuel;

(ii) Consumer acceptability;

(iii) Economic practicability;

(iv) Technology;

(v) Environmental impact;

(vi) Safety;

(vii) Driveability; and

(viii) Performance.

(d) If a petition is found not to contain the infor-
mation required by this section, the petitioner is in-
formed about the areas of insufficiency and advised
that the petition will not receive further consideration
until the required information is received.

(e) The Administrator may request the petitioner to
provide information in addition to that required by this
section.

(f) The Administrator publishes in the Federal
Register a notice of receipt for each petition contain-
ing the information required by this section. Any in-
terested person may submit written comments
regarding the petition.

(g) In reaching a determination on a petition sub-
mitted under this section, the Administrator takes into
account:

(i) The purposes of the Alternative Motor Fuels
Act, including encouraging the development and
widespread use of methanol, ethanol and natural gas
as transportation fuels by consumers, and the produc-
tion of alternative fuel powered motor vehicles;

(ii) Consumer acceptability;

(iii) Economic practicability;

(iv) Technology;

(v) Environmental impact;

(vi) Safety;

(vii) Driveability; and

(viii) Performance.

(h) If the Administrator grants the petition, the peti-
tioner is notified in writing, specifying the model years
for which it applies. He also publishes in the Federal
Register a notice of the grant and the reasons for it.
(i) If the Administrator denies the petition, the
petitioner is notified in writing. He also publishes in
the Federal Register a notice of the denial and the
reasons for it.

55 F.R. 17611
April 26, 1990

PART 538-2

PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 544

Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention; Reporting Requirements

(Docket No. T86-01; Notice 10)

RIN 2127-AC32

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule marks the culmination of
a four-year effort by this agency to obtain the infor-
mation necessary to implement authority for ex-
empting a substantial number of self-insured motor
vehicle rental and leasing companies from a statu-
tory requirement to file annual theft data reports. To
date, all self-insured rental and leasing companies
with fleets of 20 or more motor vehicles have been
required to file reports. Henceforth, theft reports
will be required from only those rental and leasing
companies (including franchisees and licensees)
which have combined fleets of 50,000 or more vehi-
cles. This change reduces the number of covered
companies to fewer than two dozen.

The agency has taken this action after making two
statutorily-specified determinations. First, NHTSA
has determined that for those companies with com-
bined fleets of fewer than 50,000 vehicles, the cost of
preparing and furnishing such reports is excessive in
relation to the size of the business of the insurer.
Second, NHTSA has determined that reports from
the largest rental and leasing companies would pro-
vide the agency with a representative sampling of the
theft experience of rental and leasing companies.

DATE: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on
July 23, 1990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background: The Motor Vehicle Theft Law En-
forcement Act of 1984 (Pub.L. 98-547; Theft Act)
added Title VI to the Motor Vehicle Information and
Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2021 et seq.; Cost Sav-
ings Act). Section 612 of the Cost Savings Act re-
quires insurers to submit annual reports to NHTSA
regarding a number of theft-related matters. As set
forth in section 612(aX2) of the Cost Savings Act, the
reports are to include theft and recovery data, the
rating rules and plans used by insurers to establish
premiums for comprehensive insurance coverage for
motor vehicles, and actions taken to reduce premi-
ums, among other information.

In addition to including companies that issue
insurance policies, the term "insurers" is defined in

section 612 to include certain self-insurers, i.e., any
person who has a fleet of 20 or more motor vehicles
(other than any governmental entity) which are used
primarily for rental or lease and which are not
covered by theft insurance policies issued by insurers
of passenger motor vehicles. (Section 612(aX3)). The
agency estimates that about 4,000 rental and leas-
ing companies are "insurers" under this definition
and are therefore required to file annual reports.

Section 612(aX4) authorizes the agency to exempt
certain insurers from submitting the reports, if the
agency determines that:

(1) The cost of preparing and furnishing such
reports is excessive in relation to the size of the
business of the insurer, and

(2) The insurer's report will not significantly con-
tribute to carrying out the purposes of Title VI.

The purpose of this notice is in effect to grant a
class exemption to all companies that rent or lease
fewer than 50,000 vehicles. This notice concludes a
rulemaking proceeding begun with the issuance of a
notice of proposed rulemaking on February 3, 1989
(54 FR 5519). NHTSA believes that reports from a
representative sample of rental and leasing compa-
nies will provide the agency with the necessary
information to allow it to fulfill all its obligations
under Title VI of the Cost Savings Act. NHTSA
concludes that reports by the many smaller rental
and leasing companies do not significantly contrib-
ute to carrying out Title VI, and that exempting
such companies will relieve an unnecessary burden
on the vast majority of the companies presently
subject to the reporting requirements.

When it issued the initial regulations under Title
VI, NHTSA did not have sufficient information to
allow it to make the first determination in section
612(aX4), i.e., a determination that the cost of pre-
paring and furnishing such reports is excessive in
relation to the size of the business of the insurer.
Absent such information, NHTSA was unable to
exempt rental and leasing companies from the re-
porting requirements. Therefore, in a final rule
published on January 2, 1987 (52 FR 59), NHTSA
required each rental and leasing company which fell

PART 544; PRE 35

within the definition of "insurer" to file an annual
report with the agency. In the preamble to the final
rule, the agency stated that it would consider indi-
vidual requests for exemption from smaller rental
and leasing companies, as long as they provided
information that would enable the agency to make a
determination under section 612(aX4) that the cost
of preparing and furnishing the reports is excessive
in relation to the size of the insurer's business.

The agency received approximately 150 petitions
for exemption for the October 25, 1987 reporting
period. Many of the petitioners requested that their
petitions be made applicable to subsequent years.
Those petitions from smaller, independent rental
and leasing companies were granted, but petitions
from large, nationwide rental and leasing compa-
nies and their franchisees or licensees were denied.

Subsequent to the issuance of the January 1987
rule, the agency obtained information on the size of
the fleets of rental and leasing companies and the
market share for these companies. This information
was obtained from the Automotive Fleet Magazine
(for both rental and leasing companies) and Travel
Trade Business Travel News (for rental companies
only). These publications publish annual tabula-
tions of the data which the motor vehicle rental and
leasing companies voluntarily supply to them.
Within the rental and leasing community, both
publications are regarded as the most accurate data
sources available for those businesses. NHTSA ten-
tatively concluded that these sources are sufficiently
accurate to determine which rental and leasing
companies should be exempted from the theft report-
ing requirements.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Using these data from the trade publications, the
agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) (54 FR 5519, February 3, 1989) that ex-
plained how the agency proposed to make the stat-
utory determinations that would exempt most self-
insured rental and leasing companies from
reporting. In the NPRM, the public was invited to
comment on the several tentative conclusions
reached by the agency in formulating the proposed
rule. First, the agency had tentatively concluded
that Automotive Fleet and Travel Trade Business
Travel News were sufficiently accurate to be used in
determining which rental and leasing companies
should be exempted from the theft reporting require-
ments. Second, the agency tentatively concluded
that franchisors and their franchisees or licensors
and their licensees should be treated as single enti-
ties for purposes of reporting, with franchisors and
licensors responsible for gathering the required
data. The agency's rationale for this tentative deci-
sion was that since franchisees generally submit

periodic reports to the franchisor in any case, it
would be relatively simple to include information
about theft experience. Further, NHTSA has no data
on the size of all franchisees and licensees. Without
this information, the agency had no basis to propose
exemptions for rental and leasing companies if it
were to treat each franchisee or licensee separately.
Commenters who disagreed with this approach were
asked to discuss how NHTSA could obtain franchisee
number and fleet size information and to discuss
whether the agency could structure an exemption
from the reporting requirements for small rental
and leasing companies while requiring reports from
all franchisees of large franchisors. NHTSA also
sought additional information on the structure and
procedures used by franchise operations in the car
rental business.

Third, using the trade publication information,
the agency tentatively determined that a represen-
tative sample of the theft experience of vehicles
other than passenger cars would be obtained if it
received reports only from rental and leasing com-
panies (including franchisees and licensees) with
fleets of 50,000 or more vehicles.

Fourth, the agency tentatively determined that
the costs of requiring rental and leasing companies
with fewer than 50,000 vehicles in their fleet to
prepare and furnish reports were excessive in rela-
tion to the size of the company's business and would
not in any way contribute to the agency's carrying
out its responsibilities under Title VI of the Cost
Savings Act. NHTSA asked commenters who dis-
agreed with this determination to explain why they
believed that the purposes of Title VI would be
furthered by reports from smaller companies.

Public Comments

The agency received a total of seven comments. All
commenters supported the 50,000 vehicle threshold,
and the general intent to exempt as many companies
as possible from reporting requirements. One com-
menter argued that the costs of franchisors' provid-
ing theft data for franchisees is excessive in relation
to the size of the business of the insurer, regardless of
the company's size.

Chrysler Motors Corporation (Chrysler) and Volks-
wagen of America, Inc. (Volkswagen), two motor
vehicle manufacturers not subject to the reporting
requirements, wrote in support of the proposal, es-
pecially the 50,000 vehicle threshold. Chrysler of-
fered a comment about the proposed change to
wording in Section 544.3, the "Application" section
that describes companies subject to the reporting
requirements of Part 544. The NPRM had proposed
that self-insured motor vehicle rental and leasing

PART 544; PRE 36

companies subject to reporting requirements be de-
scribed as:

. . . persons (including licensees and franchi-
sees) who have a fleet of 20 or more motor
vehicles used primarily for rental or lease and
not covered by theft insurance policies issued by
an insurer of motor vehicles listed in Appendix
C.
Chrysler stated that it believed that the agency had
erred in developing the wording for the exemption in
Section 544.3 since it did not correspond with the
agency's intent to exclude from reporting require-
ments those self-insured rental and leasing compa-
nies with fleets of fewer than 50,000 vehicles. The
agency notes that the description proposed is the
statutory definition of "insurer" in Section 612(aX3)
of the Theft Act. However, the agency agrees that
there may be less confusion if the description of the
self-insured rental and leasing companies were more
simply worded. Therefore, the regulatory text
adopted in this notice simply describes these compa-
nies as "the motor vehicle rental and leasing com-
panies listed in Appendix C."

Chrysler also stated the agency's proposal to up-
date Appendix C annually in November to identify
the companies which must report the following
October did not provide sufficient lead time in pre-
paring the required report for a calendar year. It
suggested that the requirements be amended to give
a company listed in Appendix C a full year to collect
theft and recovery data for reporting to the agency
the following year. Under the procedure recom-
mended by Chrysler, a company added to Appendix
C in November 1990, would begin collecting data for
calendar year 1991 on January 1, 1991, and would
file its first report in October 1992.

The agency is not adopting this recommendation,
for the following reasons. Although there may be
merit in this comment, NHTSA could not adopt the
recommended change in this rulemaking because it
is not within the scope of the notice. This agency will
consider the comment further after the completion
of this rulemaking. In doing so, the agency will
examine the following factors which are relevant to
making a decision about the appropriate interval
between the agency's final determination regarding
which companies must report and the time that the
reports must be submitted. First, the time period
proposed in the NPRM would allow a company about
10 months after final notification to gather the
needed data for the preceding calendar year, arrange
it into the appropriate format, and report it to the
agency. Second, the insurers listed in Appendices A
and B are required to report under an identical
schedule. In order to avoid confusion, the reporting
timeframe should be consistent for all reporting
companies. The agency's experience with insurers

subject to Appendices A and B has been that the
time between the finalization of the list of insurers
required to report and the due date of the annual
theft report has not been a problem.

The National Automobile Dealers Association
supported the agency's proposal to exempt all self-
insured rental and leasing companies with under
50,000 motor vehicles. The association resubmitted
data, originally provided with a petition for recon-
sideration of the final rule issued by the agency on
January 2, 1987 (52 FR 59), on the fleet size of
members of the dealers' association. The agency was
asked to consider the data to be representative of all
franchised car and truck dealer leasing and rental
fleets.

U-Haul International, another motor vehicle
rental and leasing company, supported the proposed
rule, but requested that the company be removed
from Appendix C, stating that because of the unique
nature of its business, any data it provided could not
be extrapolated to the whole industry. The agency is
unable to accommodate this request. U-Haul pro-
vided no contradictory data regarding the agency's
determinations that, for those companies with com-
bined fleets of more than 50,000 vehicles, the cost of
preparing and furnishing such reports is not exces-
sive in relation to the size of the business of the
insurer, and that a report from U-Haul would not
provide the agency with a representative sampling
of the theft experience of rental and leasing compa-
nies. Since U-Haul is one of the largest rental and
leasing companies of trucks, any information U-
Haul provides to the agency is necessary to fulfill the
requirements of the Theft Act. The agency further
notes that despite this comment, U-Haul submitted
timely comments on its theft experience for calendar
years 1987 and 1988.

The American Automotive Leasing Association, a
trade association representing members that lease
motor vehicles on a long-term basis to commercial
businesses, supported the thrust of the proposed
amendments.

The law firm of Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott,
commenting on behalf of the American Car Rental
Association, asserted that: "The cost of car rental
franchisors providing theft data on franchisees is
excessive in relation to the size of the insurer's
business because that information will not signifi-
cantly contribute to providing the agency with bet-
ter insight into car theft problems." It was further
stated that obtaining this information from franchi-
sees would impose "significant" costs on franchisors.
The commenter also disagreed with NHTSA's state-
ment that it would be simple to expand existing
franchisee reporting information to franchisors, to
include theft information, asserting that:

Franchisors have no contractual right under the

PART 544; PRE 37

franchise agreement to such information be-
cause it is not material to the operation and
fulfillment of the agreement. Franchisors do not
report information about the franchisee's vehi-
cles because franchisees own their own vehicles.
In view of these concerns, the commenter suggested
that the reporting obligations of franchisors be lim-
ited to reporting the theft experience of company-
operated facilities.

The agency is unable to assess this commenter's
cost arguments since it did not submit any support-
ing cost data. Further, even though the commenter
suggested that the costs would be significant, there
was no suggestion that they would be excessive. As
to the suggestion of difficulty under current contrac-
tual arrangements in obtaining theft information,
the commenter did not argue that the task would be
an impossible one. Further, no other commenter
indicated any problem in obtaining such informa-
tion from franchisees.

Accordingly, after taking into consideration the
public comments, the agency adopts as final the
tentative conclusions formulated in the NPRM, and
makes final the language for Part 544 set forth in
the NPRM, including Appendix C, which lists the
motor vehicle rental and leasing companies (in-
cluding licensees and franchisees) which are not
exempted with respect to calendar year 1988. In the
next several months, the agency will issue a proposal
setting forth its tentative determination regarding
exemptions and listing the companies that would be
required to file a report in October 1990 for the 1989
calendar year.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 544
is amended as follows:

Section 544.3 is revised to read as follows:

§ 544.3 Application.

This part applies to the motor vehicle insurance
policy issuers listed in Appendices A or B, and to the
motor vehicle rental and leasing companies listed in
Appendix C.

Section 544.6 is amended by revising subparagraph
(a)(2):

§ 544.6 Contents of insurer reports

(aXl) * * *

(2) In the case of a motor vehicle rental or
leasing company listed in Appendix C, provide the
information specified in paragi-aphs (c), (dX2Xiv), and
(g) of this section for each vehicle type listed in
paragraph (b) of this section, for each State in which
the company, including any licensee, franchisee, or

subsidiary, did business during the reporting period.
The information for each listed company shall in-
clude all relevant information from any licensee,
franchisee, or subsidiary.

A new Appendix C is added to Part 544, to read as
follows:

Appendix C— Motor Vehicle Rental and Leasing
Companies Subject to the Reporting Requirements of
Part 544
Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc.
Automotive Rentals, Inc.
Avis Car Leasing-USA

(Subsidiary of Avis, Inc.)
Avis Rent a Car System, Inc.

(Subsidiary of Avis, Inc.)
Budget Rent A Car Corporation
Dollar Rent-A-Car

(Subsidiary of Systems Inc.)
Enterprise Fleets, Inc.

(Subsidiary of Enterprise Leasing Company)
GE Capital Fleet Services
Hertz Penske Truck Leasing, Inc.

(Subsidiary of Hertz Corporation)
Hertz Rent-A-Car

(Subsidiary of Hertz Corporation)
Lease Plan, USA
Lend Lease

McCullagh Leasing, Inc.
National Car Rental System, Inc.
Peterson, Howell & Heather, Inc.
Rent A Car Company

(Subsidiary of Enterprise Leasing Company)
Rent A Car Corporation

(Subsidiary of American International)
Ryder Truck Rental

(Both rental and leasing operations)
Security Pacific Credit Corporation
U-Haul International, Inc.

(Subsidiary of AMERCO)
United States Fleet Leasing Inc.

(Subsidiary of Hertz Corporation, Leasing)
Wheels, Inc.

Issued on: June 18, 1990

Jeffrey R. Miller
Deputy Administrator
55 F.R. 25606

June 22, 1990

PART 544; PRE 38

PART 544-INSURER REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

(Docket No. T86-01; Notice 2)

5544.1 Scope.

This part sets forth requirements for insurers to
report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Admin-
istration information about motor vehicle thefts and
recoveries, the effects of the Federal motor vehicle
theft prevention standard on those thefts and re-
coveries, and related insurance practices.

5544.2 Purpose.

The purpose of these reporting requirements is to aid
in implementing and evaluating the provisions of the
Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act to prevent
or discourage the theft of motor vehicles, to prevent
or discourage the sale or distribution in interstate
commerce of used parts removed from stolen motor
vehicles, and to help reduce the cost to consumers of
comprehensive insurance coverage for motor vehicles.

5544.3 Application.

[This part applies to the motor vehicle insurance
policy issuers listed in Appendices A or B, and to the
motor vehicle rental and leasing companies listed in
Appendix C. (55 F.R. 25606— June 22, 1990. Effective:
July 23, 1990)1

5544.4 Definitions.

(a) Statutory terms. All terms defined in sections
2 and 601 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost
Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901 and 2021) are used in ac-
cordance with their statutory meanings unless other-
wise defined in paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) Other definitions. (1) "Comprehensive insurance
coverage" means the indemnification of motor vehicle
owners by an insurer against losses due to fire, theft,
robbery, pilferage, malicious mischief and vandalism,
and damage resulting from floods, water, tornadoes,
cyclones, or windstorms.

(2) "Gross vehicle weight rating" is used as
defined at S571.3 of this chapter.

(3) "Heavy truck" means a truck with a gross
vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds.

(4) "Light truck" means a truck with a gross
vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.

(5) "Major part" means—

(i) in the case of passenger motor vehicles, any
part listed in §S541.5(aXl) through (14) of this chapter;

(ii) in the case of light trucks, any part listed in
§S541.5(aXl) through (14) of this chapter, or the cargo
bed or transfer case;

(iii) in the case of heavy trucks, any part listed in
§S541.5(aXl) through (14) of this chapter, or the cargo
bed, drive axle assembly, fifth wheel, sleeper, or the
transfer case;

(iv) in the case of multipurpose passenger vehicles,
any part listed in §S541.5(aXl) through (14) of this
chapter, or the cargo bed or transfer case; and

(v) in the case of motorcycles, the crankcase,
engine, frame, front fork, or transmission.

(6) "Motorcycle" is used as defined at S571.3 of
this chapter.

(7) "Motor vehicle" means a passenger motor vehi-
cle, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, or motorcycle.

(8) "Multipurpose passenger vehicle" is used as
defined at S571.3 of this chapter.

(9) "Recovery" means regaining physical possession
of a motor vehicle or a major portion of the super-
structure of a motor vehicle with one or more major parts
still attached to the superstructure, after that vehicle has
been stolen.

(10) "Recovery-in-part" means a recovery in which
one or more of the recovered vehicle's major parts is
missing at the time of recovery.

(11) "Recovery intact" means a recovery with none
of the recovered vehicle's major parts missing at the time
of recovery, and wath no apparent damage to any part
of the motor vehicle other than those parts damaged in
order to enter, start, and operate the vehicle, but with
additional mileage and ordinary wear and tear.

(12) "Recovery-in-whole" means a recovery with
none of the recovered vehicle's major parts missing at
the time of recovery, but with apparent damage to some
part or parts of the vehicle in addition to those parts
damaged in order to enter, start, and operate the vehicle.

(13) "Reporting period" means the calendar year
covered by a report submitted under this part.

(14) "Truck" is used as defined at S571.3 of this
chapter.

(R«v. 6/22/90)

PART 544-1

(15Xi) In the case of insurers that issue motor
vehicle insurance poHcies, "vehicle theft" means an
actual physical removal of a motor vehicle without the
permission of its owner, but does not include the
removal of component parts, accessories, or personal
belongings from a motor vehicle which is not moved,
(ii) In the case of an insurer which has a fleet of
20 or more vehicles (other than a governmental
entity) used primarily for rental or lease and not
covered by theft insurance policies issued by insurers
of motor vehicles, "vehicle theft" means an actual
physical removal of a motor vehicle without the per-
mission of its owner, or keeping possession of the
motor vehicle without the permission of its owner for
a sufficient period of time so that the vehicle could
have been reported as stolen to the State police in
the State in which the vehicle was to have been
returned. However, vehicle theft does not include the
removal of component parts, accessories, or personal
belongings from a motor vehicle which is not moved.

S544.5 General requirements for reports.

(a) Each insurer to which this part applies shall
submit a report annually not later than October 25,
beginning on October 25, 1986. The report shall con-
tain the information required by S544.6 of this part for
the calendar year preceding the year in which the
report is filed (e.g., the report due by October 25, 1988,
shall contain the required information for the 1987
calendar year).

(b) Each report required by this part must:

(1) Have a heading preceding its text that includes
the words "Insurer Report";

(2) Identify the insurer, including all subsidiary
companies, on whose behalf the report is submitted,
and the designated agent, if any, submitting the report
or that will submit further documents to complete the
report;

(3) Identify the State or States in which the insurer
did business during the reporting period;

(4) State the full name and title of the official
responsible for preparing the report, and the address
of the insurer;

(5) Identify the reporting period covered by the
report;

(6) Be written in the English language;

(7) Include a glossary defining all acronyms and
terms of art used in the report, unless those acronyms
and terms of art are defined immediately after they
first appear in the report;

(8) Be submitted in three copies to: Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590; and

(9) If the insurer wishes to submit certain infor-
mation under a claim of confidentiality, be submitted
in accordance with Part 512 of this chapter.

S544.6 Contents of insurer reports.

(aXl) In the case of insurers that issue motor vehi-
cle insurance policies, provide the information speci-
fied in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section for
each State in which the insurer, including any subsidi-
ary, did business during the reporting period if the in-
surer is listed in Appendix A, or for each State listed
after the insurer's name if the insurer is listed in Ap-
pendix B.

[(2) In the case of a motor vehicle rental or leasing
company listed in Appendix C, provide the information
specified in paragraphs (c), (dX2Xiv), and (g) of this sec-
tion for each vehicle type listed in paragraph (b) of this
section, for each State in which the company, includ-
ing any licensee, franchisee, or subsidiary, did business
during the reporting period. The information for each
listed company shall include all relevant information
from any licensee, franchisee, or subsidiary. (55 F.R.
25606— June 22, 1990. Effective: July 23, 1990)]

(b) For each of the following vehicle types, provide
the information specified in paragraphs (c) through (g)
of this section for all vehicles of that type insiu-ed by
the insurer during the reporting period—

(1) Passenger cars.

(2) Multipurpose passenger vehicles.

(3) Light trucks.

(4) Heavy trucks.

(5) Motorcycles.

(cXl) List the total number of vehicle thefts for ve-
hicles manufactured in the 1983 or subsequent model
years, subdivided into model year, model, make, and
line, for this type of motor vehicle.

(2) List the total number of recoveries for vehicles
manufactured in the 1983 or subsequent model years,
subdivided into model year, model, make, and line, for
this type of motor vehicle. Beginning with the report
due not later than October 25, 1987, for each of these
subdivided number of recoveries, indicate how many
were:

(i) Recoveries intact;

(ii) Recoveries-in-whole; and

(iii) Recoveries-in-part.

(3) Explain how the theft and recovery data set
forth in response to paragraphs (cXl) and (2) of this sec-
tion were obtained by the insurer, and the steps taken
by the insurer to ensure that these data are accurate
and timely.

(Rev. 6f22/90)

PART 544-2

(4) Explain the use made by the insurer of the in-
formation set forth in response to paragraphs (cXl) and
(2) of this section, including the extent to which such
information is reported to national, public, and private
entities (e.g., the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
State and local police). If such reports are made, state
the frequency and timing of the reporting.

(dXl) Provide the rating characteristics used by the
insurer to establish the premiums it charges for com-
prehensive insurance coverage for this type of motor
vehicle and the premium penalties for vehicles of this
type considered by the insurer as more likely to be
stolen. This requirement may be satisfied by furnish-
ing the pertinent sections of the insurer's rate
manual(s).

(2) Provide the loss data used by the insurer to es-
tablish the premiums it charges for comprehensive in-
surance coverage for this type of motor vehicle and the
premium penalties it charges for vehicles of this type
it considers as more likely to be stolen. This require-
ment may be satisfied by providing the following:
(i) The total number of comprehensive insurance
claims paid by the insurer during the reporting
period;

(iiXA) The total number of claims listed in (dX2Xi)
of this section that arose from a theft;

(B) The insurer's best estimate of the per-
centage of the number listed in paragraph (dX2XiiXA)
of this section that arose from vehicle thefts, and an
explanation of the basis for the estimate;

(iii) The total amount (in dollars) paid out by
the insurer during the reporting period in response
to all the comprehensive claims filed by its policy-
holders;

(ivXA) In the case of insurers listed in Appen-
dix A or B, provide—

(1) The total amount (in dollars) listed under
paragraph (dX2Xiii) of this section paid out by the
insurer as a result of theft; and

(2) The insurer's best estimate of the
percentage of the dollar total listed in paragraph
(dX2XivXAXl) of this section that arose from vehicle
thefts, and an explanation of the basis for the
estimate;

(B) In the case of other insurers subject to
this part, the net losses suffered by the insurer (in
dollars) as a result of vehicle theft;

(vXA) The total amount (in dollars) re-
covered by the insurer from the sale of recovered
vehicles, major parts recovered not attached to the
vehicle superstructure, or other recovered parts,
after the insurer had made a payment listed under
paragraph (dX2Xiv) of this section;

(B) The insurer's best estimate of the percen-
tage of the dollar total listed in paragraph (dX2XvXA)
of this section that arose from vehicle thefts, and an
explanation of the basis for the estimate;

(vi) An identification of the vehicles for which the
insurer charges comprehensive insurance premium
penalties, because the insurer considers such vehi-
cles as more likely to be stolen;

(vii) The total number of comprehensive insur-
ance claims paid by the insurer for each vehicle risk
grouping identified in paragraph (dX2Xvi) of this sec-
tion during the reporting period, and the total
amount (in dollars) paid out by the insurer in response
to each of the listed claims totals; and

(viii) The maximum premium adjustments (as a
percentage of the basic comprehensive insurance
premium) made for each vehicle risk grouping iden-
tified in paragraph (dX2Xvi) of this section during the
reporting period, as a result of the insurer's
determination that such vehicles are more likely to
be stolen.

(3) Identify any other rating rules and plans used
by the insurer to establish its comprehensive insurance
premiums and premium penalties for m.otor vehicles
it considers as more likely to be stolen, and explain how
such rating rules and plans are used to establish the
premiums and premium penalties.

(4) Explain the basis for the insurer's comprehen-
sive insurance premiums and the premium penalties
charged for motor vehicles it considers as more likely
to be stolen. This requirement may be satisfied by
providing the pertinent sections of materials filed with
State insurance regulatory officials and clearly indicat-
ing which information in those sections is being sub-
mitted in compliance with this paragraph.

(e) List each action taken by the insurer to reduce
the premiums it charges for comprehensive insurance
coverage because of a reduction in thefts of this type
of motor vehicle. For each action:

(1) State the conditions that must be satisfied to
receive such a reduction (e.g., installation of antitheft
device, marking of vehicle in accordance vdth theft
prevention standard, etc.);

(2) State the number of the insurer's policyholders
and the total number of vehicles insured by the insurer
that received this reduction; and

(3) State the difference in average comprehensive
insurance premiums for those policyholders that re-
ceived this reduction versus those policyholders that
did not receive the reduction.

(f) In the case of an insurer that offered a reduction
in its comprehensive insurance premiums for vehicles
equipped with antitheft devices, provide:

PART 544-3

(1) The specific criteria used by the insurer to de-
termine whether a vehicle is eligible for the reduction
(original equipment antitheft device, passive antitheft
device, etc.);

(2) The total number of vehicle thefts for vehicles
manufactured in the 1983 or subsequent model years
that received a reduction under each listed criterion;
and

(3) The total number of recoveries of vehicles
manufactured in the 1983 or subsequent model years that
received a reduction under each listed criterion. Begin-
ning with the report due not later than October 25,
1987, indicate how many of the total number of recov-
eries were—

(i) Recoveries intact

(ii) Recoveries-in-whole, and

(iii) Recoveries-in-part.

(gXl) List each action taken by the insurer to assist
in deterring or reducing thefts of motor vehicles. For
each action, describe the action and explain why the
insurer believed it would be effective in deterring or
reducing motor vehicle thefts.

(2Xi) State the insurer's policy regarding the use
of used parts to effect repairs paid for by the insurer
on vehicles it insures. Indicate whether the insurer
required, promoted, allowed, or forbade the use of
used parts in those repairs.

(ii) In the case of msurers requiring, promoting,
or allowing the use of used parts to make repairs paid
for by the insurer on vehicles it insures indicate the
precautions taken by or on behalf of the insurer to
identify the origin of those used parts.

S544.7 Incorporation by reference.

(a) In any report required by this part, an insurer
may incorporate by reference any document or portion
thereof previously filed with any Federal or State
agency or department within the past 4 years.

(b) An insurer that incorporates by reference a docu-
ment not previously submitted to the National High-
way Traffic Safety Administration shall append that
document or the pertinent sections of that document
to its report, and clearly indicate on the cover or first
page of the document or pertinent section the regula-
tory requirement in response to which the document
is being submitted.

(c) An insurer that incorporates by reference a docu-
ment shall clearly identify the document and the speci-
fic portions thereof sought to be incorporated, and, in
the case of a document previously submitted to the Na-
tional Highway Traffic Safety Administration, indicate
the date on which the document was submitted to the
Agency and the person whose signature appeared on
the document.

52 F.R. 59
January 2, 1987

PART 544-4

Appendix A

Issuers of Motor Vehicle Insurance Policies Subject to the Reporting
Requirements in Each State in Which They do Business

[Aetna Life and Casualty Group
Allstate Insurance Group
American Family Group
American International Group
California State Auto Association
CIGNA Group
CNA Insurance Group
Continental Group
Crum & Foster Companies
Farmers Insurance Group
Fireman's Fund Group
GEICO Corporation Group
Hartford Insurance Group
Liberty Mutual Group
Nationwide Group
Progressive Group
State Farm Group
Travelers Insurance Group
United States F&G Group
USAA Group]

(53 F.R. 35073— September 9, 1988. Effective: October 11, 1988)

(Rev. 9/9/88) PART 544-A-l

Appendix B

Issuers of Motor Vehicle Insurance Policies Subject to the Reporting
Requirements in Each State in Which They do Business

[Alfa Insurance Group (Alabama)]
Arnica Mutual Insurance Company (Rhode Island)
Auto Club of Michigan Group (Michigan)
Commercial Union Assurance Group (Maine)
[Concord Group Insurance Company (Vermont)]
Island Insurance Group (Hawaii)
Kentucky Farm Bureau Group (Kentucky)
Southern Farm Bureau Group (Mississippi)

(54 F.R. 46252— November 2, 1989. Effective: December 4, 1989)

(Rev. 11/2/89) PART544-B-1

[ Appendix C

Motor Vehicle Rental and Leasing Companies Subject to the
Reporting Requirements of Part 544

[Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc.

Automotive Rentals, Inc.

Avis Car Leasing-USA
(Subsidiary of Avis, Inc.)

Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.
(Subsidiary of Avis, Inc.)

Budget Rent A Car Corporation

Dollar Rent-A-Car
(Subsidiary of Systems Inc.)

Enterprise Fleets, Inc.
(Subsidiary of Enterprise Leasing Company)

GE Capital Fleet Services

Hertz Penske Truck Leasing, Inc.
(Subsidiary of Hertz Corporation)

Hertz Rent-A-Car
(Subsidiary of Hertz Corporation)

Lease Plan, USA

Lend Lease

McCullagh Leasing, Inc.

National Car Rental System, Inc.

Peterson, Howell & Heather, Inc.

Rent A Car Company
(Subsidiary of Enterprise Leasing Company)

Rent A Car Corporation
(Subsidiary of American International)

Ryder Truck Rental
(Both rental and leasing operations)

Security Pacific Credit Corporation

U-HauJ International, Inc.
(Subsidiary of AMERCO)

United States Fleet Leasing Inc.
(Subsidiary of Hertz Corporation, Leasing)

Wheels, Inc.
(55 F.R. 25606— June 22. 1990. Effective: July 23. 1990)1

(R.Y. 6/22/90) PART 544-C-l

PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE
SAFETY STANDARD NO. 110

Tire Selection and Rims

(Docket No. 87-12; Notice 3)

RIN 2127-AC18

ACTION: Final Rule.

SUMMARY: This notice amends Standard No. 110,
Tire Selection and Rims, and Standard No. 120, Tire
Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passen-
ger Cars, to permit new passenger cars, multipur-
pose passenger vehicles, and light trucks equipped
with passenger car tires to be equipped with a
non-pneumatic spare tire. These standards had re-
quired all new vehicles to be equipped with pneu-
matic tires. The notice also establishes requirements
requiring non-pneumatic tires to bear a label stating
that the tires are to be used only as a temporary
spare tire and only at limited speeds. It requires the
manufacturer to place a placard in the vehicle and
information in the owner's manual explaining the
proper use of these tires. In addition, the notice
establishes Standard No. 129, New Non-Pneumatic
Tires for Passenger Cars, which includes definitions
relevant to non-pneumatic tires and specifies perform-
ance, testing, and additional labeling requirements
for these tires. In particular, the new standard
contains performance requirements related to phys-
ical dimensions, lateral strength, strength (in verti-
cal loading), tire endurance, and high speed perform-
ance. The agency has determined that these
requirements provide the basic tests to ensure the
structural integrity of non-pneumatic tires. To en-
sure an even higher degiee of safety, a non-
pneumatic tire must be labeled for use only as a
temporary spare tire at limited speeds. NHTSA
believes that these performance requirements to-
gether with these labels ensure the safety of non-
pneumatic tires.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The rule is effective on August
20, 1990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110,

Tire Selection and Rims, (49 CFR §571.110) specifies

requirements for the .selection of tires to be used on

passenger cars. Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and

Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, (49
CFR §571.120) specifies similar requirements for
the selection of tires to be used on vehicles other
than passenger cars. The purpose of these standards
is to prevent tire overloading and to facilitate the
proper matching of a tire and rim to a vehicle. They
also require a vehicle manufacturer to place in each
new vehicle a placard bearing information to ensure
use at the proper inflation.

Section S4.1 of Standard No. 110 requires passen-
ger cars to be equipped with tires that meet the
requirements of §571.109, "New Pneumatic Tires-
Passenger Cars." (49 CFR §571.109). Section S5.1.1
of Standard No. 120 similarly requires vehicles other
than passenger cars to be equipped with pneumatic
tires that meet the requirements of Standard No.
109 or Standard No. 119 "New Pneumatic Tires for
Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars." (49 CFR
§571.119).

Standard No. 109 expressly applies only to new
pneumatic tires which it defines as "mechanical
device(s) . . . (that) contain the gas or fluid that
sustains the load." (emphasis added). The standard
specifies tire dimensions and laboratory test require-
ments for bead unseating resistance, tire strength
(in vertical loading), tire endurance, and high speed
performance; defines tire load ratings; and specifies
labeling requirements for new pneumatic tires used
on passenger cars.

The practical effect of Standard No. 109's applica-
bility to only pneumatic tires, together with Stan-
dard No. llO's requirement that passenger cars must
be equipped with tires that meet Standard No. 109's
requirements, is to prohibit any new passenger car
from being equipped with non-pneumatic tires. Sim-
ilarly, Standard Nos. 109, 119, and 120 together
prohibit any vehicle subject to Standard No. 120
from being equipped with non-pneumatic tires.

A non-pneumatic tire is a mechanical device
which serves the same function as a pneumatic tire.
That is, it transmits the vertical load and tractive
forces from the roadway to the vehicle and generates
the tractive forces that provide the directional con-

PART571; SllO-PRE 9

trol of the vehicle. However, the non-pneumatic tire
differs from the pneumatic tire in that the former
does not rely on air pressure or the containment of
any gas or fluid for providing those functions. A
non-pneumatic tire may be designed in many differ-
ent ways. For instance, it may be solid rubber to
which tread is attached; it may be part of an assem-
bly in which the wheel is attached to the tire and
tread; or it may contain the tread, tire, rim, and
wheel. Further, many different materials may be
used in constructing the tire assembly. Because
non-pneumatic tires present an emerging technol-
ogy, it is likely that tire manufacturers may develop
new designs and use materials that are currently
not known or contemplated.

In view of Standard No. 109's and Standard No.
llO's prohibition of tires other than pneumatic tires
on motor vehicles. General Motors (GM) petitioned
the agency to amend Standard No. 109 to allow
non-pneumatic spare tire assemblies for temporary
use on passenger cars. The petitioner suggested
performance requirements and test conditions for
non-pneumatic tires that would address characteris-
tics such as the endurance, high speed performance,
strength (in vertical loading), and lateral strength of
the non-pneumatic tire. In large part, GM used the
existing requirements in Standard No. 109 as a
guide for selecting the performance requirements
and test conditions for the requested amendment. It
changed the requirement and test related to the
bead unseating resistance, which specifically relates
to pneumatic tires, and also changed the test proce-
dure and strength requirements for the tire's ability
to withstand concentrated vertical loads. In addi-
tion, GM suggested certain labeling requirements
including a warning that the tires would be for
temporary use.

GM submitted its petition in connection with its
work with Uniroyal Goodrich Co. (Uniroyal) to de-
velop a spare non-pneumatic tire which it intends for
only temporary use. The petitioner believes that the
agency's adoption of its requested amendment would
reduce the weight and size of the spare tires used in
passenger cars, resulting in reduced costs, improved
reliability and servicability, and minor improve-
ments in fuel economy. Because a non-pneumatic
tire is not dependent on air pressure, it would not be
subject to problems associated with low inflation
pressure such as a blow out or bead unseating
during hard cornering.

On September 23, 1987, NHTSA issued a notice
announcing the gi-ant of GM's petition and request-
ing comments about non-pneumatic tires (52 FR
35740). The notice invited comment about what
I'equirements would be necessary to ensure the safe
use of a non-pneumatic tire. In response to that
notice, NHTSA received comments from various mo-

tor vehicle and tire manufacturers as well as the
Rubber Manufacturers Association. NHTSA consid-
ered each of these comments in developing a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) which it published
on April 7, 1989 (54 FR 14109).

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to amend Stan-
dard No. 110 to permit the use of non-pneumatic
tires on passenger cars, but only as a temporary
spare and to establish a new standard for non-
pneumatic tires. The notice requested comments
concerning whether Standard No. 129 should permit
the use of a non-pneumatic spare tire on light trucks
currently equipped with compact temporary spare
tires subject to Standard No. 109. As a general
proposition, the NPRM explained that in developing
the new safety standard, the agency desired to
formulate a generic one that would be applicable to
as many potential designs of non-pneumatic tires as
possible rather than one that was based on a specific
design, which might inadvertently restrict future
developments and skew innovations toward the ini-
tial design.

More specifically, the notice proposed three
amendments to Standard No. 110. First, it proposed
that section S4.1 be amended to allow passenger
cars to be equipped with a non-pneumatic spare tire.
Second, the notice proposed that Standard No. 110
contain additional labeling requirements and vehi-
cle placarding requirements explaining that such
tires should be used only as a spare tire on a
temporary basis at speeds not to exceed 50 mph.
Third, the notice proposed that safety information
about the use of a non-pneumatic tire be included in
the owner's manual of the passenger car.

The proposed new safety standard was Standard
No. 129, New Non-Pneumatic Tires for Passenger
Cars. According to the proposal, the new standard,
which was patterned after Standard No. 109, would
include definitions relevant to non-pneumatic tires
and specify performance requirements, testing pro-
cedures, and labeling requirements for these tires.
To regulate performance, the new standard would
contain performance requirements and tests related
to physical dimensions, lateral strength, strength (in
vertical loading), tire endurance, and high speed
performance. While the agency considered proposing
requirements related to additional factors such as
handling and braking, it tentatively determined
that the proposed requirements would adequately
ensure motor vehicle safety by providing the basic
tests necessary to ensure the structural integrity
and durability of non-pneumatic tires.

The NPRM also proposed to supplement the label-
ing requirements in Standard No. 110 by including
in Standard No. 129 labeling requirements similar

PART 571; SllO-PRE 10

to those set forth in section S4.3 of Standard No. 109
for size designation, load rating, rim size and type
designation, manufacturer or brand name, certifica-
tion, and the tire identification number. The notice
proposed to allow methods of marking other than
"molding," provided the marking was permanent
because the agency tentatively concluded that it
might be difficult to mold the required information
on some types of anticipated non-pneumatic tire
designs. The agency also tentatively concluded that
the temporary use and maximum speed labeling
requirements would provide an extra margin of
safety related to handling and braking. In addition,
the agency noted that compact pneumatic T-type
tires that are currently used as temporary spare
tires have been shown to be safe, even though they
are not subject to performance requirements beyond
those applicable to full size tires in Standard No.
109. The agency believed that in some respects this
comparison was relevant since, like the compact
T-type pneumatic tires, the non-pneumatic tires al-
lowed by these amendments would be limited to use
as temporary spare tires.

The agency tentatively concluded that the pro-
posed performance requirements, together with the
proposed labeling requirements, would remove a
restriction in the existing standards on technologi-
cal innovation while still ensuring that the new
non-pneumatic tires met the need for safety.

definition of a "non-pneumatic spare tire assembly",
which was defined as a device "intended for tempo-
rary use in place of one of the pneumatic tires and
rims that are fitted to a passenger car . . .", be
revised to state that the NPSTA be "in support of as
well as "in place of." According to the commenter,
this modification would allow future NPSTAs to be
fitted on tire and wheel assemblies without remov-
ing the deflated pneumatic tire. The agency has
decided not to adopt Michelin's suggestion which is
beyond the scope of the current proposal and its test
procedures. Further, the agency needs more informa-
tion about devices used "in support of a deflated
pneumatic tire, especially about the procedures for
testing them while they are mounted on a deflated
pneumatic tire. Therefore, NHTSA has decided not
to expand the definition as requested by Michelin.

Uniroyal suggested that the agency move the
definition of "rim" from the definition section (S3) to
the requirements section (S4.4). The agency has
decided not to adopt this suggestion which is unnec-
essary and contrary to standard regulatory drafting.
The agency notes that it is modifying the definition
of "rim" to "non-pneumatic rim" and "test rim" to
"non-pneumatic test rim." This change will help to
distinguish between conventional rims for pneu-
matic tires and rims for non-pneumatic tires. The
notice adopts this distinction throughout Standards
110, 120, and 129.

III. The Comments and the Agency Response
NHTSA received 13 comments in response to the
NPRM. In general, all commenters supported the
proposal to permit a vehicle to be equipped with a
non-pneumatic spare tire. The agency has consid-
ered the points in the comments in developing this
final rule. The commenters' significant points are
addressed below, along with the agency's response to
the comments. For the convenience of the reader,
this notice follows the regulatory text's order.

A. Proposal to Amend Standard Na 110

Definitions

The NPRM proposed to add definitions to para-
graph S3 for "non-pneumatic spare tire assembly,"
"non-pneumatic tire," "non-pneumatic tire assem-
bly." "rim," and "wheel center member" The agency
intended these definitions to be general in order to
better ensure a generic standard appropriate to any
type of non-pneumatic tire. These definitions were
patterned after analogous definitions in NHTSA's
safety standard for pneumatic tires and SAE Recom-
mended Practice J328a, "Wheels— Passenger Cars-
Performance Requirements and Test Procedures."

The agency received two comments about the
proposed definitions. Michelin requested that the

Labeling Requirements

The NPRM proposed labeling requirements for
non-pneumatic spare tires and tire assemblies in
section S6 of Standard No. 110. The proposal speci-
fied that the information had to be "permanently
molded, stamped, or otherwise permanently marked
into or onto both sides" and not be smaller than a
given size. The proposal explained that it was pro-
posing to allow different methods of permanent
marking in addition to molding, the labeling method
required in Standard No. 109, because it might be
difficult to mold the required information into or
onto some non-pneumatic tire and assembly designs.
It also proposed that the labeling on each non-
pneumatic spare tire would state "FOR TEMPO-
RARY USE ONLY," "MAXIMUM 50 M.RH.," and
the size designation(s) of the pneumatic tire(s) that
the non-pneumatic tire was intended to replace.
This notice will respond separately to each of the
commenters concerns.

Uniroyal requested the agency to modify the re-
quirement that non-pneumatic spare tires be "per-
manently molded, stamped, or otherwise perma-
nently marked into or onto both sides" to allow a
permanently affixed label to contain the required
information. It specifically stated that paper or
plastic labels should be allowed as an alternative

PART 571; SllO-PRE 11

technique to comply with S6. NHTSA notes that the
key criteria related to informational marking re-
quirements is that the message be useful and under-
standable for the lifetime of the tire. Thus, a mes-
sage must be permanent, legible, and conspicuous.
After reviewing Uniroyal's request, the agency be-
lieves that affixing a permanent label on a non-
pneumatic tire would not meet these ends. The
agency is concerned that a paper label would not be
permanent given that it would be exposed to envi-
ronmental factors such as rain, snow, road salt, car
wash brushes and detergents. The agency is espe-
cially concerned that there is nothing to prevent a
paper label from disintegrating when exposed to the
elements or being rubbed off by a curb. Similarly,
there is nothing to prevent the printing on the label
from becoming illegible. The agency therefore has
decided not to permit a label as an alternative
technique to comply with S6.

Section S6(a) contained a proposal that each non-
pneumatic spare tire be labeled "FOR TEMPO-
RARY USE ONLY." The NPRM explained that this
mandatory warning would be in the interest of
motor vehicle safety by encouraging the limited use
of non-pneumatic tires as a replacement for T-type
temporary spare tires. The agency further believed
such labeling would provide consumers with valu-
able guidance about this new type of tire. All com-
menters mentioning the proposal to require tempo-
rary use labeling agreed that it had merit given the
current level of technology and agreed that the
extended use of a non-pneumatic tire would be
inappropriate.

Section S6(b) contained a proposal that each non-
pneumatic spare tire be labeled "MAXIMUM 50
M.P.H." The NPRM stated that this maximum speed
warning, like the temporary use warning, would be
in the interest of safety. The notice further explained
that the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE)
Regulation 64 contains a maximum speed warning
of 80 kilometers per hour (49.7 m.p.h.) in response to
concerns over the potential for some degradations in
the braking and handling performance of a vehicle
fitted with a temporary spare tire. The notice con-
tinued that even though these concerns did not
directly relate to a tire's structural failure, the
agency believed that a maximum speed warning
would improve the total safety of the vehicle because
any potential problems associated with handling,
control, stability, and braking are typically exacer-
bated at faster speeds. It also stated that a maxi-
mum speed warning would serve to deter some
motorists from driving with a non-pneumatic tire on
an extended basis.

NHTSA received four comments on the proposal to
require a maximum speed warning of 50 m.p.h.
While Goodyear and Firestone supported the pro-

posal, Uniroyal and General Motors opposed it, stat-
ing that it should be at the discretion of the vehicle
manufacturer, the entity responsible for the vehicle's
braking, handling, and other performance charac-
teristics. Uniroyal stated that such a requii-ement is
unnecessary since T-type pneumatic spares are not
required to have such labeling. It also commented
that the maximum speed labeling in ECE Regula-
tion 64 is inapplicable to the non-pneumatic spare,
since the non-pneumatic tire would be subject to
more stringent performance requirements. GM com-
mented that a maximum speed labeling requirement
was not warranted, stating that "there is no generic
technical or safety reason for it," a non-pneumatic
spare tire is not different from current temporary
compact spare tires, the maximum recommended
speed of 50 m.p.h. might unduly alarm some drivers,
and consumers might misinterpret the "50 m.ph.
speed" label as a "50 mile use" restriction.

After reviewing the maximum speed labeling re-
quirement in light of these comments, NHTSA con-
tinues to believe that such a requirement would be
in the interest of safety. The agency notes that
according to information provided by Uniroyal, there
are some differences in performance characteristics
between non-pneumatic spare tires and pneumatic
spares. For instance, the non-pneumatic tire tends to
"nibble," i.e., generate lateral forces when crossing a
longitudinal road irregularity. While differences
with conventional pneumatic spare tires are not
significant enough to justify a prohibition of non-
pneumatic tires, these relative shortcomings, which
might alarm a driver unfamiliar with them, appear
to be exacerbated at gi'eater speeds. Until more
experience is gained with non-pneumatic tires, the
agency believes that GM's claim that there is no
safety reason to justify maximum speed labeling is
premature. The agency notes that GM included a 50
m.p.h. maximum speed marking on its pneumatic
temporary spare tire for the first five years after its
introduction, suggesting that a newly introduced
temporary tire design should contain such a maxi-
mum speed warning. Based on the above consider-
ations, the agency concludes that to satisfy the Vehicle
Safety Act's mandate, the 50 m.p.h. maximum speed
marking must be a mandatory requirement and not be
left to the manufacturers' discretion.

Section S6(c) of Standard No. 110 contained a
proposal that the non-pneumatic tire be labeled with
the "size designation(s) of the pneumatic tires that
this non-pneumatic tire spare assembly is intended
to replace or, at the manufacturer's option, capable
of replacing." All those who commented on this
provision opposed it, stating that the requirement
could result in lengthy information that might con-
fuse consumers. For instance, a consumer might
mistakenly conclude that a 15 inch non-pneumatic

PART 571; SllO-PRE 12

tire could replace any 15 inch pneumatic tire. They
claimed that this incorrect assumption could be
dangerous given the potential for many vehicle
specific non-pneumatic tire and tire assembly de-
signs. In place of this proposal, Uniroyal, Firestone,
and GM suggested that the tires be labeled with a
vehicle manufacturer's part number, with GM rec-
ommending a "non-pneumatic spare tire identifying
code" (e.g., "ABC") as an alternative. The State of
Connecticut recommended that the non-pneumatic
spare tire be labeled to indicate specifically the
vehicle(s) on which it is intended to be used. In
contrast, Goodyear and Uniroyal criticized requiring
vehicle specific marking, stating that the labeling
on a tire with multiple vehicle applications could be
lengthy, confusing, and thus possibly dangerous.

After reviewing these comments, NHTSA has de-
termined that instead of designations of the pneu-
matic tires replaced, a "non-pneumatic tire identify-
ing code (NPTIC)" should be required to identify a
non-pneumatic tire. Like the tire size designation of
a pneumatic tire, the NPTIC's purpose is to provide
consumers information about the proper application
of a non-pneumatic tire. The agency believes that
this method of identification is superior to requiring
a non-pneumatic tire to be labeled with the pneu-
matic tire size or the non-pneumatic spai'e tire's
specific vehicle application{s) given the potential for
many different non-pneumatic tire designs. A man-
ufacturer may still mark specific vehicle applica-
tion! s) on the tire provided that the additional infor-
mation did not obscure or confuse the required
information. Manufacturers are urged, therefore, to
avoid unnecessarily long vehicle application infor-
mation or unnecessarily long identifying codes.
Based on the above considerations, the manufac-
turer will be required to label a non-pneumatic spare
tire or spare tire assembly with a NPTIC, which is
defined in section S3 of Standard 129. A manufac-
turer also is required to place the NPTIC on the
vehicle placard and in the owner's manual. In addi-
tion, the NPTIC will replace any reference in the
regulatory text to the "non-pneumatic tire size des-
ignation."

Vehicle Placarding
Section S7 of the Standard No. 110 contained pro-
posed requirements for vehicle placards. Under the
proposal, the placard would state, in letters not less
than 1.0 inch high, "CAUTION-USE AS SPARE
TIRE," and in letters not less than 0.5 inches high,
"FOR TEMPORARY USE ONLY," "MAXIMUM 50
M.PH.," and the size designation of the pneumatic tire
to be replaced. The agency believed that this informa-
tion would help explain that a non-pneumatic tire

should be used only as a spare tire at limited speeds for
a limited period of time.

Volkswagen commented that the size of the letter-
ing proposed in S7.1 would result in a placard that
was too large to easily fit in the trunk. Thus, it
requested that the standard require the words to be
"legible and conspicuous," or in the alternative, to
change the 1.0 inch requirement to /« inch and the
'/2 inch requirement to '/i inch. NHTSA rejects the
first suggestion because the Vehicle Safety Act re-
quires its requirements to be stated in objective
terms. However, it has decided to adopt the re-
quested size reductions which the agency believes
will be less intrusive but still conspicuous.

GM and Uniroyal opposed the vehicle placarding
requirements as being unnecessary and costly. GM
based its opposition to these requirements on its
earlier arguments against the labeling require-
ments. NHTSA believes that the placarding require-
ments are necessary for the reasons provided in
support of the labeling requirements in S6. The
agency also disagrees that placarding would be un-
reasonably costly, especially since most vehicle
trunks currently contain a placard explaining the
use of jacks and spare tires. The information re-
quired by this provision could be easily added to that
placard. Even for a vehicle without such a placard,
the cost of adding a placard would be minimal.

Uniroyal claimed that the woi'ds "Danger" and
"Caution" might unduly alarm consumers. NHTSA
notes that the placard's purpose is to ensure that a
person installing a non-pneumatic spare tire on a
vehicle is made aware of its proper use and that it
should be used only as a spare tire, even if he or she
fails to notice the labeling on the tire itself Because
the word "caution" is not essential to this purpose
and some consumers might be unduly alarmed by
this word, the agency is modifying the placard to
state "IMPORTANT-USE OF SPARE TIRE"
rather than "CAUTION-USE OF SPARE TIRE."

Supplementary Information
Section S7.2 of Standard No. 110 proposed that the
owner's manual of a passenger car equipped with a
non-pneumatic spare tire contain information ex-
plaining its proper use. This information, which was
patterned after ECE Regulation 64, included in-
structions that a non-pneumatic tire should be used
only as a spare tire at limited speeds for a limited
period of time, that the driver should drive with
caution when using a non-pneumatic tire, that he or
she should replace it with a pneumatic tire and rim
as soon as possible, and that a vehicle should not be
operated with more than one non-pneumatic tire at
one time.

Uniroyal and GM objected to the proposal to
require an owner's manual to contain information

PART571;S110-PRE 13

about a non-pneumatic tire's use. Uniroyal restated
its view that non-pneumatic tires should not be
singled out for informational requirements with
which pneumatic spare tires are not required to
comply. GM stated that requiring warnings on the
tire, on a placard, and in the owner's manual was a
"costly redundancy" that would discourage the use
of such tires.

NHTSA continues to believe that the require-
ments in S7.2 provide valuable safety information
about non-pneumatic tires, a new type of tire design
with which consumers will be less familiar than
temporary pneumatic tii-es. As for GM's criticism
that this requirement would result in a "costly
redundancy," the agency believes that requiring the
safety information to appear in each of the proposed
locations provides a safety benefit. It is reasonable to
label the tire since a motorist must handle the tire
itself before installing it on the vehicle. It is also
reasonable to require the information on a placard in
the trunk near where the spare tire is stored, be-
cause a motorist may not notice the information on
the tii'e, especially at night or during inclement
weather. Similarly, it is reasonable to supplement
these brief messages with more detailed information
in the owner's manual, since a motorist typically
consults his or her owner's manual when seeking
detailed information about vehicle usage.

In response to GM's concern that these warnings
might discourage motorists from using non-
pneumatic tires, the agency has modified some of the
wording. As with the placard's wording, the agency
has substituted the word "IMPORTANT" for
"CAUTION" to make the label less threatening. It
has also changed S7.2(b) to state "An instruction to
drive carefully when the non-pneumatic tire is in
use, and to install the proper pneumatic tire and rim
at the first reasonable opportunity." The agency
believes that this wording will continue to convey
guidance concerning the proper use of non-
pneumatic tires while helping to avoid arousing
"undue concern."

B. Standard Na 129

Application
The agency proposed in section S2 of Standard No.
129 that the new standard apply to "new temporary
spare non-pneumatic tires for use on passenger
cars." In other words, the proposal, in conjunction
with the proposed amendment to Standard No. 110,
would permit a non-pneumatic tire to be used as a
spare tire on passenger cars. The NPRM explained
that the petitioner only sought to allow non-
pneumatic tires as a replacement for T-type pneu-
matic temporary tires on passenger cars. It further
noted that 95 percent of T-type tires were used on

passenger cars with the remaining 5 percent on light
trucks. The agency requested comments concerning
whether Standard No. 129 should permit the use of a
non-pneumatic spare tire on light trucks currently
equipped with compact temporary spare tires subject
to Standard No. 109.

No commenter supported limiting the use of non-
pneumatic tires to passenger cars. Instead, Chrysler,
Goodyear, Uniroyal, RMA, Firestone, and GM com-
mented that the agency should extend the applica-
bility of Standard No. 129 to permit use of non-
pneumatic spare tires on light trucks and similar
vehicles that use passenger car temporary tires. For
instance, Uniroyal stated that the agency should not
restrict the non-pneumatic spare tire to passenger
cars given that many new light trucks and vans are
equipped with passenger car tires.

NHTSA agrees with the comments and has de-
cided to permit the use of a non-pneumatic spare tire
on any vehicle that is equipped with passenger car
tires. Accordingly, the agency is revising section
S5.1.1 to permit the use of a non-pneumatic tempo-
rary spare tire assembly on vehicles subject to Stan-
dard No. 120 such as light trucks provided that the
vehicle is equipped with passenger car tires. In
addition, amendments, like those to Standai'd No.
110, are made to Standard No. 120 to include new
informational requirements for tire labeling, vehicle
placarding, and the owner's manual.

Definitions

Commenters made suggestions to modify certain
proposed definitions. Firestone recommended that
the portion of the definition for "non-pneumatic
tire" stating that the tire "does not rely on the
containment of any gas or fluid" be changed to state
that the tire "does not primarily" rely on such
containment (emphasis added). NHTSA has decided
to reject Firestone's suggestion and adopt the defini-
tion as proposed because the suggested change
would inject uncertainty about whether a tire should
be classified as pneumatic or non-pneumatic. For
instance, it might be ambiguous whether a pneumatic
tire with "run-flat" capability is a non-pneumatic tire
under Firestone's suggested definition.

Goodyear, Uniroyal, and RMA suggested that the
definition for "tread" be changed by deleting refer-
ence to the tread's being "intended to wear away
during normal use of the tire." NHTSA agrees with
this suggestion which will make the definition for
"tread" in Standard No. 129 consistent with the one
in Standard No. 109.

Uniroyal suggested that the definition for
"maximum tire width," should be changed so that it
uses the phrase "exterior edges" in place of "outer
and inner surfaces" which appears in reference to

PART 571; SllO-PRE 14

"carcass" and "tread." The agency has decided to
adopt the suggested wording which it believes pro-
vides a more generic and thus more appropriate
definition.

The agency is introducing a definition for "non-
pneumatic tire identification code (NPTIC)" in re-
sponse to comments that a non-pneumatic tire
should not be labeled with the size of the pneumatic
tire it is intended to replace, but should be labeled
with other identifying information. In the section
above about labeling requirements, the notice ex-
plains that the agency agrees with the commenters
that the NPTIC would be in the interests of safety.
The reader should refer to that section for a more
extensive discussion of this issue.

As discussed earlier, the terms "rim" and "test
rim" have been changed to "non-pneumatic rim"
and "non-pneumatic test rim." This will help distin-
guish between rims used with pneumatic tires and
those used with non-pneumatic tires. Corresponding
changes have been made throughout the regulatory
text.

Performance Requirements and Testing Procedures
in Standard Na 129

General Considerations
The NPRM proposed certain performance require-
ments and testing procedures for non-pneumatic
tires. In developing a proposed standard for non-
pneumatic tires, the agency reviewed the petition,
the docket comments responding to the agency's
request for comments, and the purpose for and
mechanics of the requirements and tests for pneu-
matic tires in Standard No. 109. As a result of this
analysis, the agency proposed the following require-
ments which it believed would ensure the safety of
non-pneumatic tires. These included a lateral
strength requirement instead of Standard No. 109's
bead unseating requirement; and requirements for
strength (in vertical loading), tire endurance, and
high speed performance with modifications to take
into account a non-pneumatic tire's lack of air pres-
sure. The agency also proposed requirements related
to the non-pneumatic tire assembly's size and con-
struction, load rating, and a tread wear indicator
NHTSA tentatively concluded that the lateral
strength, strength (in vertical loading), endurance,
and high speed requirements would assure the struc-
tural integrity and durability of a non-pneumatic
tire. The agenc>' further believed that these perform-
ance requirements together with the proposed label-
ing requirements explaining that a non-pneumatic
tire should be used only as a temporary spare tire
and at limited speeds would assure their safety.
Therefore, it decided not to propose additional tests
beyond those equivalent to the ones in Stan-

dard No. 109. The agency's consideration of com-
ments addressing these factors will be discussed
separately.

Lateral Strength Performance Requirements

Section 84.2.2.3 of Standard No. 129 proposed
requirements related to the lateral strength of a
non-pneumatic tire. Such a tire would be required to
show no visual evidence of tread or carcass separa-
tion, cracking, or chunking at forces comparable to
those specified in Standard No. 109's bead unseating
test for compact temporary pneumatic tires. The
agency explained that the bead unseating test is
intended, in part, to evaluate the loss of air of a
tubeless pneumatic tire. In that regard, it would not
be helpful in evaluating the lateral strength of a
non-pneumatic tire. Nevertheless, because the bead
unseating test also evaluates a pneumatic tire's
resistance to lateral forces, the agency believed that
a comparable test for non-pneumatic tires would be
beneficial in determining their structural integrity.

The NPRM explained that GM, in its petition,
recommended adopting the same test device used in
the bead unseating test of pneumatic tires in Stan-
dard No. 109. The agency rejected this recommended
test fixture because the unseating "blocks" might be
inappropriate for other non-pneumatic tire designs
and thus would be too specific to be included in a
generic standard. Instead, the agency proposed a
lateral strength test device that it believed was
generic and appropriate for any anticipated non-
pneumatic tire design. The proposed test block was
patterned after a standard barrier type curb defined
by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in its publica-
tion, "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways
and Streets— 1984." The proposed test was intended
to evaluate the strength of a non-pneumatic tire in
response to loads that would result from contact with
a curb or similar road feature. The agency sought
comments concerning the design of the proposed test
device, test procedure, and performance require-
ments intended to evaluate the lateral strength of
non-pneumatic tires.

Goodyear requested that the non-pneumatic tires
not be subject to a lateral strength test, claiming
that such a test was unnecessary and inappropriate.
It also claimed that the intent of Standard No. 109's
bead unseating test is solely "air retention," as
evidenced by its application to tubeless but not
tubed pneumatic tires.

NHTSA disagrees with Goodyear's comments and
believes that the lateral strength requirement will
effectively measure a non-pneumatic tire's resis-
tance to lateral loads. The agency believes that this
test will also help evaluate the possibility of the
tire's separation from the rim or wheel center mem-

PART571;S110-PRE 15

ber or the tire's "cracking," "chunking," or similar
damage. The agency notes that the reason that
Standard No. 109's bead unseating test is applied to
tubeless tires only is because that failure mode is
unique to tubeless pneumatic tires. Thus, its appli-
cation to tubed pneumatic tires would be unneces-
sary and inappropriate.

Uniroyal, RMA, and Firestone each recommended
that the lateral test force block be made lighter and
smaller to make testing easier and safer. The lateral
force test block shown in Figure 2 and referenced in
S5.2, would have weighed 120 pounds and have been
6.5 inches in height, 14 inches in depth, and 18
inches in width. Uniroyal commented that the
block's depth could be reduced by 7 inches which
would reduce the block's weight by over 50 percent.
Firestone stated that the width should be retained to
ensure that the test block would envelop the side
wall of each tire.

After reviewing these comments, NHTSA believes
that the test block size can be reduced to facilitate
testing without adversely affecting the test proce-
dure's effectiveness. In particular, the agency is
adopting Uniroyal's recommendation to reduce the
depth by 7 inches by removing 3^2 inches from each
end of the block and to reduce the height by remov-
ing one inch from the bottom of the block. After
reviewing Firestone's concerns about the block's
"envelopment" of a non-pneumatic spare tire, the
agency concludes that it is necessary to widen the
test block to 23 inches. The agency calculates that
these changes will reduce the test block's weight to
approximately 55 pounds, a 53 percent reduction.

Section S5.2 of the NPRM also proposed test
requirements related to a non-pneumatic tire's lat-
eral strength. Section S5.2.2.1 specified distances
between the test block and the tire being tested.
Uniroyal recommended that the agency add another
distance expressed as "B = A - 1," explaining that
without this modification certain tires would not
pass the proposed requirement due to immediate
contact with the wheel rim or other member. Thus,
in anticipation of future non-pneumatic tire designs
with a section height of less than 2 inches above the
wheel rim or center member, the agency is including
the additional distance requested by Uniroyal.

Vertical Strength Requirements
NHTSA proposed a strength test in 85.3 of Stan-
dard No. 129 that was intended to measure the tire's
ability to resist concentrated vertical loads. The
proposed test would have required a cylindrical steel
plunger to be forced into the non-pneumatic tire at a
rate of two inches per minute. The tester would then
have evaluated the breaking energy for each test
point in terms of inch pounds.

In the NPRM, the agency considered also propos-

ing a "cleat" test, like the one suggested in GM's
petition, which would have required a non-
pneumatic tire to withstand a load exerted by a
"cleat." This "cleat" would be '/i inch thick with the
edge, that is forced against the tread of the non-
pneumatic tire, rounded with '/i inch radius, and the
"cleat" would be one inch wider than the non-
pneumatic tire's tread width. The agency tentatively
rejected the cleat device because it believed that the
plunger test would better simulate real world haz-
ai'ds and because the petitioner did not provide
sufficient documentation in support of its test de-
vice. The agency expressly requested comments on
both the plunger test and the cleat test.

Goodyear provided extensive comments in opposi-
tion to any vertical strength test requirement. It
argued that the main concern addressed by the "tire
strength" requirement in Standard No. 109 is punc-
ture resistance (i.e., the integi'ity of the air chamber
in resistance to vertical forces exerted by nails and
similar penetrating objects). It believed that such a
concern was not applicable to a non-pneumatic tire.
Alternatively, Goodyear stated that if a strength test
were deemed necessary, then GM's cleat test would
be more appropriate because it evaluates a non-
pneumatic tire's capability to withstand loading
from curbs, potholes, or railroad tracks. While
Uniroyal, RMA, Firestone, and GM also stated that
the cleat test would be superior to a plunger test, no
commenter supported the plunger test.

NHTSA continues to believe that a vertical strength
test is necessary to evaluate a non-pneumatic tire's
structm-al integrity. However, after reevaluating the
proposal in light of the comments, the agency agi'ees
that a cleat test, similar to the one requested in GM's
petition, would better evaluate the real world prob-
lems that will most likely cause a non-pneumatic tire
to experience a structural failure.

The agency notes that the plunger test used in
Standard No. 109 is well suited for evaluating the
energy absoi'bing capability and structural integrity
of a pneumatic tire under conditions of maximum
deformation. The plunger pushing against the cen-
ter of the pneumatic tire's tread will deflect the tire
to the maximum extent possible before forcing the
tire against the rim. However, the cleat test would be
inapplicable for a pneumatic tire which would expe-
rience a "pneumatic" failure when the tire's side-
wall would be pinched against the rim flanges, long
before the energy absorbing capability or structural
integi'ity of the tire could be tested adequately.

In contrast, the situation is reversed for non-
pneumatic tires. The "concentrated" type of load
used in the plunger test could lead to a "puncture"
(i.e., penetration by the plunger) of a non-pneumatic
tire, but would not lead to a "pneumatic" failui-e. For

PART 571; SllO-PRE 16

instance, Uniroyal, stated that its non-pneumatic
tire continued to perform without any problems after
it was "punctured" by several nails. The agency
further notes that there is nothing inherent in a
non-pneumatic tire's design that would be expected
to lead to failure as the result of a particular type of
impact. Based on these considerations, the agency
believes that a cleat test that places stress on the
entire cross section of a non-pneumatic tire appears
to better address real world hazards to which such
tires would be vulnerable than would a plunger type
test.

As for the measurement of a non-pneumatic tire's
strength, NHTSA believes that such a tire should be
capable of absorbing energy at a level comparable to
the pneumatic temporary tires that it is intended to
replace. The NPRM proposed in S4.2.2.4 that the
appropriate minimum breaking energy would be
1,950 inch pounds for tires with load ratings below
880 pounds and 2,600 inch pounds for tires with load
ratings 880 pounds or above.

Uniroyal recommended that S4.2.2.4 be amended
so that the minimum breaking energy would be 525
inch pounds for tires with load ratings below 880
pounds and 700 inch pounds for load ratings of 880
pounds or above. After reviewing Uniroyal's exten-
sive comments in support of the reduced energy
levels, NHTSA still believes that the proposed levels
are appropriate to ensure a non-pneumatic tire's
ability to withstand road hazards. The agency notes
that the proposed energy levels are more comparable
to the energy levels that a pneumatic temporary
spare tire is required to withstand. Given the agen-
cy's belief that it is appropriate to require the
non-pneumatic tires to be capable of absorbing en-
ergy at a level comparable to the pneumatic tempo-
rary spare tires that they are intended to replace,
the agency has decided to adopt the enei'gy levels as
proposed rather than to adopt Uniroyal's suggested
energy levels. The agency's review of Uniroyal's data
further indicates that the higher energy levels will
better protect against real world hazards.

After reviewing S4. 2.2.4, NHTSA has decided to
modify its language related to a non-pneumatic tire's
failure. As proposed, this section stated "Each tire
shall meet the requirements for minimum breaking
energ>' when tested in accordance with S5.3 to the
strength requirements . . . ." Because a non-
pneumatic tire is unlikely to "break," the agency
has decided to adopt the statement in the petition
and express the requirement in terms of "no visual
evidence of tread or carcass separation, cracking, or
chunking." The agency notes that this will be con-
sistent with the requirements for lateral strength,
tire endurance, and high speed performance, which
are all expressed in this manner. As a result, the

title of the table "Breaking Energy" will be changed
to "Minimum Energy Level."

Other Performance Requirements
The NPRM proposed requirements for tire endur-
ance in section S4.2.2.5 and high speed performance
in Section S4.2.2.6. The proposals, which were pat-
terned after the requirements in Standard No. 109,
were intended to determine the structural integrity
and durability of the tire under accelerated labora-
tory conditions. The agency received no comments
about these tests and has decided to adopt them as
proposed.

In the NPRM, the agency decided not to propose
additional performance requirements explaining its
tentative conclusion that the proposed requirements
together with the labeling requirements would be
adequate to ensure motor vehicle safety. In response
to the 1987 request for comments, commenters who
expressed an opinion on the matter all stated that no
additional performance requirements were neces-
sary. Similarly, in response to the NPRM, no com-
menter recommended requiring additional perform-
ance requirements. After reviewing the matter, the
agency is reaffirming its tentative conclusion that
the performance requirements, as proposed, to-
gether with the labeling requirements, will ensure
safety and thus is not requiring any additional
performance requirements.

Labeling Requirements in Standard 129
As explained earlier in this notice, the agency is
adopting new labeling requirements in S6 of Stan-
dard No. 110 and S8 of Standard No. 120. The reader
should refer to the discussions in earlier sections of
this notice about such issues as a label's perma-
nency, information to be provided about the tire's
temporary use and maximum speed, and the tire size
labeling/non-pneumatic tii-e identification code.

In addition to those requirements, the NPRM
proposed certain other labeling requirements for
non-pneumatic tires. Most of these proposed i-equire-
ments were patterned after the labeling require-
ments set forth in section S4.3 of Standard No. 109
for size designation, load rating, rim size and type
designation, manufacturer or brand name, certifica-
tion, and tire identification number.

GM requested that a load rating not be required
on a non-pneumatic tire, claiming this information
might cause a motorist to use a non-pneumatic spare
tire that would be inappropriate for a vehicle. The
agency disagi'ees with the comment, noting that a
tire's load rating is a straight-forward item of infor-
mation that has been required on pneumatic tires
without confusing consumers. The agency believes
this information is necessary for safety because
some vehicle owners have been known to increase a

PART 571; SllO-PRE 17

vehicle's load capacity by the addition of "helper
springs" or "air shocks" to permit the towing of a
trailer. Thus, by not requiring load rating informa-
tion, the agency would increase the potential for a
motorist to unknowingly use a vehicle equipped
with the non-pneumatic tire in an unsafe manner.

Uniroyal commented that S4.3(f), which proposed
requiring labeling with Part 574's tire identification
number, should be amended given that that number
refers, in part, to tire size. As the agency noted above
in its discussion of tire size designations and the
NPTIC, it believes that use of the NPTIC is prefer-
able to use of tire size. While the agency agrees that
a change is therefore necessary to reflect the NPTIC,
it has decided to accomplish this by amending Part
574 to apply to non-pneumatic spare tire assemblies
and by amending 574.5(b) to expressly refer to the
NPTIC. Section 574.4, "applicability," and 574.6,
"identification mark," are also revised to expressly
refer to non-pneumatic tires and tire assemblies.

Tire and Rim/Wheel Center Member Matching
Information

Section S4.4 proposed that each manufacturer list
information about the rim or wheel center member
expected to be used with a non-pneumatic tire. The
information would be provided to either NHTSA or a
tire and rim standardization organization such as
The Tire and Rim Association. The proposal, which
was patterned after section S4.4 of Standard No. 109
for pneumatic tires, is intended to ensure the dis-
semination of information about the proper use of
non-pneumatic tires with rims.

Uniroyal recommended changing the first sen-
tence of S4.4 to exempt from the section's require-
ments, a non-pneumatic spare tire that is an inte-
gral part of a non-pneumatic spare tire assembly.
The agency agrees that such an exemption is appro-
priate given that the section's purpose is to provide
information about the matching of non-integral tires
and rims.

GM suggested adding a provision which would
allow the required information to be disseminated
by inclusion in the "vehicle manufacturer's service
parts publications for the vehicle on which it is to be
used." The commenter believed this change would
help prevent the agency and manufacturers from
being "deluged" with descriptions of non-pneumatic
rims and wheel center members. Based on its expe-
rience with pneumatic tires, NHTSA has decided to
reject GM's suggestion because the proposed require-
ment, i.e., the submission of this information to the
agency or through the industry's standardization
organizations, will be a more effective way to dissem-
inate this information.

After reviewing this provision, NHTSA has de-
cided to modify S4.4. to require the submission to

include the NPTIC. This modification to require the
inclusion of the NPTIC rather than the tire size is a
conforming change made to reflect another change
addressed earlier in the notice. In addition, the
agency notes that it proposed in the definition of
"test rim" in S3 to require each tire and rim match-
ing information listing to include the load rating.
After further review, the agency has determined
that it is more appropriate to include this require-
ment in section S4.4.

IV. Effective Date

The NPRM stated that the proposal would become
effective 180 days after publication of a final rule in
the Federal Register. Uniroyal commented that such
advance notification is associated with revisions of
regulations that affect products already in the mar-
ketplace to afford manufacturers time to comply with
the changes. Uniroyal then requested that the 180 day
period be eliminated or substantially reduced.

NHTSA notes that section 103(c) of the Vehicle
Safety Act requires that each order shall take effect
no sooner than 180 days from the date the order is
issued unless "good cause" is shown that an earlier
effective date is in the public interest. After review-
ing the request, NHTSA agrees that there is "good
cause" not to require the full 180 day leadin period
given that this amendment will facilitate the intro-
duction of certain tires without imposing any man-
datory requirement on manufacturers and that the
public interest will be served by not delaying the
introduction of these alternative tire designs. There-
fore, the agency has determined that there is good
cause to set an effective date 30 days after publica-
tion of the final rule.

In consideration of the foregoing, the agency is
amending Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and
Rims, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and
Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars,
and is establishing Standard No. 129, New Non-
Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars, in Title 49 of
the Code of Federal Regulations at Part 571 as
follows:

§571.110 [Amended]

1. Paragraph S2 of Standard 110 is revised to read
as follows:

S2 Application. This standard applies to passen-
ger cars and to non-pneumatic spare tire assemblies
for use on passenger cars.

2. Paragraph S3 of Standard No. 110 is amended
by adding the following definitions in the proper
alphabetical location:

"Non-pneumatic rim" is used as defined in
§571.129.

"Non-pneumatic spare tire assembly" means a

PART 571; SllO-PRE 18

non-pneumatic tire assembly intended for tempo-
rary use in place of one of the pneumatic tires and
rims that are fitted to a passenger car in compliance
with the requirements of this standard.

"Non-pneumatic tire" and "non-pneumatic tire
assembly" are used as defined in §571.129.

"Rim" is used as defined in §571.109.

"Wheel center member" is used as defined in
§571.129.

*****

3. Paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 110 is revised to
read as follows:

S4.1 General. Passenger cars shall be equipped
with tires that meet the requirements of §571.109,
New Pneumatic Tires— Passenger Cars, except that
passenger cars may be equipped with a non-
pneumatic spare tire assembly that meets the re-
quirements of §571.129, New Non-Pneumatic Tires
for Passenger Cars and S6 and S8 of this standard.
Passenger cars equipped with such an assembly
shall meet the requirements of S4. 3(e), S5, and S7 of
this standard.

4: 4= 4= ^ ^

4. Paragraph S4.3(c), (d), and (e) is revised to read
as follows:

(c) Vehicle manufacturer's recommended cold tire
inflation pressure for maximum loaded vehicle
weight and, subject to the limitations of S4.3.1, for
any other manufacturer-specified vehicle loading
condition;

(d) Vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size
designation; and

(e) For a vehicle equipped with a non-pneumatic
spare tire assembly, the non-pneumatic tire identifi-
cation code with which that assembly is labeled
pursuant to the requirements of S4. 3(a) of §571.129,
New Non-Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars.

*****

5. Standard No. 110 is amended by adding para-
graphs S5, S6, S7 and S8 to read as follows:

55 Load Limits for Non-Pneumatic Spare Tires.
The highest vehicle maximum load on the tire for
the vehicle shall not be greater than the load rating
for the non-pneumatic spare tire.

56 Labeling Requirements for Non-Pneumatic
Spare Tires or Tire Assemblies.

the case of a non-pneumatic tire assembly which has
a particular side that must always face outward
when mounted on a vehicle, the information shown
in paragi-aphs S6(a) through (b) shall only be re-
quired on the outward facing side. The information
shall be positioned on the tire or tire assembly such
that it is not placed on the tread or the outermost
edge of the tire and is not obstructed by any portion
of any non-pneumatic rim or wheel center member
designated for use with that tire in this standard or
in Standard No. 129.

(a) FOR TEMPORARY USE ONLY; and

(b) MAXIMUM 50 M.RH.

57 Requirements for Passenger Cars Equipped
with Non-Pneumatic Spare Tire Assemblies.

57.1 Vehicle Placarding Requirements. A placard,
permanently affixed to the inside of the vehicle
trunk lid or an equally accessible location adjacent
to the non-pneumatic spare tire assembly, shall
display the information set forth in S6 in block
capitals and numerals not less than 0.25 inches high
preceded by the words "IMPORTANT-USE OF
SPARE TIRE" in letters not less than 0.375 inches
high.

57.2 Supplementary Information. The owner's
manual of the passenger car shall contain, in writ-
ing in the English language and in not less than 10
point type, the following information under the
heading "IMPORTANT-USE OF SPARE TIRE":

(a) A statement indicating the labeling related to
appropriate use for the non-pneumatic spare tire
including at a minimum the information set forth in
S6(a) and (b) and in S4.3(e);

(b) An instruction to drive carefully when the
non-pneumatic spare tire is in use, and to install the
proper pneumatic tire and rim at the first reason-
able opportunity; and

(c) A statement that operation of the passenger car
is not recommended with more than one non-
pneumatic spare tire in use at the same time.

58 Non-Pneumatic Rims and Wheel Center Members

58.1 Non-Pneumatic Rim Requirements. Each
non-pneumatic rim that is part of a separable non-
pneumatic spare tire assembly shall be constructed
to the dimensions of a non-pneumatic rim that is
listed pursuant to S4.4 of §571.129 for use with the
non-pneumatic tire, designated by its non-
pneumatic tire identification code, with which the
vehicle is equipped.

58.2 Wheel Center Member Requirements. Each
wheel center member that is part of a separable
non-pneumatic spare tire assembly shall be con-
structed to the dimensions of a wheel center member
that is listed pursuant S4.4 of §571.129 for use with
the non-pneumatic tire, designated by its non-

PART 571; S 110-PRE 19

pneumatic tire identification code, with which the
vehicle is equipped.

§571.120 [Amended]

6. Paragi-aph S3 of Standard 120 is revised to read
as follows:

S3 Application. This standard applies to multipur-
pose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and
motorcycles, to rims for use on those vehicles, and to
non-pneumatic spare tire assemblies for use on those
vehicles.

*****

7. Paragi-aph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 is revised
to read as follows:

55.1.1 Except as specified in S5.1.3, each vehicle
equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service
shall be equipped with tires that meet the require-
ments of §571.109, New Pneumatic Tires— Passenger
Cars, or §571.119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles
Other than Passenger Cars, and rims that are listed
by the manufacturer of the tires as suitable for use
with those tires, in accordance with S4.4 with
§571.109, or S5.1 of 571.119, as applicable, except
that vehicles may be equipped with a non-pneumatic
spare tire assembly that meets the requirements of
571.129, New Non-Pneumatic Tires for Passenger
Cars, and S8 and SlO of this standard. Vehicles
equipped with such an assembly shall meet the
requirements of S5.3.6, S7, and 89 of this standard.

8. The introductory text of paragraph S5.3.2 of
Standard No. 120 is revised to read as follows:

55.3.2 Vehicles Manufactured on or after December
1, 1984. Each vehicle manufactured on or after
December 1, 1984, shall show the information spec-
ified in S5.3.3 through S5.3.5, and in the case of a
vehicle equipped with a non-pneumatic spare tire,
also that specified in S5.3.6, in the English lan-
guage, lettered in block capitals and numerals not
less than three thirty-seconds of an inch high and in
the format set forth following this section. This
information shall appear either—

*****

9. Paragraph S5.3.6 is added to Standard No. 120
to read as follows:

S5.3.6 The non-pneumatic tire identification code,
with which that assembly is labeled pursuant to
S4.3(a) of §571.129.

10. Standard 120 is amended by adding para-
graphs S7, S8, S9, and SlO.

S7 Load Limits for Non-Pneumatic Spare Tires.
The highest vehicle maximum load on the tire for
the vehicle shall not be greater than the load rating
for the non-pneumatic spare tire.

SB Labeling Requirements for Non-Pneumatic

Spare Tires or Tire Assemblies. Each non-pneumatic
tire or, in the case of a non-pneumatic tire assembly
in which the non-pneumatic tire is an integi-al part
of the assembly, each non-pneumatic tire assembly
shall be permanently molded, stamped, or otherwise
permanently marked into or onto both sides in
letters or numerals not less than 0.156 inches high,
the information specified in paragi'aphs 86. (a)
through (b). Except, in the case of a non-pneumatic
tire assembly which has a particular side that must
always face outward when mounted on a vehicle, the
information shown in paragi-aphs 86(a) through (b)
shall only be required on the outward facing side.
The information shall be positioned on the tire or
tire assembly such that it is not placed on the tread
or the outermost edge of the tire and is not ob-
structed by any portion of any non-pneumatic rim or
wheel center member designated for use with that
tire in this standard or in Standard No. 129.

(a) FOR TEMPORARY USE ONLY; and

(b) MAXIMUM 50 M.PH.

S9 Requirements for Vehicles Equipped with Non-
Pneumatic Spare Tire Assemblies

89.1 Vehicle Placarding Requirements. A placard,
permanently affixed to the inside of the spare tire
stowage area or equally accessible location adjacent
to the non-pneumatic spare tire assembly, shall
display the information set forth in 88 in block
capitals and numerals not less than 0.25 inches high
preceded by the words "IMPORTANT-USE OF
SPARE TIRE" in letters not less than 0.375 inches
high.

89.2 Supplementary Information. The owner's
manual of the vehicle shall contain, in writing in the
English language and in not less than 10 point type,
the following information under the heading
"IMPORTANT-USE OF SPARE TIRE":

(a) A statement indicating the labeling related to
appropriate use for the non-pneumatic spare tire
including at a minimum the information set forth in
88(a) and (b) and in 85.3.6;

(b) An instruction to drive carefully when the
non-pneumatic spare tire is in use, and to install the
proper pneumatic tire and rim at the first reason-
able opportunity; and

(c) A statement that operation of the vehicle is not
recommended with more than one non-pneumatic
spare tii-e in use at the same time.

SlO Non-Pneumatic Rims and Wheel Center Members
810.1 Non-Pneumatic Rim Requirements. Each
non-pneumatic rim that is part of a separable non-
pneumatic spare tire assembly shall be constructed
to the dimensions of a non-pneumatic rim that is
listed pursuant to 84.4 of §571.129 for use with the
non-pneumatic tire, designated by its non-

PART 571; SllO-PRE 20

pneumatic tire identification code, with which the
vehicle is equipped.

SlO.2 Wheel Center Member Requirements. Each
wheel center member that is part of a separable
non-pneumatic spare tire assembly shall be con-
structed to the dimensions of a wheel center member
that is listed pursuant to S4.4 of §571.129 for use
with the non-pneumatic tire, designated by its non-
pneumatic tire identification code, with which the
vehicle is equipped.

* * * +

11. Part 571 is amended by the addition of 49 CFR
§571.129 which would read as follows:

§571.129 Standard No. 129; New Non-Pneumatic
Tires for Passenger Cars.

51 Scope. This standard specifies tire dimensions
and laboratory test requirements for lateral
strength, strength, endurance, and high speed per-
formance; defines the tire load rating; and specifies
labeling requirements for non-pneumatic spare
tires.

52 Application. This standard applies to new tem-
porary spare non-pneumatic tires for use on passen-
ger cars.

53 Definitions.

"Carcass" means the tire structure except for the
tread which provides the major portion of the tire's
capability to deflect in response to the vertical loads
and tractive forces that the tire transmits from the
roadway to the non-pneumatic rim, the wheel center
member, or the vehicle and which attaches to the
vehicle or attaches, either integi-ally or separably, to
the wheel center member or non-pneumatic rim.

"Carcass separation" means the pulling away of
the carcass from the non-pneumatic rim or wheel
center member.

"Chunking" means the breaking away of pieces of
the carcass or tread.

"Cracking" means any parting within the carcass,
tread, or any components that connect the tire to the
non-pneumatic rim or wheel center member and, if
the non-pneumatic tire is integral with the non-
pneumatic rim or wheel center member, any parting
within the non-pneumatic rim, or wheel center
member.

"Load rating" means the maximum load a tire is
rated to carry.

"Maximum tire width" means the greater of ei-
ther the linear distance between the exterior edges
of the carcass or the linear distance between the
exterior edges of the tread, both being measured
parallel to the rolling axis of the tire.

"Non-pneumatic rim" means a mechanical device
which, when a non-pneumatic tire assembly incor-
porates a wheel, supports the tire, and attaches.

either integi-ally or separably, to the wheel center
member and upon which the tire is attached.

"Non-pneumatic test rim" means, with reference
to a tire to be tested, any non-pneumatic rim that is
listed as appropriate for use with that tire in accor-
dance with S4.4.

"Non-pneumatic tire" means a mechanical device
which transmits, either directly or through a wheel
or wheel center member, the vertical load and trac-
tive forces from the roadway to the vehicle, gener-
ates the tractive forces that provide the directional
control of the vehicle, and does not rely on the
containment of any gas or fluid for providing those
functions.

"Non-pneumatic tire assembly" means a non-
pneumatic tire, alone or in combination with a
wheel or wheel center member, which can be
mounted on a vehicle.

"Non-pneumatic tire identification code" means
an alphanumeric code that is assigned by the man-
ufacturer to identify the tire with regard to its size,
application to a specific non-pneumatic rim or wheel
center member, or application to a specific vehicle.

"Test wheel center member" means, with refer-
ence to a tire to be tested, any wheel center member
that is listed as appropriate for use with that tire in
accordance with S4.4.

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

"Ti-ead separation" means the pulling away of the
tread from the carcass.

"Wheel" means a mechanical device which con-
sists of a non-pneumatic rim and wheel center mem-
ber and which, in the case of a non-pneumatic tire
assembly incorporating a wheel, provides the con-
nection between the tire and the vehicle.

"Wheel center member" means, in the case of a
non-pneumatic tire assembly incorporating a wheel,
a mechanical device which attaches, either inte-
grally or separably, to the non-pneumatic rim and
provides the connection between the non-pneumatic
rim and the vehicle.

S4 Requirements.

54.1 Size and Construction. Each tire shall be
designed to fit each non-pneumatic rim or wheel
center member specified for its non-pneumatic tire
identification code designation in a listing in accor-
dance with section S4.4.

54.2 Performance Requirements

S4.2.1 General. Each tire shall conform to the
following:

(a) Its load rating shall be that specified in a
submission made by a manufacturer, pursuant to
S4.4(a), or in one of the publications described in
S4.4(b) for its non-pneumatic tire identification code
designation.

(b) It shall incorporate a tread wear indicator that

PART571;S110-PRE 21

will provide a visual indication that the tire has
worn to a tread depth of '/ik inch.

(c) It shall, before being subjected to either the
endurance test procedure specified in S5.4 or the
high speed performance procedure specified in S5.5,
exhibit no visual evidence of tread or carcass sepa-
ration, chunking or cracking.

(d) It shall meet the requirements of S4.2.2.5 and
S4.2.2.6 when tested on a test wheel described in
S5.4.2.1 either alone or simultaneously with up to 5
tires.

S4.2.2 Test Requirements.

54.2.2.1 Test Sample. For each test sample use:

(a) One tire for physical dimensions, lateral
strength, and strength in sequence;

(b) A second tire for tire endurance; and

54.2.2.2 Physical Dimensions. For a non-
pneumatic tire assembly in which the tire is separa-
ble from the non-pneumatic rim or wheel center
member, the dimensions, measured in accordance
with S5.1, for that portion of the tire that attaches to
that non-pneumatic rim or wheel center member
shall satisfy the dimensional specifications con-
tained in the submission made by an individual
manufacturer, pursuant to S4.4(a), or in one of the
publications described in S4.4(b) for that tire's non-
pneumatic tire identification code designation.

S4.2.2.3. Lateral Strength. There shall be no visual
evidence of tread or carcass separation, cracking or
chunking, when a tire is tested in accordance with

55.2 to a load of:

(a) 1,500 pounds for tires with a load rating less
than 880 pounds;

(b) 2,000 pounds for tires with a load rating of 880
pounds or more but less than 1,400 pounds.

(c) 2,500 pounds for tires with a load rating of
1,400 pounds or more, using the load rating marked
on the tire or tire assembly.

54.2.2.4 Tire Strength. There shall be no visual
evidence of tread carcass separation, cracking or
chunking, when a tire is tested in accordance with

55.3 to a minimum energy level of:

Load Rating Minimum Energy Level

Below 880 pounds 1,950 inch pounds

880 pounds and above 2,600 inch pounds

54.2.2.5 Tire Endurance. When the tire has been
subjected to the laboratory endurance test specified
in S5.4, using, if applicable, a non-pneumatic test
rim or test wheel center member that undergoes no
permanent deformation, there shall be no visual
evidence of tread or carcass separation, cracking or
chunking. In the case of a non-pneumatic tire assem-
bly in which the non-pneumatic tire is an integral
part of the assembly, the assembly shall undergo no

permanent deformation with the exception of wear
of the tread.

S4.2.2.6 High Speed Performance. When the tire
has been subjected to the laboratory high speed
performance test specified in S5.5, using if applica-
ble, a non-pneumatic test rim or test wheel center
member that undergoes no permanent deformation,
there shall be no visual evidence of tread or carcass
separation, cracking or chunking. In the case of a
non-pneumatic tire assembly in which the non-
pneumatic tire is an integral part of the assembly,
the assembly shall undergo no permanent deforma-
tion with the exception of wear of the tread.

S4.3 Labeling Requirements. Each non-pneumatic
tire or, in the case of a non-pneumatic tire assembly
in which the non-pneumatic tire is an integral part
of the assembly, each non-pneumatic tire assembly
shall be permanently molded, stamped, or otherwise
permanently marked into or onto both sides of the
tire or tire assembly in letters or numerals not less
than 0.078 inches high, the information shown in
paragi-aphs S4.3(a) through (0. Except, in the case of
a non-pneumatic tire assembly of which one side
always must face outward when mounted on a vehi-
cle, the information shown in paragi'aphs S4.3(a)
through (f) shall only be required on the outward
facing side. The information shall be positioned on
the tire or tire assembly such that it is not placed on
the tread or the outermost edge of the tire and is not
obstructed by any portion of any non-pneumatic rim
or wheel center member designated for use with that
tire in S4.4 of this standard or in 49 CFR §571.110 or
49 CFR §571.120.

(a) The non-pneumatic tire identification code.

(b) Load rating, which, if expressed in kilograms,
shall be followed in parentheses by the equivalent
load rating in pounds, rounded to the nearest whole
pound;

(c) For a non-pneumatic tire that is not an integral
part of a non-pneumatic tire assembly, the size and
type designation of the non-pneumatic rim or wheel
tire assembly that is contained in the submission
made by a manufacturer, pursuant to S4.4(a), or in one
of the publications described in S4.4(b) for that tire's
non-pneumatic tire identification code designation;

(d) The name of the manufacturer or brand name;

(e) The symbol 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;

(f) The tire identification number required by
§574.5 of this chapter;

(g) The labeling requirements set forth in S6 of
Standard No. 110 (§571.110), or SB of Standard No.
120 (§571.120).

PART 571; SllO-PRE 22

S4.4 Non-Pneumatic Tire Identification Code and
Non-Pneumatic Rim/Wheel Center Member Match-
ing Information. For purposes of this standard, S8 of
49 CFR 571.110 and SIO of 49 CFR 571.120, each
manufacturer of a non-pneumatic tire that is not an
integral part of a non-pneumatic tire assembly shall
ensure that it provides a listing to the public for each
non-pneumatic tire that it produces. The listing
shall include the non-pneumatic tire identification
code, tire load rating, dimensional .specifications and
a diagi'am of the portion of the tire that attaches to
the non-pneumatic rim or wheel center member, and
a list of the non-pneumatic rims or wheel center
members that may be used with that tire. For each
non-pneumatic rim or wheel center member in-
cluded in such a listing, the information provided
shall include a size and type designation for the
non-pneumatic rim or wheel center member and
dimensional specifications and a diagi'am of the
non-pneumatic rim or portion of the wheel center
member that attaches to the tire. A listing compiled
in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section need
not include dimensional specifications or a diagi-am
of the non-pneumatic rim or portion of the wheel
center member that attaches to the tire if the
non-pneumatic rim's or portion of the wheel center
member's dimensional specifications and diagram
are contained in each listing published in accor-
dance with paragraph (b) of this section. 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 manufactur-
er's tires or, in the case of non-pneumatic tires
supplied only as a temporary spare tire on a vehicle,
in a document furnished to dealers of vehicles
equipped with the tires, to any person upon request,
and in duplicate to the Office of Vehicle Safety
Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Depart-
ment of Transportation, 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 Tire and Rim Tfechnical Organization

Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Associa-
tion, Inc.

Deutsche Industrie Norm

British Standards Institute

Scandinavian Tire and Rim Organization

Tyre and Rim Association of Australia

S5 Test Procedures.

S5.1 Physical Dimensions. After conditioning the
tire at room temperature for at least 24 hours, using
equipment with minimum measurement capabili-

ties of one-half the smallest tolerance specified in
the listing contained in the submission made by a
manufacturer pursuant to S4.4(a), or in one of the
publications described in S4.4(b) for that tire's non-
pneumatic tire identification code designation, meas-
ure the portion of the tire that attaches to the
non-pneumatic rim or the wheel center member. For
any inner diameter dimensional specifications, or
other dimensional specifications that are uniform or
uniformly spaced around some circumference of the
tire, these measurements shall be taken at least six
points around the tire, or if specified, at the points
specified in the listing contained in the submission
made by an individual manufacturer, pursuant to
S4.4(a), or in one of the publications described in
S4.4(b) for that tire's non-pneumatic tire identifica-
tion code designation.

55.2 Lateral Strength.

55.2.1 Preparation of the tire.

55.2.1.1 If applicable, mount a new tire on a non-
pneumatic test rim or test wheel center member.

55.2.1.2 Mount the tire assembly in a fixture as
shown in Figui-e 1 with the surface of the tire
assembly that would face outward when mounted on
a vehicle facing toward the lateral strength test
block shown in Figure 2 and force the lateral
strength test block against the tire.

55.2.2 Test Procedure.

S5.2.2.1 Apply a load through the block to the tire
at a rate of 2 inches per minute, with the load arm
parallel to the tire assembly at the time of engage-
ment and the first point of contact with the test
block being the test block centerline shown in Fig-
ure 2, at the following distances, B, in sequence, as
shown in Figure 1:

B = A - 1 inch

B = A - 2 inches

B = A - 3 inches

B = A - 4 inches

B = A - 5 inches, and

B = A - 6 inches
However, if at any time during the conduct of the
test, the test block comes in contact with the non-
pneumatic test rim or test wheel center member, the
test shall be suspended and no further testing at
smaller values of the distance B shall be conducted.
When tested to the above procedure, satisfying the
requirements of S4.2.2.3 for all values of B gi-eater
than that for which contact between the non-
pneumatic test rim or test wheel center member and
the test block is made, shall constitute compliance to
the requirements set forth in S4.2.2.3.

55.3 Tire Strength.

S5.3.1 Preparation of the Tire.
S5.3.1.1 If applicable, mount the tire on a non-
pneumatic test rim or test wheel center member.

PART 571; SllO-PRE 23

S5.3.1.2 Condition the tire assembly at room tem-
peratui-e for at least three hours.
S5.3.2 Test Procedures.

55.3.2.1 Force the test cleat, as defined in S5.3.2.2,
with its length axis (see S5. 3. 2. 2(a)) parallel to the
rolling axis of the non-pneumatic tire assembly, and
its height axis (see S5. 3. 2. 2(c)), coinciding with a
radius of the non-pneumatic tire assembly, into the
tread of the tire at five test points equally spaced
around the circumference of the tire. At each test
point, the test cleat is forced into the tire at a rate of
two inches per minute until the applicable minimum
energy level, as shown in S4.2.2.4, calculated using
the formula contained in S5.3.2.3, is reached.

55.3.2.2 The test cleat is made of steel and has the
following dimensions:

(a) Length of one inch greater than the maximum
tire width of the tire.

(b) Width of one-half inch with the surface which
contacts the tire's tread having one-quarter inch
radius.

(c) Height of one inch greater than the difference
between the unloaded radius of the non-pneumatic
tire assembly and the minimum radius of the non-
pneumatic rim or wheel center member, if used with
the non-pneumatic tire assembly being tested.

55.3.2.3 The energy level is calculated by the
following formula:

E =

F X P

where

E = Energy level, inch-pounds;

F = Force, pounds; and

P = Penetration, inches

S5.4 Tire Endurance.

55.4.1 Preparation of the tire.

55.4.1.1 If applicable, mount a new tire on a non-
pneumatic test rim or test wheel center member

55.4.1.2 Condition the tire assembly to 100 + 5°
F for at least three houi's.

55.4.2 Test Procedure.

55.4.2.1 Mount the tire assembly on a test axle
and press it against a flat-faced steel test wheel
67.23 inches in diameter and at least as wide as the
maximum tire width of the tire to be tested or an
approved equivalent test wheel, with the applicable
test load specified in the table in S5.4.2.3 for the tire's
non-pneumatic tire identification code designation.

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
(m.p.h.) in accordance with the following schedule
without interruption (the loads for the following
periods are the specified percentage of the load
rating marked on the tire or tire assembly):

Percent

4 hours 85

6 hours 90

24 hours 100

S5.4.2.4 Immediately after running the tire the
required time, allow the tire to cool for one hour,
then, if applicable, detach it from the non-pneumatic
test rim or test wheel center member, ar'' inspect it
for the conditions specified in S4.2.2.5.

S5.5 High Speed Endurance.

55.5.1 After preparing the tire in accordance with
S5.4.1, if applicable, mount the tire assembly in
accordance with S5.4.2.1, and press it against the
test wheel with a load of 88 percent of the tire's load
rating as marked on the tire or tire assembly.

55.5.2 Break in the tire by running it for 2 hours
at 50 m.p.h.

55.5.3 Allow to cool to 100 ± 5° F.

55.5.4 Test at 75 m.p.h. for 30 minutes, 80 m.p.h.
for 30 minutes, and 85 m.p.h. for 30 minutes.

55.5.5 Immediately after running the tire for the
required time, allow the tire to cool for one hour,
then, if applicable, detach it from the non-pneumatic
test rim or test wheel center member, and inspect it
for the conditions specified in S4.2.2.6.

S6 Nonconforming tires. Any non-pneumatic tire
that is designed for use on passenger cars that does
not conform to all the requii-ements of this standard,
shall not be sold, offered for sale, introduced or
delivered for introduction into intei'state commerce,
or imported into the United States, for any purpose.

^ ii: Ht ^ :i:

12. Figures 1 and 2 are added following the text of
Standard No. 129, appearing as follows:

Part 574 [Amended]

13. The first sentence of 574.4 Applicability is
revised to read as follows:

This part applies to manufacturers, brand name
owners, retreaders, distributors, and dealers of new
and retreaded tires, and new non-pneumatic tires
and non-pneumatic tire assemblies for use on motor
vehicles manufactured after 1948 and to manufac-
turers and dealers of motor vehicles manufactured
after 1948.

14. The first sentence of 574.5 Tire identification
requirements is revised to read as follows:

Each tire manufacturer shall conspicuously label
on one sidewall of each tire it manufactures, except
tires manufactured exclusively for mileage-contract
purchasers, or non-pneumatic tires or non-pneu-
matic tire assemblies, by permanently molding into
or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location
specified in Figure 1, a tire identification number

PART 571; SllO-PRE 24

containing the information set forth in paragraphs
(a) through (d) of this section.
*****

15. Section 574.5 is amended by adding the follow-
ing to the end of the opening paragiaph:

symbols, shall be used to identify the non-pneumatic
tire identification code.

17. Section 574.6, Identification Mark, is revised to
read as follows:

Each manufacturer of a non-pneumatic tire or a
non-pneumatic tire assembly shall permanently
mold, stamp or otherwise permanently mark into or
onto one side of the non-pneumatic tire or non-
pneumatic tire assembly a tire identification num-
ber containing the information set forth in para-
gi'aphs (a) through (d) of this section. In addition, the
DOT symbol required by the Federal motor vehicle
safety standards shall be positioned relative to the
tire identification number as shown in Figure 1, and
the symbols to be used for the other information are
those listed above. The labeling for a non-pneumatic
tire or a non-pneumatic tire assembly shall be in the
manner specified in Figure 1 and positioned on the
non-pneumatic tire or non-pneumatic tire assembly
such that it is not placed on the tread or the
outermost edge of the tire and is not obstructed by
any portion of the non-pneumatic rim or wheel
center member designated for use with that non-
pneumatic tire in S4.4 of Standard No. 129 (49 CFR
571.129).

16. Section 574.5(b) is amended by adding the
following after the opening sentence:

*****

For a new non-pneumatic tire of a non-pneumatic
tire assembly, the second group, of not more than two

lb obtain the identification mark required by
574.5(a), each manufacturer of new or retreaded
pneumatic tires, non-pneumatic tires or non-
pneumatic tire assemblies shall apply in writing to
"Tire Identification and Recordkeeping," National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department
of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590, identify
itself as a tire manufacturer or retreader and furnish
the following information:

(a) The name, or other designation identifying the
applicant, and its main office address.

(b) The name, or other identifying designation, 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., pneumatic tires for passenger cars, buses, trucks
or motorcycles; pneumatic retreaded tires; or non-
pneumatic tires or non-pneumatic tire assemblies.

Issued on July 12, 1990.

Jeffrey R. Miller
Deputy Administrator

55 FR 29581
July 20, 1990

PART 571; SUO-PRE 25-26

MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 110
Tire Selection and Rims— Passenger Cars

51. Purpose and scope. This standard specifies re-
quirements for tire selection to prevent tire over-
loading.

52. Application. [This standard applies to pas-
senger cars and to non-pneumatic spare tire assemblies
for use on passenger cars. (55 F.R. 29581— July 20, 1990.
Effective: August 20, 1990)]

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.

"Maximum loaded vehicle weight" means the sum
of-

(a) Curb weight;

(b) Accessory weight;

(d) Production options weight.

["Non-pneumatic rim" is used as defined in §571.129.

"Non-pneumatic spare tire assembly" means a non-
pneumatic tire assembly intended for temporary use
in place of one of the pneumatic tires and rims that are
fitted to a passenger car in compliance with the require-
ments of this standard.

"Non-pneumatic tire" and "non-pneumatic tire as-
sembly" are used as defined in §571.129.1

"Normal occupant weight" means 150 pounds times
the number of occupants specified in the second column
of Table I.

"Occupant distribution" means distribution of occu-
pants in a vehicle as specified in the third column of
Table I.

"Production options weight" means the combined
weight of those installed regular production options
weighting over 5 pounds in excess of those standard
item which they replace, not previously considered in
curb weight or accessory weight, including heavy duty
brakes, ride levelers, roof rack, heavy duty battery, and
special trim.

["Rim" is used as defined in §571.109.1

"Vehicle capacity weight" means the rated cargo and
luggage load plus 150 pounds times the vehicle's desig-
nated seating capacity.

"Vehicle maximum load on the tire" means that load
on an individual tire that is determined by distribut-
ing to each axle its share of the maximum loaded vehi-
cle weight and dividing by two.

"Vehicle normal load on the tire" means that load
on an individual tire that is determined by distribut-
ing to each axle its share of the curb weight, accessory
weight, and normal occupant weight (distributed in ac-
cordance with Table I) and dividing by two.

["Wheel center member" is used as defined in
§571.129.1

[(55 F.R. 29581— July 20, 1990. Effective: August 20,
1990)1

S4. Requirements.

54.1 General. [Passenger cars shall be equipped
with tires that meet the requirements of §571.109, New
Pneumatic Tires— Passenger Cars, except that pas-
senger cars may be equipped with a non-pneumatic
spare tire assembly that meets the requirements of
§571.129, New Non-Pneumatic Tires for Passenger
Cars and S6 and S8 of this standard. Passenger cars
equipped with such an assembly shall meet the require-
ments of S4.3(e), S5, and S7 of this standard. (55 F.R.
29581— July 20, 1990. Effective: August 20, 1990)]

54.2 Tire load limits.

S4.2.1. The vehicle maximum load on the tire shall
not be greater that the applicable maximum load rat-
ing specified in one of the publications described in
S4.4.1(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 for
the tire's size designation and type.

(Rev. 7/20/90)

PART 571; SllO-1

TABLE I

Occupant Loading and Distribution for Vehicle Normal Load
for Various Designated Seating Capacities

Ocaipant
Vehicle Normal Distribution in a

Load, Number of Normally-Loaded

Designated Seating
Capacity, Number

Occupants

Vehicle

2 thru 4
5 thru 10

2 in front
2 in front
1 in second seat

S4.2.2 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.

54.3 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 terms
of total number of occupants and in terms of occupants
for each seat location);

(c) [Vehicle manufacturer's recommended cold tire
inflation pressure for maximum loaded vehicle weight
and, subject to the limitations of S4.3.1, for any other
manufacturer-specified vehicle loading condition;

(d) Vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size
designation; and

(e) For a vehicle equipped with a non-pneumatic
spare tire assembly, the non-pneumatic tire identifica-
tion code with which that assembly is labeled pursuant
to the requirements of S4.3(a) of §57L129, New Non-
Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars. (55 F.R.
29581— July 20, 1990. Effective: August 20, 1990)1

S4.3.1 No inflation pressure other than the maxi-
mum permissible inflation pressure may be specified
unless—

(a) It is less than the maximum permissible inflac-
tion pressure;

(b) The vehicle loading condition for that pressure
is specified; and

(c) The tire load rating from Table I of Motor Vehi-
cle Safety Standard No. 109 for the tire at that pres-
sure is not less than the vehicle load on the tire for that
vehicle loading condition.

54.4 Rims.

S4.4.1 Requirements. Each rim shall:
(a) Be constructed to the dimesions of a rim that is
listed pursuant to the definition of "test rim" in para-
graph S3, of §571.109 (Standard No. 109) for use with
the tire size designation with which the vehicles is
equipped.

(b) In the event of rapid loss of inflation pressure
with the vehicle 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.

[S5. Load limits for non-pneumatic spare tires. The

highest vehicle maximum load on the tire for the vehi-
cle shall not be greater than the load rating for the non-
pneumatic spare tire.

56. Labeling requirements for non-pneumatic spare
tires or tire assemblies.

Each non-pneumatic tire or, in the case of a non-
pneumatic tire assembly in which the non-pneumatic
tire is an integral part of the assembly, each non-
pneumatic tire assembly shall be permanently molded,
stamped, or otherwise permanently marked into or
onto both sides in letters or numberal not less than
0.156 inches high, the information specified in para-
graphs S6.(a) through (b). Except, in the case of a non-
pneumatic tire assembly which has a particular side
that must always face outward when mounted on a ve-
hicle, the information shown in paragraphs S6.(a)
through (b) shall only be required on the outward fac-
ing side. The information shall be positioned on the tire
or tire assembly such that it is not placed on the tread
or the outermost edge of the tire and is not obstructed
by any portion of any non-pneumatic rim or wheel
center member designated for use with that tire in this
standard or in Standard No. 129.

(a) FOR TEMPORARY USE ONLY; and

(b) MAXIMUM 50 M.P.H.

57. Requirements for passenger cars equipped with
non-pneumatic spare tire assemblies.

57.1 Vehicle placarding requirements. A placard,
permanently affixed to the inside of the vehicle trunk
lid or an equally accessible location adjacent to the non-
pneumatic spare tire assembly, shall display the infor-
mation set forth in S6 in block capitals and numerals
not less than 0.25 inches high preceded by the words
"IMPORTANT-USE OF SPARE TIRE" in letters
not less than 0.375 inches high.

57.2 Supplementary information. The owner's
manual of the passenger car shall contain, in writing
in the English language and in not less than 10 point
type, the following information under the heading
"IMPORTANT-USE OF SPARE TIRE":

(a) A statement indicating the labeling related to ap-
propriate use for the non-pneumatic spare tire includ-
ing at a minimum the information set forth in S6(a) and
(b) and in S4.3(e).;

(Rev. 7/20/90)

PART 571; SllO-2

(b) An instruction to drive carefully when the non-
pneumatic spare tire is in use, and to install the proper
pneumatic tire and rim at the first reasonable oppor-
tunity; and

(c) A statement that operation of the passenger car
is not recommended with more than one non-pneumatic
spare tire in use at the same time.

S8. Non-pneumatic rims and wheel center members.

S8.1 Non-pneumatic rim requirements. Each non-
pneumatic rim that is part of a separable non-
pneumatic spare tire assembly shall be constructed to
the dimensions of a non-pneumatic rim that is listed
pursuant to S4.4 of §571.129 for use with the non-

pneumatic tire, designated by its non-pneumatic tire
indentification code, with which the vehicle is equipped.

S8.2 Wheel center member requirements. Each
wheel center member that is part of a separable non-
pneumatic spare tire assembly shall be constructed to
the dimensions of a wheel center member that is listed
pursuant to S4.4 of §571.129 for use with the non-
pneumatic tire, designated by its non-pneumatic tire
identification code, with which the vehicle is equipped.
(55 F.R. 29581— July 20, 1990. Effective: August 20. 1990)1

33 F.R. 14969
October 5, 1968

(R«v. 7/20/90)

PART 571; SllO-3

PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE
SAFETY STANDARD NO. 114

Theft Protection
(Docket No. 1-21; Notice 9)

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule amends requirements related
to key-locking systems to ensure theft protection.
The amendment is intended to reduce the potential
for accidents caused by shifting the transmission
lever on parked vehicles with automatic transmis-
sions. The amendment requires that an automatic
transmission vehicle with a "park" position must
have a key-locking system that prevents removal of
the key unless the transmission is locked in "park"
or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of
removing the key. The rule is applicable to passen-
ger cars, and trucks and multipurpose passenger
vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of
10,000 pounds or less.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The changes made in this rule
become effective for vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 1992.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Background
Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, (49 CFR
§571.114) specifies requirements for theft protection
to reduce the incidence of accidents resulting from
the unauthorized use of passenger cars, and trucks
and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross
vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. In
particular, section S4.2(b) requires that a vehicle
have a key locking system that prevents the vehicle's
steering or forward self-mobility, or both, when the
key is removed.

A. Steering Lock-Up
On December 29, 1980, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) amended
Standard 114 to include performance requirements
to prevent a vehicle occupant from inadvertently
locking up the steering column of a moving vehicle
by removing the ignition key or shutting off the
engine (45 FR 85450). However, in response to peti-
tions for reconsideration, the agency determined
that inadvertent steering lock-up was not a signifi-
cant enough problem, at the time, to require addi-

tional steps to prevent the possibility of inadvertent
steering column lock-up, and therefore rescinded the
requirement. The agency noted that it would con-
tinue to monitor complaints related to inadvertent
steering column lock-up and would initiate rulemak-
ing, if new data warranted an amendment. The
agency also encouraged manufacturers to install
voluntarily key locking systems that provide im-
proved protection against inadvertent steering col-
umn lock-up on their vehicles (46 FR 32251, June 22,
1981).

Since the 1981 notice, callers to NHTSA's Auto
Safety Hotline have reported a small number of
complaints related to steering lock-ups, both in
automatic and manual transmission vehicles. These
lock-ups occur most frequently when an occupant
removes the key from a moving vehicle's ignition.
Key removal typically occurs as a result of
"horseplay" within a vehicle or by the driver in
panic situations. If the key is removed, the steering
will lock in the direction that the driving wheel was
last turned.

B. Transmission Lever Shifting
NHTSA has also received complaints concerning
serious injuries and deaths caused by shifting trans-
mission levers in automatic transmission vehicles
parked on an incline. This problem typically occurs
when children shift the transmission lever from
"park" to "neutral" in a stationary automatic trans-
mission vehicle with the ignition turned off As a
result, the vehicle rolls down the incline. NHTSA is
aware of several reported cases in which people,
usually children, were seriously injured or killed.

Although the current Standard 114 does not pro-
hibit systems which permit the transmission lever to
be shifted when the vehicle is parked with the
ignition locked, some manufacturers have voluntar-
ily used a transmission shift lever lock to overcome
this safety problem. These transmission shift lever
lock designs typically have two critical elements. For
automatic transmission vehicles, the transmission
shift lever lock requires the transmission shift lever
to be in "park" before a person can remove the

PART571;S114-PRE 21

ignition key. This device also prevents shifting the
transmission lever from "park" to another position
once the key is removed. For manual transmission
vehicles, the transmission shift lever lock requires
the transmission shift lever to be in "reverse" before
a person can remove the ignition key. These trans-
mission shift lever locking systems are designed to
decrease transmission lever shifting accidents.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

On April 5, 1988, NHTSA issued a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in response to the
problems of inadvertent steering column lock-up and
inadvertent transmission lever shifting (53 FR
11105). The existing Standard 114 requires that the
key-locking system prevent, whenever the key is
removed, normal activation of the vehicle's engine or
other main source of motive power, and prevent
either steering or forward self-mobility, or both. To
prevent steering, manufacturers typically have in-
cluded steering column locks, and to prevent forward
self-mobility manufacturers typically have included
transmission lever locks.

NHTSA proposed several amendments to para-
graph S4.2 of Standai'd 114. For automatic transmis-
sion vehicles, the notice proposed to require the
following: 1) an ignition-key locking system that
would prevent the shifting of the transmission when-
ever the key is removed, 2) an ignition-key locking
system that would prevent the removal of the key
except when the transmission is locked in "park,"
and 3) for vehicles with a steering column lock, a
system that would permit the steering column lock
to be engageable only when the transmission was in
"park," and the ignition key had deactivated the
vehicle's engine or other main source of motive
power

For manual transmission vehicles with a steering
column lock, the notice proposed to require that that
lock would be engageable only when the ignition key
had deactivated the vehicle's engine or other main
source of motive power and the operator had per-
formed an additional manual action involving a
device other than the ignition key.

NHTSA also requested comments about several
issues. First, the agency sought comments on
whether the incidence of inadvertent steering col-
umn lock-up posed a significant safety problem.
Second, the agency asked whether inadvertent
transmission lever shifting posed a significant safety
problem, especially for manual transmission vehi-
cles. Third, the notice explained the anticipated
costs of the proposals and sought additional informa-
tion to help the agency develop more particularized
cost estimates (e.g., unit costs for key locking and
ignition systems, production volumes of different
typos of transmission levers, types of column and

transmission lever locking systems). Fourth, NHTSA
requested comments concerning alternative lower
cost approaches and devices that might be able to
reduce the problems of inadvertent steering column
lock-up and inadvertent transmission lever shifting.
Fifth, the agency sought general observations about
whether anticipated designs associated with the
proposed standard would be detrimental to theft
protection or improperly restrict design flexibility.

The Comments and NHTSA's Response
In the NPRM, NHTSA requested comments by
May 20, 1988; however, the agency extended the
comment period until July 5, 1988, in response to a
petition by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Associ-
ation (MVMA) (53 FR 17732, May 18, 1988).

Forty comments were submitted to Docket 01-
21-Notice 7 by motor vehicle manufacturers, insur-
ance companies, police organizations, trade associa-
tions, and the public. In addition, in response to
their requests, the agency met with several manu-
facturers (e.g., Mazda, Rolls Royce, Volkswagen) to
analyze potential system designs. After reviewing
the comments, NHTSA has decided to amend section
S4.2(b) related to transmission lever shifting. How-
ever, the agency has decided not to amend Standard
114 in relation to steering lock-up. This notice ad-
dresses the most significant issues raised in the
comments along with the agency's response to the
comments.

Safety Need

NHTSA tentatively concluded in the NPRM and
the Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation (PRE) that
there was a safety problem related to both steering
lock-up and transmission lever shifting. The PRE
identified a relatively small number of complaints
received by the agency related to these safety prob-
lems. For instance, the review of incidents of steer-
ing column lock-up produced a listing of 13 acci-
dents, 6 injuries, and 2 fatalities. The review of
accidents related to transmission lever shifting pro-
duced a listing of 23 accidents, 5 injuries, and 4
fatalities related to the engine being turned off and
the ignition key removed. In addition, there were
another 17 rollaway crashes causing 5 injuries, (but
in these cases it was not known whether the ignition
key had been removed.) While NHTSA was aware
that there was a relatively low level of reported
accidents, the agency explained that it continued to
receive complaints about these problems, particu-
larly rollaways, resulting in serious injuries. The
agency tentatively concluded that the proposed
amendments would prevent some fatalities and seri-
ous injuries, especially involving children.

In the NPRM, the agency requested comments
about whether steering lock-up or transmission le-

PART 571; S114-PRE 22

ver shifting were significant safety problems for both
manual and automatic transmission vehicles. As for
key removal and subsequent steering lock-up while a
vehicle is in motion, one commenter, who brought a
lawsuit based on a fatal accident reportedly caused
by such a situation, stated that there was a signifi-
cant safety need for the proposed amendments. How-
ever, Nissan, the defendant in that lawsuit, stated
that the jury rejected his allegations pertaining to
key removal and subsequent steering lock-up. More
generally, Nissan stated that it was unaware of any
accidents that have resulted from steering column
lock-up as a result of key i-emoval.

The Automobile Importers Association (AIA),
BMW, Chrysler, Fiat, Ford, Honda, Nissan, Suzuki,
Volkswagen, and Winnebago commented that there
was no safety need for measures that would protect
against either steering lock-up or transmission lever
shifting. For instance, Chrysler stated that the lim-
ited number of accidents cited in the PRE out of
"billions of vehicle years of exposure" do not indicate
that either problem is significant. BMW further
stated that the benefits are far less than the costs
even if some "accidents have gone unreported." The
AIA stated that six fatalities (over 15 years) do not
constitute a safety need, especially since the propos-
als may not be able to guard against accidents
caused by "horseplay." In addition, AIA and Honda
commented that accidents due to transmission lever
shifting could be prevented by activating the park-
ing brake. Suzuki stated that the agency failed to
provide evidence that the proposed design changes
would reduce the number of these accidents.

In response to these comments, NHTSA has reex-
amined its proposal to introduce requirements in-
tended to reduce the dangers of steering lock-up and
transmission lever shifting. The agency emphasizes
that these two problems are distinct and must be
analyzed separately. The first, steering lock-up, is
associated with removing the key while the vehicle
is in motion, thus creating a potential for loss of
control due to locking the steering column. The few
instances of steering lock-up identified by the agency
appear to be associated with adults engaged in
horseplay, purposely removing the key, or removing
it in an emergency situation. The second, rollaway
after the transmission shift lever has been moved to
neutral, appears to be associated with children play-
ing with the transmission shift lever.

The agency has searched its accident files and
consumer complaint files to identify both types of
accidents and the resulting injuries and fatalities.
The results of that review are summarized in the
Final Regulatory Evaluation (FRE), which has been
placed in the docket. As for steering lock-up, the
FRE identified three accidents with three injuries
and two fatalities that were reported to have re-

sulted from steering lock-up on moving vehicles that
occurred after the ignition key was removed. Based
on the extremely low number of injuries and fatali-
ties over the course of approximately ten years,
NHTSA has decided not to require additional meas-
ures designed to prevent the possibility of steering
lock-up while the vehicle is in motion. Therefore, the
proposals set forth in S4.2(bX3) and S4.2(cX2XB) of
the NPRM to prevent steering lock-up in automatic
and manual transmission vehicles have not been
adopted in this final rule. Nevertheless, as discussed
later in this notice, the amendment to prevent
transmission lever shifting accidents in automatic
transmission vehicles will also serve to prevent the
removal of a key while that type of vehicle is in
motion, because the amendment permits key re-
moval only when the transmission is in "park."

As for transmission lever shifting, the FRE con-
cluded that 46 accidents, 8 injuries, and 5 fatalities
resulted from rollaway situations that the proposed
amendments would address. An additional 27 rolla-
way crashes involving 6 injuries had less informa-
tion about the status of the engine and the ignition
key position, but may be potentially relevant. There
were 325 additional accidents resulting when the
vehicle "rolled away" or was "rolling." While not
enough information was provided to categorize con-
clusively the accident as preventable by the
amended standard, it is likely that some of them
could have been prevented. The data indicate that
children are the principal victims of transmission
lever shifting accidents. The agency has also re-
ceived several letters outlining similar injuries.

A study focusing on child-injuring rollaway acci-
dents in Orange County, California confirms
NHTSA's tentative determination that injuries
caused by rolling vehicles pose a significant safety
problem. (Agran, Phyllis; Winn, Diane; Castillo,
Dawn. "Unsupervised Children in Vehicles: A Risk
for Pediatric Trauma," accepted for publication in
Pediatrics, 1990). That study, which was funded by
the Center for Disease Control, was conducted under
the hospital monitoring progi-am at the University
of California, Irvine. Between April 1987 and March
1989, the study uncovered nine cases of children
releasing the brake or moving the transmission shift
lever, or both, causing a parked vehicle to roll and
injure the child operating the controls or children
near the vehicle. Even though two of the cases could
be discounted for the purposes of this rulemaking
because the vehicle's engine was running and there
was insufficient information to draw conclusions
about some other situations, the study does estab-
lish that the type of accident at issue in this rule-
making, i.e., a motor vehicle being set in motion by
an unsupervised child, is occurring. Based on this
study, the agency has estimated that there are

PART 571; S114-PRE 23

roughly 400 to 800 relevant injury producing trans-
mission lever shifting accidents each year nation-
wide. As the Final Regulatory Evaluation explains
in detail, installation of the required technology in
the cars and light trucks not voluntarily equipped by
the rule's effective date, will prevent an estimated 50
to 100 child-injuring rollaway accidents annually.

Based on the above information, NHTSA has de-
termined that injuries caused in transmission lever
shifting situations pose a significant risk to safety.
The agency further notes it has a special obligation
to reduce injuries involving children and believes
this action is consistent with that obligation. In
addition, NHTSA believes that these injuries can be
prevented at a relatively low cost to manufacturers
since most current systems would already comply
with the amendments. The agency therefore con-
cludes that there is a safety need which can be
effectively met by amending Standard 1 14 to require
automatic transmission vehicles to have key locking
systems that prevent transmission lever shifting.

Voluntary Compliance
Chrysler and Ford commented that because they
and other manufacturers voluntarily plan to place
interlock systems on their vehicles, they did not
believe the amendments to Standard 114 were war-
ranted. While the agency welcomes these manufac-
turers' actions, it finds this argument unpersuasive,
because without a mandatory requirement, some
manufacturers might not adopt the more safety-
oriented key locking systems to prevent accidents
and their associated injm-ies and fatalities, due to
transmission lever shifting. In addition, by specify-
ing a requirement, the agency ensures that all
manufacturers will introduce systems that will pre-
vent accidents from transmission lever shifting.

Purpose of the Amendment
NHTSA's goal in amending the standard is to
provide adequate protection against injuries caused
by shifting the automatic transmission lever with-
out compromising the theft protection features of the
standard. The agency emphasizes that Standard 114
remains primarily a theft protection standard and
that this amendment is not intended to decrease the
level of theft protection.

Ford and NATB commented that the term "inad-
vertent" inaccurately describes some of the acci-
dents because the vehicle occupant's intent is irrel-
evant to the resulting harm. For instance, a child
may intentionally shift an automatic transmission
vehicle's lever unaware that these actions will result
in a crash. The problem centers on the fact that
young children are often unaware of the conse-
quences of their actions. The agency agrees with the
commenters that the term "inadvertent" does not

appropriately describe many of the situations at
issue and further notes that no descriptive term
sufficiently describes these situations. Accordingly,
NHTSA has decided against including any adjective
in the rule to describe the accidents addressed in
this rulemaking.

Impact of Amendment on Theft Protection

Allstate Insurance Co., Farmers Insurance Group,
NATB, Illinois and Ohio State Police, State Farm
Mutual Insurance Co., and United Services Automo-
bile Association commented that the proposal indi-
cates that the agency is less concerned about protect-
ing against vehicle thefts than under the existing
standard. For instance, Allstate and the Travelers
Companies commented that requiring the transmis-
sion lever locking device, which they viewed as a less
effective theft protection device than the steering
lock-up device, would adversely affect theft protec-
tion by encouraging manufacturers to eliminate the
steering column lock.

NHTSA notes that all manufacturers commenting
on the proposal stated that they plan to retain the
current steering column locking mechanism. In ad-
dition, an agency review of the plans of non-
commenting manufacturers indicated that most of
them will include both the steering lock and the
transmission lever shift lock. For instance, General
Motors (GM) has been providing both devices for
several years. This is consistent with Chrysler's
prediction that it and other manufacturers would
continue to use the steering column lock, because it
allows a single generic column design across a
product line and because it has been developed and
perfected over the past twenty years. Ford noted that
if it decided to comply with Standard 114 with only
a transmission lever interlock, it would need an
anti-theft shield to protect the cable running from
the console to the ignition on the steering column.

After considering its proposal in light of the man-
ufacturers' plans to produce vehicles that have both
the steering locking devices and transmission shift
interlocks, NHTSA concludes that there will not be a
reduction in theft protection. In fact, the agency
anticipates that the practical effect of these amend-
ments will be to increase the degree of theft protec-
tion, since most manufacturers indicated that they
will manufacture vehicles with both theft protection
devices.

NHTSA is sympathetic to Allstate's and NATB's
concern that the NPRM's scope and purpose section
(Si) might create the false impression that the
standard's focus was shifting away from theft protec-
tion. Therefore, section SI of this final rule deletes
the proposed language which would have expanded
the "scope and purpose" of the standard beyond theft

PART 571; S114-PRE 24

protection. The agency notes that this final rule
merely specifies requirements for a theft protection
device that is already being provided to effectuate
the existing standard.

BMW, NATB, the Ohio State Police, and Travelers
commented that the transmission lever proposal
would be better addressed outside Standard 114,
contending that the transmission lever locking de-
vice is a safety related mechanism that would erode
the theft protection aspects of this standard. NHTSA
disagrees with these comments based on the inter-
relationship between Standard 114's theft protection
requirements and a vehicle's transmission. In partic-
ular, the agency notes that a transmission lever that
locks in the "park" position upon key removal helps
prevent an unauthorized person from moving the
vehicle. Therefore, NHTSA concludes that the best
place for this requirement is in Standard 114, rather
than in a different safety standard.

Alternative Designs Related to Automatic
TYansmissions

Section S4.2(bXl) and (2) of the NPRM proposed to
require that automatic transmission vehicles have
an ignition-key locking system that would prevent
the shifting of the transmission whenever the key is
removed and would prevent the removal of the key
except when the transmission is locked in "park." In
addition, S4.2(bX3) proposed to require that if an
automatic transmission vehicle had a steering col-
umn lock, that lock would be engageable only when
the transmission was in "park" and the ignition key
had deactivated the vehicle's engine or other main
source of motive power. The NPRM also requested
comments on alternative approaches and devices
that might be able to reduce the problems of steering
lock-up and gear shifting. Fiat, Honda, Nissan, Rolls
Royce, Subaru, and Toyota commented about these
proposed requirements and suggested some alterna-
tive types of key locking/transmission lever shifting
systems on automatic transmission vehicles.

Fiat and Nissan commented that the proposals
established overly precise requirements, which
would limit new designs and innovations. Fiat sug-
gested that the agency specify more general require-
ments and leave the specific choice of design to the
manufacturer. In response to Fiat's suggestion, the
agency has broadened the proposed requirements
specified in the NPRM, wherever such changes
would not adversely affect theft protection or safety.
Nevertheless, NHTSA cannot agree with Fiat's sug-
gestion to eliminate the proposed subparagraphs of
S4.2(b), because specific performance requirements
are necessary to promote safety. This notice will
address the specific modifications below.

NHTSA notes that section S4.2(bXl) in the NPRM
proposed that "the ignition key-locking system shall

also prevent shifting the transmission whenever the
key is removed." After closer review, the agency
concludes that section S4.2(bXl) is not necessary
because the requirements in S4.2(bK2) automati-
cally prevent the situation in S4.2(bXl). Therefore,
the final rule does not include the proposed section
S4.2(bXl).

NHTSA notes that section S4.2(bX2) in the NPRM
proposed that "The key-locking system shall not
permit i-emoval of the key except when the transmis-
sion is locked in "park. " (emphasis added). This
provision was intended to lock either the transmis-
sion directly or the transmission shift lever and not
just the transmission per se. Based on discussions
with manufacturers indicating that this phrase was
typically interpreted as referring to the transmis-
sion lever and the fact that most anti-shift locks act
to lock the transmission by preventing the shifting of
the transmission lever, NHTSA is satisfied that the
phrase "transmission is locked in 'park' " was inter-
preted as a shorthand for "transmission or transmis-
sion lever is locked in 'park.' " The agency has
therefore added a reference to the transmission lever
in section S4.2(b) of the final rule and is confident
that this clarification will not adversely affect any
party.

Rolls Royce's Electrical Transmission Lock
Rolls Royce commented that its electrically acti-
vated transmission parking lock would meet the
proposal's intent but not the proposed language
specified in S4.2(bX2). It explained that an electric
gear range selector lever controls an electrically
powered mechanical gear i-ange actuator, which pro-
duces the mechanical energy needed to select a
transmission range on all its automatic transmis-
sion vehicles. When the key is removed from the
dashboard-mounted key and lock system, an electric
switch automatically causes the electrically powered
gear range actuator to lock the transmission in
"park," irrespective of the gear selector lever's posi-
tion. As a result, forward self mobility is prevented
in compliance with the existing Standard 114. In
addition, this design adheres to the proposal's in-
tent, because once the key is removed, moving the
lever will not disengage the transmission lock, so the
vehicle cannot roll away. However, it would not
comply with the proposal's wording because the
system is not "locked" instantaneously when the
key is removed, but locks momentarily afterward
when the electric motor engages the lock. Rolls
Royce requested that the agency modify the wording
of section S4.2(bX2) to allow their type of locking
system.

After reviewing Rolls Royce's comments, NHTSA
has decided to issue a final rule that will permit a
design such as the one proposed by Rolls Royce. The

PART 571; S114-PRE 25

agency believes that Rolls Royce's system will pre-
vent the rolling of a vehicle as effectively as the
other systems designed to comply with the language
proposed in S4.2(bX2). In the final rule, this provi-
sion is now designated S4.2(b) to reflect the changes
in the final rule compared to the proposal. In addi-
tion, the agency notes that neither it nor Rolls Royce
is aware of any accidents involving the roll away of
these vehicles, which have been equipped with this
system for over twenty years. Accordingly, the final
rule permits a key locking system in which key
removal directly causes the transmission or trans-
mission lever to become locked in "park." In partic-
ular, this provision permits the Rolls Royce's key
locking system in which there is a momentary
shifting of the transmission before the automatic
action locks the transmission in "park." The agency
is confident that the time interval related to the
momentary shifting will not pose any danger in
rollaway situations. Therefore, a manufacturer may
comply with section S4.2(b) in the final rule either
by a key locking system similar to Rolls Royce's
system or by a key locking system that prevents key
removal unless the transmission or transmission
shift lever is locked in "park."

Electrical Transmission Shift Lock Systems:
Emergency Overrides and Key Release Systems
The proposal to require a transmission shift lock
on vehicles with automatic transmission creates a
potential compliance problem for a few manufactur-
ers which have been planning to install electrical
transmission shift lock systems. Honda, Mazda, Nis-
san, Subaru, and Toyota stated that electrical trans-
mission shift lock systems could result in safety
problems if the battery or electrical system failed. In
such a situation, it would be impossible to move
these vehicles unless there was an override device
which would permit shifting the lever out of the
"park" position.

The commenters stated that their electrical trans-
mission shift lock systems would not comply with
the requirements proposed in S4.2(bXl) and
S4.2(bH2l. Honda, Nissan, and Toyota requested that
S4.2(b)(l) be modified to allow for an emergency
override device so that a disabled vehicle could be
moved. In addition, Nissan, Toyota, and Subaru
requested that S4.2(bK2) be modified to permit key
removal, even if the transmission was not in "park."
Subaru requested that the agency issue a supple-
mental notice to explore the problems related with a
mechanical override.

Toyota explained that it was developing an electri-
cally operated interlock override function to allow
the transmission to be shifted from "park" to allow
a disabled vehicle to be moved. This emergency

override would engage only when the driver de-
presses and holds down the override button. Accord-
ingly, Toyota requested that the agency amend
S4.2(bKl) to include the phrase ". . . except that an
emergency override may be provided to enable move-
ment of a disabled vehicle." Toyota further explained
that the electrical interlock system is designed to
automatically shut off, if the key is left in the "ACC"
position for an hour. Therefore, it requested an
emergency system to allow key release even if the
transmission were not placed in "park."

Honda stated that if its electrical system failed, it
would be impossible to shift the transmission lever
out of "park" without a mechanical emergency over-
ride. Therefore, it requested the agency to allow such
an override provided such a system would prevent
inadvertent operation. From Honda's comments, it
was not clear whether the override could be acti-
vated without the key in the ignition.

Nissan explained that it is developing a system
which would prevent shifting the transmission lever
out of the "park" position, unless the key is at the
"on" position and the brake pedal is depressed.
Nissan commented that along with an emergency
override, the standard should allow for an emer-
gency key release system by which a key could be
removed even if the vehicle was not in "park." The
commenter stated that this system was necessary in
case the battery failed. Nissan concluded that Stan-
dard 114 should allow for an emergency gear shift
release system that could be released only by a
"manual action other than normal gear shift lever
manipulation."

Mazda demonstrated to NHTSA staff a prototype
gear shift mechanism with an emergency release
button. In this system, a spring-loaded emergency
release button located on the console near the base of
the shifter allows the driver to disengage the gear
shifter manually by pushing back and holding the
emergency release button at the same time he or she
moves the shifter out of park. The location and
design of this device requires a two-handed operation
to release the lock. This override device could be
activated without the key being in the key locking
system.

Subaru also stated that a release button should be
required to permit moving the transmission lever
out of "park" in the case of a dead battery. Subaru
did not explain whether the key was necessary to
operate this override. It also requested an emergency
key release button to allow removing a key from the
ignition switch if the transmission were not in
"park." Because some of these systems might be
inconsistent with the proposals in the NPRM, Sub-
aru requested that the agency issue a supplemental
notice.

After evaluating these comments, NHTSA con-

PART571; S114-PRE 26

eludes that a mechanical override system can be
installed consistent with the NPRM, provided the
override is only activated by the key used to control
the vehicle. This permits the manufacturer to install
a manual override system that is tied to either the
ignition part of the key-locking system or an auxil-
iary part of the key-locking system that may be
located near and/or is part of the manual override
device. As a result, a vehicle could be moved if it
experiences an electrical failure. The agency empha-
sizes that an override that could be operated without
requiring a key might be detrimental to theft pro-
tection since an unauthorized person could operate
that type of manual override. The agency has de-
cided that a superior approach is to permit a manual
override to the electrical shift system, but only if
such an override has to be operated by the key used
to control the vehicle. This appears consistent with
Nissan's manual override system. The agency believes
that this will permit a person to move a disabled
vehicle without jeopardizing theft protection.

The agency acknowledges that this requirement
may differ slightly from the override systems ini-
tially anticipated by some manufacturers, which
could be activated regardless of the key being in the
key locking system. However, the agency does not
anticipate that compliance will be overly burden-
some, especially since the rule permits a manufac-
turer to install a manual override system tied to
either the ignition part of the key locking system or
an auxiliary part of the key locking system near the
manual override device.

As noted above, Toyota, Nissan and Subaru de-
scribed systems that would permit key removal, even
if the vehicle's transmission was not in "park." This
would permit an individual to remove the key even
though the battery or electrical system had failed.
The commenters requested that S4.2(bK2) be modi-
fied to allow key removal even if the transmission
was not in "park."

In response to this concern about an electrical
failure or a dead battery, the agency notes that this
typically occurs when the vehicle is parked and the
lights or another auxiliary system are left on for
long periods of time. In such situations, the vehicle
would usually be in the "park" position. In the
unusual situation of electrical failure when the
vehicle's transmission is not in "park," a transmis-
sion with an electrical shift lock system could simply
be mechanically shifted to "park, " where the system
could be designed to mechanically lock in "park"
even without the electrical power so that the key
could be removed. Therefore, the agency does not
foresee the need to remove a key while the transmis-
sion is in a position other than "park." NHTSA
concludes that changing the requirements to permit
key removal while the transmission is in a position

other than "park" is not necessary and would be
detrimental to theft protection since an unautho-
rized person could operate that type of key release.
Accordingly, NHTSA has decided not to modify the
section, which is now S4.2(b), to allow for key re-
moval when the transmission is in a position other
than "park."

Miscellaneous Comments Related to Automatic
Transm ission Vefi ides

Sections S4.2(bK2) and (3) of the proposed amend-
ment included references to the "park" position in
automatic transmission vehicles. BMW commented
that, while no safety standard requires the "park"
position in automatic transmission vehicles, this
pi'oposal might be misinterpreted as requiring the
"park" position for transmissions in such vehicles.
The agency agrees with BMW that no safety stan-
dard requires the "park" position and takes this
opportunity to clarify this understanding in S4.2(b).
NHTSA further notes that requiring a "park" posi-
tion would necessitate a rulemaking beyond the
scope of this notice.

In sections S4.2(a), (b), and (c) of the proposed
amendment, the agency specified that each vehicle
subject to the standard must have an "ignition
key-locking system" (emphasis supplied). BMW com-
mented that requiring an "ignition key-locking sys-
tem" rather than the more general "key-locking
system," was overly specific and might wrongly
imply that the ignition is the component that must
be interrupted in order to prevent normal activation
of the engine. NHTSA agi-ees with BMW that includ-
ing the term "ignition" is unnecessarily specific and
thus has omitted this term in the final rule.

NHTSA notes that both the current Standard 114
at S4.(2Xa) and the NPRM at S4.2(a) and S4.2(bX3)
include the phrase "other main source of motive
power." The agency interprets this phrase as being
synonymous with the term "motor," since any
known means of mechanical pi'opulsion other than
an engine requires some type of motor. Accoi-dingly,
in the interests of eliminating superfluous words,
this final rule substitutes the term "motor" in place
of the phrase "other main source of motive power."

Manual Transmission Vehicles
The NPRM asked whether inadvertent gear shift-
ing presented a significant safety problem for man-
ual transmission vehicles. The commenters indi-
cated that there was no safety need related to the
roll away of manual transmission vehicles, and the
agency's independent review of the accident statis-
tics confirmed this view. Accordingly, the agency has
decided not to require manual transmission vehicles
to contain an interlock.

With respect to the technology proposed for man-

PART 571: S114-PRE 27

ual transmissions to protect against steering lockup,
several commenters suggested changes that would
be less design restrictive and more practical than
proposed in the NPRM. While these comments may
have merit, the agency's conclusion that steering
lockup as the result of key removal is not a signifi-
cant enough safety problem to justify additional
requirements makes the issue moot.

Harmonization

The European Economic Community (ECE's) Reg-
ulation No. 18 provides comprehensive requirements
related to theft protection. That regulation requires
a manufacturer to install a protective device whose
activation prevents one of three events: a vehicle
being steered, its being driven, or its being moved
forward under its own power. In other words, a
manufacturer has the option of complying with ECE
Regulation No. 18 in one of three ways. In contrast,
the amended Standard 114 requires an anti-shift
device for any automatic transmission vehicle with a
"park" position. In the PRE, NHTSA tentatively
concluded that vehicles complying with the proposed
amendments to Standard 114 also would comply
with ECE Regulation No. 18. However, the agency
noted that some designs that comply with ECE
Regulation No. 18 would have to be modified to
comply with the new U.S. requirements. For in-
stance, if a manufacturer wished to comply with
ECE Regulation No. 18 with a steering lock, it would
be possible to remove the key from the ignition of an
automatic transmission vehicle conforming to Regu-
lation No. 18 without locking up the transmission
lever or gearshift control as required by this
rulemaking.

Volkswagen, Mercedes, and Range Rover com-
mented that the amendments pi'esent problems re-
lated to harmonization. Volkswagen stated that
most manufacturers would not remove the steering
column lock, because it was required by ECE Regu-
lation No. 18. As a result, cost savings were not
likely. (As noted above, the steering lock is an option
and not a requirement of ECE Regulation No. 18.)
Range Rover commented that while the amend-
ments would comply with international standards,
the amendments would cause conflicts with current
designs used to meet these international standards
and would result in additional costs, especially if the
leadtime were unreasonably short. Mercedes stated
that the amendments would be contrary to harmo-
nization because they add requirements for locking
systems that go beyond protection against theft.

After reviewing these comments, NHTSA con-
cludes that even though the amendment introduces
a requirement that ECE Regulation No. 18 does not
specifically contain, this change will not signifi-
cantly hinder harmonization. Because the new re-

quirement does not significantly differ from ECE
Regulation No. 18 and most manufacturers already
comply or voluntarily plan to comply with this
amendment, the agency believes that the practical
effect of this rule will be minimal. In addition,
NHTSA believes that the amendments provide the
additional benefit of enhancing theft protection and
safety since most manufacturers plan to use both a
transmission lever interlock and a steering column
lock. In addition, the agency has minimized any
hardships related to harmonization by providing
adequate leadtime. The agency believes that this
will mitigate the problems associated with Volkswa-
gen's and Range Rover's concerns and provide ade-
quate time to allow manufacturers to modify any
designs.

Leadtime

The NPRM proposed to give two years of leadtime
between the publication of the final rule and the
effective date of the amendments. AIA, BMW,
Chrysler, Ford, Mercedes, and Jaguar noted that a
three-year leadtime, with an effective date of Sep-
tember 1, 1992 (model year 1993) was necessary to
allow for the redesign, retooling, and product testing
of vehicles. In the alternative, if the agency specified
a two-year leadtime, BMW, Chrysler, Ford, and
Honda stated that a phase-in would be necessary to
accommodate vehicle lines that were being phased-
out. For instance. Ford requested that if the agency
published a final rule with an effective date befoi'e
model year 1993, then the agency should implement
a phase-in process that would x'equire no more than
90 percent of a manufacturer's production of auto-
matic transmission vehicles to be in compliance by
model year 1992 (with 100 percent compliance by
model year 1993). Ford explained that it is voluntar-
ily equipping all of its vehicles with floor-mounted
automatic transmission shift controls with an
ignition/shift control interlock system by the 1993
model year Ford requested a phase-in to accommo-
date those vehicle lines that are being redesigned
over that time period. Chrysler also requested an
effective date no earlier than September 1, 1992
(model year 1993), or in the alternative a two-year
phase-in beginning no earlier than September 1,
1991.

Volkswagen stated that a leadtime of two model
years would be sufficient to allow compliance with
the amendments. It emphasized that the effective
date should refer to model year rather than "two
years after the date on which the final rule is
published" to avoid requiring mid-model year modi-
fications. Range Rover stated that the proposed
leadtime was unduly burdensome, especially on a
small manufacturer such as itself, but did not spec-
ify a leadtime it viewed as adequate. Mitsubishi

PART 571; S114-PRE 28

explained that a leadtime before model year 1992
would restrict unreasonably its plans for model year
1991 in which it plans to change four car lines and
drop one line. Honda noted that at a minimum, a two-
year leadtime would be necessary. In the alternative,
Honda stated that a phase-in program would ease
the burdens of cost and leadtime.

After reviewing this issue, NHTSA has concluded
that the proposed two-year leadtime is proper given
that it would not unreasonably increase the costs
associated with adopting these amendments. The
agency believes that phasing in by a percentage of
production is unnecessary given the provided lead-
time. Accordingly, the agency has determined that
an effective date of September 1, 1992 is appropriate
for this final rule.

Costs

In the NPRM, NHTSA estimated that the pro-
posed amendments would cost the consumer approx-
imately $6.25 for each automatic transmission vehi-
cle. This was attributable primarily to adding a gear
shift lever locking mechanism to vehicles with a
console-mounted automatic transmission. NHTSA
estimated that the proposed amendments would
affect 3.3 million cars and light trucks. The agency
believed that there would be a cost savings of $2.50
per vehicle if the manufacturers decided to delete the
steering column locks from all 11.2 million automatic
transmission vehicles. This led the agency to conclude
that there would be a net cost savings of $7.4 million
annually if the manufacturers eliminated the steering
column lock. In addition, the NPRM estimated that
the proposal would affect 1.5 million manual transmis-
sion cau^ and light trucks at a consumer cost of about
$2.50 per vehicle, or a total annual cost of $3.75
million. The NPRM sought additional data about the
production volumes of different types of transmission
shifts and column and gear shift lever locking systems
to better estimate the costs associated with these
amendments.

BMW, Chrysler, Ford, Honda, Range Rover, Sub-
aru, Volkswagen, and Winnebago commented that
the cost analysis understated the costs of the pro-
posed amendment. Commenters' estimates of the
cost of technologies that would meet the proposed
requirements ranged from $7 to $70 dollars. In
addition, BMW, Ford, Chrysler, Volkswagen, and
Honda noted that they did not intend to eliminate
the steering column lock. Therefore, there would be
no cost savings related to the final rule. Ford noted
that it had cost $11 to modify the key locking
systems on its 1988 Tempo and Topaz vehicles to
comply with a design similar to the proposal.
Chrysler estimated that the retail price equivalent
of compliance for automatic transmission vehicles
would be approximately $14 for most of its vehicles,

but for some vehicles with shorter life cycles the
price could be as high as $29 per vehicle. Winnebago
stated that the costs are unreasonable, especially for
small manufacturers like itself. Volkswagen stated
that the modifications would be more expensive for
it than other manufacturers because it currently
does not provide a transmission lever lock which is
operational when the ignition is turned off. Subaru
stated that changes on automatic transmission ve-
hicles would cost 10,000 yen (or approximately $70)
for a system that includes an interlock with the
brake. That company also estimated that changes on
manual transmission vehicles would cost 1,000 to
5,000 yen (approximately $7 to $35), the higher cost
being for a system that interconnects the ignition
key lock to another safety system, such as the
parking brake. Such systems go beyond what is
being required; therefore, the agency did not use
these higher unit costs in estimating the cost of the
amendment. Range Rover disputed the NPRM's cost
analysis, especially in relation to the agency's initial
view of a cost savings. Rolls Royce estimated that it
would cost $14.50, $19.50, or $29.50 per vehicle
depending on the design it adopted. The agency
notes that Rolls Royce's cost estimates may not be
relevant because its current system will most likely
comply with the final rule.

After reviewing these comments, NHTSA has de-
termined that it should modify some of its cost
estimates. For instance, the agency agrees with the
commenters that there will be no cost savings re-
lated to the removal of the steering column lock. The
agency emphasizes that an important consideration
is that many vehicles already comply or will be
brought voluntarily into compliance with the
amendments. For automatic transmission vehicles,
the agency determined that 7,702,000 1987 MY cars
and light trucks currently comply with the new
requirements and that 3,536,000 do not. Of those not
currently in compliance, 3,066,000 will be brought
voluntarily into compliance by September 1, 1992.
Therefore, the agency anticipates that an additional
470,000 vehicles will be modified as a result of the
amendments.

In estimating the consumer cost of this amend-
ment, NHTSA believes that its unit cost estimate in
the PRE of between $5.75 and $6.75 is reasonably
accurate for a system to meet the requirements for
automatic transmission vehicles. However, the
agency acknowledges the cost data provided by com-
menters and will use the PRE's value of $6.75 as the
lower end of the cost estimate range and Chrysler's
estimate of $14 as the upper end of the cost estimate
range. The agency has decided not to use Subaru's
estimate of $70 per vehicle, because this system is
also intended to protect against "unintended accel-
eration," and thus is more costly than technologies

PART571;S114-PRE29

necessary to comply with the subject regulation.
Accordingly, NHTSA estimates that the annual con-
sumer cost of complying with the automatic trans-
mission requirement as follows: $6.75 to $14.00 (cost
per vehicle) x 470,000 vehicles (vehicles modified
because of the standard) = $3,173,000 to $6,580,000.

In summary, NHTSA believes that the cost of this
rulemaking is the cost of compliance for those man-
ufacturers who would not have voluntarily modified
their vehicles in order to meet the new requirement.
Based on the above estimates, the agency antici-
pates the total annual cost for these amendments
will range from $3.2 million and $6.6 million.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 571.114
is amended as follows:

§ 571.114 Standard No. 114 Theft Protection

1. Section Si of Standard 114 is revised to read as
follows:

SI Purpose and Scope This standard specifies
requirements for theft protection to reduce the inci-
dence of accidents resulting from the unauthorized
operation of a vehicle.

2. S4.2 is revised to read as follows:

54.2 Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system
that, whenever the key is removed, prevents:

(a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or
motor; and

(b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the
vehicle or both. For a vehicle equipped with an
automatic transmission with a "park" position, the
key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key
unless the transmission or transmission shift lever
is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as
the direct result of removing the key.

3. S4.3 is revised to read as follows:

54.3 The prime means for deactivating the vehi-
cle's engine or motor shall not activate the key-
locking system described in S4.2(b).

Issued on: May 22, 1990.

Jeffrey R. Miller
Deputy Administrator

55 FR 21868
May 30, 1990

PART 571; S114-PRE 30

MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 114

Theft Protection— Passenger Cars
(Docket 1-21; Notice 5)

51. Purpose and scope. This standard specifies
requirements for theft protection to reduce the inci-
dence of accidents resulting from unauthorized [oper-
ation of a vehicle.]

52. Application. This standard applies to pas-
senger cars and to trucks and multipurpose passenger
vehicles having a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.

53. Definitions. "Combination" means one of the
specifically planned and constructed variations of a
locking system which, when properly actuated, permits
operation of the locking system.

"Key" includes any other device designed and con-
structed to provide a method for operating a locking
system which is designed and constructed to be oper-
ated by that device.

"Vehicle type" refers to "passenger car," "truck,"
or "multipurpose passenger vehicle," as those terms
are defined in 49 CFR §571.3.

54. Requirements.

S4.1. Each truck and multipurpose passenger ve-
hicle having a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less manufac-
tured on or after September 1, 1983 and each
passenger car shall meet the requirements of S4.2,

54.3, S4.4, and S4.5. However, open-body type vehi-
cles that are manufactured for operation without doors
and that either have no doors or have doors that are
designed to be easily attached to and removed from the
vehicle by the vehicle owner are not required to com-
ply with S4.5.

54.1.1 Passenger cars manufactured before Sep-
tember 1, 1982, shall meet the requirements of S4.2,

54.4, S4.6, and S4.7 or the requirements listed in
S4.1.2.

54.1.2 Passenger cars manufactured on or after
September 1, 1982, shall meet the requirements of
S4.3, S4.5, S4.6, and S4.7.

54.1.3 Trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles
having a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less manufactured
on or after September 1, 1983, shall meet requirements
of S4.3, S4.5, S4.6, and S4.7.

54.2 Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system
that whenever the key is removed, will prevent—

(a) The normal activation of the vehicle's engine or
[motor; and]

(b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the ve-
hicle, or both. [For a vehicle equipped with an auto-
matic transmission with a "park" position, the
key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key
unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is
locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the
direct result of removing the key. (55 F.R. 21868— May
30, 1990. Effective: For vehicles manufactured on or af-
ter September 1, 1992)]

54.3 [The prime means for deactivating the vehi-
cle's engine or motor shall not activate the key-locking
system described in S4.2(b). (55 F.R. 21868— May 30,
1990. Effective: For vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 1992)]

54.4 For each vehicle type manufactured by a
manufacturer, the number of different combinations
of the key-locking systems required by S4.2 shall be
at least 1,000, or a number equal to the number of ve-
hicles of that type manufactured by such manufacturer,
whichever is less. The same combinations may be used
for more than one vehicle type.

54.5 A warning to the driver shall be activated
whenever the key required by S4.2 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

54.6 The number of different combinations of the
key-locking systems required of each manufacturer for
a type of vehicle shall be at least 1,000, or a number
equal to the number of vehicles of that type manufac-
tured by such manufacturer, whichever is less.

(Rav. 5/30/90)

PART 571; S114-1

S4.7 A warning to the driver sliall be activated (c) After the key has been inserted in the locking

whenever the key required by S4.2 or S4.3 has been system and before is has been turned,
left in the locking system and the driver's door is
opened. The warning to the driver need not operate— Issued on December 22, 1980

(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 45 F.R. 85450
"start" position; or December 29, 1980

PART 571; S114-2

PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE
SAFETY STANDARD NO. 120

Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles

Other Than Passenger Cars

(Docket No. 87-12; Notice 3)

RIN 2127-AC18

ACTION: Final Rule.

SUMMARY: This notice amends Standard No. 110,
Tire Selection and Rims, and Standard No. 120, Tire
Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passen-
ger Cars, to permit new passenger cars, multipur-
pose passenger vehicles, and light trucks equipped
with passenger car tires to be equipped with a
non-pneumatic spare tire. These standards had re-
quired all new vehicles to be equipped with pneu-
matic tires. The notice also establishes requirements
requiring non-pneumatic tires to bear a label stating
that the tires are to be used only as a temporary
spare tire and only at limited speeds. It requires the
manufacturer to place a placard in the vehicle and
information in the owner's manual explaining the
proper use of these tires. In addition, the notice
establishes Standard No. 129, New Non-Pneumatic
Tires for Passenger Cars, which includes definitions
relevant to non-pneumatic tires and specifies perform-
ance, testing, and additional labeling requirements
for these tires. In particular, the new standard con-
tains performance requirements related to physical
dimensions, lateral strength, strength (in vertical load-
ing), tire endurance, and high speed performance. The
agency has determined that these requirements pro-
vide the basic tests to ensure the structural integrity of
non-pneumatic tires. To ensure an even higher degree
of safety, a non-pneumatic tire must be labeled for use
only as a temporary spare tire at limited speeds.
NHTSA believes that these performance requirements
together with these labels ensure the safety of non-
pneumatic tires.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The rule is effective on August
20, 1990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110,

Tire Selection and Rims (49 CFR §571.1 10), specifies

requirements for the selection of tires to be used on

passenger cars. Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and

Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49
CFR §571.120), specifies similar requirements for
the selection of tires to be used on vehicles other
than passenger cars. The purpose of these standards
is to prevent tire overloading and to facilitate the
proper matching of a tire and rim to a vehicle. They
also require a vehicle manufacturer to place in each
new vehicle a placard bearing information to ensure
use at the proper inflation.

Section S4.1 of Standard No. 110 requires passenger
cars to be equipped with tires that meet the require-
ments of §571.109, "New Pneumatic Tires— Passenger
Cars." (49 CFR §571.109) Section S5.1.1 of Standard
No. 120 similarly requires vehicles other than passen-
ger cars to be equipped with pneumatic tires that meet
the requirements of Standard No. 109 or Standard No.
119 "New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than
Passenger Cars" (49 CFR §571.119).

Standard No. 109 expressly applies only to new
pneumatic tires which it defines as "mechanical
device(s) . . , (that) contain the gas or fluid that
sustains the load." (emphasis added) The standard
specifies tire dimensions and laboratory test require-
ments for bead unseating resistance, tire strength
(in vertical loading), tire endurance, and high speed
performance; defines tire load ratings; and specifies
labeling requirements for new pneumatic tires used
on passenger cars.

The practical effect of Standard No. 109's applica-
bility to only pneumatic tires, together with Stan-
dai-d No. llO's requirement that passenger cars must
be equipped with tires that meet Standard No. 109's
requirements, is to prohibit any new passenger car
from being equipped with non-pneumatic tires. Sim-
ilarly, Standard Nos. 109, 119 and 120 together
prohibit any vehicle subject to Standard No. 120
from being equipped with non-pneumatic tires.

PART 571; S120-PRE 21

On September 23, 1987, NHTSA issued a notice
announcing the grant of GM's petition and request-
ing comments about non-pneumatic tires (52 FR
35740). The notice invited comment about what
requirements would be necessary to ensure the safe
use of a non-pneumatic tire. In response to that
notice, NHTSA received comments from various mo-

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

More specifically, the notice proposed three
amendments to Standard No. 110. First, it proposed
that section S4.1 be amended to allow passenger
cars to be equipped with a non-pneumatic spare tire.
Second, the notice proposed that Standard No. 110
contain additional labeling requirements and vehi-
cle placarding requirements explaining that such
tires should be used only as a spare tire on a
temporary basis at speeds not to exceed 50 m.p.h.
Third, the notice proposed that safety information
about the use of a non-pneumatic tire be included in
the owner's manual of the passenger car

The NPRM also proposed to supplement the label-
ing requirements in Standard No. 110 by including
in Standard No. 129 labeling requirements similar

PART 571; S120-PRE 22

definition of a "non-pneumatic spare tire assembly,"
which was defined as a device "intended for tempo-
rary use in place of one of the pneumatic tires and
rims that are fitted to a passenger car . . .," be
revised to state that the NPSTA be "in support of as
well as "in place of" According to the commenter,
this modification would allow future NPSTAs to be
fitted on tire and wheel assemblies without remov-
ing the deflated pneumatic tire. The agency has
decided not to adopt Michelin's suggestion which is
beyond the scope of the current proposal and its test
procedures. Further, the agency needs more informa-
tion about devices used "in support of" a deflated
pneumatic tire, especially about the procedures for
testing them while they are mounted on a deflated
pneumatic tire. Therefore, NHTSA has decided not
to expand the definition as requested by Michelin.

Uniroyal suggested that the agency move the
definition of "rim" from the definition section (S3) to
the requirements section (84.4). The agency has
decided not to adopt this suggestion which is unnec-
essai-y and contrary to standard regulatory drafting.
The agency notes that it is modifying the definition
of "rim" to "non-pneumatic rim" and "test rim" to
"non-pneumatic test rim." This change will help to
distinguish between conventional rims for pneu-
matic tires and rims for non-pneumatic tires. The
notice adopts this distinction throughout Standards
110, 120, and 129.

A. Proposal to Amend Standard Na 110

Definitions

The NPRM proposed to add definitions to para-
graph S3 for "non-pneumatic spare tire assembly,"
"non-pneumatic tire," "non-pneumatic tire assem-
bly," "rim," and "wheel center member" The agency
intended these definitions to be general in order to
better ensure a generic standard appropriate to any
type of non-pneumatic tire. These definitions were
patterned after analogous definitions in NHTSA's
safety standard for pneumatic tires and SAE Recom-
mended Practice J328a, "Wheels— Passenger Cars-
Performance Requirements and Tsst Procedures."

The agency received two comments about the
proposed definitions. Michelin requested that the

Labeling Requirements

PART 571; S120-PRE 23

technique to comply with S6. NHTSA notes that the
key criteria related to informational marking re-
quirements is that the message be useful and under-
standable for the lifetime of the tire. Thus, a mes-
sage must be permanent, legible, and conspicuous.
After reviewing Uniroyal's request, the agency be-
lieves that affixing a permanent label on a non-
pneumatic tire would not meet these ends. The
agency is concerned that a paper label would not be
permanent given that it would be exposed to envi-
ronmental factors such as rain, snow, road salt, car
wash brushes and detergents. The agency is espe-
cially concerned that there is nothing to prevent a
paper label from disintegi'ating when exposed to the
elements or being rubbed off by a curb. Similarly,
there is nothing to prevent the printing on the label
from becoming illegible. The agency therefore has
decided not to permit a label as an alternative
technique to comply with S6.

Section S6(b) contained a proposal that each non-
pneumatic spare tire be labeled "MAXIMUM 50
M.P.H." The NPRM stated that this maximum speed
warning, like the temporai-y use warning, would be
in the interest of safety. The notice further explained
that the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE)
Regulation 64 contains a maximum speed warning
of 80 kilometers per hour (49.7 m.p.h.) in response to
concerns over the potential for some degradations in
the braking and handling performance of a vehicle
fitted with a temporary spare tire. The notice con-
tinued that even though these concerns did not
directly relate to a tire's structural failure, the
agency believed that a maximum speed warning
would improve the total safety of the vehicle because
any potential problems associated with handling,
control, stability, and braking are typically exacer-
bated at faster speeds. It also stated that a maxi-
mum speed warning would serve to deter some
motorists from driving with a non-pneumatic tire on
an extended basis.

NHTSA received four comments on the proposal to
require a maximum speed warning of 50 m.p.h.
While Goodyear and Firestone supported the pro-

posal, Uniroyal and General Motors opposed it, stat-
ing that it should be at the discretion of the vehicle
manufacturer, the entity responsible for the vehicle's
braking, handling, and other performance charac-
teristics. Uniroyal stated that such a requirement is
unnecessary since T-type pneumatic spares are not
required to have such labeling. It also commented
that the maximum speed labeling in ECE Regula-
tion 64 is inapplicable to the non-pneumatic spare,
since the non-pneumatic tire would be subject to
more stringent performance requirements. GM com-
mented that a maximum speed labeling requirement
was not warranted, stating that "there is no generic
technical or safety reason for it," a non-pneumatic
spare tire is not different from current temporary
compact spare tires, the maximum recommended
speed of 50 m.p.h. might unduly alarm some drivers,
and consumers might misinterpret the "50 iruph.
speed" label as a "50 mile use" restriction.

After reviewing the maximum speed labeling re-
quirement in light of these comments, NHTSA con-
tinues to believe that such a requirement would be
in the interest of safety. The agency notes that
according to information provided by Uniroyal, there
are some differences in performance characteristics
between non-pneumatic spare tires and pneumatic
spares. For instance, the non-pneumatic tire tends to
"nibble," i.e., generate lateral forces when crossing a
longitudinal road irregularity. While differences
with conventional pneumatic spare tires are not
significant enough to justify a prohibition of non-
pneumatic tires, these relative shortcomings, which
might alarm a driver unfamiliar with them, appear
to be exacerbated at greater speeds. Until more
experience is gained with non-pneumatic tires, the
agency believes that GM's claim that there is no
safety reason to justify maximum speed labeling is
premature. The agency notes that GM included a 50
m.p.h. maximum speed marking on its pneumatic
temporary spare tire for the first five years after its
introduction, suggesting that a newly introduced
temporary tire design should contain such a maxi-
mum speed warning. Based on the above consider-
ations, the agency concludes that to satisfy the Vehicle
Safety Act's mandate, the 50 m.p.h. maximum speed
marking must be a mandatory requirement and not be
left to the manufacturers' discretion.

Section S6(c) of Standard No. 110 contained a
proposal that the non-pneumatic tire be labeled with
the "size designation(s) of the pneumatic tires that
this non-pneumatic tire spare assembly is intended
to replace or, at the manufacturer's option, is capable
of replacing." All those who commented on this
provision opposed it, stating that the requirement
could result in lengthy information that might con-
fuse consumers. For instance, a consumer might
mistakenly conclude that a 15 inch non-pneumatic

PART 571; S120-PRE 24

After reviewing these comments, NHTSA has de-
termined that instead of designations of the pneu-
matic tires replaced, a "non-pneumatic tire identify-
ing code (NPTIC)" should be required to identify a
non-pneumatic tire. Like the tire size designation of
a pneumatic tire, the NPTIC's purpose is to provide
consumers information about the proper application
of a non-pneumatic tire. The agency believes that
this method of identification is superior to requiring
a non-pneumatic tire to be labeled with the pneu-
matic tire size or the non-pneumatic spare tire's
specific vehicle application(s) given the potential for
many different non-pneumatic tire designs. A man-
ufacturer may still mark specific vehicle applica-
tion(s) on the tire provided that the additional infor-
mation did not obscure or confuse the required
information. Manufacturers are urged, therefore, to
avoid unnecessarily long vehicle application infor-
mation or unnecessarily long identifying codes.
Based on the above considerations, the manufac-
turer will be required to label a non-pneumatic spare
tire or spare tire assembly with a "non-pneumatic
tire identification code," (NPTIC), which is defined
in section S3 of Standard 129. A manufacturer also
is required to place the NPTIC on the vehicle placard
and in the owner's manual. In addition, the NPTIC
will replace any reference in the regulatory text to
the "non-pneumatic tire size designation."

Vehicle Placarding
Section S7 of the Standard No. 110 contained pro-
posed requirements for vehicle placards. Under the
proposal, the placard would state, in letters not less
than 1.0 inch high, "CAUTION-USE AS SPARE
TIKE," and in letters not less than 0.5 inches high,
"FOR TEMPORARY USE ONLY," "MAXIMUM 50
M.P.H.," and the size designation of the pneumatic tire
to be replaced. The agency believed that this informa-
tion would help explain that a non-pneumatic tire

should be used only as a spare tire at limited speeds for
a limited period of time.

Volkswagen commented that the size of the letter-
ing proposed in S7.1 would result in a placard that
was too large to easily fit in the trunk. Thus, it
requested that the standard require the words to be
"legible and conspicuous," or in the alternative, to
change the 1.0 inch requirement to % inch and the
V2 inch requirement to V4 inch. NHTSA rejects the
first suggestion because the Vehicle Safety Act re-
quires its requirements to be stated in objective
terms. However, it has decided to adopt the re-
quested size reductions which the agency believes
will be less intrusive but still conspicuous.

Uniroyal claimed that the words "Danger" and
"Caution" might unduly alarm consumers. NHTSA
notes that the placard's purpose is to ensure that a
person installing a non-pneumatic spare tire on a
vehicle is made aware of its proper use and that it
should be used only as a spare tire, even if he or she
fails to notice the labeling on the tire itself. Because
the word "caution" is not essential to this purpose
and some consumers might be unduly alarmed by
this word, the agency is modifying the placard to
state "IMPORTANT-USE OF SPARE TIRE"
rather than "CAUTION-USE OF SPARE TIRE."

Uniroyal and GM objected to the proposal to
require an owner's manual to contain information

PART 571; S120-PRE 25

about a non-pneumatic tire's use. Uniroyal restated
its view that non-pneumatic tires should not be
singled out for informational requirements with
which pneumatic spare tires are not required to
comply. GM stated that requiring warnings on the
tire, on a placai'd, and in the owner's manual was a
"costly redundancy" that would discourage the use
of such tires.

NHTSA continues to believe that the require-
ments in S7.2 provide valuable safety information
about non-pneumatic tires, a new type of tire design
with which consumers will be less familiar than
temporary pneumatic tires. As for GM's criticism
that this requirement would result in a "costly
redundancy," the agency believes that requiring the
safety information to appear in each of the proposed
locations provides a safety benefit. It is reasonable to
label the tire since a motorist must handle the tire
itself before installing it on the vehicle. It is also
reasonable to require the information on a placard in
the trunk near where the spare tire is stored, be-
cause a motorist may not notice the information on
the tire, especially at night or during inclement
weather. Similarly, it is reasonable to supplement
these brief messages with more detailed information
in the owner's manual, since a motorist typically
consults his or her owner's manual when seeking
detailed information about vehicle usage.

B. Standard No. 129

NHTSA agi-ees with the comments and has de-
cided to permit the use of a non-pneumatic spare tire
on any vehicle that is equipped with passenger car
tires. Accordingly, the agency is revising section
S5.1.1 to permit the use of a non-pneumatic tempo-
rary spare tire assembly on vehicles subject to Stan-
dard No. 120 such as light trucks provided that the
vehicle is equipped with passenger car tires. In
addition, amendments, like those to Standard No.
110, ai-e made to Standard No. 120 to include new
informational requirements for tire labeling, vehicle
placarding, and the owner's manual.

Definitions

Commenters made suggestions to modify certain
proposed definitions. Firestone recommended that
the portion of the definition for "non-pneumatic
tire" stating that the tire "does not rely on the
containment of any gas or fluid" be changed to state
that the tire "does not primarily" rely on such
containment (emphasis added). NHTSA has decided
to reject Firestone's suggestion and adopt the defini-
tion as proposed because the suggested change
would inject uncertainty about whether a tire should
be classified as pneumatic or non-pneumatic. For
instance, it might be ambiguous whether a pneumatic
tire with "run-fiat" capability is a non-pneumatic tire
under Firestone's suggested definition.

Uniroyal suggested that the definition for
"maximum tire width," should be changed so that it
uses the phrase "exterior edges" in place of "outer
and inner surfaces" which appears in reference to

PART 571; S120-PRE 26

"carcass" and "tread." The agency has decided to
adopt the suggested wording which it believes pro-
vides a more generic and thus more appropriate
definition.

Performance Requirements and Testing Procedures
in Standard Na 129

General Considerations
The NPRM proposed certain performance require-
ments and testing procedures for non-pneumatic
tires. In developing a proposed standard for non-
pneumatic tires, the agency reviewed the petition,
the docket comments responding to the agency's
request for comments, and the purpose for and
mechanics of the requirements and tests for pneu-
matic tires in Standard No. 109. As a result of this
analysis, the agency proposed the following require-
ments which it believed would ensure the safety of
non-pneumatic tires. These included a lateral
strength requirement instead of Standard No. 109's
bead unseating requirement; and requirements for
strength (in vertical loading), tire endurance, and
high speed performance with modifications to take
into account a non-pneumatic tire's lack of air pres-
sure. The agency also proposed requirements related
to the non-pneumatic tire assembly's size and con-
struction, load rating, and a tread wear indicator.
NHTSA tentatively concluded that the lateral
strength, strength (in vertical loading), endurance,
and high speed requirements would assure the struc-
tural integrity and durability of a non-pneumatic
tire. The agency further believed that these perform-
ance requirements together with the proposed label-
ing requirements explaining that a non-pneumatic
tire should be used only as a temporary spare tire
and at limited speeds would assure their safety.
Therefore, it decided not to propose additional tests
beyond those equivalent to the ones in Stan-

dard No. 109. The agency's consideration of com-
ments addressing these factors will be discussed
separately.

Lateral Strength Performance Requirements

Section S4.2.2.3 of Standard No. 129 proposed
requirements related to the lateral strength of a
non-pneumatic tire. Such a tire would be required to
show no visual evidence of tread or carcass separa-
tion, cracking, or chunking at forces comparable to
those specified in Standard No. 109's bead unseating
test for compact temporary pneumatic tires. The
agency explained that the bead unseating test is
intended, in part, to evaluate the loss of air of a
tubeless pneumatic tire. In that regard, it would not
be helpful in evaluating the lateral strength of a
non-pneumatic tire. Nevertheless, because the bead
unseating test also evaluates a pneumatic tire's
resistance to lateral forces, the agency believed that
a comparable test for non-pneumatic tires would be
beneficial in determining their structural integrity.

PART 571; S120-PRE 27

Uniroyal, RMA, and Firestone each recommended
that the lateral test force block be made lighter and
smaller to make testing easier and safer. The lateral
force test block shown in Figure 2 and referenced in
S5.2, would have weighed 120 pounds and have been
6.5 inches in height, 14 inches in depth and 18
inches in width. Uniroyal commented that the
block's depth could be reduced by 7 inches which
would reduce the block's weight by over 50 percent.
Firestone stated that the width should be retained to
ensure that the test block would envelop the side
wall of each tire.

After reviewing these comments, NHTSA believes
that the test block size can be reduced to facilitate
testing without adversely affecting the test proce-
dure's effectiveness. In particular, the agency is
adopting Uniroyal's recommendation to reduce the
depth by 7 inches by removing 3V^ inches from each
end of the block and to reduce the height by remov-
ing one inch from the bottom of the block. After
reviewing Firestone's concerns about the block's
"envelopment" of a non-pneumatic spare tire, the
agency concludes that it is necessary to widen the
test block to 23 inches. The agency calculates that
these changes will reduce the test block's weight to
approximately 55 pounds, a 53 percent reduction.

Vertical Strength Requirements
NHTSA proposed a strength test in S5.3 of Stan-
dard No. 129 that was intended to measure the tire's
ability to resist concentrated vertical loads. The
proposed test would have required a cylindrical steel
plunger to be forced into the non-pneumatic tire at a
rate of two inches per minute. The tester would then
have evaluated the breaking energy for each test
point in terms of inch pounds.

In the NPRM, the agency considered also propos-

ing a "cleat" test, like the one suggested in GM's
petition, which would have required a non-
pneumatic tire to withstand a load exerted by a
"cleat." This "cleat" would be V^ inch thick with the
edge, that is forced against the tread of the non-
pneumatic tire, rounded with V4 inch radius, and the
"cleat" would be one inch wider than the non-
pneumatic tire's tread width. The agency tentatively
rejected the cleat device because it believed that the
plunger test would better simulate real world haz-
ards and because the petitioner did not provide
sufficient documentation in support of its test de-
vice. The agency expressly requested comments on
both the plunger test and the cleat test.

Goodyear provided extensive comments in opposi-
tion to any vertical strength test requirement. It
argued that the main concern addressed by the "tire
strength" requirement in Standard No. 109 is punc-
ture resistance (i.e., the integrity of the air chamber
in resistance to vertical forces exerted by nails and
similar penetrating objects). It believed that such a
concern was not applicable to a non-pneumatic tire.
Alternatively, Goodyear stated that if a strength test
were deemed necessary, then GM's cleat test would
be more appropriate because it evaluates a non-
pneumatic tire's capability to withstand loading
from curbs, potholes, or railroad tracks. While
Uniroyal, RMA, Firestone, and GM also stated that
the cleat test would be superior to a plunger test, no
commenter supported the plunger test.

NHTSA continues to believe that a vertical strength
test is necessary to evaluate a non-pneumatic tire's
structural integrity. However, after reevaluating the
proposal in light of the comments, the agency agrees
that a cleat test, similar to the one requested in GM's
petition, would better evaluate the real world prob-
lems that will most likely cause a non-pneumatic tire
to experience a structural failure.

The agency notes that the plunger test used in
Standard No. 109 is well suited for evaluating the
energy absorbing capability and structural integrity
of a pneumatic tire under conditions of maximum
deformation. The plunger pushing against the cen-
ter of the pneumatic tire's tread will deflect the tire
to the maximum extent possible before forcing the
tire against the rim. However, the cleat test would be
inapplicable for a pneumatic tire which would expe-
rience a "pneumatic" failure when the tire's side-
wall would be pinched against the rim flanges, long
before the energy absorbing capability or structural
integrity of the tire could be tested adequately.

PART 571; S120-PRE 28

As for the measurement of a non-pneumatic tire's
strength, NHTSA believes that such a tire should be
capable of absorbing energy at a level comparable to
the pneumatic temporary tires that it is intended to
replace. The NPRM proposed in S4.2.2.4 that the
appropriate minimum breaking energy would be
1,950 inch pound.s for tires with load ratings below
880 pounds and 2,600 inch pounds for tires with load
ratings 880 pounds or above.

Uniroyal recommended that S4.2.2.4 be amended
so that the minimum breaking energy would be 525
inch pounds for tires with load ratings below 880
pounds and 700 inch pounds for load ratings of 880
pounds or above. After reviewing Uniroyal's exten-
sive comments in support of the reduced energy
levels, NHTSA still believes that the proposed levels
are appropriate to ensure a non-pneumatic tire's
ability to withstand road hazards. The agency notes
that the proposed energy levels are more comparable
to the energy levels that a pneumatic temporary
spare tire is required to withstand. Given the agen-
cy's belief that it is appropriate to require the
non-pneumatic tires to be capable of absorbing en-
ergy at a level comparable to the pneumatic tempo-
rary spare tires that they are intended to replace,
the agency has decided to adopt the energy levels as
proposed rather than to adopt Uniroyal's suggested
energy levels. The agency's review of Uniroyal's data
further indicates that the higher energy levels will
better protect against real world hazards.

After reviewing S4.2.2.4, NHTSA has decided to
modify its language related to a non-pneumatic tire's
failure. As proposed, this section stated "Each tire
shall meet the requirements for minimum breaking
energ>' when tested in accordance with S5.3 to the
strength requirements . . . ." Because a non-
pneumatic tire is unlikely to "break," the agency
has decided to adopt the statement in the petition
and express the requirement in terms of "no visual
evidence of tread or carcass separation, cracking or
chunking." The agency notes that this will be con-
sistent with the requirements for lateral strength,
tire endurance, and high speed performance, which
are all expressed in this manner. As a result, the

title of the table "Breaking Energy" will be changed
to "Minimum Energy Level."

In addition to those requirements, the NPRM
proposed certain other labeling requirements for
non-pneumatic tires. Most of these proposed require-
ments were patterned after the labeling require-
ments set forth in section S4.3 of Standard No. 109
for size designation, load rating, rim size and type
designation, manufacturer or brand name, certifica-
tion, and tire identification number.

GM requested that a load rating not be required
on a non-pneumatic tire, claiming this information
might cause a motorist to use a non-pneumatic spare
tire that would be inappropriate for a vehicle. The
agency disagrees with the comment, noting that a
tire's load rating is a straightforward item of infor-
mation that has been required on pneumatic tires
without confusing consumers. The agency believes
this information is necessary for safety because
some vehicle owners have been known to increase a

PART 571; S120-PRE 29

Uniroyal commented that S4.3(f), which proposed
requiring labeling with Part 574 's tire identification
number, should be amended given that that number
refers, in part, to tire size. As the agency noted above
in its discussion of tire size designations and the
NPTIC, it believes that use of the NPTIC is prefer-
able to use of tire size. While the agency agrees that
a change is therefore necessary to reflect the NPTIC,
it has decided to accomplish this by amending Part
574 to apply to non-pneumatic spare tire assemblies
and by amending 574.5(b) to expressly refer to the
NPTIC. Section 574.4, "applicability," and 574.6,
"identification mark," are also revised to expressly
refer to non-pneumatic tires and tire assemblies.

Tire and Rim/Wheel Center Member Matching
Information

After reviewing this provision, NHTSA has de-
cided to modify S4.4. to require the submission to

include the NPTIC. This modification to require the
inclusion of the NPTIC rather than the tire size is a
conforming change made to reflect another change
addressed earlier in the notice. In addition, the
agency notes that it proposed in the definition of
"test rim" in S3 to require each tire and rim match-
ing information listing to include the load rating.
After further review, the agency has determined
that it more appropriate to include this requirement
in section S4.4.

IV. Effective Date

The NPRM stated that the proposal would become
effective 180 days after publication of a final rule in
the Federal Register. Uniroyal commented that such
advance notification is associated with revisions of
regulations that affect products already in the mar-
ketplace to afford manufactm-ers time to comply with
the changes. Uniroyal then requested that the 180 day
period be eliminated or substantially reduced.

§571.110 [Amended]

1. Paragraph S2 of Standard 110 is revised to read
as follows:

S2 Application. This standard applies to passen-
ger cars and to non-pneumatic spare tire assemblies
for use on passenger cars.

2. Paragraph S3 of Standard No. 110 is amended
by adding the following definitions in the proper
alphabetical location:

"Non-pneumatic rim" is used as defined in
§571.129.

"Non-pneumatic spare tire assembly" means a

PART 571; S120-PRE 30

non-pneumatic tire assembly intended for tempo-
rary use in place of one of the pneumatic tires and
rims that are fitted to a passenger car in compliance
with the requirements of this standard.

"Non-pneumatic tire" and "non-pneumatic tire
assembly" are used as defined in §571.129.

"Rim" is used as defined in §571.109.

"Wheel center member" is used as defined in
§571.129.

*****

3. Paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 110 is revised to
read as follows:

*****

4. Paragraph S4.3(c), (d), and (e) is revised to read
as follows:

*****

(d) Vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size
designation; and

*****

5. Standard No. 110 is amended by adding para-
graphs S5, S6, S7, and S8 to read as follows:

55 Load Limits for Non-Pneumatic Spare Tires.
The highest vehicle maximum load on the tire for
the vehicle shall not be greater than the load rating
for the non-pneumatic spare tire.

56 Labeling Requirements for Non-Pneumatic
Spare Tires or Tire Assemblies.

the case of a non-pneumatic tire assembly which has
a particular side that must always face outward
when mounted on a vehicle, the information shown
in paragraphs S6(a) through (b) shall only be re-
quired on the outward facing side. The information
shall be positioned on the tire or tire assembly such
that it is not placed on the tread or the outermost
edge of the tire and is not obstructed by any portion
of any non-pneumatic rim or wheel center member
designated for use with that tire in this standard or
in Standard No. 129.

(a) FOR TEMPORARY USE ONLY; and

(b) MAXIMUM 50 M.PH.

57 Requirements for Passenger Cars Equipped
with Non-Pneumatic Spare Tire Assemblies.

(a) A statement indicating the labeling related to
appropriate use for the non-pneumatic spare tire
including at a minimum the information set forth in
S6(a) and (b) and in S4.3(e);

(b) An instruction to drive carefully when the
non-pneumatic spare tire is in use, and to install the
proper pneumatic tire and rim at the first reason-
able opportunity; and

(c) A statement that operation of the passenger car
is not recommended with more than one non-
pneumatic spare tire in use at the same time.

58 Non-Pneumatic Rims and Wheel Center Members

88.2 Wheel Center Member Requirements. Each
wheel center member that is part of a separable
non-pneumatic spare tire assembly shall be con-
structed to the dimensions of a wheel center member
that is listed pursuant S4.4 of §571.129 jr use with
the non-pneumatic tire, designated by its non-

PART571;S120-PRE31

pneumatic tire identification code, with which the
vehicle is equipped.

§571.120 [Amended]

6. Paragraph S3 of Standard 120 is revised to read
as follows:

:f; :J; :4: :fc :fc

7. Paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 is revised
to read as follows:

8. The introductory text of paragraph S5.3.2 of
Standard No. 120 is revised to read as follows:

*****

9. Paragraph S5.3.6 is added to Standard No. 120
to read as follows:

S5.3.6 The non-pneumatic tire identification code,
with which that assembly is labeled pursuant to
S4.3(a) of §571.129.

10. Standard 120 is amended by adding para-
graphs S7, S8, S9, and SlO.

57 Load Limits for Non-Pneumatic Spare Tires.
The highest vehicle maximum load on the tire for
the vehicle shall not be greater than the load rating
for the non-pneumatic spare tire.

58 Labeling Requirements for Non-Pneumatic

Spare Tires or Tire Assemblies. Each non-pneumatic
tire or, in the case of a non-pneumatic tire assembly
in which the non-pneumatic tire is an integral part
of the assembly, each non-pneumatic tire assembly
shall be permanently molded, stamped, or otherwise
permanently marked into or onto both sides in
letters or numerals not less than 0.156 inches high,
the information specified in paragraphs S6.(a)
through (b). Except, in the case of a non-pneumatic
tire assembly which has a particular side that must
always face outward when mounted on a vehicle, the
information shown in paragraphs S6(a) through (b)
shall only be required on the outward facing side.
The information shall be positioned on the tire or
tire assembly such that it is not placed on the tread
or the outermost edge of the tire and is not ob-
structed by any portion of any non-pneumatic rim or
wheel center member designated for use with that
tire in this standard or in Standard No. 129.

(a) FOR TEMPORARY USE ONLY; and

(h) MAXIMUM 50 M.PH.

S9 Requirements for Vehicles Equipped with Non-
Pneumatic Spare Tire Assemblies

59.1 Vehicle Placarding Requirements. A placard,
permanently affixed to the inside of the spare tire
stowage area or equally accessible location adjacent
to the non-pneumatic spare tire assembly, shall
display the information set forth in S8 in block
capitals and numerals not less than 0.25 inches high
preceded by the words "IMPORTANT-USE OF
SPARE TERE" in letters not less than 0.375 inches
high.

59.2 Supplementary Information. The owner's
manual of the vehicle shall contain, in writing in the
English language and in not less than 10 point type,
the following information under the heading
"IMPORTANT-USE OF SPARE TIRE":

(a) A statement indicating the labeling related to
appropriate use for the non-pneumatic spare tire
including at a minimum the information set forth in
S8(a) and (b) and in S5.3.6;

(b) An instruction to drive carefully when the
non-pneumatic spare tire is in use, and to install the
proper pneumatic tire and rim at the first reason-
able opportunity; and

(c) A statement that operation of the vehicle is not
recommended with more than one non-pneumatic
spare tire in use at the same time.

SlO Non-Pneumatic Rims and Wheel Center Members
SlO.l Non-Pneumatic Rim Requirements. Each
non-pneumatic rim that is part of a separable non-
pneumatic spare tire assembly shall be constructed
to the dimensions of a non-pneumatic rim that is
listed pursuant to S4.4 of §571.129 for use with the
non-pneumatic tire, designated by its non-

PART 571; S120-PRE 32

pneumatic tire identification code, with which the
vehicle is equipped.

*****

11. Part 571 is amended by the addition of 49 CFR
§571.129 which would read as follows:

§571.129 Standard No. 129; New Non-Pneumatic
Tires for Ptissenger Cars.

52 Application, This standard applies to new tem-
porary spare non-pneumatic tires for use on passen-
ger cars.

53 Definitions.

"Carcass" means the tire structure except for the
tread which provides the major portion of the tire's
capability to deflect in response to the vertical loads
and tractive forces that the tire transmits from the
roadway to the non-pneumatic rim, the wheel center
member, or the vehicle and which attaches to the
vehicle or attaches, either integrally or separably, to
the wheel center member or non-pneumatic rim.

"Carcass separation" means the pulling away of
the carcass from the non-pneumatic rim or wheel
center member.

"Chunking" means the breaking away of pieces of
the carcass or tread.

"Load rating" means the maximum load a tire is
rated to carry.

"Non-pneumatic rim" means a mechanical device
which, when a non-pneumatic tire assembly incor-
porates a wheel, supports the tire, and attaches.

either integrally or separably, to the wheel center
member and upon which the tire is attached.

"Non-pneumatic test rim" means, with reference
to a tire to be tested, any non-pneumatic rim that is
listed as appropriate for use with that tire in accor-
dance with S4.4.

"Non-pneumatic tire assembly" means a non-
pneumatic tire, alone or in combination with a
wheel or wheel center member, which can be
mounted on a vehicle.

"Tsst wheel center member" means, with refer-
ence to a tire to be tested, any wheel center member
that is listed as appropriate for use with that tire in
accordance with S4.4.

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

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

S4 Requirements.

54.2 Performance Requirements

84.2.1 General Each tire shall conform to the
following:

rb) It shall incorporate a tread wear indicator that

PART 571; S120-PRE 33

will provide a visual indication that the tire has
worn to a tread depth of Vie inch.

(d) It shall meet the requirements of S4. 2.2.5 and
S4.2.2.6 when tested on a test wheel described in
S5.4.2.1 either alone or simultaneously with up to 5
tires.

S4.2.2 Test Requirements.

54.2.2.1 Test Sample. For each test sample use:

(a) One tire for physical dimensions, lateral
strength, and strength in sequence;

(b) A second tire for tire endurance; and

S4.2.2.3. Lateral Strength. There shall be no vi-
sual evidence of tread or carcass separation, crack-
ing or chunking, when a tire is tested in accordance
with S5.2 to a load of:

(a) 1,500 pounds for tires with a load rating less
than 880 pounds;

(b) 2,000 pounds for tires with a load rating of 880
pounds or more but less than 1,400 pounds.

(c) 2,500 pounds for tires with a load rating of
1,400 pounds or more, using the load rating marked
on the tire or tire assembly.

54.2.2.4 Tire Strength. There shall be no visual
evidence of tread carcass separation, cracking or
chunking, when a tire is tested in accordance with
S5.3 to a minimum energy level of:

Load Rating Minimum Energy Level

Below 880 pounds 1,950 inch pounds

880 pounds and above 2,600 inch pounds

permanent deformation with the exception of wear
of the tread.

S4.3 Labeling Requirements. Each non-pneumatic
tire or, in the case of a non-pneumatic tire assembly
in which the non-pneumatic tire is an integral part
of the assembly, each non-pneumatic tire assembly
shall be permanently molded, stamped, or otherwise
permanently marked into or onto both sides of the
tire or tire assembly in letters or numerals not less
than 0.078 inches high, the information shown in
paragraphs S4.3(a) through (f). Except, in the case of
a non-pneumatic tire assembly of which one side
always must face outward when mounted on a vehi-
cle, the information shown in paragraphs S4.3(a)
through (f) shall only be required on the outward
facing side. The information shall be positioned on
the tire or tire assembly such that it is not placed on
the tread or the outermost edge of the tire and is not
obstructed by any portion of any non-pneumatic rim
or wheel center member designated for use with that
tire in S4.4 of this standard or in 49 CFR §571.110 or
49 CFR §571.120.

(a) The non-pneumatic tire identification code.

(b) Load rating, which, if expressed in kilograms,
shall be followed in parentheses by the equivalent
load rating in pounds, rounded to the nearest whole
pound;

(d) The name of the manufacturer or brand name;

(e) The symbol 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;

(f) The tire identification number required by
§574.5 of this chapter;

(g) The labeling requirements set forth in S6 of
Standard No. 110 (§571.110), or S8 of Standard No.
120 (§571.120).

PART 571; S120-PRE 34

S4.4 Non-Pneumatic Tire Identification Code and
Non-Pneumatic Rim/Wheel Center Member Match-
ing Information. For purposes of this standard, S8 of
49 CFR 571.110 and SlO of 49 CFR 571.120, each
manufacturer of a non-pneumatic tire that is not an
integral part of a non-pneumatic tire assembly shall
ensure that it provides a listing to the public for each
non-pneumatic tire that it produces. The listing
shall include the non-pneumatic tire identification
code, tire load rating, dimensional specifications and
a diagi-am of the portion of the tire that attaches to
the non-pneumatic rim or wheel center member, and
a list of the non-pneumatic rims or wheel center
members that may be used with that tire. For each
non-pneumatic rim or wheel center member in-
cluded in such a listing, the information provided
shall include a size and type designation for the
non-pneumatic rim or wheel center member, and
dimensional specifications and a diagram of the
non-pneumatic rim or portion of the wheel center
member that attaches to the tire. A listing compiled
in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section need
not include dimensional specifications or a diagram
of the non-pneumatic rim or portion of the wheel
center member that attaches to the tire if the
non-pneumatic rim's or portion of the wheel center
member's dimensional specifications and diagram
are contained in each listing published in accor-
dance with paragraph (b) of this section. The listing
shall be in one of the following forms:

(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 Tire and Rim Tfechnical Organization

Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Associa-
tion, Inc.

Deutsche Industrie Norm

British Standards Institute

Scandinavian Tire and Rim Organization

Tyre and Rim Association of Australia

85 Test Procedures.

S5.1 Physical Dimensions. After conditioning the
tire at room temperature for at least 24 hours, using
equipment with minimum measurement capabili-

55.2 Lateral Strength.

55.2.1 Preparation of the tire.

55.2.1.1 If applicable, mount a new tire on a non-
pneumatic test rim or test wheel center member.

55.2.1.2 Mount the tire assembly in a fixture as
shown in Figure 1 with the surface of the tire
assembly that would face outward when mounted on
a vehicle facing toward the lateral strength test
block shown in Figure 2 and force the lateral
strength test block against the tire.

55.2.2 Test Procedure.

B = A - 1 inch

B = A - 2 inches

B = A - 3 inches

B = A - 4 inches

B = A - 5 inches, and

55.3 Tire Strength.

S5.3.1 Preparation of the Tire.
S5.3.1.1 If applicable, mount the tire on a non-
pneumatic test rim or test wheel center member.

PART 571; S120-PRE 35

S5.3.1.2 Condition the tire assembly at room tem-
perature for at least three hours.
S5.3.2 Test Procedures.

55.3.2.2 The test cleat is made of steel and has the
following dimensions:

(a) Length of one inch greater than the maximum
tire width of the tire.

(b) Width of one-half inch with the surface which
contacts the tire's tread having one-quarter inch
radius.

55.3.2.3 The energy level is calculated by the
following formula:

E = ^^^

where

E = Energy level, inch-pounds;

F = Force, pounds; and

P = Penetration, inches

S5.4 Tire Endurance.

55.4.1 Preparation of the tire.

55.4.1.1 If applicable, mount a new tire on a non-
pneumatic test rim or test wheel center member.

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

55.4.2 Test Procedure.

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

Percent

4 hours 85

6 hours 90

24 hours 100

S5.4.2.4 Immediately after running the tire the
required time, allow the tire to cool for one hour,
then, if applicable, detach it from the non-pneumatic
test rim or test wheel center member, and inspect it
for the conditions specified in S4.2.2.5.

S5.5 High Speed Endurance.

55.5.2 Break in the tire by running it for 2 hours
at 50 m.p.h.

55.5.3 Allow to cool to 100 ± 5° F.

55.5.4 Tfest at 75 m.p.h. for 30 minutes, 80 m.p.h.
for 30 minutes, and 85 m.p.h. for 30 minutes.

S6 Nonconforming tires. Any non-pneumatic tire
that is designed for use on passenger cars that does
not conform to all the requirements of this standard,
shall not be sold, offered for sale, introduced or
delivered for introduction into interstate commerce,
or imported into the United States, for any purpose.

12. Figures 1 and 2 are added following the text of
Standard No. 129, appearing as follows:

Part 574 [Amended]

13. The first sentence of 574.4 Applicability is
revised to read as follows:

14. The first sentence of 574.5 Tire identification
requirements is revised to read as follows:

PART 571; S120-PRE 36

containing the information set forth in paragraphs
(a) through (d) of this section.

symbols, shall be used to identify the non-pneumatic
tire identification code.

15. Section 574.5 is amended by adding the follow-
ing to the end of the opening paragraph:

17. Section 574.6, Identification Mark, is revised to
read as follows:

Each manufacturer of a non-pneumatic tire or a
non-pneumatic tire assembly shall permanently
mold, stamp, or otherwise permanently mark into or
onto one side of the non-pneumatic tire or non-
pneumatic tire assembly a tire identification num-
ber containing the information set forth in para-
graphs (a) through (d) of this section. In addition, the
DOT symbol required by the Federal motor vehicle
safety standards shall be positioned relative to the
tire identification number as shown in Figure 1, and
the symbols to be used for the other information are
those listed above. The labeling for a non-pneumatic
tire or a non-pneumatic tire assembly shall be in the
manner specified in Figure 1 and positioned on the
non-pneumatic tire or non-pneumatic tire assembly
such that it is not placed on the tread or the
outermost edge of the tire and is not obstructed by
any portion of the non-pneumatic rim or wheel
center member designated for use with that non-
pneumatic tire in S4.4 of Standard No. 129 (49 CFR
571.129).

16. Section 574.5(b) is amended by adding the
following after the opening sentence:

*****

For a new non-pneumatic tire of a non-pneumatic
tire assembly, the second group, of not more than two

Tb obtain the identification mark required by
574.5(a), each manufacturer of new or retreaded
pneumatic tires, non-pneumatic tires, or non-
pneumatic tire assemblies shall apply in writing to
"Tire Identification and Recordkeeping," National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department
of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590, identify
itself as a tire manufacturer or retreader and furnish
the following information:

(a) The name, or other designation identifying the
applicant, and its main office address.

(b) The name, or other identifying designation, 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., pneumatic tires for passenger cars, buses, trucks,
or motorcycles; pneumatic retreaded tires; or non-
pneumatic tires or non-pneumatic tire assemblies.

Issued on July 12, 1990.

Jeffrey R. Miller
Deputy Administrator

55 FR 29581
July 20, 1990

PART 571; S120-PRE 37-38

Figure 1

PART 571; S120-PRE 39

Figure 2

PART 571; S120-PRE 40

MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 120
Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars

51. Scope. This specifies tire and rim selection
requirements and rim marking requirements.

52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to
provide safe operational performance by ensuring that
vehicles to which it applies are equipped with tires of
adequate size and load rating and with rims of appropri-
ate size and type designation.

53. Application. [This standard applies to multi-
purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and
motorcycles, to rims for use on those vehicles, and to
non-pneumatic spare tire assemblies for use on those
vehicles. (55 F.R. 29581— July 20, 1990. Effective: August
20. 1990)]

54. Definitions. All terms defined in the Act and
the rules and standards issued under its authority are
used as defined therein.

"Rim base" means the portion of a rim remaining
after removal of all split or continuous rim flanges, side
rings, and locking rings that can be detached from the
rim.

"Rim size designation" means rim diameter and
width.

"Rim diameter" means nominal diameter of the bead
seat.

"Rim width" means nominal distance between rim
flanges.

"Rim type designation" means the industry or
manufacturer's designation for a rim by style or code.

"Weather side" means the surface area of the rim
not covered by the inflated tire.

85. Requirements.

S5.1 Tire and rim selection.

35.1.1 Except as specified in S5.1.3, each vehicle
equipf)€d with pneumatic tires for highway service shall
be equipped with tires for highway service shall be
equipped with tires that meet the requirements of
$571,109, New Pneumatic Tires— Passenger Cars, or
$571,119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than
Passenger Cars, and rims that are listed by the

manufacturer of the tires as suitable for use with those
tires, in accordance with S4.4 with §571.109, or S5.1
of 571.119, as applicable, except that vehicles may be
equipped with a non-pneumatic spare tire assembly that
meets the requirements of 571.129, New Non-
Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars, and S8 and SIO
of this standard. Vehicles equipped with such an as-
sembly shall meet the requirements of S5.3.6, S7, and
S9 of this standard. (55 F.R. 29581— July 20, 1990.
Effective: August 20, 1990)]

55.1.2 Except in the case of a vehicle which has a
speed attainable in 2 miles of 50 mph or less, the sum
of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to an
axle shall be not less than the gross axle weight rating
(GAWR) of the axle system as specified on the vehi-
cle's certification label required by 49 CFR Part 567.
If the certification label shows more than on GAWR
for the axle system, the sum shall be not less than the
GAWR corresponding to the size designation of the
tires fitted to the axle. If the size designation of the
tires fitted to the axle does not appear on the certifi-
cation label, the sum shall be not less than the lowest
GAWR appearing on the label. When a tire listed in
Appendix A of Standard No. 109 is installed on a mul-
tipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, bus, or trailer, the
tire's load rating shall be reduced by dividing by 1.10
before calculating the sum.

55.1 .3 In place of tires that meet the requirements
of Standard No. 119, a truck, bus, or trailer may at the
request of a purchaser be equipped at the place of
manufacture of the vehicle with retreaded or used tires
owned or leased by the purchaser, if the sum of the
maximum load ratings meets the requirements of
S5.1.2. Used tires employed under this provision must
have been originally manufactured to comply with
Standard No. 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbol.

S5.2 Rim marking. On and after August 1, 1977,
each rim or, at the option of the manufacturer in the
case of a singlepiece wheel, wheel disc shall be marked
with the information listed in paragraphs (a) through
(e), in lettering not less than one-eighth inch high, im-
pressed to a depth or, at the option of the manufac-
turer, embossed to a height of not less than 0.005 inch.

(Rev. 7/20r90)

PART 120-1

The information listed in paragraphs (a) through (c)
shall appear on the weather side. In the case of rims
of multipiece construction, the information listed in
paragraphs (a) through (e) shall appear on the rim base
and the information listed in paragraphs (b) and (d) shall
also appear on each part of the rim.

(a) A designation which indicates the source of the
rim's published nominal dimensions, as follows:

(1) "T" indicates The Tire and Rim Association.

(2) "E" indicates The European Type and Rim
Technical Organization.

(3) "J" indicates Japan Automobile Tire Manufac-
turers Association, Inc.

(4) "D" indicates Deutsche Industrie Norm.

(5) "B" indicates British Standards Institution.

(6) "S" indicates Scandinavian Tire and Rim
Organization.

(7) "A" indicates The Tire and Rim Association of
Australia.

(8) "N" indicates an independent listing pursuant
to S4.4.1{a) of Standard No. 109 or S5.1(a) of Stand-
ard No. 119.

(b) The rim size designation, and, in case of multi-
piece rims, the rim type designation. For example:
20 X 5.50, or 20 x 5.5.

(c) The symbol DOT, constituting a certification by
the manufacturer of the rim that the rim complies with
all applicable motor vehicle safety standards.

(d) A designation that identifies the manufacturer
of the rim by name, trademark, or symbol.

(e) The month, day, and year, or the month and year,
of manufacture, expressed in numerals. For example,

"September 4, 1976" may be expressed as:

90476, ^g or ^^^

"September 1976" may be expressed as:

9 76

76 «^ 9

976,

S5.3 Label information. (For vehicles manufac-
tured on and after September 1, 1977) The informa-
tion specified in S5.3.1 through S5.3.3 shall, in the
format set forth following this section, appear either—

(a) After each GAWR listed on the certification label
required by §567.4 or §567.5 of this chapter, or at the
option of the manufacturer,

(b) On a tire information label affixed to the vehicle
in the manner, location, and form described in §567.4(b)
through (f) of Part 567 of this chapter, as appropriate
for each GVWR-GAWR combination listed on the cer-
tification label.

55.3.1 Vehicles manufactured before December 1,
1984. Each vehicle manufactured before December 1,
1984, shall show the information specified in S5.3.3
through S5.3.5 in the format set forth following this
section. The information shall appear either—

(a) After each GAWR listed on the certification label
required by §567.4 or §567.5 of this chapter; or, at the
option of the manufacturer,

(b) On a tire information label affixed to the vehicle
in the manner, location, and form described in §567.4(b)
through (f) of this chapter, as appropriate for each
GVWR-GAWR combination listed on the certification
label.

55.3.2 Vehicles manufactured on and after Decem-
ber 1, 1984. [Each vehicle manufactured on or after
December 1, 1984, shall show the information speci-
fied in S5.3.3 through S5.3.5, and in the case of a vehi-
cle equipped with a non-pneumatic spare tire, also that
specified in S5.3.6, in the English language, lettered
in block capitals and numerals not less than three
thirty-seconds of an inch high and in the format set
forth following this section. This information shall ap-
pear either— (55 F.R. 29581— July 20, 1990. Effective:
August 20, 1990)]

(a) After each GAWR listed on the certification label
required by §567.4 or §567.5 of this chapter; or, at the
option of the manufacturer,

55.3.3 The size designation of tires (not necessar-
ily those on the vehicle) appropriate (as specified in
S5.1.2) for the GAWR.

55.3.4 The size designation and, if applicable, the
type designation of rims (not necessarily those on the
vehicle) appropriate for those tires.

55.3.5 Cold inflation pressure for those tires.

Truck example

Suitable Tire— Rim Choice
GVWR: 17280
GAWR: Front-6280 with 7.50-20(D) tires,

20 X 6.00 rims, at 75 psi cold single.
GAWR: Rear-11000 with 7.50-20(D) tires,

20 X 6.00 rims, at 65 psi cold dual.
GVWR: 17340
GAWR: Front-6300 with 7.00-20(E) tires,

20 X 5.50 rims, at 90 psi cold single.
GAWR: Rear-11040 with 7.00-20(E) tires,

20 X 5.50 rims, at 80 psi cold dual.

(Rev. 7/20/90)

PART 120-2

[S5.3.6 The non-pneumatic tire identification code,
with which that assembly is labeled pursuant to S4.3(a)
of §571.129. (55 F.R. 29581— July 20, 1990. Effective:
August 20, 1990)]

S6. Vehicles manufactured from September 1, 1976,
to February 28, 1977. Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of this standard, a vehicle to which this standard
applies that is manufactured during the period from
September 1, 1976, to February 28, 1977, shall meet
each requirement of this standard, with the following
exception: In place of tires that meet Standard No. 119
(§571.1 19), the vehicle may be equipped with tires that
meet every requirement of that standard other than
the tire marking requirements of S6.5 of the standard.

[S7. Load limits for non-pneumatic space tires. The

highest vehicle maximum load on the tire for the vehi-
cle shall not be greater than the load rating for the non-
pneumatic spare tire.

58. Labeling requirements for non-pneumatic spare
tires or tire assemblies. Each non-pneumatic tire or, in
the case of a non-pneumatic tire assembly in which the
non-pneumatic tire is an integral part of the assembly,
each non-pneumatic tire assembly shall be permanently
molded, stamped, or otherwise permanently marked
into or onto both sides in letters or numerals not less
than 0.156 inches high, the information specified in para-
graphs S6.(a) through (b). Except, in the case of a non-
pneumatic tire assembly which has a particular side
that must always face outward when mounted on a
vehicle, the information shown in paragraphs S6(a)
through (b) shall only be required on the outward fac-
ing side. The information shall be positioned on the tire
or tire assembly such that it is not placed on the tread
or the outermost edge of the tire and is not obstructed
by any portion of any non-pneumatic rim or wheel
center member designated for use with that tire in this
standard or in Standard No. 129.

(a) FOR TEMPORARY USE ONLY; and

(b) MAXIMUM 50 M.P.H.

59. Requirements for vehicles equipped with non-
pneumatic spare tire assemblies.

S9.1 Vehicle placarding requirements. A placard,
permanently affixed to the inside of the spare tire stow-

age area or equally accessible location adjacent to the
non-pneumatic spare tire assembly, shall display the
information set forth in S8 in block capitals and numer-
als not less than 0.25 inches high preceded by the words
"IMPORTANT-USE OF SPARE TIRE" in letters
not less than 0.375 inches high.

S9.2 Supplementary information. The owner's
manual of the vehicle shall contain, in writing in the
English language and in not less than 10 point type,
the following information under the heading
"IMPORTANT-USE OF SPARE TIRE":

(a) A statement indicating the labeling related to ap-
propriate use for the non-pneumatic spare tire includ-
ing at a minimum the information set forth in S8(a) and
(b) and in S5.3.6;

(b) An instruction to drive carefully when the non-
pneumatic spare tire is in use, and to install the proper
pneumatic tire and rim at the first reasonable oppor-
tunity; and

(c) A statement that operation of the vehicle is not
recommended with more than one non-pneumatic spare
tire in use at the same time.

SIC. Non-pneumatic rims and wheel center
members.

81 0.1 Non-pneumatic rim requirements. Each non-
pneumatic rim that is part of a separable non-
pneumatic spare tire assembly shall be constructed to
the dimensions of a non-pneumatic rim that is listed
pursuant to S4.4 of §571.129 for use with the non-
pneumatic tire, designated by its non-pneumatic tire
identification code, with which the vehicle is equipped.

SI 0.2 Wheel center member requirements. Each
wheel center member that is part of a separable non-
pneumatic spare tire assembly shall be constructed to
the dimensions of a wheel center member that is listed
pursuant to S4.4 of §571.129 for use with the non-
pneumatic tire, designated by its non-pneumatic tire
identification code, with which the vehicle is equipped.
(55 F.R. 29581— July 20, 1990. Effective: August 20, 1990)]

41 F.R. 3478
January 23, 1976

(Rev. 7/20/90)

PART 120-3-4

PREAMBLE TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY
STANDARD NO. 129

New Non-Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars

(Docket No. 87-12; Notice 3)

PIN 2127-AC18

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This notice amends Standard No. 110,
Tire Selection and Rims, and Standard No. 120, Tire
Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passen-
ger Cars, to permit new passenger cars, multipur-
pose passenger vehicles, and light trucks equipped
with passenger car tires to be equipped with a
non-pneumatic spare tire. These standards had re-
quired all new vehicles to be equipped with pneu-
matic tires. The notice also establishes requirements
requiring non-pneumatic tires to bear a label stating
that the tires are to be used only as a temporary
spare tire and only at limited speeds. It requires the
manufacturer to place a placard in the vehicle and
information in the owner's manual explaining the
proper use of these tires. In addition, the notice
establishes Standard No. 129, New Non-Pneumatic
Tires for Passenger Cars, which includes definitions
relevant to non-pneumatic tires and specifies perform-
ance, testing, and additional labeling requirements
for these tires. In particular, the new standard
contains performance requirements related to phys-
ical dimensions, lateral strength, strength (in verti-
cal loading), tire endurance, and high speed perform-
ance. The agency has determined that these
requirements provide the basic tests to ensure the
structural integrity of non-pneumatic tires. To en-
sure an even higher degree of safety, a non-
pneumatic tire must be labeled for use only as a
temporary spare tire at limited speeds. NHTSA
believes that these performance requirements to-
gether with these labels ensure the safety of non-
pneumatic tires.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The rule is effective on August
20, 1990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110,

Tire Selection and Rimsi49 CFR §571.110), specifies

requirements for the selection of tires to be used on

passenger cars. Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and

Section S4.1 of Standard No. 110 requires passen-
ger cars to be equipped with tires that meet the
requirements of §571.109, "New Pneumatic Tires-
Passenger Cars" (49 CFR §571.109). Section 85. 1.1
of Standard No. 120 similarly requires vehicles other
than passenger cars to be equipped with pneumatic
tires that meet the requirements of Standard No.
109 or Standard No. 119 "New Pneumatic Tires for
Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars" (49 CFR
§571.119).

Standard No. 109 expressly applies only to new
pneumatic tires which it defines as "mechanical
device(s) . . . (that) contain the gas or fluid that
sustains the load" (emphasis added). The standard
specifies tire dimensions and laboratory test require-
ments for bead unseating resistance, tire strength
(in vertical loading), tire endurance, and high speed
performance; defines tire load ratings; and specifies
labeling requirements for new pneumatic tires used
on passenger cars.

The practical effect of Standard No. 109's applica-
bility to only pneumatic tires, together with Stan-
dard No. llO's requirement that passenger cars must
be equipped with tires that meet Standard No. 109's
requirements, is to prohibit any new passenger car
from being equipped with non-pneumatic tires. Sim-
ilarly, Standard Nos. 109, 119 and 120 together
prohibit any vehicle subject to Standard No. 120
from being equipped with non-pneumatic tires.

PART 129; S129-PRE 1

On September 23, 1987, NHTSA issued a notice
announcing the grant of GM's petition and request-
ing comments about non-pneumatic tii-es (52 FR
35740). The notice invited comment about what
requirements would be necessary to ensure the safe
use of a non-pneumatic tire. In response to that
notice, NHTSA received comments from various mo-

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

More specifically, the notice proposed three
amendments to Standard No. 110. First, it proposed
that section S4.1 be amended to allow passenger
cars to be equipped with a non-pneumatic spare tire.
Second, the notice proposed that Standard No. 110
contain additional labeling requirements and vehi-
cle placarding requirements explaining that such
tires should be used only as a spare tii'e on a
temporary basis at speeds not to exceed 50 m.p.h.
Third, the notice proposed that safety information
about the use of a non-pneumatic tire be included in
the owner's manual of the passenger car

The NPRM also proposed to supplement the label-
ing requirements in Standard No. 110 by including
in Standard No. 129 labeling requirements similar

PART 129; PRE 2

definition of a "non-pneumatic spare tire assembly",
which was defined as a device "intended for tempo-
rary use in place of one of the pneumatic tires and
rims that are fitted to a passenger car . . .", be
revised to state that the NPSTA be "in support of as
well as "in place of." According to the commenter,
this modification would allow future NPSTAs to be
fitted on tire and wheel assemblies without remov-
ing the deflated pneumatic tire. The agency has
decided not to adopt Michelin's suggestion which is
beyond the scope of the current proposal and its test
procedures. Further, the agency needs more informa-
tion about devices used "in support of" a deflated
pneumatic tire, especially about the procedures for
testing them while they are mounted on a deflated
pneumatic tire. Therefore, NHTSA has decided not
to expand the definition as requested by Michelin.

Uniroyal suggested that the agency move the
definition of "rim" from the definition section (S3) to
the requirements section {S4.4). The agency has
decided not to adopt this suggestion which is unnec-
essary and contrary to standard regulatory drafting.
The agency notes that it is modifying the definition
of "rim" to "non-pneumatic rim" and "test rim" to
"non-pneumatic test rim." This change will help to
distinguish between conventional rims for pneu-
matic tires and rims for non-pneumatic tires. The
notice adopts this distinction throughout Standards
110, 120, and 129.

in. The Comments and the Agency Response
NHTSA received 13 comments in response to the
NPRM. In general, all commenters supported the
proposal to permit a vehicle to be equipped with a
non-pneumatic spare tire. The agency has consid-
ered the points in the comments in developing this
final rule. The commenters' significant points are
addressed below, along with the agency's response to
the comments. For the convenience of the reader,
this notice follows the regulatory text's order.

A. Proposal to Amend Standard Na 110

Definitions

The NPRM proposed to add definitions to para-
graph S3 for "non-pneumatic spare tire assembly,"
"non-pneumatic tire," "non-pneumatic tire assem-
bly," "rim," and "wheel center member." The agency
intended these definitions to be general in order to
better ensure a generic standard appropriate to any
type of non-pneumatic tire. These definitions were
patterned after analogous definitions in NHTSA's
safety standard for pneumatic tires and SAE Recom-
mended Practice J328a, "Wheels— Passenger Cars-
Performance Requirements and Test Procedures."

The agency received two comments about the
proposed definitions. Michelin requested that the

Labeling Requirements

The NPRM proposed labeling requirements for
non-pneumatic spare tires and tire assemblies in
section S6 of Standard No. 110. The proposal speci-
fied that the information had to be "permanently
molded, stamped, or otherwise permanently marked
into or onto both sides" and not be smaller than a
given size. The proposal explained that it was pi'o-
posing to allow different methods of permanent
marking in addition to molding, the labeling method
required in Standard No. 109, because it might be
difficult to mold the required information into or
onto some non-pneumatic tire and assembly designs.
It also proposed that the labeling on each non-
pneumatic spare tire would state "FOR TEMPO-
RARY USE ONLY," "MAXIMUM 50 M.PH.," and
the size designation(s) of the pneumatic tire(s) that
the non-pneumatic tire was intended to replace.
This notice will respond separately to each of the
commenters concerns.

PART 129; PRE 3

technique to comply with S6. NHTSA notes that the
key criteria related to informational marking re-
quirements is that the message be useful and under-
standable for the lifetime of the tire. Thus, a mes-
sage must be permanent, legible, and conspicuous.
After reviewing Uniroyal's request, the agency be-
lieves that affixing a permanent label on a non-
pneumatic tire would not meet these ends. The
agency is concerned that a paper label would not be
permanent given that it would be exposed to envi-
ronmental factors such as rain, snow, road salt, car
wash brushes and detergents. The agency is espe-
cially concerned that there is nothing to prevent a
paper label from disintegi-ating when exposed to the
elements or being rubbed off by a curb. Similarly,
there is nothing to prevent the printing on the label
from becoming illegible. The agency therefore has
decided not to permit a label as an alternative
technique to comply with S6.

Section S6(a) contained a proposal that each non-
pneumatic spare tire be labeled "FOR TEMPO-
RARY USE ONLY." The NPRM explained that this
mandatory warning would be in the intei-est of
motor vehicle safety by encouraging the limited use
of non-pneumatic tires as a replacement for T-type
temporary spare tires. The agency further believed
such labeling would provide consumers with valu-
able guidance about this new type of tire. All com-
menters mentioning the proposal to require tempo-
rary use labeling agreed that it had merit given the
current level of technology and agi-eed that the
extended use of a non-pneumatic tire would be
inappropriate.

NHTSA received four comments on the proposal to
require a maximum speed warning of 50 m.p.h.
While Goodyear and Firestone supported the pro-

posal, Uniroyal and General Motors opposed it, stat-
ing that it should be at the discretion of the vehicle
manufacturer, the entity responsible for the vehicle's
braking, handling, and other performance charac-
teristics. Uniroyal stated that such a requirement is
unnecessary since T-type pneumatic spares are not
required to have such labeling. It also commented
that the maximum speed labeling in ECE Regula-
tion 64 is inapplicable to the non-pneumatic spare,
since the non-pneumatic tire would be subject to
more stringent performance requirements. GM com-
mented that a maximum speed labeling requirement
was not warranted, stating that "there is no generic
technical or safety reason for it," a non-pneumatic
spare tire is not different from current temporary
compact spare tires, the maximum recommended
speed of 50 m.p.h. might unduly alarm some drivers,
and consumers might misinterpret the "50 mph.
speed" label as a "50 mile use" restriction.

After reviewing the maximum speed labeling re-
quirement in light of these comments, NHTSA con-
tinues to believe that such a requirement would be
in the interest of safety. The agency notes that
according to information provided by Uniroyal, there
are some differences in performance characteristics
between non-pneumatic spare tires and pneumatic
spares. For instance, the non-pneumatic tire tends to
"nibble," i.e., generate lateral forces when crossing a
longitudinal road irregularity. While differences
with conventional pneumatic spare tires are not
significant enough to justify a prohibition of non-
pneumatic tires, these relative shortcomings, which
might alarm a driver unfamiliar with them, appear
to be exacerbated at greater speeds. Until more
experience is gained with non-pneumatic tires, the
agency believes that GM's claim that there is no
safety reason to justify maximum speed labeling is
premature. The agency notes that GM included a 50
m.p.h. maximum speed marking on its pneumatic
temporary spare tire for the first five years after its
introduction, suggesting that a newly introduced
temporary tire design should contain such a maxi-
mum speed warning. Based on the above consider-
ations, the agency concludes that to satisfy the Vehicle
Safety Act's mandate, the 50 m.p.h. maximum speed
marking must be a mandatory requirement and not be
left to the manufacturers' discretion.

Section S6(c) of Standard No. 110 contained a
proposal that the non-pneumatic tire be labeled with
the "size designation! s) of the pneumatic tires that
this non-pneumatic tire spare assembly is intended
to replace or, ^t the manufacturer's option, is capable
of replacing." All those who commented on this
provision opposed it, stating that the requirement
could result in lengthy information that might con-
fuse consumers. For instance, a consumer might
mistakenly conclude that a 15 inch non-pneumatic

PART 129; PRE 4

After reviewing these comments, NHTSA has de-
termined that instead of designations of the pneu-
matic tires replaced, a "non-pneumatic tire identify-
ing code (NPTIC)" should be required to identify a
non-pneumatic tire. Like the tire size designation of
a pneumatic tire, the NPTIC's purpose is to provide
consumers information about the proper application
of a non-pneumatic tire. The agency believes that
this method of identification is superior to requiring
a non-pneumatic tire to be labeled with the pneu-
matic tire size or the non-pneumatic spare tire's
specific vehicle application(s) given the potential for
many different non-pneumatic tire designs. A man-
ufacturer may still mark specific vehicle applica-
tion{s) on the tire provided that the additional infor-
mation did not obscure or confuse the required
information. Manufacturers are urged, therefore, to
avoid unnecessarily long vehicle application infor-
mation or unnecessarily long identifying codes.
Based on the above considerations, the manufac-
turer will be required to label a non-pneumatic spare
tire or spare tire assembly with a "non-pneumatic
tire identification code," (NPTIC), which is defined
in section S3 of Standard 129. A manufacturer also
is required to place the NPTIC on the vehicle placard
and in the owner's manual. In addition, the NPTIC
will replace any reference in the regulatory text to
the "non-pneumatic tire size designation."

Vehicle Placarding
Section S7 of the Standard No. 110 contained pro-
posed requirements for vehicle placards. Under the
proposal, the placard would state, in letters not less
than 1.0 inch high, "CAUTION-USE AS SPARE
TIRE," and in letters not less than 0.5 inches high,
"FOR TEMPORARY USE ONLY," "MAXIMUM 50
M.P.H.," and the size designation of the pneumatic tire
to be replaced. The agency believed that this informa-
tion would help explain that a non-pneumatic tire

should be used only as a spare tire at limited speeds for
a limited period of time.

Volkswagen commented that the size of the letter-
ing proposed in S7.1 would result in a placard that
was too large to easily fit in the trunk. Thus, it
requested that the standard require the words to be
"legible and conspicuous," or in the alternative, to
change the 1.0 inch requirement to ^/b inch and the
'/4 inch requirement to V-i inch. NHTSA rejects the
first suggestion because the Vehicle Safety Act re-
quires its requirements to be stated in objective
terms. However, it has decided to adopt the re-
quested size reductions which the agency believes
will be less intrusive but still conspicuous.

GM and Uniroyal opposed the vehicle placarding
requirements as being unnecessary and costly. GM
based its opposition to these requirements on its
earlier arguments against the labeling require-
ments. NHTSA believes that the placarding require-
ments are necessary for the reasons provided in
support of the labeling requirements in 86. The
agency also disagrees that placarding would be un-
reasonably costly, especially since most vehicle
trunks currently contain a placard explaining the
use of jacks and spare tires. The information re-
quired by this provision could be easily added to that
placard. Even for a vehicle without such a placard,
the cost of adding a placard would be minimal.

Uniroyal and GM objected to the proposal to
require an owner's manual to contain information

PART 129; PRE 5

NHTSA continues to believe that the require-
ments in S7.2 provide valuable safety information
about non-pneumatic tires, a new type of tire design
with which consumers will be less familiar than
temporary pneumatic tires. As for GM's criticism
that this requirement would result in a "costly
redundancy," the agency believes that requiring the
safety information to appear in each of the proposed
locations provides a safety benefit. It is reasonable to
label the tire since a motorist must handle the tire
itself before installing it on the vehicle. It is also
reasonable to require the information on a placard in
the trunk near where the spare tire is stored, be-
cause a motorist may not notice the information on
the tire, especially at night or during inclement
weather. Similarly, it is reasonable to supplement
these brief messages with more detailed information
in the owner's manual, since a motorist typically
consults his or her owner's manual when seeking
detailed information about vehicle usage.

B. Standard No. 129

No commenter supported limiting the use of non-
pneumatic tires to passenger cars. Instead, Chrysler,
Goodyeai-, Uniroyal, RMA, Firestone, and GM com-
mented that the agency should extend the applica-
bility of Standard No. 129 to permit use of non-
pneumatic spare tires on light trucks and similar
vehicles that use passenger car temporary tires. For
instance, Uniroyal stated that the agency should not
restrict the non-pneumatic spare tire to passenger
cars given that many new light trucks and vans are
equipped with passenger car tires.

NHTSA agrees with the comments and has de-
cided to permit the use of a non-pneumatic spare tire
on any vehicle that is equipped with passenger car
tires. Accordingly, the agency is revising section
S5.1.1 to permit the use of a non-pneumatic tempo-
rary spare tire assembly on vehicles subject to Stan-
dard No. 120 such as light trucks provided that the
vehicle is equipped with passenger car tires. In
addition, amendments, like those to Standard No.
110, are made to Standard No. 120 to include new
informational requirements for tire labeling, vehicle
placarding, and the owner's manual.

Definitions

Uniroyal suggested that the definition for
"maximum tire width," should be changed so that it
uses the phrase "exterior edges" in place of "outer
and inner surfaces" which appears in reference to

PART 129; PRE 6

"carcass" and "tread." The agency has decided to
adopt the suggested wording which it believes pro-
vides a more generic and thus more appropriate
definition.

The agency is introducing a definition for "Non-
pneumatic tire identification code" (i.e., "NPTIC")
in response to comments that a non-pneumatic tire
should not be labeled with the size of the pneumatic
tire it is intended to replace, but should be labeled
with other identifying information. In the section
above about labeling requirements, the notice ex-
plains that the agency agrees with the commenters
that the NPTIC would be in the interests of safety.
The reader should refer to that section for a more
extensive discussion of this issue.

Performance Requirements and Testing Procedures
in Standard Na 129

General Considerations
The NPRM proposed certain performance require-
ments and testing procedures for non-pneumatic
tires. In developing a proposed standard for non-
pneumatic tires, the agency reviewed the petition,
the docket comments responding to the agency's
request for comments, and the purpose for and
mechanics of the requirements and tests for pneu-
matic tires in Standard No. 109. As a result of this
analysis, the agency proposed the following require-
ments which it believed would ensure the safety of
non-pneumatic tires. These included a lateral
strength requirement instead of Standard No. 109's
bead unseating requirement; and requirements for
strength (in vertical loading), tire endurance, and
high speed performance with modifications to take
into account a non-pneumatic tire's lack of air pres-
sure. The agency also proposed requirements related
to the non-pneumatic tire assembly's size and con-
struction, load rating, and a tread wear indicator.
NHTSA tentatively concluded that the lateral
strength, strength (in vertical loading), endurance,
and high speed requirements would assure the struc-
tural integrity and durability of a non-pneumatic
tire. The agency further believed that these perform-
ance requirements together with the proposed label-
ing requirements explaining that a non-pneumatic
tire should be used only as a temporary spare tire
and at limited speeds would assure their safety.
Therefore, it decided not to propose additional tests
beyond those equivalent to the ones in Stan-

dard No. 109. The agency's consideration of com-
ments addressing these factors will be discussed
separately.

Lateral Strength Performance Requirements

PART 129; PRE 7

Uniroyal, RMA, and Firestone each recommended
that the lateral test force block be made lighter and
smaller to make testing easier and safer The lateral
force test block shown in Figure 2 and referenced in
S5.2, would have weighed 120 pounds and have been
6.5 inches in height, 14 inches in depth and 18
inches in width. Uniroyal commented that the
block's depth could be reduced by 7 inches which
would reduce the block's weight by over 50 percent.
Firestone stated that the width should be retained to
ensure that the test block would envelop the side
wall of each tire.

After reviewing these comments, NHTSA believes
that the test block size can be reduced to facilitate
testing without adversely affecting the test proce-
dure's effectiveness. In particular, the agency is
adopting Uniroyal's recommendation to reduce the
depth by 7 inches by removing 3Vfe inches from each
end of the block and to reduce the height by remov-
ing one inch from the bottom of the block. After
reviewing Firestone's concerns about the block's
"envelopment" of a non-pneumatic spare tire, the
agency concludes that it is necessary to widen the
test block to 23 inches. The agency calculates that
these changes will reduce the test block's weight to
approximately 55 pounds, a 53 percent reduction.

Section S5.2 of the NPRM also proposed test
requirements related to a non-pneumatic tire's lat-
eral strength. Section S5.2.2.1 specified distances
between the test block and the tire being tested.
Uniroyal recommended that the agency add another
distance expressed as "B = A - 1," explaining that
without this modification certain tires would not
pass the proposed requirement due to immediate
contact with the wheel rim or other member Thus,
in anticipation of future non-pneumatic tire designs
with a section height of less than 2 inches above the
wheel rim or center member, the agency is including
the additional distance requested by Uniroyal.

In the NPRM, the agency considered also propos-

Goodyear provided extensive comments in opposi-
tion to any vertical strength test requirement. It
argued that the main concern addressed by the "tire
strength" requirement in Standard No. 109 is punc-
ture resistance (i.e., the integrity of the air chamber
in resistance to vertical forces exerted by nails and
similar penetrating objects). It believed that such a
concern was not applicable to a non-pneumatic tire.
Alternatively, Goodyear stated that if a strength test
were deemed necessary, then GM's cleat test would
be more appropriate because it evaluates a non-
pneumatic tire's capability to withstand loading
from curbs, potholes, or railroad tracks. While
Uniroyal, RMA, Firestone, and GM also stated that
the cleat test would be superior to a plunger test, no
commenter supported the plunger test.

NHTSA continues to believe that a vertical strength
test is necessaiy to evaluate a non-pneumatic tire's
structural integrity. However, after reevaluating the
proposal in light of the comments, the agency agrees
that a cleat test, similar to the one requested in GM's
petition, would better evaluate the real world prob-
lems that will most likely cause a non-pneumatic tire
to experience a structm-al failure.

PART 129; PRE 8

As for the measurement of a non-pneumatic tire's
strength. NHTSA believes that such a tire should be
capable of absorbing energy at a level comparable to
the pneumatic temporary tires that it is intended to
replace. The NPRM proposed in S4.2.2.4 that the
appropriate minimum breaking energy would be
1,950 inch pounds for tires with load ratings below
880 pounds and 2,600 inch pounds for tires with load
ratings 880 pounds or above.

Uniroyal recommended that S4.2.2.4 be amended
so that the minimum breaking energy would be 525
inch pounds for tires with load ratings below 880
pounds and 700 inch pounds for load ratings of 880
pounds or above. After reviewing Uniroyal's exten-
sive comments in support of the reduced energy
levels, NHTSA still believes that the proposed levels
are appropriate to ensure a non-pneumatic tire's
ability to withstand road hazards. The agency notes
that the proposed energy levels are more comparable
to the energy levels that a pneumatic temporary
spare tire is required to withstand. Given the agen-
cy's belief that it is appropriate to require the
non-pneumatic tires to be capable of absorbing en-
ergy at a level comparable to the pneumatic tempo-
rary spare tires that they are intended to replace,
the agency has decided to adopt the energy levels as
proposed rather than to adopt Uniroyal's suggested
energj' levels. The agency's review of Uniroyal's data
further indicates that the higher energy levels will
better protect against real world hazards.

After reviewing S4. 2.2.4, NHTSA has decided to
modify its language related to a non-pneumatic tire's
failure. As proposed, this section stated "Each tire
shall meet the requirements for minimum breaking
energy when tested in accordance with S5.3 to the
strength requirements . . . ." Because a non-
pneumatic tire is unlikely to "break," the agency
has decided to adopt the statement in the petition
and express the requirement in terms of "no visual
evidence of tread or carcass separation, cracking or
chunking." The agency notes that this will be con-
sistent with the requirements for lateral strength,
tire endurance, and high speed performance, which
are all expressed in this manner. As a result, the

title of the table "Breaking Energy" will be changed
to "Minimum Energy Level."

GM requested that a load rating not be required
on a non-pneumatic tire, claiming this information
might cause a motorist to use a non-pneumatic spare
tire that would be inappropriate for a vehicle. The
agency disagrees with the comment, noting that a
tire's load rating is a straightforward item of infor-
mation that has been required on pneumatic tires
without confusing consumers. The agency believes
this information is necessary for safety because
some vehicle owners have been known to increase a

PART 129; PRE 9

vehicle's load capacity by the addition of "helper
springs" or "air shocks" to permit the towing of a
trailer Thus, by not requiring load rating informa-
tion, the agency would increase the potential for a
motorist to unknowingly use a vehicle equipped
with the non-pneumatic tire in an unsafe manner

Tire and Rim/Wheel Center Member Matching
Information

After reviewing this provision, NHTSA has de-
cided to modify S4.4. to require the submission to

include the NPTIC. This modification to require the
inclusion of the NPTIC rather than the tire size is a
conforming change made to reflect another change
addressed earlier in the notice. In addition, the
agency notes that it proposed in the definition of
"test rim" in S3 to require each tire and rim match-
ing information listing to include the load rating.
After further review, the agency has determined
that it more appropriate to include this requirement
in section S4.4.

IV. Effective Date

§571.110 [Amended]

1. Paragraph S2 of Standard 110 is revised to read
as follows:

S2 Application. This standard applies to passen-
ger cars and to non-pneumatic spare tire assemblies
for use on passenger cars.

2. Paragraph S3 of Standard No. 110 is amended
by adding the following definitions in the proper
alphabetical location:

"Non-pneumatic rim" is used as defined in
§571.129.

"Non-pneumatic spare tire assembly" means a

PART 129; PRE 10

non-pneumatic tire assembly intended for tempo-
rary use in place of one of the pneumatic tires and
rims that are fitted to a passenger car in compliance
with the requirements of this standard.

"Non-pneumatic tire" and "non-pneumatic tire
assembly" are used as defined in §571.129.

"Rim" is used as defined in §571.109.

"Wheel center member" is used as defined in
§571.129.

V V *t" -t" *

3. Paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 110 is revised to
read as follows:

S4.1 General. Passenger cars shall be equipped
with tires that meet the requirements of §571.109,
New Pneumatic Tires— Passenger Cars, except that
passenger cars may be equipped with a non-
pneumatic spare tire assembly that meets the re-
quirements of §571.129, New Non-Pneumatic Tires
for Ptissenger Cars and S6 and S8 of this standard.
Passenger cars equipped with such an assembly
shall meet the requirements of S4. 3(e), S5, and S7 of
this standard.

:1c :^ sk ^ =^

4. Paragraph S4.3(c), (d), and (e) is revised to read
as follows:

(d) Vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size
designation; and

5. Standard No. 110 is amended by adding para-
graphs S5, S6, S7 and S8 to read as follows:

S5 Load Limits for Non-Pneumatic Spare Tires.
The highest vehicle maximum load on the tire for
the vehicle shall not be greater than the load rating
for the non-pneumatic spare tire.

86 Labeling Requirements for Non-Pneumatic
Spare Tires or Tire Assemblies.

(a) FOR TEMPORARY USE ONLY; and

(b) MAXIMUM 50 M.RH.

57 Requirements for Passenger Cars Equipped
with Non-Pneumatic Spare Tire Assemblies.

(a) A statement indicating the labeling related to
appropriate use for the non-pneumatic spare tire
including at a minimum the information set forth in
S6(a) and (b) and in S4.3(e);

(b) An instruction to drive carefully when the
non-pneumatic spare tire is in use, and to install the
proper pneumatic tire and rim at the first reason-
able opportunity; and

(c) A statement that operation of the passenger car
is not recommended with more than one non-
pneumatic spare tire in use at the same time.

58 Non-Pneumatic Rims and Wheel Center Members

PART 129; PRE 11

pneumatic tire identification code, with which the
vehicle is equipped.

§571.120 [Amended]

6. Paragraph S3 of Standard 120 is revised to read
as follows:

:^ ^. H: ^ :^

7. Paragi-aph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 is revised
to read as follows:

55.1.1 Except as specified in S5.1.3, each vehicle
equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service
shall be equipped with tires that meet the require-
ments of §571.109, New Pneumatic Tires— Passenger
Cars, or §571.119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles
Other than Passenger Cars, and rims that are listed
by the manufacturer of the tires as suitable for use
with those tires, in accordance with S4.4 with
§571.109, or S5.1 of §571.119, as applicable, except
that vehicles may be equipped with a non-pneumatic
spare tire assembly that meets the requirements of
§571.129, New Non-Pneumatic Tires for Passenger
Cars, and S8 and SlO of this standard. Vehicles
equipped with such an assembly shall meet the
requirements of S5.3.6, S7, and S9 of this standard.

8. The introductory text of paragraph S5.3.2 of
Standard No. 120 is revised to read as follows:

9. Paragraph S5.3.6 is added to Standard No. 120
to read as follows:

S5.3.6 The non-pneumatic tire identification code,
with which that assembly is labeled pursuant to
S4.3(a) of §571.129.

10. Standard 120 is amended by adding para-
gi-aphs S7, S8, S9, and SlO.

57 Load Limits for Non-Pneumatic Spare Tires.
The highest vehicle maximum load on the tire for
the vehicle shall not be greater than the load rating
for the non-pneumatic spare tire.

58 Labeling Requirements for Non-Pneumatic

Spare Tires or Tire Assemblies. Each non-pneumatic
tire or, in the case of a non-pneumatic tire assembly
in which the non-pneumatic tire is an integi-al part
of the assembly, each non-pneumatic tire assembly
shall be permanently molded, stamped, or otherwise
permanently marked into or onto both sides in
letters or numerals not less than 0.156 inches high,
the information specified in paragraphs S6.(a)
through (b). Except, in the case of a non-pneumatic
tire assembly which has a particular side that must
always face outward when mounted on a vehicle, the
information shown in pai'agraphs S6(a) through (b)
shall only be required on the outward facing side.
The information shall be positioned on the tire or
tire assembly such that it is not placed on the tread
or the outermost edge of the tire and is not ob-
structed by any portion of any non-pneumatic rim or
wheel center member designated for use with that
tire in this standard or in Standard No. 129.

(a) FOR TEMPORARY USE ONLY; and

(b) MAXIMUM 50 M.RH.

S9 Requirements for Vehicles Equipped with Non-
Pneumatic Spare Tire Assemblies

(a) A statement indicating the labeling related to
appropriate use for the non-pneumatic spare tire
including at a minimum the information set forth in
S8(a) and (b) and in S5.3.6;

(b) An instruction to drive carefully when the
non-pneumatic spare tire is in use, and to install the
proper pneumatic tire and rim at the first reason-
able opportunity; and

(c) A statement that operation of the vehicle is not
recommended with more than one non-pneumatic
spare tire in use at the same time.

PART 129; PRE 12

pneumatic tire identification code, with which the
vehicle is equipped.

+ * rt; * *

11. Part 571 is amended by the addition of 49 CFR
§571.129 which would read as follows:

§571.129 Standard No. 129; New Non-Pneumatic
Tires for Passenger Cars.

52 Application. This standard applies to new tem-
porary spare non-pneumatic tires for use on passen-
ger cars.

53 Definitions.

"Carcass" means the tire structure except for the
tread which provides the major portion of the tire's
capability to defiect in response to the vertical loads
and tractive forces that the tire transmits from the
roadway to the non-pneumatic rim, the wheel center
member, or the vehicle and which attaches to the
vehicle or attaches, either integrally or separably, to
the wheel center member or non-pneumatic rim.

"Carcass separation" means the pulling away of
the carcass from the non-pneumatic rim or wheel
center member

"Chunking" means the breaking away of pieces of
the carcass or tread.

"Load rating" means the maximum load a tire is
rated to carry.

"Non-pneumatic rim" means a mechanical device
which, when a non-pneumatic tire assembly incor-
porates a wheel, supports the tire, and attaches,

either integrally or separably, to the wheel center
member and upon which the tire is attached.

"Non-pneumatic test rim" means, with reference
to a tire to be tested, any non-pneumatic rim that is
listed as appropriate for use with that tire in accor-
dance with S4.4.

"Non-pneumatic tire assembly" means a non-
pneumatic tire, alone or in combination with a
wheel or wheel center member, which can be
mounted on a vehicle.

"Tfest wheel center member" means, with refer-
ence to a tire to be tested, any wheel center member
that is listed as appropriate for use with that tire in
accordance with S4.4.

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

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

S4 Requirements.

54.2 Performance Requirements

84. 2.1 General. Each tire shall conform to the
following:

(b) It shall incorporate a tread wear indicator that

PART 129; PRE 13

will provide a visual indication that the tire has
worn to a tread depth of Vie inch.

(d) It shall meet the requirements of S4.2.2.5 and
S4.2.2.6 when tested on a test wheel described in
S5.4.2.1 either alone or simultaneously with up to 5
tires.

S4.2.2 Test Requirements.

54.2.2.1 Test Sample. For each test sample use:

(a) One tire for physical dimensions, lateral
strength, and strength in sequence;

(b) A second tire for tire endurance; and

S4.2.2.3. Lateral Strength. There shall be no visual
evidence of tread or carcass separation, cracking or
chunking, when a tire is tested in accordance with

55.2 to a load of:

(a) 1,500 pounds for tires with a load rating less
than 880 pounds;

(b) 2,000 pounds for tires with a load rating of 880
pounds or more but less than 1,400 pounds.

(c) 2,500 pounds for tires with a load rating of
1,400 pounds or more, using the load rating marked
on the tire or tire assembly.

54. 2.2.4 Tire Strength. There shall be no visual
evidence of tread carcass separation, cracking or
chunking, when a tire is tested in accordance with

55.3 to a minimum energy level of:

Load Rating Minimum Energy Level

Below 880 pounds 1,950 inch pounds

880 pounds and above 2,600 inch pounds

54.2.2.5 Tire Endurance. When the tire has been
subjected to the laboratory endurance test specified
in S5.4, using, if applicable, a non-pneumatic test
rim or test wheel center member that undergoes no
permanent deformation, there shall be no visual
evidence of tread or carcass separation, cracking or
chunking. In the case of a non-pneumatic tire assem-
bly in which the non-pneumatic tire is an integi'al
part of the assembly, the assembly shall undergo no

permanent deformation with the exception of wear
of the tread.

S4.2.2.6 High Speed Performance. When the tire
has been subjected to the laboratory high speed
performance test specified in S5.5, using if applica-
ble, a non-pneumatic test rim or test wheel center
member that undergoes no permanent deformation,
there shall be no visual evidence of tread or carcass
separation, cracking or chunking. In the case of a
non-pneumatic tire assembly in which the non-
pneumatic tire is an integi'al part of the assembly,
the assembly shall undergo no permanent deforma-
tion with the exception of wear of the tread.

S4.3 Labeling Requirements. Each non-pneumatic
tire or, in the case of a non-pneumatic tire assembly
in which the non-pneumatic tire is an integral part
of the assembly, each non-pneumatic tire assembly
shall be permanently molded, stamped, or otherwise
permanently marked into or onto both sides of the
tire or tire assembly in letters or numerals not less
than 0.078 inches high, the information shown in
paragi-aphs S4.3(a) through (D. Except, in the case of
a non-pneumatic tire assembly of which one side
always must face outward when mounted on a vehi-
cle, the information shown in paragraphs S4.3(a)
through (f) shall only be required on the outward
facing side. The information shall be positioned on
the tire or tire assembly such that it is not placed on
the tread or the outermost edge of the tire and is not
obstructed by any portion of any non-pneumatic rim
or wheel center member designated for use with that
tire in S4.4 of this standard or in 49 CFR §571.110 or
49 CFR §571.120.

(a) The non-pneumatic tire identification code.

(b) Load rating, which, if expressed in kilograms,
shall be followed in parentheses by the equivalent
load rating in pounds, rounded to the nearest whole
pound;

(c) For a non-pneumatic tire that is not an integi'al
part of a non-pneumatic tire assembly, the size and
type designation of the non-pneumatic rim or wheel
tire assembly that is contained in the submission
made by a manufacturer, pursuant to S4.4(a), or in one
of the publications described in S4.4(b) for that tire's
non-pneumatic tire identification code designation;

(d) The name of the manufacturer or brand name;

(e) The symbol 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;

(i) The tire identification number required by
§574.5 of this chapter;

(g) The labeling requirements set forth in S6 of
Standard No. 110 (§571.110), or S8 of Standard No.
120 (§571.120).

PART 129; PRE 14

S4.4 Non-Pneumatic Tire Identification Code and
Non-Pneumatic Rim/Wheel Center Member Match-
ing Information. For purposes of this standard, S8 of
49 CFR 571.110 and SIO of 49 CFR 571.120, each
manufacturer of a non-pneumatic tire that is not an
integral part of a non-pneumatic tire assembly shall
ensure that it provides a listing to the public for each
non-pneumatic tire that it produces. The listing
shall include the non-pneumatic tire identification
code, tire load rating, dimensional specifications and
a diagiam of the portion of the tire that attaches to
the non-pneumatic rim or wheel center member, and
a list of the non-pneumatic rims or wheel center
members that may be used with that tire. For each
non-pneumatic rim or wheel center member in-
cluded in such a listing, the information provided
shall include a size and type designation for the
non-pneumatic rim or wheel center member, and
dimensional specifications and a diagi-am of the
non-pneumatic rim or portion of the wheel center
member that attaches to the tire. A listing compiled
in accordance with paragi'aph (a) of this section need
not include dimensional specifications or a diagram
of the non-pneumatic rim or portion of the wheel
center member that attaches to the tire if the
non-pneumatic rim's or portion of the wheel center
member's dimensional specifications and diagi'am
are contained in each listing published in accor-
dance with paragraph (b) of this section. The listing
shall be in one of the following forms:

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

The Tire and Rim Association

The European Tire and Rim Tfechnical Organization

Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Associa-
tion, Inc.

Deutsche Industrie Norm

British Standards Institute

Scandinavian Tire and Rim Organization

Tyre and Rim Association of Australia

S5 Test Procedures.

S5.1 Physical Dimensions. After conditioning the
tire at room temperature for at least 24 hours, using
equipment with minimum measurement capabili-

55.2 Lateral Strength.

55.2.1 Preparation of the tire.

55. 2.1.1 If applicable, mount a new tire on a non-
pneumatic test rim or test wheel center member

55.2.2 Test Procedure.

B = A - 1 inch

B = A - 2 inches

B = A - 3 inches

B = A - 4 inches

B = A - 5 inches, and

B = A - 6 inches
However, if at any time during the conduct of the
test, the test block comes in contact with the non-
pneumatic test rim or test wheel center member, the
test shall be suspended and no further testing at
smaller values of the distance B shall be conducted.
When tested to the above procedure, satisfying the
requirements of S4.2.2.3 for all values of B greater
than that for which contact between the non-
pneumatic test rim or test wheel center member and
the test block is made, shall constitute compliance to
the requirements set forth in S4.2.2.3.

55.3 Tire Strength.

S5.3.1 Preparation of the Tire.
S5.3.1.1 If applicable, mount the tire on a non-
pneumatic test rim or test wheel center member.

PART 129; PRE 15

S5.3.1.2 Condition the tire assembly at room tem-
perature for at least three hours.
S5.3.2 Test Procedures.

55.3.2.1 Force the test cleat, as defined in S5. 3.2.2,
with its length axis (see S5. 3. 2. 2(a)) parallel to the
rolling axis of the non-pneumatic tire assembly, and
its height axis (see S5. 3. 2. 2(c)), coinciding with a
radius of the non-pneumatic tire assembly, into the
tread of the tire at five test points equally spaced
around the circumference of the tire. At each test
point, the test cleat is forced into the tire at a rate of
two inches per minute until the applicable minimum
energy level, as shown in S4.2.2.4, calculated using
the formula contained in S5.3.2.3, is reached.

55.3.2.2 The test cleat is made of steel and has the
following dimensions:

(a) Length of one inch gi'eater than the maximum
tire width of the tire.

(b) Width of one-half inch with the sui-face which
contacts the tire's tread having one-quarter inch
radius.

(c) Height of one inch gi-eater than the difference
between the unloaded radius of the non-pneumatic
tire assembly and the minimum radius of the non-
pneumatic rim or wheel center member, if used with
the non-pneumatic tire assembly being tested.

55.3.2.3 The energy level is calculated by the
following formula:

E = !^^

where

E = Energy level, inch-pounds;

F = Force, pounds; and

P = Penetration, inches

S5.4 Tire Endurance.

55.4.1 Preparation of the tire.

55.4.1.1 If applicable, mount a new tire on a non-
pneumatic test rim or test wheel center member.

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

55.4.2 Test Procedure.

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

Percent

4 hours 85

6 hours 90

24 hours 100

S5.4.2.4 Immediately after running the tire the
required time, allow the tire to cool for one hour,
then, if applicable, detach it from the non-pneumatic
test rim or test wheel center member, and inspect it
for the conditions specified in S4.2.2.5.

S5.5 High Speed Endurance.

55.5.2 Break in the tire by running it for 2 hours
at 50 m.p.h.

55.5.3 Allow to cool to 100 ± 5° F.

55.5.4 Test at 75 m.p.h. for 30 minutes, 80 m.p.h.
for 30 minutes, and 85 m.p.h. for 30 minutes.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^

12. Figures 1 and 2 are added following the text of
Standard No. 129, appearing as follows:

Part 574 [Amended]

13. The first sentence of 574.4 Applicability is
revised to read as follows:

:\!: ■^ ■^ ^ j^

14. The first sentence of 574.5 Tire identification
requirements is revised to read as follows:

PART 129; PRE 16

containing the information set forth in paragraphs
(a) through (d) of this section.

symbols, shall be used to identify the non-pneumatic
tire identification code.

15. Section 574.5 is amended by adding the follow-
ing to the end of the opening paragraph:

17. Section 574.6, Identification Mark, is revised to
read as follows:

Each manufacturer of a non-pneumatic tire or a
non-pneumatic tire assembly shall permanently
mold, stamp, or otherwise permanently mark into or
onto one side of the non-pneumatic tire or non-
pneumatic tire assembly a tire identification num-
ber containing the information set forth in para-
gi-aphs (a) through (d) of this section. In addition, the
DOT symbol required by the Federal motor vehicle
safety standards shall be positioned relative to the
tire identification number as shown in Figure 1, and
the symbols to be used for the other information are
those listed above. The labeling for a non-pneumatic
tire or a non-pneumatic tire assembly shall be in the
manner specified in Figure 1 and positioned on the
non-pneumatic tire or non-pneumatic tire assembly
such that it is not placed on the tread or the
outermost edge of the tire and is not obstructed by
any portion of the non-pneumatic rim or wheel
center member designated for use with that non-
pneumatic tire in S4.4 of Standard No. 129 (49 CFR
571.129).

16. Section 574.5(b) is amended by adding the
following after the opening sentence:

*****

For a new non-pneumatic tire of a non-pneumatic
tire assembly, the second group, of not more than two

Td obtain the identification mark required by
574.5(a), each manufacturer of new or retreaded
pneumatic tires, non-pneumatic tires, or non-
pneumatic tire assemblies shall apply in writing to
"Tire Identification and Recordkeeping," National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department
of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590, identify
itself as a tire manufacturer or retreader and furnish
the following information:

(a) The name, or other designation identifying the
applicant, and its main office address.

(b) The name, or other identifying designation, of
each individual plant operated by the manufacturer
and the address of each plant, if applicable.

Issued on July 12, 1990.

Jeffrey R. Miller
Deputy Administrator

55 FR 29581
July 20, 1990

PART 129; PRE 17-18

Pivot on Centerline
of Beam

(Beam Horizontal)

Lateral Force
Test Block

Non-Pneumatic
Tire Assembly

Rotational Axis of
Non-Pneumatic Tire Assembly

Figure 1. - Lateral Force Test Fixture (Dimension in Inches)

2.5

i
7

R = 1.0\

(

-^-

Centerline

End View

Front View

Figure 2. - Lateral Force Test Block (Dimension in Inches)
Dimensional Tolerance is +0.050 in

PART 129; PRE 19-20

MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 129

New Non-Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars

(Docket No. 87-12; Notice 3)
RIN 2127-AC18

51. Scope. This standard specifies tire dimensions
and laboratory test requirements for lateral strength,
strength, endurance, and high speed performance; de-
fines the tire load rating; and specifies labeling require-
ments for non-pneumatic spare tires.

52. Application. This standard applies to new tem-
porary spare non-pneumatic tires for use on passenger
cars.

53. Definitions.

"Carcass" means the tire structure except for the
tread which provides the major portion of the tire's
capability to deflect in response to the vertical loads
and tractive forces that the tire transmits from the
roadway to the non-pneumatic rim, the wheel center
member, or the vehicle and which attaches to the
vehicle or attaches, either integrally or separably, to
the wheel center member or non-pneumatic rim.

"Carcass separation" means the pulling away of the
carcass from the non-pneumatic rim or wheel center
member.

"Chunking" means the breaking away of pieces of
the carcass or tread.

"Cracking" means any parting within the carcass,
tread, or any components that connect the tire to the
non-pneumatic rim or wheel center member and, if the
non-pneumatic tire is integral with the non-pneumatic
rim or wheel center member any parting within the
non-pneumatic rim, or wheel center member.

"Load rating" means the maximum load a tire is
rated to carry.

"Maximum tire width" means the greater of either
the linear distance between the exterior edges of the
carcass or the linear distance between the exterior
edges of the tread, both being measured parallel to the
rolling axis of the tire.

"Non-pneumatic rim" means a mechanical device
which, when a non-pneumatic tire assembly incor-
porates a wheel, supports the tire, and attaches, either
integrally or separably, to the wheel center member
and upon which the tire is attached.

"Non-pneumatic test rim" means, with reference to
a tire to be tested, any non-pneumatic rim that is listed
as appropriate for use with that tire in accordance with
S4.4.

"Non-pneumatic tire" means a mechanical device
which transmits, either directly or through a wheel or
wheel center member, the vertical load and tractive
forces from the roadway to the vehicle, generates the
tractive forces that provide the directional control of
the vehicle, and does not rely on the containment of
any gas or fluid for providing those functions.

"Non-pneumatic tire assembly" means a non-pneu-
matic tire, alone or in combination with a wheel or
wheel center member, which can be mounted on a
vehicle.

"Non-pneumatic tire identification code" means an
alphanumeric code that is assigned by the manufac-
turer to identify the tire with regard to its size, appli-
cation to a specific non-pneumatic rim or wheel center
member, or application to a specific vehicle.

"Test wheel center member" means, with reference
to a tire to be tested, any wheel center member that
is listed as appropriate for use with that tire in accor-
dance with S4.4.

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

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

"Wheel" means a mechanical device which consists
of a non-pneumatic rim and wheel center member and
which, in the case of a non-pneumatic tire assembly in-
corporating a wheel, provides the connection between
the tire and the vehicle.

"Wheel center member" means, in the case of a non-
pneumatic tire assembly incorporating a wheel, a
mechanical device which attaches, either integrally or
separably, to the non-pneumatic rim and provides the
connection between the non-pneumatic rim and the
vehicle.

PART 571; S 129-1

S4. Requirements.

54.1 Size and construction. Each tire shall be
designed to fit each non-pneumatic rim or wheel center
member specified for its non-pneumatic tire identifi-
cation code designation in a listing in accordance with
section S4.4.

54.2 Performance requirements.

54.2.1 General. Each tire shall conform to the
following:

(a) Its load rating shall be that specified in a submis-
sion made by a manufacturer, pursuant to S4.4(a), or
in one of the publications described in S4.4(b) for its
non-pneumatic tire identification code designation.

(b) It shall incorporate a tread wear indicator that
will provide a visual indication that the tire has worn
to a tread depth of Vie inch.

(c) It shall, before being subjected to either the en-
durance test procedure specified in S5.4 or the high
speed performance procedure specified in S5.5, exhibit
no visual evidence of tread or carcass separation,
chunking or cracking.

(d) It shall meet the requirements of S4.2.2.5 and
S4.2.2.6 when tested on a test wheel described in
S5.4.2.1 either alone or simultaneously with up to 5
tires.

54.2.2 Test requirements.

54.2.2.1 Test sample. For each test sample use:

(a) One tire for physical dimensions, lateral strength,
and strength in sequence;

(b) A second tire for tire endurance; and

54.2.2.2 Physical Dimensions. For a non-
pneumatic tire assembly in which the tire is separable
from the non-pneumatic rim or wheel center member,
the dimensions, measured in accordance with S5.1, for
that portion of the tire that attaches to that non-
pneumatic rim or wheel center member shall satisfy
the dimensional specifications contained in the submis-
sion made by an individual manufacturer, pursuant to
S4.4(a), or in one of the publications described in S4.4(b)
for that tire's non-pneumatic tire identification code
designation.

54.2.2.3 Lateral strength. There shall be no visual
evidence of tread or carcass separation, cracking or
chunking, when a tire is tested in accordance with S5.2
to a load of:

(a) 1,500 pounds for tires with a load rating less than
880 pounds;

(b) 2,000 pounds for tires with a load rating of 880
pounds or more but less than 1,400 pounds.

(c) 2,500 pounds for tires with a load rating of 1,400
pounds or more, using the load rating marked on the
tire or tire assembly.

54.2.2.4 Tire strength. There shall be no visual evi-
dence of tread carcass separation, cracking or chunk-
ing, when a tire is tested in accordance with S5.3 to
a minimum energy level of:

Load Rating Minimum Energy Level

Below 880 pounds 1,950 inch pounds

880 pounds and above 2,600 inch pounds

54.2.2.5 Tire endurance. When the tire has been
subjected to the laboratory endurance test specified in
S5.4, using, if applicable, a non-pnetunatic test rim or
test wheel center member that undergoes no perma-
nent deformation, there shall be no visual evidence of
tread or carcass separation, cracking or chunking. In
the case of a non-pneumatic tire assembly in which the
non-pneumatic tire is an integral part of the assembly,
the assembly shall undergo no permanent deformation
with the exception of wear of the tread.

54.2.2.6 High speed performance. When the tire
has been subjected to the laboratory high speed per-
formance test specified in S5.5, using if applicable, a
non-pneumatic test rim or test wheel center member
that undergoes no permanent deformation, there shall
be no visual evidence of tread or carcass separation,
cracking or chunking. In the case of a non-pneumatic
tire assembly in which the non-pneumatic tire is an in-
tegral part of the assembly, the assembly shall under-
go no permanent deformation wath the exception of
wear of the tread.

S4.3 Labeling requirements. Each non-pneumatic
tire or, in the case of a non-pneumatic tire assembly
in which the non-pneumatic tire is an integral part of
the assembly, each non-pneumatic tire assembly shall
be permanently molded, stamped, or otherwise perma-
nently marked into or onto both sides of the tire or tire
assembly in letters or numerals not less than 0.078
inches high, the information shown in paragraphs
S4.3(a) through (f). Except, in the case of a non-
pneumatic tire assembly of which one side always must
face outward when mounted on a vehicle, the informa-
tion shown in paragraphs S4.3(a) through (f) shall only
be required on the outward facing side. The informa-
tion shall be positioned on the tire or tire assembly such
that it is not placed on the tread or the outermost edge
of the tire and is not obstructed by any portion of any
non-pneumatic rim or wheel center member designated
for use with that tire in S4.4 of this standard or in 49
CFR §571.110 or 49 CFR §571.120.

(a) The non-pneumatic tire identification code.

PART 571; S 129-2

(b) Load rating, which, if expressed in kilograms,
shall be followed in parentheses by the equivalent load
rating in pounds, rounded to the nearest whole pound;

(c) For a non-pneumatic tire that is not an integral
part of a non-pneumatic tire assembly, the size and type
designation of the non-pneumatic rim or wheel tire as-
sembly that is contained in the submission made by a
manufacturer, pursuant to S4.4(a), or in one of the pub-
lications described in S4.4(b) for that tire's non-
pneumatic tire identification code designation;

(d) The name of the manufacturer or brand name;

(e) The symbol DOT in the manner specified in Part
574 of this chapter, which shall constitute a certifica-
tion that the tire conforms to applicable Federal motor
vehicle safety standards;

(f) The tire identification number required by §574.5
of this chapter;

(g) The labeling requirements set forth in S6 of
Standard No. 110 (§571.110), or S8 of Standard No.
120 (§571.120).

S4.4 Non-pneumatic tire identification code and non-
pneumatic rim/wheel center member matching informa-
tion. For purposes of this standard, S8 of 49 CFR
571.110 and SIO of 49 CFR 571.120, each manufac-
turer of a non-pneumatic tire that is not an integral
part of a non-pneumatic tire assembly shall ensure that
it provides a listing to the public for each non-pneu-
matic tire that it produces. The listing shall include the
non-pneumatic tire identification code, tire load rating,
dimensional specifications and a diagram of the por-
tion of the tire that attaches to the non-pneumatic rim
or wheel center member, and a list of the non-pneu-
matic rims or wheel center members that may be used
with that tire. For each non-pneumatic rim or wheel
center member included in such a listing, the informa-
tion provided shall include a size and type designation
for the non-pneumatic rim or wheel center member and
dimensional specifications and a diagram of the non-
pneumatic rim or portion of the wheel center member
that attaches to the tire. A listing compiled in accor-
dance with paragraph (a) of this section need not in-
clude dimensional specifications or a diagram of the
non-pneumatic rim or portion of the wheel center mem-
ber that attaches to the tire if the non-pneumatic rim's
or portion of the wheel center member's dimensional
specifications and diagram are contained in each list-
ing published in accordance with paragraph (b) of this
section. 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
tires or, in the case of non-pneumatic tires supplied only

as a temporary spare tire on a vehicle, in a document
furnished to dealers of vehicles equipped with the tires,
to any person upon request, and in duplicate to the
Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance
Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administra-
tion, U.S. Department of Transportation, 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 followang organizations:

The Tire and Rim Association

The European Tire and Rim Technical Organization

Japan Automobile Tire Manufactiu-ers' Association,
Inc.

Deutsche Industrie Norm

British Standards Institute

Scandinavian Tire and Rim Organization

Tyre and Rim Association of Australia

S5. Test procedures.

55.1 Physical dimensions. After conditioning the
tire at room temperature for at least 24 hours, using
equipment with minimum measurement capabilities of
one-half the smallest tolerance specified in the listing
contained in the submission made by a manufacturer
pursuant to S4.4(a), or in one of the publications
described in S4.4(b) for that tire's non-pneumatic tire
identification code designation, measure the portion of
the tire that attaches to the non-pneumatic rim or the
wheel center member. For any inner diameter dimen-
sional specifications, or other dimensional specifications
that are uniform or uniformly spaced around some cir-
cumference of the tire, these measurements shall be
taken at least six points around the tire, or if specified,
at the points specified in the listing contained in the
submission made by an individual manufacturer; pur-
suant to S4.4(a), or in one of the publications described
in S4.4(b) for the tire's non-pneumatic tire identifica-
tion code designation.

55.2 Lateral strength.
S5.2.1 Preparation of the tire.

55.2.1.1 If applicable, mount a new tire on a non-
pneumatic test rim or test wheel center member.

55.2.1.2 Mount the tire assembly in a fixture as
shown in Figure 1 with the surface of the tire assem-
bly that would face outward when mounted on a vehi-
cle facing toward the lateral strength test block shown
in Figure 2 and force the lateral strength test block
against the tire.

PART 571; S 129-3

Pivot on Centerline
of Beam

(Beam Horizontal)

Lateral Force
Test Block

Non-Pneumatic
Tire Assembly

Rotational Axis of
Non-Pneumatic Tire Assembly

Figure 1. - Lateral Force Test Fixture (Dimension in Inches)

2.5

R = 1.0

-7

►

End View

Centerline

■23

Front View

Figure 2. - Lateral Force Test Block (Dimension in Inches)
Dimensional Tolerance is +0.050 in

PART 571; S 129-4

S5.2.2 Test procedure.

S5.2.2.1 Apply a load through the block to the tire
at a rate of 2 inches per minute, with the load arm
parallel to the tire assembly at the time of engagement
and the first point of contact with the test block being
the test block centerline shown in Figure 2, at the fol-
lowing distances, B, in sequence, as shown in Figure 1:

B = A - 1 inch
B = A - 2 inches
B = A - 3 inches
B = A - 4 inches
B = A - 5 inches
B = A - 6 inches

However, if at any time during the conduct of the test,
the test block comes in contact with the non-pneumatic
test rim or test wheel center member, the test shall
be suspended and no further testing at smaller values
of the distance B shall be conducted. When tested to
the above procedure, satisfying the requirements of
S4. 2. 2. 3 for all values of B greater than that for which
contact between the non-pneumatic test rim or test
wheel center member and the test block is made, shall
constitute compliance to the requirements set forth in
S4.2.2.3.

S5.3 Tire strength.

55.3.1 Preparation of the tire.

55.3.1.1 If applicable, mount the tire on a non-
pneumatic test rim or test wheel center member.

55.3.1.2 Condition the tire assembly by room tem-
perature for at least three hours.

55.3.2 Test procedures.

55.3.2.1 Force the test cleat, as defined in S5.3.2.2,
with its length axis (see S5.3.2.2(a)) parallel to the roll-
ing axis of the non-pneumatic tire assembly, and its
height axis (see S5. 3.2. 2(c)), coinciding with a radius
of the non-pneumatic tire assembly, into the tread of
the tire at five test points equally spaced around the
circumference of the tire. At each test point, the test
cleat is forced into the tire at a rate of two inches per
minute until the applicable minimum energy level, as
shown in S4.2.2.4, calculated using the formula con-
tained in S5.3.2.3, is reached.

55.3.2.2 The test cleat is made of steel and has the
following dimensions:

(a) Length of one inch greater than the maximum
tire width of the tire.

(b) Width of one-half inch with the surface which con-
tacts the tire's tread having one-quarter inch radius.

assembly and the minimum radius of the non-pneumatic
rim or wheel center member, if used with the non-
pneumatic tire assembly being tested.

S5.3.2.3 The energy level is calculated by the fol-
lowing formula:

E = ^ ^ P

E = Energy level, inch-pounds;
F = Force, pounds; and
P = Penetration, inches

55.4 Tire Endurance.

55.4.1 Preparation of the tire.

55.4.1.1 If applicable, mount a new tire on a non-
pneumatic test rim or test wheel center member.

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

55.4.2 Test procedure.

55.4.2.1 Mount the tire assembly on a test axle and
press it against a flat-faced steel test wheel 67.23 inches
in diameter and at least as wide as the maximum tire
width of the tire to be tested or an approved equiva-
lent test wheel, with the applicable test load specified
in the table in S5.4.2.3 for the tire's non-pneumatic tire
identification code designation.

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
(m.p.h.) in accordance with the foUovdng schedule
without interruption (the loads for the followdng peri-
ods are the specified percentage of the load rating
marked on the tire or tire assembly):

Percent

4 hours 85

6 hours 90

24 hours 100

55.4.2.4 Immediately after running the tire the re-
quired time, allow the tire to cool of one hour, then,
if applicable, detach it from the non-pneumatic test rim
or test wheel center member, and inspect it for the con-
ditions specified in S4.2.2.5.

55.5 High speed endurance.

55.5.1 After preparing the tire in accordance with
S5.4.1, if applicable, mount the tire assembly in accor-
dance with S5.4.2.1, and press it against the test wheel
with a load of 88 percent of the tire's load rating as
marked on the tire or tire assembly.

55.5.2 Break in the tire by running it for 2 hours
at 50 m.p.h.

PART 571; SI 29-5

55.5.3 Allow to cool to 100 ±5° F. S6 Nonconforming tires. Any non-pneumatic tire

that is designed for use on passenger cars that does

55.5.4 Test at 75 m.p.h. for 30 minutes, 80 m.p.h. ^^^ conform to all the requirements of this standard,
for 30 minutes, and 85 m.p.h. for 30 minutes. shall not be sold, offered for sale, introduced or deli-

55.5.5 Immediately after running the tire for the vered for introduction into interstate commerce, or im-
required time, allow the tire to cool for one hour, then P^^ed mto the United States, for any purpose.

if applicable, detach it from the non-pneumatic test rim

or test wheel center member, and inspect it for the con- 55 F.R. 29581

ditions specified in S4.2.2.6. July 20, 1990

us Government Priming Office- 1991- 521-549/40001

PART 571; S 129-6

TD 8.6/2;990/supp.43

Federal Motor Vehicle Safet...

^^ Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

w usDepartment Standarcls apd Regulations

of Transportation ^^

T^t^T"" Supplement 43— Amendments

A.™,n..,o,,c„ g^^^ Interpretations Ig^yedsTo^-^-

Durlng 1990 I '^'^^^'™^'

Page Control Chart ""'-''^s'

i^^^^£|j;^i^! LiOCji^E !jroDLP)^Ri^ I

(1) Part 533— Light Truck Average Fuel Economy Standards

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 533; PRE 137 through PART 533; PRE 151-152 behind page in book
numbered PART 533; PRE 135-136.

(b) Note: The amendment included in the preamble mentioned above was made prior to the issuance of the preamble.
The attached preamble is issued for reference continuity.

(2) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108

Pen and ink change. Change page in book following page numbered PART 571; S108-PRE 331 from PART 571;
S208-PRE 332 to PART 571; S108-PRE 332.

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 571; S108-PRE 357-358 behind page in book numbered PART 571;
S108-PRE 332.

(b) Substitute attached Standard 108 (except for art pages) for Standard 108 in book.

(d) Insert attached Art Pages 83 through 94 behind Art Page 82 in book.

(3) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 571; S109-PRB65 through PART 571; S109-PRE 74 behind page in book
numbered PART 571; S109-PRE 64.

(b) Substitute attached pages numbered PART 571; S109-1 through PART 571; S109-9; and page PART 571; S109A-1
for similarly numbered pages in book.

(4) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110

Correction: In supplement No. 42, the Preamble pages were cited as pages PART; SllO— PRE 9 through PART 571;
SllO-PRE 28. The latter should have been PART 571; SllO-PRE 25-26.

(5) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116

(a) Insert attached page numbered PART 571; S116-PRE 41 behind page in book numbered PART 571; S116-PRE
39-40.

(b) Substitute attached pages numbered PART 571; 8116-1 through PART 571; S116-4 for similarly numbered pages
in book.

(6) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121

(a) InsertattachedpagesnumberedPART571;S121-PRE 193 through PART 571; S121-PRE 195-196 behind page
in book numbered PART 571; S121-PRE 191-192.

(b) Substitute attached page numbered PART 571; S121— 7 for similarly numbered page in book.

(7) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 57 1 ; S208-PRE 459 through PART 571 ; S208-PRE 477-478 behind page
in book numbered PART 571; S208-PRE 457-458.

(b) Substitute attached Standard 208 for Standard 208 in book.

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and amendments published In this format are for reference purposes
only. They should not be considered as legally binding or be used as a source of authority In matters of litigation.
The United States Code of Federal Regulations is the only source of legal authority for the standards.

PC-43— M121

PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 533

Light Truck Average Fuel Economy Standards

(Docket No. FE-88-03; Notice 3)

RIN 2127-AC51

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This notice establishes the average fuel
economy standard for light trucks manufactured in
model year (MY) 1992. Issuance of the standard is
required by Title V of the Motor Vehicle Information
and Cost Savings Act. For MY 1992, the combined
standard for all light trucks manufactured by a
manufacturer is 20.2 mpg. The agency is not setting
optional separate two-wheel drive and four-wheel
drive standards.

DATES: The amendment is effective May 4, 1990.
The standard applies to the 1992 model year.

I. Background

Issuance of light truck fuel economy standards is
required by section 502rb) of the Motor Vehicle
Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C.
2002(b)). That section requires the Secretary of
Transportation to set light truck fuel economy stan-
dards at the maximum feasible average fuel econ-
omy level for each model year after 1978. In deter-
mining maximum feasible average fuel economy
levels, the Secretary is required under section 502(e)
of the Act to consider four factors: technological
feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other
Federal motor vehicle standards on fuel economy,
and the need of the nation to conserve energy. See 15
U.S.C. 2002(e). Responsibility for the automotive
fuel economy program was delegated by the Secre-
tary of Transportation to the Administrator of
NHTSA (41 FR 25015, June 22, 1976)). Pursuant to
this authority, the light truck standards set most
recently by the agency have been 20.0 mpg for MY
1990 and 20.2 mpg for MY 1991.

On January 6, 1989, NHTSA published in the
Federal Register a Request for Comments seeking
data on manufacturers' light truck fuel economy
capabilities for model years (MY) 1992-94 (54 FR
436). All of the domestic light truck manufacturers
responded, as did several foreign manufacturers.

After analyzing the responses to the Request for
Comments and reviewing other available data,
NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) proposing ranges of standards for light

truck average fuel economy standards for MY 1992-
94. 55 FR 3608 (February 2, 1990). For MY 1992, the
proposed range was between 20.2 mpg and 21.0 mpg.
For MY 1993, the proposed range was between 20.2
mpg and 21.5 mpg. The proposed range for MY 1994
was between 20.2 mpg and 22.0 mpg. These ranges
were based on the agency's tentative evaluation of
manufacturer capabilities. In past light truck CAFE
rulemakings, the agency has provided manufactur-
ers with the option of dividing their light trucks into
two fleets, a two-wheel drive (2WD) fleet and a
four-wheel drive (4WD) fleet and meeting a separate
standard for each fleet. However, the NPRM noted
NHTSA's intention to discontinue setting these sep-
arate alternative standards, in favor of a single
standard, beginning with MY 1992. As discussed
below, the final rule adopts this approach, and sets a
single combined standard for MY 1992.

NHTSA has postponed final rulemaking for model
years 1993 and 1994. The limited time available to
promulgate a final rule for MY 1992 has precluded a
thorough consideration of issues related to light
truck CAFE standards for those latter model years.
The later issuance of the final MY 1993-94 stan-
dards may also have the advantage of giving NHTSA
the benefit of more definitive information about
amendments to the Clean Air Act and their poten-
tial impact on fuel economy for those model years.

The agency received comments from General Mo-
tors, Ford, Chrysler, Nissan, the U.S. Department of
Energy, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the
Western Interstate Energy Board, the Energy Con-
servation Coalition and the National Automobile
Dealers Association. The issues raised by the com-
menters are discussed below.

II. Summary of Decision for Model Year 1992.

Based on its analysis, the agency is establishing a
combined average fuel economy standard for MY
1992 at 20.2 mpg. Alternative separate standards for
2WD and 4WD light trucks are not being estab-
lished. A decision will be reached later this year
with respect to the light truck standards for MY
1993-94.

PART 533; PRE 137

III. Manufacturer Capabilities for MY 1992.

As part of its consideration of technological feasi-
bility and economic practicability, the agency has
evaluated manufacturers' fuel economy capabilities
for MY 1992-94. In making this evaluation, the
agency has analyzed manufacturers' current projec-
tions and underlying product plans and has consid-
ered what, if any, additional actions the manufactur-
ers could take to improve their fuel economy. A more
detailed discussion of these issues is contained in the
agency's Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA),
which has been placed in the docket for this rulemak-
ing. Some of the information included in the FRIA,
including the details of manufacturers' future product
plans, has been determined by the agency to be confi-
dential business information, release of which could
cause competitive hcu-m. The public version of the
FRIA omits the confidential information.

A. Manufacturer Projections

General Motors: As discussed in the NPRM, Gen-
eral Motors (GM) projected in March 1989 that it
could achieve a combined CAFE level of 20.6 mpg in
MY 1992. In its March 1990 comments on the
NPRM, GM has revised its projection slightly up-
ward, to 20.7 mpg. GM attributes this slight in-
crease in its MY 1992 projection to adjustments to
projected powertrain and model mixes, and to minor
adjustments of estimated MY 1992 fuel economy for
certain models.

By comparison, in a pre-model year report submit-
ted in December 1989, GM projected a MY 1990
CAFE of 19.6 mpg. The improvement projected by
GM between MY 1990 and MY 1992 is attributable
to several factors, including the introduction of the
GEO Tracker to the domestic 4WD fleet, increased
penetration of certain engine technologies and aero-
dynamic improvements, a slight weight decrease
and a shift toward more efficient models, for a net
improvement by MY 1992 over MY 1990 of 1.1 mpg.

However, in making its projection for MY 1992,
GM noted that the actual level it achieved could be
lower due to various uncertainties such as fuel
prices, consumer demand for increased power and
performance, new safety requirements and increas-
ing competition in the light truck market. GM also
stated that certain program risks (subject to a claim
of confidentiality) could cause a decline in GM's
projected MY 1992 CAFE to 20.5 mpg. GM recom-
mended that the MY 1992 standard be set at or near
the low end of the proposed range.

Ford

Ford projected in March 1989 that it could achieve
CAFE levels of 19.9 mpg to 20.2 mpg in MY 1992. By
comparison, in a pre-model year report submitted in
December 1989, Ford projected a MY 1990 combined

light truck CAFE of 20.1 mpg. In its March 1990
comments on the NPRM, Ford has revised its MY
1992 projection upward, to a range of between 20.1-
20.5 mpg. Ford attributes the increase to several
minor adjustments to its computer-generated projec-
tion, and to a number of small technology improve-
ments. In addition, Ford's projection now takes into
account the fuel economy benefits expected from the
use of Fuel Economy Data Vehicles (FEDV's) in fuel
economy testing. These changes raise Ford's MY
1992 projection to 20.5 mpg. However, the company
believes this figure should be adjusted to account for
risks and opportunities, and that when adjusted, the
revised figure, corresponding to the low end of Ford's
projection, is 20.1 mpg. These considerations include
such factors as whether FEDV fleet testing will
produce a benefit as high as that projected by Ford in
its 20.5 mpg projection and by NHTSA in the NPRM
(a 0.3 mpg gain), certain technological improve-
ments achieving results higher or lower than antic-
ipated, and potential mix shifts. Ford provides a 0.3
mpg increase based on potential FEDV testing ben-
efits, but then factors in a 0.2 mpg risk for potential
FEDV results below that level. In support of its
analysis. Ford indicates that it only achieved a 0.04
mpg benefit from FEDV testing for MY 1989.

In its response to the NPRM, Ford also empha-
sized the potential effect on CAFE of factors beyond
its control, including unforeseen but normal techno-
logical shortfalls from the technological changes
listed in its comments, the potential for increased
import market share and concomitant loss of domes-
tic share in the compact truck market segment, and
the pending safety requirements for light trucks. In
addition. Ford indicated that continued low fuel
prices could further increase the market demand for
full-size light trucks, larger engines and increased
optional equipment, causing a decline in its CAFE.
Ford recommended that the MY 1992 standard be
set at 20.2 mpg.

Chrysler

Chrysler projected in March 1989 that it could
achieve a CAFE level of 21.0 mpg in MY 1992. By
comparison, Chrysler's December, 1989 pre-model
year report for MY 1990 indicated a MY 1990 CAFE
of 21.6 mpg. The 0.6 mpg decline from MY 1990 to
MY 1992 is a result of product changes and revised
fuel economy estimates for certain models. In its
March 1990 response to the NPRM, Chrysler pro-
jected its MY 1992 CAFE at 21.2 mpg. This addi-
tional projected increase is the result of several
technical improvements now planned for MY 1992
along with revised fuel economy projections, which
would raise Chrysler's fuel economy level 0.5 mpg.
However, these changes are offset in part by revised

PART 533; PRE 138

mix projections and product changes, for a net im-
provement of 0.2 mpg.

Several assumptions underlie Chrysler's fuel econ-
omy projection. These include assuming that the
projected model mix accurately reflects market de-
mands, that the variability of actual fuel economy
test values is no greater than anticipated, and that
running changes to its products do not have an
adverse cumulative effect. Chrysler also pointed to
the U.S. economy as a factor which could negatively
impact its CAFE if economic conditions worsen to
the point that they necessitate the delay or postpone-
ment of certain plans. The company also expressed
concern about the potential CAFE impact of the
increased safety requirements due to be imposed on
light trucks by MY 1992. Because of these factors,
Chrysler recommended a standard of 20.2 mpg for
MY 1992, even though its current MY 1992 projec-
tion is 21.2 mpg.

Other Manufacturers

Volkswagen (VW) currently offers only one light
truck model, the Vanagon compact bus. Volkswa-
gen's combined light truck CAFE for MY 1990 is
estimated at 21.0 mpg. VW indicated in its response
to the January 1989 questionnaire that it has no
significant plans to increase fuel economy by MY
1992. The company's product plans are indefinite,
but may involve a larger engine, or a front wheel
drive model.

Range Rover projected its light truck CAFE for
MY 1989 at 15.3 mpg in April 1989. At that time,
the company did not expect any significant fuel
economy improvement by MY 1992. However, the
company has projected its 1990 CAFE at 16.3 mpg,
1.0 mpg higher than their MY 1989 projection.

Other foreign light truck manufacturers only com-
pete in the small vehicle portion of the light truck
market and are therefore expected to achieve CAFE
levels well above GM and Ford.

B. Possible Additional Actions to Improve MY
1992 CAFE

There are additional actions which the agency ana-
lyzed to improve manufacturers' CAFE's above the
levels which they currently project for MY 1992. These
actions may be divided into three categories: further
technological changes to their product plans, increased
marketing efforts, and product restrictions.

1. Further Technological Changes

The ability to improve CAFE by further techno-
logical changes to product plans is dependent on the
availability of fuel efficiency enhancing technologies
which manufacturers are able to apply within the
available leadtime.

The agency's FRIA discusses the fuel efficiency

enhancing technologies which are expected to be
available by MY 1992. Limited leadtime is a con-
straint for MY 1992 on the increased use of these
technologies. NHTSA recognizes that the leadtime
necessary to implement significant improvements in
engines, transmissions, aerodynamics and rolling
resistance is typically about three years. Also, as the
agency discussed in establishing the final rule for
MY 1990-91, once a new design is established and
tested as feasible for production, the leadtime neces-
sary to design, tool, and test components such as new
body sheet-metal subsystems for mass production is
typically 22 to 29 months. Other potential major
changes may take longer. Leadtimes for new vehicles
are usually at least three years.

Given leadtime constraints, the agency does not
believe that manufacturers can achieve significant
improvements in their projected MY 1992 CAFE
levels by additional technological actions. Some im-
provements are, of course, possible due to slight
increases in the penetration of more fuel efficient
technology or changes in model mix. However, such
changes are likely to be market driven, and are not
likely to provide an increase of more than 0.1 mpg
for any manufacturer.

2. Increased Marketing Efforts

As discussed in the NPRM, NHTSA believes that
the ability to improve light truck CAFE by market-
ing efforts is relatively small. Light trucks are often
purchased for their work-performing capabilities.
This is particularly true for the larger, less fuel-
efficient light trucks. Since the smaller light trucks
cannot meet the needs of all light truck users, the
manufacturers' ability to use marketing efforts to
encourage consumers to purchase smaller light
trucks instead of larger light trucks is limited.

As a practical matter, marketing efforts to im-
prove CAFE are largely limited to techniques which
either make fuel-efficient vehicles less expensive or
less fuel-efficient vehicles more expensive. Moreover,
the ability of a manufacturer to increase sales of
fuel-efficient light trucks depends in part on increas-
ing its market share at the expense of competitors or
pulling ahead its own sales from the future. The
ability of domestic manufacturers to make such
sales increases is also affected by the strong compe-
tition in that market from Japanese manufacturers.
While the Japanese manufacturers currently have
an overall combined market share of about 30 per-
cent of light trucks, their share for the smaller, more
fuel-efficient light trucks is about 45 percent.

A problem with pulling ahead sales is that the
manufacturers' CAFE levels for subsequent years
are reduced. For example, if a manufacturer im-
proves its MY 1992 CAFE by pulling ahead sales of
fuel-efficient light trucks from MY 1993, its MY

PART 533; PRE 139

1993 CAFE will decrease, compared with the level it
would have been in the absence of any pull-ahead
sales attributable to marketing efforts. For this
reason, a manufacturer cannot continually improve
its CAFE simply by pulling ahead sales.

Given these considerations, NHTSA concludes
that the domestic manufacturers cannot signifi-
cantly improve their MY 1992 CAFE levels through
increased marketing efforts.

3. Product Restrictions

As an alternative to technological improvements,
manufacturers could improve their CAFE by re-
stricting their product offerings (e.g., limiting or
deleting production of particular larger light truck
models and larger displacement engines). Such prod-
uct restrictions could have adverse economic impacts
on the industry and the economy as a whole. The
FRIA presents a scenario as an example in which
GM and Ford are assumed to restrict production of
sufficient numbers of their least fuel-efficient light
truck models to obtain a 0.5 mpg improvement in
CAFE beyond their projected capabilities for MY
1992. Under this scenario, GM could suffer a sales
loss of up to 171,000 light trucks for MY 1992, while
Ford could experience a sales loss of more than
168,000 light trucks in MY 1992. The potential job
losses under this scenario in manufacturing and
supplier industries could total 23,000 to 68,000 for
MY 1992. These numbers are probably overstated,
since, as GM has stated in past light truck rulemak-
ings, and Ford has stated in its comments on this
rule, product restrictions of the type envisioned
above would likely be considered only after attempt-
ing marketing efforts and restricting the availabil-
ity of particular engines and axle ratios. Ford and
GM both submitted analyses of the sales and em-
ployment impact of setting the standard at 0.5 mpg
beyond their respective capabilities. Both manufac-
turers' analyses show impacts much less than those
projected above. However, the scenario is illustrative
of the types of impacts that could result from stan-
dards that exceed manufacturers' true capabilities.
In addition to the adverse impacts on the automotive
industry, a wide range of businesses could be seri-
ously affected to the extent that they could not
obtain the light trucks they need for business use.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) commented
that NHTSA's method of analysis yields estimates of
economic impacts that are so much larger than those
that would actually occur, that it may not be mean-
ingful to consider them. Although not advocating
the payment of fines as an alternative to compliance,
DOE suggests that the fines paid in such a circum-
stance would be a better context in which to evaluate

the maximum negative impacts of a standard 0.5
mpg above the manufacturers' capability.

DOE's illustration is as follows: A fine of $25 per
truck (which would be the fine for falling 0.5 mpg
below the standard) for approximately 4 million
trucks would amount to $100 million, or $230 per
truck for each truck that NHTSA assumes will not
be sold in the scenario presented in the FRIA. If the
fines were passed on to consumers in the form of
price increases, DOE estimates the net loss of truck
sales would be less than 10,000 vehicles. Using
NHTSA's figures on the number of jobs per vehicle,
DOE calculates that the maximum net loss of jobs
would be less than 2,000.

NHTSA does not dispute DOE's analysis for the
case where manufacturers choose to pay penalties
rather than comply with a standard beyond their
capability. However, NHTSA's analysis focuses on
the maximum impacts that would occur if manufac-
tm-ers chose to comply with the standard through
product restrictions, or were forced to so comply be-
cause marketing or other measures were unsuccessful.

The agency believes it would be a meaningless
exercise to estimate employment losses based on the
assumption that manufacturers pay fines rather
than restrict production to meet standards. No fuel
savings would result from setting higher standards
if manufacturers paid fines instead of actually rais-
ing their CAFE values. Under this scenario, higher
fuel economy standards would merely result in
higher truck prices, lower sales, and increasing
unemployment, without any energy conservation
benefits. This scenario is not appropriate for the
agency to consider. Moreover, the agency believes the
statute directs us to consider the maximum fuel
economy level that manufacturers can achieve,
rather than the impact of penalties paid if the
standards are not achieved.

Ford's comments expressed concern that establish-
ing a CAFE standard beyond its capability could
result in a substantial loss of sales, adverse employ-
ment effect, and economic hardship. The company is
also concerned that product restrictions could have a
substantial impact on Ford's competitiveness by
restricting the availability of certain engines in
larger models, and possibly by requiring the deletion
of some full-size products entirely. The company also
stated that market research data show that the
vehicles most likely to be restricted are used for a
combination of commercial as well as personal uses.

In its comments, GM expressed concern about the
impact of product restrictions on consumer choice
and industry employment. GM also provided data
showing the impact product restrictions would have
on the availability of various models in its light
truck fleet.

Given these considerations, NHTSA concludes

PART 533; PRE 140

that significant product restrictions should not be
considered as part of manufacturers' capabilities to
improve MY 1992 CAFE levels.

C. Manufacturer-Specific CAFE Capabilities

As discussed later in this notice, NHTSA is di-
rected to take "industrywide considerations" into
account in setting fuel economy standards. In carry-
ing out this direction, the agency focuses on the least
capable manufacturer with substantial shares of
light truck sales. For MY 1992, the agency has
determined that Ford is the least capable manufac-
turer with a substantial share of sales. During MY
1989, Ford had a 26 percent share of combined light
truck sales. By comparison, GM had a 33 percent
share, and Chrysler a 21 percent share. VW does not
have a substantial share of industry sales. Its MY
1989 market share was 0.08 percent.

GM. Ford and Chrysler's MY 1992 CAFE projec-
tions are subject to a number of uncertainties which
are discussed above. NHTSA has fully considered
these uncertainties in determining manufacturer-
specific capabilities.

Ford: As discussed above, in March 1989, Ford
projected a MY 1992 CAFE of 19.9 mpg to 20.2 mpg.
In its March 1990 comments. Ford projects a CAFE
of 20.1 mpg to 20.5 mpg. This range is the result of
risks and opportunities which Ford believes could
lead to a decrease of 0.4 mpg. Many of the technical
risks and opportunities are each quite small. The
agency believes they are likely to result in a small
net gain of under 0.1 mpg. A more substantial
uncertainty is the potential benefit, discussed above,
for Ford to have additional vehicles tested as part of
the fuel economy data vehicle (FEDV) program. In
the NPRM, NHTSA stated that Ford could obtain a
0.3 mpg benefit from this test procedure, and ad-
justed its projection of Ford's capability accordingly.
In Ford's comments on the NPRM, the company
takes issue with NHTSA's analysis, pointing to its
MY 1989 FEDV benefit of only 0.04 mpg. Ford also
argued that correlation testing can have negative
results.

Ford's CAFE projection for MY 1992 also shows a
risk of nearly 0.3 mpg due to a potential mix shift
toward less-efficient models. The agency believes this
risk, although certainly possible, may be overstated.

On the other hand, the agency does not consider it
likely that Ford can achieve the 20.5 mpg upper end
of its projection for MY 1992. NHTSA acknowledges
that Ford's MY 1992 CAFE could well be subject to
at least some risk from both unfavorable mix shifts
and FEDV testing shortfalls. The agency concludes
that the maximum feasible CAFE for Ford in MY
1992 is 20.2 mpg. The agency also concludes that
there is insufficient leadtime for Ford to introduce

new programs or technologies beyond those already
planned to increase its MY 1992 CAFE.

General Motors: In March, 1989, GM projected a
MY 1992 CAFE of 20.6 mpg. In its March 1990
comments on the NPRM, GM revised its projection
upward to 20.7 due to minor technical and mix
adjustments. However, GM also indicated several
uncertainties that could lower its projection by as
much as 0.2 mpg. These risks were tied to mix shifts
toward less efficient vehicles.

As with Ford's projection, NHTSA believes that
GM's risk estimate is likely overstated. The agency
concludes that GM is capable of achieving 20.8 mpg
in 1992. Its CAFE can be increased by 0.1 mpg above
its projection to 20.8 mpg if GM would drop the
low- volume offering of the inefficient 7.4 litre CIO
pickup.

DOE commented that the upper end of the CAFE
ranges proposed in the NPRM (21.0 mpg for MY
1992) were achievable and represented the maxi-
mum feasible level. DOE's analysis was based on a
linear interpolation between a base CAFE for each
domestic manufacturer for MY 1987 and DOE's
analysis of the manufacturers' capabilities for MY
1995. This methodology assumes both that DOE's
MY 1995 projection is actually achievable and that
each manufacturer has the capability to improve
each year by the same fixed amount (about 0.4 mpg
per model year). NHTSA questions both assump-
tions. Based on the manufacturers' submissions, GM
will improve about 1.1 mpg between MY 1990 and
MY 1992, but a large part of this is due to an
unfavorable model mix in MY 1990 due to a short
model year for compact pickups and utility vehicles.
Ford will improve by 0.4 mpg and Chrysler will
decline by 0.4 mpg between MY's 1990 and 1992.

The agency does not believe that DOE's extrapo-
lation of CAFE values is a meaningful method to
determine individual manufacturer capabilities for
specific years, nor is it as accurate as an examina-
tion of product plans in establishing short term
capabilities for individual manufacturers. NHTSA
has provided DOE with comments on the draft
report on which the MY 1995 projection is based,
and does not believe that all issues have been
resolved between DOE and NHTSA. NHTSA's con-
cerns include the use of an old baseline which is now
significantly out of date. The changes to the baseline
that have occurred are due to both the introduction
of new technology and market driven demand for a
different model mix and higher performance. These
changes make it difficult, if not impossible, for
manufacturers to return to DOE's linear path of
improvements, particularly given the leadtime re-
maining before the start of the 1992 model year. The
agency is not convinced that the level of fuel econ-

PART 533; PRE 141

omy improvements cited by DOE is either technolog-
ically achievable or economically practicable.

IV. Other Federal Standards

In determining the maximum feasible fuel econ-
omy level, the agency must take into consideration
the potential effects of other Federal standards. The
following section discusses other government regu-
lations, both in process and recently completed, that
may have an impact on fuel economy capability for
MY 1992. For this final rule, the agency has not
included any discussion of the impacts of regulations
that take effect in MY 1993 or 1994. Comments
received on those issues will be addressed during
final rulemaking for MY 1993-94.

1. Safety Standards

As discussed by the FRIA, NHTSA has evaluated
several safety rulemakings for their potential im-
pacts on light truck fuel economy in MY 1992. These
include revisions to FMVSS Nos. 208; Occupant
crash protection, 204; Steering control rearward dis-
placement, 202; Head restraints, 108; Lamps, reflec-
tive devices and associated equipment, 214; Side door
strength, and 216; Roof crush resistance-passenger
cars. In addition, the agency has evaluated proposed
revisions to 49 Part 523, addressing vehicle classifi-
cation for safety standards.

FMVSS Na 208. The agency published a final
rule on November 23, 1987 (52 FR 44898) which
requires that manual lap/shoulder belts installed at
the front outboard seating positions of light trucks
comply with the dynamic testing requirements of
Standard No. 208. The rule applies to multipurpose
passenger vehicles and trucks with a gross vehicle
weight rating of 8500 pounds or less and an un-
loaded vehicle weight of 5500 pounds or less, and is
effective September 1, 1991. In the MY 1990-91
light truck fuel economy rulemaking (53 FR 11074,
April 5, 1988), the agency concluded that this rule
was unlikely to have a significant negative impact
on fuel economy capabilities. Some existing light
truck designs currently meet the requirements, and
others may be able to meet the requirements with
relatively minor changes.

In its response to NHTSA's request for comments
on manufacturers' MY 1992-94 light truck fuel
economy capabilities. Ford indicated that compli-
ance with the dynamic testing requirement could
increase the weight of some of its trucks by 35 to 150
pounds, and require other changes to support cus-
tomer and competitive performance requirements.

In its comments on the MY 1992-94 fuel economy
NPRM, Ford reiterated its penalty estimates, and
also argued that NHTSA has not properly character-
ized the CAFE effect of safety standards such as
Standard No. 208. Ford argues that since some of the

effects of standards are included in the manufactur-
ers' fuel economy estimates, the manufacturers are
not being credited with application of fuel economy
improvements that are offset by the weight of addi-
tional safety requirements.

Chrysler, while noting that the added weight to
meet increased safety requirements for MY 1992
had resulted in a reduction of its fuel economy
projection for MY 1992, did not specify an estimated
fuel economy impact specifically for the dynamic
testing requirement.

In its comments on the fuel economy NPRM, GM
stated that the combined effects of the dynamic
testing requirement and Standard No. 204 would
result in weight increases from 28-57 pounds. How-
ever, GM noted that these effects are included in its
MY 1992 projection.

Since the agency has accepted the manufacturers'
weight projections for this rule, NHTSA believes no
specific adjustment to their projections is needed to
consider the impact of the dynamic testing require-
ment. The agency agrees with Ford's position that
maintaining a constant fuel economy standard, at a
time when safety and emissions standards are be-
coming stricter, effectively increases the stringency
of the fuel economy standard. However, the agency
carefully considers the impacts of safety and emis-
sions requirements when setting CAFE standards.

In November 1988, NHTSA proposed to require all
manufacturers to install lap/shoulder belts in all
forward-facing rear outboard seating position in pas-
senger cars, light trucks, multipurpose vehicles, and
small buses. 53 FR 47982 (November 29, 1988). The
proposed effective dates were September 1, 1989 for
passenger cars other than convertibles, and Septem-
ber 1, 1991 for convertibles, light trucks, multipur-
pose passenger vehicles, and small buses.

NHTSA published a final rule (54 FR 25275, June
14, 1989) requiring all passenger cars manufactured
after December 11, 1989 to be equipped with the
rear outboard lap/shoulder belts. Most recently (54
FR 46257, November 2, 1989), the agency published
a final rule extending these requirements to light
trucks and multipurpose vehicles effective Septem-
ber 1, 1991. The November 1988 NPRM noted that
manufacturers planned to voluntarily install the
rear-seat lap/shoulder belts in virtually all vehicles
by the effective date proposed in the rule for light
trucks. The projected weight increases were 1.1-5.5
pounds per vehicle, depending on vehicle type.

In its March 1990 comments on the fuel economy
NPRM, Ford claimed this requirement would result
in weight increases from 17-30 pounds per vehicle,
including secondary weight. These increases were
included in Ford's MY 1992 CAFE projections.

Ford's weight increases are substantially higher
than those included in the MY 1992-94 CAFE

PART 533; PRE 142

NPRM because the agency erroneously used incor-
rect weight figures in that notice. NHTSA's revised
estimate, using figures from the final rule on rear
lap/shoulder belts, is a range of 8-40 pounds per
vehicle.

Neither GM nor Chrysler provided specific esti-
mates of the fuel economy impact of this standard.

Because NHTSA has not altered the weight pro-
jections provided by manufacturers, no adjustment
in fuel economy projections is necessary to account
for the impact of this standard.

FMVSS Na 204. NHTSA has also published a
final rule extending the applicability of FMVSS No.
204; Steering control rearward displacement to cover
additional light trucks. This rule, published Novem-
ber 23, 1987 (52 FR 44893), and effective September
1, 1991, extends the standard to light trucks with an
unloaded vehicle weight of 4000 to 5500 pounds.
While NHTSA indicated its belief that the proposal
would not significantly affect weight (and hence
CAFE), GM and Ford argued in their comments on
the proposed rule that there could be significant
weight impacts. However, the agency concluded in
the final rule that the steering system modifications
necessary to comply with the standard would entail
only minor modifications that would not have signif-
icant additional weight or fuel economy impacts.

In comments responding to the fuel economy
NPRM, Ford agreed with NHTSA that weight im-
pacts from this standard were minimal. As discussed
above, GM indicated that it had combined the im-
pacts of this rule with those of the dynamic testing
requirement. Chrysler only indicated that its projec-
tion included the impact of this standard. Since
NHTSA has not altered the weight projections pro-
vided by the manufacturers, no adjustments to fuel
economy projections to consider the impact of this
standard are necessary.

FMVSS Na 202. On September 25, 1989, NHTSA
published a final rule (54 FR 39183) to amend
Standard No. 202 to extend the Standard's head
restraint requirement to light trucks and multipur-
pose passenger vehicles effective September 1, 1991.
This rule would have a very minor effect on MY 1992
light truck fuel economy. In the proposed rule,
NHTSA estimated that it would add an average of
seven pounds to each affected vehicle. The agency
has calculated that this increase would reduce meas-
ured fuel economy by approximately 0.03 mpg. How-
ever, the agency estimates that 30 percent of light
trucks are already equipped with head restraints,
and that the effect on the fleet would be reduced to
about 0.02 mpg.

Ford and Chrysler indicated in comments on the
NPRM that they planned to equip all of their light
trucks with head restraints by September 1, 1991.
Thus, their CAFE projections for MY 1992 already

include any negative weight effects. GM indicated in
its comments on the head restraint NPRM that it
planned to have head restraints on 80 percent of its
light truck fleet by MY 1992, with restraints being
phased in for the remainder of the fleet during MY
1993-94. Under the final rule on head i-estraints,
GM will need to add head restraints to 20 percent of
its MY 1992 light trucks. NHTSA has calculated
that these changes could reduce GM's CAFE projec-
tion by 0.005 mpg.

In its comments on the fuel economy NPRM, GM
stated that the weight impact of head restraints has
already been considered for all trucks except the S/T
and C/K models in MY 1992. The company indicated
that these models would suffer a 4 lb. weight pen-
alty. Ford estimated that the penalty would typically
be 10 lbs. per vehicle. Chrysler provided no specific
weight estimate. Each of these manufacturers indi-
cated that they had considered the effect of Standard
No. 202 in their MY 1992 projections. Since NHTSA
has not altered the weight projections provided by
the manufacturers, no adjustment to their fuel econ-
omy projections is needed.

FMVSS 108. Changes to the agency's lighting
standard permit the use of smaller sealed beam
headlamps, replaceable light source headlamps and
lower mounting height. All of these changes should
give manufacturers greater design freedom to
achieve lower aerodynamic drag and some weight
reductions, which could have positive impacts on
CAFE. However, the agency does not have any data
to estimate the reduction in drag that may be
economically achievable for light trucks as a result
of these changes. These positive effects may be
counterbalanced by possible slow consumer accep-
tance of light truck styling for certain models which
have been influenced by aerodynamic consider-
ations. However, Ford indicated in its comments on
the fuel economy NPRM that the changes to Stan-
dard 108 may permit more aerodynamic front end
designs, and provide some opportunity for weight
reduction.

The agency is considering whether to propose
requiring new light trucks to be equipped with
Center High Mounted Stop Lamps (CHMSLs). How-
ever, it is unlikely at this time that NHTSA would
propose to make the requirement effective in MY
1992. Ford noted in its comments that if such a
requirement were adopted, it would result in a
weight increase of approximately two pounds.

FMVSS 216. On November 2, 1989 (54 FR 46275),
NHTSA published an NPRM proposing to extend the
roof crush protection requirements of Standard No.
216 to light trucks and multipurpose passenger
vehicles with GVWRs of 10,000 pounds or less, with
a proposed effective date of September 1, 1991. The
NPRM estimated that there is already widespread

PART 533; PRE 143

voluntary compliance with the requirements of
Standard No. 216. NHTSA tentatively concluded in
the fuel economy NPRM that since essentially all
vehicles already comply with the proposed require-
ment, and only modest increases are anticipated for
the few vehicles which do not meet the proposed
performance levels, the extension of Standard No.
216 to light trucks is not expected to affect MY 1992
fuel economy capabilities.

In its response to the fuel economy NPRM, Ford
commented that while most trucks meet the pro-
posed crush standards, the roofs of most truck lines
must be changed to enable all trucks to comply with
the proposed standard. Ford estimated that this
would add 2 to 10 pounds to the weight of affected
vehicles. GM indicated that certain of its vehicles
already comply, and that most other models would
suffer a weight penalty of nine pounds. Chrysler
provided no specific estimate on the impacts of
complying with the roof crush requirements.

Because each of the companies has included the
effect of FMVSS 216 in its fuel economy projection,
no adjustment to manufacturer fuel economy projec-
tions is needed to account for the impact of this
standard.

FMVSS 214. On December 22, 1989, the agency
published an NPRM (54 FR 52826), proposing to
extend the existing side-door strength requirements
of Standard No. 214 to trucks, buses and multipur-
pose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000
pounds or less, effective September 1, 1992.

NHTSA has estimated that the proposal, if
adopted, could result in an average weight increase
of 18-20 pounds per vehicle not including possible
secondary weight, or 31-35 pounds including possi-
ble secondary weight. If the requirement takes effect
as proposed, it would have no impact on MY 1992
fuel economy capabilities, except for new model
introductions in prior model years that were de-
signed to meet the proposed requirements. No man-
ufacturers raised compliance with Standard 214 as
having an impact on MY 1992 CAFE levels.

Vehicle classification. NHTSA proposed to estab-
lish a new vehicle classification system for determin-
ing the applicability of the Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards on October 17, 1988. (53 FR
40463). The proposed rule would not affect the clas-
sification of vehicles for fuel economy standards. The
agency is not proposing to alter the definitions of
"passenger automobile" or "light truck" as they
appear in 49 CFR Part 523. However, vehicles that
are defined as light trucks for the purpose of fuel
economy standards would be the type of vehicle most
affected by the proposed classification changes. Ve-
hicles classified as light trucks for fuel economy
standards include many vehicles currently classified
as trucks or MPVs for the purpose of safety stan-

dards. However, as the agency proposed to amend its
safety regulations in such a way as to ensure that
re-classification, by itself, caused no change in the
applicability of safety standards, adoption of the
proposed classification rule would have no impact on
manufacturers' fuel economy capabilities for MY
1992.

2. Noise Standards

The agency is not aware of any plans on the part of
EPA to promulgate noise regulations during the MY
1992 time period, and therefore does not anticipate
any attendant fuel economy impacts.

3. Emission Standards

Because of the pending legislation to amend the
Clean Air Act, the potential fuel economy impact for
a number of possible environmental requirements
cannot be determined at this time. The primary
impacts of the requirements contained in the pro-
posed legislation would be concentrated in MY 1994
and later years. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has two rulemakings either in
progress or completed which could impact light
truck fuel economy during MY 1992. These include
a final rule addressing diesel particulate matter, and
a proposed rule addressing evaporative emissions.

Diesel Particulate Matter. On October 31, 1988,
EPA published a final rule at 53 FR 43870 amending
the particulate standards for light duty diesel trucks
with a loaded vehicle weight of more than 3,750
pounds. The amended standard is 0.13 gm/mi for
model years 1991 and beyond. This rule was the
result of a proposal in response to a petition from GM
which outlined a plan to develop control technology
to substantially reduce particulate emission from
current control levels. However, in its comments on
the MY 1990-91 proposed light truck standards, GM
indicated that it did not know what effect on fuel
economy would result from the EPA rulemaking, but
stated that ". . . any required technology such as a
particulate trap may adversely impact fuel econ-
omy." GM's MY 1992 light truck CAFE projections,
however, do not indicate that the new standard is
responsible for any loss of fuel economy. Thus,
NHTSA has not made any adjustment to GM's fuel
economy estimates to reflect the more stringent
particulate standard. Neither Chrysler nor Ford
have raised concerns about the fuel economy impact
of the new standard.

Evaporative emissions. On January 19, 1990, EPA
issued an NPRM proposing modifications to test
procedures for control of evaporative emissions from
running losses (55 FR 1914). This proposal would
affect light duty vehicles fueled by gasoline or meth-
anol. In its comments on the fuel economy NPRM,
Chrysler mentioned a potential fuel economy pen-

PART 533; PRE 144

alty for onboard vapor recovery. Since it appears
unlikely that the requirements, if adopted, would go
into effect by MY 1992, this impact has not been
considered for purposes of this final rule.

4. EPA Test Procedures

Gear shift indicator lights. During the MY 1990-
91 fuel economy rulemaking, EPA issued a letter to
manufacturers proposing to eliminate one of the two
methods currently authorized to determine the fuel
economy benefits of shift indicator lights. These
dashboard lights are designed to inform drivers
about the optimal speed, from a fuel economy stand-
point, for shifting gears. EPA proposes to eliminate
the driver usage rate survey, the method preferred
by GM as a "more representative credit for actual
shift indicator light usage than the on-road survey,"
and allow only an on-road shift light survey. At this
point, EPA has not made a decision on this issue. No
manufacturers raised the issue of shift indicator
lights in their comments in response to NHTSA's
request for comments on manufacturers' MY 1992-
94 light truck fuel economy capabilities. In its
comments on the MY 1992-94 fuel economy NPRM,
GM stated that its light truck CAFE could be
adversely affected if EPA were to eliminate the
driver usage rate survey. However, since EPA has not
made a decision on the issue, NHTSA has not made
any adjustment to fuel economy capabilities to con-
sider this factor.

5. Other Standards

Asbestos. On January 29, 1986, EPA proposed to
prohibit the "manufacture, importation, and proc-
essing of asbestos in certain products," and the
phasing out of asbestos in all other products. The
implication of this rulemaking for motor vehicles
would be to eliminate the use of asbestos in brake
linings, clutch facings, automatic transmissions and
gaskets.

On July 12, 1989. EPA published a final rule (54
FR 29460) phasing in a prohibition of asbestos in
almost all products. Asbestos brake linings are
banned for use by original equipment manufacturers
effective MY 1994. Asbestos clutch facings, automatic
transmission components and virtually all asbestos
gaskets are banned as of August 25, 1993. In its
comments on the MY 1990-91 light truck fuel econ-
omy rulemaking, GM indicated that the phase out
would increase vehicle weight approximately 5 pounds
and reduce CAFE. However, GM provided no substan-
tiation for its estimates. In response to NHTSA's re-
quest for comments on MY 1992-94 manufacturers'
CAFE capabilities, no manufacturer indicated that
this rule would have any potential impact on MY
1992 light truck fuel economy. However, in its com-
ments on the fuel economy NPRM, GM indicated

that while most necessary changes had been imple-
mented, and therefore are included in the company's
CAFE projections, certain changes had not yet been
made. Specifically, the company anticipates a seven
pound increase on the S/T models beginning in MY
1992. This increase will have a negligible impact
(less than .01 mpg) on GM's MY 1992 capability.
Because Ford is the least capable manufacturer for
MY 1992, this has no impact on the level of the
standard.

V. The Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy

The United States imported 15 percent of its oil
needs in 1955. The import share had reached 35.8
percent by 1975, the year the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act was passed, and peaked at 46.5
percent in 1977, at a cost of $74 billion (stated in
1988 dollars). While the import share of total petro-
leum supply declined after that year, the cost con-
tinued to rise to a 1980 peak of $102 billion (1988
dollars).

While the import share of petroleum supply de-
clined through 1985, it has been increasing since
that time. In 1985, the import share was 27.3 per-
cent at a cost of $50 billion (1988 dollars). For 1988,
net imports were 37.0 percent of total supply. For
1989, net imports were 43.5 percent of total supply.
For January 1990, net imports reached 47.1 percent
of total supply. Due to sharply lower petroleum
prices, however, the value of imports declined from
1985 to 1988, from $50 billion to $37 billion (1988
dollars). Imports from OPEC also declined through
1985 but have been rising since that time. For 1989,
OPEC imports accounted for about 52 percent of
total import supply, up from almost 48 percent for
1988.

The nation's dependence on petroleum net imports
since 1975 is summarized in the following table:

Year

Net Imports as Percent of
U.S. Petroleum Products Supplied

From OPEC

From All Countries

1975 Average

1977 Average

* *

1985 Average

1988 Average

1989 Average

22.6%

33.5

* *

12.3
21.5
25.2

36.8%

46.4

28.7
40.2
43.5

The current energy situation and emerging trends
point to the continued importance of oil conserva-
tion. The United States now imports a higher per-
centage of its oil needs than it did during 1975, the
year EPCA was passed, and the percentage of its oil
supplied by OPEC is similar to that of 1975. Oil
continues to account for well over 40 percent of U.S.
energy use, and 97 percent of the energy consumed

PART 533; PRE 145

in the transportation sector. While the U.S. is the
second-largest oil producer, it contains only three
percent of the world's proved oil reserves. Moreover,
proved reserves in the U.S. have declined from a
peak of 39 billion barrels in 1970 to 27 billion
barrels in 1987.

According to the Energy Information Administra-
tion's (EIA) 1989 Annual Energy Outlook, domestic
production for its "base case" projection is expected
to decline from 10.5 MMB/D in 1988 to 8.6 MMB/D
in 1995, and 8.5 MMB/D in 2000. Net imports are
projected to increase from 6.3 MMB/D in 1988 to 9.3
MMB/D in 1995 and 10.2 MMB/D in 2000. Thus, as
a percentage of total U.S. petroleum use, EIA ex-
pects imports to rise to 52 percent of total supply in
1995 (exceeding the previous 1977 high of 46.4
percent) and 55 percent in 2000.

In its comment to the docket for NHTSA's 1990
passenger car CAFE rulemaking, the Department of
Energy (DOE) emphasized several points about
transportation's role in U.S. oil use and the impor-
tance of rising fuel efficiency. DOE noted that the 11
MMB/D used by the transportation sector in 1986 is
almost 80% of total U.S. fuel use of oil and over 90%
of the critical light product use. Thus, DOE wanted
NHTSA to consider the fact that any significant
moderation in growing oil demand will require large
transportation efficiency improvements. DOE also
emphasized that the 1987 EIA oil demand forecasts
assume that average new car efficiency will continue
to improve, which DOE said does not seem likely
given fuel economy trends (at least to the levels
assumed by EIA), and that even with these projected
increases in fuel efficiency, U.S. oil demand is pro-
jected to increase over 1.5 MMB/D by 2000.

The level of petroleum imports is only one aspect
of the total energy conservation picture. Under
EPCA and NEPA, for example, national security,
energy independence, resource conservation, and
environmental protection must all be considered.

In March 1987, the Department of Energy submit-
ted a report to the President entitled "Energy Secu-
rity." NHTSA believes that the following quotation
from that report represents a useful summary of the
national security and energy independence aspects
of the current energy situation:

Although dependence on insecure oil supplies
is . . . projected to grow, energy security de-
pends in part on the ability of importing nations
to respond to oil supply disruptions; and this is
improving. The decontrol of oil prices in the
United States, as well as similar moves in other
countries, has made economies more adaptable to
changing situations. Furthermore, the large stra-
tegic oil reserves that have been established in the
United States (and to a lesser extent, in other
major oil-importing nations) will make it possible

to respond far more effectively to any futiu-e dis-
ruptions than has been the case in the past.

The current world energy situation and the
outlook for the future include both opportuni-
ties and risks. The oil price drop of 1986 showed
how consumers can be helped by a more compet-
itive oil market. If adequate supplies of oil and
other energy resources continue to be available
at reasonable prices, this will provide a boost to
a world economy. At the same time, the pro-
jected increase in reliance on relatively few oil
suppliers implies certain risks for the United
States and the free world. These risks can be
summarized as follows: If a small group of
leading oil producers can dominate the world's
energy markets, this could result in artificially
high prices (or just sharp upward and downward
price swings), which would necessitate difficult
economic adjustments and cause hardships to
all consumers.

Revolutions, regional wars, or aggression from
outside powers could disrupt a large volume of
oil supplies from the Persian Gulf, inflicting
severe damage on the economies of the United
States and allied nations. Oil price increases
precipitated by the 1978-79 Iranian revolution
contributed to the largest recession since the
1930's. Similar or larger events in the future
could have far-reaching economic, geopolitical,
or even military implications.

Light truck registrations nearly doubled between
1973 and 1986 and light truck sales are projected to
increase 21 percent over the 1987-2000 period, com-
pared to 14 percent for passenger cars. The light
truck fleet's share of total oil consumption increased
steadily from 6.4 percent in 1973 to 8.9 percent in
1980 to 12.1 percent in 1986 and to 12.3 percent in
1988. This increase in the light truck fleet's share of
fuel consumption took place even as the average fuel
economy of the on-road fleet of light trucks increased
from an estimated 10.5 mpg in 1973 to 13.4 mpg in
1988. Clearly, light truck fuel economy will be an
increasingly important determinant of the nation's
level of petroleum consumption.

Information provided to NHTSA by the Depart-
ment of Energy indicates that light trucks last
longer (14.9 years versus 10.9 years) than passenger
cars. Federal Highway Administration data indicate
light trucks are driven farther annually (11,846
miles versus 10,119 miles) than passenger cars.

All of these factors result in the conclusion that
improved light truck fuel economy contributes to the
nation's efforts at conserving fuel. Light trucks
meeting the standards proposed by this notice would
be more fuel-efficient than the average vehicle in the

PART 533; PRE 146

current light truck fleet in service, thus making a
positive contribution to petroleum conservation.

VI. Determining the Maximum Feasible Aver-
age Fuel Economy Level

As discussed above, section 502(b) requires that
light truck fuel economy standards be set at the
maximum feasible average fuel economy level. In
making this determination, the agency must con-
sider the four factors of section 502(e): technological
feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other
Federal motor vehicle standards on fuel economy,
and the need of the nation to conserve energy. As
vi'ith earlier CAFE rulemakings, NHTSA has con-
sidered and weighed all four statutory factors of
section 502(e) in reaching its decision.

A. Interpretation of "Feasible"

Based on definitions and judicial interpretations
of similar language in other statutes, the agency has
in the past interpreted "feasible" to refer to whether
something is capable of being done. The agency has
thus concluded in the past that a standard set at the
maximum feasible average fuel economy level must:
(1) be capable of being done and (2) be at the highest
level that is capable of being done, taking account of
what manufacturers are able to do in light of tech-
nological feasibility, economic practicability, how
other Federal motor vehicle standards affect average
fuel economy, and the need of the nation to conserve
energy.

B. Industrywide Considerations

The statute does not expressly state whether the
concept of feasibility is to be determined on a
manufacturer-by-manufacturer basis or on an indus-
trywide basis. Legislative history may be used as an
indication of Congressional intent in resolving am-
biguities in statutory language. The agency believes
that the below-quoted language provides guidance
on the meaning of "maximum feasible average fuel
economy level."

The Conference Report to the 1975 Act (S. Rep. No.
94-516, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 154-5 (1975)) states:
"Such determination [of maximum feasible av-
erage fuel economy level] should take industry-
wide considerations into account. For example,
a determination of maximum feasible average
fuel economy should not be keyed to the single
manufacturer which might have the most diffi-
culty achieving a given level of average fuel
economy. Rather, the Secretary must weigh the
benefits to the nation of a higher average fuel
economy standard against the difficulties of
individual manufacturers. Such difficulties,
however, should be given appropriate weight in
setting the standard in light of the small num-

ber of domestic manufacturers that currently
exist, and the possible implications for the na-
tional economy and for reduced competition
association (sic) with a severe strain on any
manufacturer. . . ."

It is clear from the Conference Report that Con-
gress did not intend that standards simply be set at
the level of the least capable manufacturer. Rather,
NHTSA must take industrywide considerations into
account in determining the maximum feasible aver-
age fuel economy level.

NHTSA has consistently taken the position that it
has a responsibility to set light truck standards at a
level that can be achieved by manufacturers whose
vehicles constitute a substantial share of the mar-
ket. See 49 FR 41251, October 22, 1984. The agency
did set the MY 1982 light truck fuel economy
standards at a level which it recognized might be
above the maximum feasible fuel economy capabil-
ity of Chrysler, based on the conclusion that the
energy benefits associated with the higher standard
would outweigh the harm to Chrysler. 45 FR 20871,
20876; March 31, 1980. However, as the agency
noted in deciding not to set the MY 1983-85 light
truck standards above Ford's level of capability,
Chrysler had only 10-15 percent of the light truck
domestic sales, while Ford had about 35 percent. 45
FR 81593, 81599; December 11, 1980.

C. Petroleum Consumption

The precise magnitude of energy savings associ-
ated with alternative light truck fuel economy stan-
dards is uncertain. The FRIA provides calculations
for the hypothetical lifetime fuel consumption of the
MY 1992 domestic light truck fleets assuming those
same fleets could and would achieve alternative
CAFE levels. For example, assuming that manufac-
turers could achieve an average CAFE of 21.0 mpg
for the MY 1992 domestic light truck fleet but
instead achieved 20.2 mpg with the same number of
sales, there could be a maximum difference in fuel
consumption of 638 million gallons over the lifetime
of the model year's fleet.

However, it is possible that manufacturers may be
able to achieve particular higher CAFE levels only
by restricting the sales of their large light trucks. If
this occurred, consumers might tend to keep their
older, less-fuel efficient light trucks in service
longer. Also, to the extent that a particular manu-
facturer might find it necessary to restrict sales of
its large light trucks, consumers may be able to
transfer their purchases of those same types of
vehicles to another manufacturer which may have
less difficulty meeting the CAFE standard. Thus,
the agency believes that the actual impacts, if any,
on energy consumption of alternative higher fuel
economy standards, would be less than the theoret-

PART 533; PRE 147

ical calculations comparing different levels of indus-
trywide CAFE.

D. The MY 1992 Standards

Based on its analysis described above and on
manufacturers' projections, the agency concludes
that the major domestic manufacturers can achieve
the combined fuel economy levels listed in the fol-
lowing table:

Manufacturer Approximate Combined CAFE

market share (MY 1989)

Chrysler

Ford

21.0»7o
33.0%
26.0%

21.2 mpg
20.8 mpg
20.2 mpg

As indicated above, foreign manufacturers other
than Volkswagen and Land Rover compete in only
the small vehicle portion of the light truck market
and are therefore expected to achieve CAFE levels
well above those of GM, Ford and Chrysler, which
offer full ranges of light truck models.

Unlike past years, the agency is not setting sepa-
rate 2WD and 4WD standards as an alternative to
the combined standard. The agency's decision on
this issue is discussed in detail below.

The setting of maximum feasible fuel economy
standards, based upon consideration of the four
required factors, is not a mere mathematical exer-
cise but requires agency judgment. Based on the
preceding analysis and discussion, the agency con-
cludes that Ford is the least capable manufacturer
with a substantial share of sales and that 20.2 mpg
is the maximum feasible combined standard for the
1992 model year. For the reasons discussed below,
this level balances the potential petroleum savings
associated with higher standards against the diffi-
culties of manufacturers facing potentially higher
standards.

Notwithstanding the projected product plans that
the manufacturers have provided the agency and
that are discussed, there is the potential for some
decline in each manufacturer's CAFE. The above
analysis has not covered the potential of mix shifts
because of the possible adverse financial conse-
quences to manufacturers and national employment
of any large change in CAFE that is created by
forced mix shifts. Nevertheless, the market may
dictate changes in the light truck mix in response to
fuel prices and availability. Continuing low fuel prices
and plentiful supply may result in an increased de-
mand for power and performance, while an unantici-
pated substantial increase in fuel prices could increase
demand for more fuel-efficient models.

NHTSA believes there are serious questions
whether a standard set at a level above Ford's cap-
ability would be consistent with the requirement

that standards be set taking industrywide consider-
ations into account, given that company's market
share.

The precise effects on petroleum conservation of a
higher standard are uncertain. The maximum theo-
retical additional energy savings associated with a
standard set at a higher level can be determined by
comparing hypothetical situations where GM and
Ford would have combined average fuel economy
levels of 21.0 mpg. Since most other manufacturers
in the industry project MY 1992 CAFE above that of
GM's capability, a standard set at 21.0 mpg would
not be expected to affect the petroleum consumption
of trucks manufactured by that part of the industry.
The maximum difference in total gasoline consump-
tion between these two hypothetical situations over
the lifetime of the MY 1992 fleet would be 638
million gallons. The maximum yearly impact on
U.S. gasoline consumption would be 74 million gal-
lons, or roughly six hundredths of one percent of
total motor vehicle gasoline consumption.

The agency believes, however, that any gasoline
savings associated with a higher standard would
actually be less than indicated by this projection.
While such a standard would provide added incen-
tive for GM to achieve its maximum fuel economy
capability, it is not clear in light of earning possible
carryforward/carryback credits that they might not
achieve this increase anyway. Ford could not likely
improve its CAFE other than by restricting sales of
its larger light trucks and engines. To the extent
that would-be purchasers of such vehicles and en-
gines transferred their purchases to GM and
Chrysler without those companies otherwise chang-
ing their product plans, there could be little or no
effect on overall petroleum consumption.

A higher standard than 20.2 mpg could result in
serious economic difficulties for Ford. Given lead-
time constraints, NHTSA believes that the primary
potential fuel-efficiency enhancing actions that Ford
or any other manufacturer would consider in re-
sponse to a higher standard would consist of market-
ing actions. For the reasons discussed earlier in this
notice, however, the agency does not believe that
marketing actions can be relied upon to significantly
improve fuel economy. If such marketing actions
were unsuccessful in whole or in part, Ford would
likely have to engage in product restrictions, includ-
ing limiting the sales of larger engines and/or vehi-
cles to improve its fuel economy. Such product
restrictions could result in adverse economic conse-
quences for Ford, its employees and the economy as a
whole and limit consumer choice, especially with
regard to the load carrying needs of light truck
purchasers.

Given Ford's 26 percent share of the light truck
market in MY 1989, its capability has a significant

PART 533; PRE 148

effect on the level of the industry's capability and,
therefore, on the level of the standards. The agency
believes that the 20.2 mpg standard balances the
potentially serious adverse economic consequences
associated with market and technological risks
against potential fuel economy improvements. The
agency concludes, in view of the statutory require-
ment to consider specified factors, that the relatively
small and uncertain energy savings associated with
setting a standard above Ford's capability would not
justify the potential economic harm to that company
and the economy as a whole.

In addition to the comments discussed above, the
agency received comments from Nissan, the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Energy Con-
servation Coalition (ECO, the Western Interstate
Energy Board (WINB) and the National Automobile
Dealers Association (NADA).

The ECC, in comments endorsed by NRDC, ar-
gued that in setting the CAFE standards, NHTSA
should double the 3% annual rate of increase pro-
vided by the high end of the ranges proposed. This
would result in a MY 1992 CAFE of 22.2 mpg, and
an MY 1994 CAFE of 25 mpg. The ECC also stated
it is essential to set standards now for model years
after 1994 to provide manufacturers with adequate
leadtime to achieve higher fuel economy levels. The
comments claimed these increases would be cost-
effective, and listed a number of potential technolog-
ical improvements available to manufacturers. Fi-
nally, ECC provided statistics on the potential fuel
savings achievable through higher CAFE standards
for light trucks, and emphasized the U.S. transpor-
tation sector's role as a source of greenhouse gas
emissions.

ECC does not explain the basis for their suggested
levels. The commenter did not demonstrate why
these levels would be feasible. As explained above,
the agency has determined that the maximum fea-
sible level for MY 1992 is 20.2 mpg. In addition, the
short statutory deadline makes it impractical for the
agency to set standsu-ds beyond MY 1992 at this
time. NHTSA also notes that much of the technology
listed in ECC's comments has already been exten-
sively incorporated in the light truck fleet. The
agency has included an analysis of carbon dioxide
emissions associated with this CAFE standard in
the Environmental Assessment prepared by the
agency for this rulemaking and available from the
Docket Section. Finally, the agency notes that the
fuel economy levels and time frames for their imple-
mentation advocated by ECC exceed the scope of the
NPRM.

NRDC, while endorsing the ECC comments, also
expressed concern that the NPRM did not discuss
NHTSA's decision to undertake a programmatic En-
vironmental Impact Statement (EISj to examine

effects of the CAFE program. NRDC believes the
agency's handling of fuel economy issues violates
the National Environmental Policy Act, and that the
agency has not adequately analyzed the relationship
between fuel efficiency and carbon dioxide emis-
sions. In response, NHTSA notes that it has provided
an analysis of fuel economy and carbon dioxide
emissions in its Environmental Assessment for this
rulemaking, and is continuing its work toward the
publication of a programmatic EIS for the CAFE
program. Do that end, the agency has issued a notice
of intent to prepare a programmatic EIS (54 FR
37702, September 12, 1989), and is currently analyz-
ing comments received in response to that notice.

WINB supports higher fuel economy standards
than those proposed, although it does not provide
specific levels. The comments note that the growing
role of light duty trucks is a primary cause of the
stagnation in the fleetwide CAFE of all light duty
vehicles. WINB argues that the agency has not
considered the economic implications of failing to
increase light truck CAFE, and that domestic jobs
will be lost as rising fuel prices shift demand toward
more efficient, imported light trucks.

NHTSA believes that it has taken into account the
economic implications of not setting higher stan-
dards. This issue is discussed in detail in the FRIA
available from the Docket. The agency disagrees
with WINB's assumption that significantly higher
fuel prices are likely during the period affected by
this rulemaking, and that this will result in signif-
icantly increased demand for more fuel-efficient ve-
hicles. See the FRIA for a more detailed discussion of
future fuel prices. The agency also disagrees that
domestic jobs will be lost as a result of its decision. In
response to apparent consumer demands, import
manufacturers are now introducing larger, more
powerful and less efficient light trucks. This trend
gives no indication of reversing in the near future.
Finally, the agency notes that promulgation of stan-
dards beyond the range proposed in the NPRM
exceeds the scope of this rulemaking.

NADA recommended that the agency establish
CAFE standards no higher than 20.2 mpg. This is
the maximum feasible level in NADA's opinion,
because of new regulatory constraints and the need
to accommodate a wide range of consumer needs for
utility and durability. NADA stated that NHTSA
appears to have underestimated the potential im-
pact of safety and emissions standards for MY 1992-
94, although no specific data were provided.

NHTSA notes that, as discussed above, emissions
impacts stemming from the pending Clean Air Act
amendments are not anticipated until MY 1993 at
the earliest. The agency also believes that its anal-

PART 533; PRE 149

ysis has adequately accounted for the CAFE impacts
of safety requirements affecting the MY 1992 fleet.

In its comments, Nissan projected that it would be
in compliance with the upper end of the ranges
proposed in the NPRM, and was thus not opposed to
their adoption.

NHTSA has decided not to promulgate for MY
1992 the optional separate 2WD/4WD standards
that have been promulgated for previous model
years. A single combined standard is being issued
instead. NHTSA is concerned that retaining the
separate standards may actually decrease fuel econ-
omy by encouraging the production of the less fuel-
efficient 4WD vehicles by full line manufacturers
since these vehicles would not be averaged with
2WD trucks for compliance.

Separate 2WD and 4WD standards were origi-
nally intended to provide an alternative means of
compliance to manufacturers that manufactured pri-
marily 4WD vehicles that would reflect the special-
ized nature of their fleets without undue penalty.
Since the separate standards were established, the
manufacturers that were served by this system,
American Motors and International Harvester,
have, respectively, been acquired by Chrysler and
stopped manufacturing light trucks. Thus, the orig-
inal intended beneficiaries of the separate standards
have disappeared.

The combined standard is a benefit to any manu-
facturer making predominantly 2WD models. It is a
disadvantage to a manufacturer whose fleet consists
entirely or mostly of 4WD vehicles. It is intended to
take into account manufacturers that typically have
a fleet with a majority of 2WD vehicles. NHTSA
notes that there are only four manufacturers cur-
rently marketing fleets of predominantly 4WD vehi-
cles. These are Daihatsu, Suzuki, Subaru and Range
Rover. In MY 1990, Daihatsu, Suzuki and Subaru
exceed by substantial margins the MY 1992 com-
bined standard as well as the MY 1990 2WD stan-
dard by virtue of their fleets of small, fuel efficient
models. Range Rover, on the other hand, does not
meet the MY 1990 4WD standard because it mar-
kets only a single model, a 4WD utility vehicle with
a fairly large engine. In contrast to the circum-
stances that existed in 1980, when American Motors
and International Harvester had a combined share
of just over 7 percent of the light truck market, Range
Rover's projected share of the market for MY 1990 is
much less than one percent. Range Rover's limited
participation in the U.S. market does not warrant
establishing separate 2WD and 4WD standards.

At present, most domestic and most import man-
ufacturers choose to comply with the single, com-
bined standard instead of the separate 2WD and
4WD standards.

Chrysler supported NHTSA's proposed decision to

eliminate the separate 2WD and 4WD standards.
Ford expressed no objection to the proposal, and
NADA took no position on the issue. GM opposed the
proposal on gi'ounds that it would restrict full-line
manufacturers' flexibility in complying with the
light truck standard. The company stated that the
separate standards moderate the adverse CAFE im-
pact of increased consumer demand for 4WD vehicles.

NHTSA does not agree that separate standards
are necessary to provide full-line manufacturers
with flexibility. As noted above, the original inten-
tion behind the separate standards was to enable
specialized manufacturers to more easily comply
with the standards. The separate standards no
longer serve this purpose. The agency believes that
it already properly accounts for the potential in-
creasing relative demand for 4WD vehicles and the
resulting CAFE risks and potential mix effects when
it sets the combined standard. Moreover, manufac-
turers are provided with flexibility in complying
with the standard through the use of carryforward
and carryback credits.

Based on these considerations, NHTSA has deter-
mined that the separate standards are no longer
necessary. Accordingly, the MY 1992 standard con-
tains only a combined standard for light trucks.

Manufacturers that have earned credits in past
model years by complying with the separate 2WD
and 4WD standards would still be able to use those
credits to offset CAFE shortfalls within the three
year carryforward period. See, 45 FR 83233 (De-
cember 18, 1980) and 44 FR 64943 (November 8,
1979).

In its March 1989 response to NHTSA's request for
comments, Volkswagen suggested as an alternative
to establishing a combined standard within its capa-
bility that the agency consider alternate special
consideration for limited product line truck manu-
facturers. In establishing the MY 1980-81 light
truck CAFE standards, the agency did establish a
separate standard in light of International Harvest-
er's (IH) limited product line. See 43 FR 11995,
March 23, 1978. The agency noted that IH had
unique problems given its limited sales volume,
restricted product line, the fact that its engines were
derivatives of medium duty truck (above 10,000
pounds GVWR) engines, and the fact that it did not
have experience with state-of-the-art emission con-
trol technology which the other manufacturers had
obtained in the passenger automobile market. The
agency emphasized, however, that the separate class
was being established for only two model years'
duration, concluding that IH should be able to
achieve levels of fuel efficiency in line with other
manufacturers within that time period either
through purchasing engines from outside sources or
by making improvements to current engines. The

PART 533; PRE 150

agency does not believe that Volkswagen's situation 3. § 533.5(e) will be added to read as follows:

is similar to that of IH. While IH's difficulties were (e) For model year 1992, each manufacturer shall

related to being newly subject to the fuel economy comply with the average fuel economy standard
program, Volkswagen's potential CAFE difficulties specified in paragraph (a) of this section (segregating

are not. Under the Cost Savings Act, manufacturers captive import and other light trucks),

are required to meet average fuel economy standards

which are set based on industrywide considerations. Issued on March 30, 1990

For MY 1992, Volkswagen is projected to be well
above the CAFE standard. Thus, NHTSA believes it is
not appropriate to set a separate standard to accom-
modate Volkswagen's limited product line status.

PART 533-1 AMENDED]

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 533
is amended as follows:

T^ble III is added to § 533.5(a) to read as follows:
§ 533.5 Requirements.

(a) * * *

TABLE III

Jerry Ralph Curry

Model Combined Standard Administrator

y^^"^ Captive Imports Others 55 FR 12487

1992 20.2 20.2 April 4, 1990

PART 533; PRE 151-152

PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE
SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment

(Docket No. 85-15; Notice 12)

RIN 2127-AC53

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for
reconsideration.

SUMMARY: This notice responds to petitions for
reconsideration of the final rule amending Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 that was published
on May 9, 1989. It clarifies that High Intensity
Discharge headlighting systems are not excluded as
integi-al beam headlighting systems. Definitions of
"beam contributor" and "vehicle headlamp aiming
device" are adopted. Petitions asking for elimination
of horizontal aim requirements are denied. Equip-
ment marking requirements are modified to allow
use of the vehicle manufacturer's name on original
equipment. The lengthy informational label re-
quired by the final rule if certain aim performance is
not achievable, effective June 8, 1989, has been
suspended. Under requirements effective September
1, 1990, the information on the label may be short-
ened to a caution, provided that it refers the reader
to the operator "s manual for a further explanation,
and provided that the manual contains such infor-
mation. Finally, clarifying information has been
added to the requirement for torque deflection per-
formance for mechanically-aimed headlamps.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The final rule is effective March
12, 1990, except that the requirements of S7.7.2.1
and S7. 7. 5. 2(b) relating to information to be provided
on a label on the vehicle, and in the operator's
manual are effective September 1, 1990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 9, 1989,
N'HTSA published amendments to Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment (Notice 8, 54 FR
20066). In a pertinent part, NHTSA added a new
category of headlamps without dimensional require-
ments, known as "integral beam headlamps". An
on-vehicle mechanical aim alternative to existing
off-vehicle mechanical aim was also adopted. Subse-
quently, on July 19, 1989, NHTSA published techni-
cal amendments to the rule (Notice 9, 54 FR 30223).

Thereafter, on August 1, 1989, NHTSA published an
interim final rule establishing a new effective date
of December 1, 1989, for downward torque deflection
requirements, and requested comments on its action
(Notice 10, 54 FR 31687). In response to comments to
that notice, the effective date was further delayed to
September 1, 1990 (Notice 11, 54 FR 49296).

Petitions for reconsideration of various aspects of
the amendment were filed by Ford Motor Company
(Ford), General Motors Corporation (GM), Motor
Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA), Volk-
swagen of America (VW), and Koito Manufacturing
Co., Ltd. (Koito). Chrysler Corporation adopted by
reference the petition submitted by MVMA.

Discussion of Petitions
Issues Relating to Integral Beam Headlamp
Systems
Paragi-aph S7.4 specifies requirements for integral
beam headlamp systems. The intent of this new
specification is to allow design freedom in meeting
the photometric requirements specified by Standard
No. 108. The design freedom permitted is wide
enough to encompass headlamp systems of no spec-
ified dimensions, or systems in which more than one
"beam contributor" combines to provide an upper or
lower beam. However, some of the language adopted
has been viewed as design restrictive. For example,
section S7.4(f) contains the beam requirements for
headlamps containing a single "filament", and sec-
tion S7.4(lXviii), in establishing criteria for the vi-
bration test, requires no evidence of loose or broken
parts other than "filaments". The High Intensity
Discharge (HID) headlamps currently under devel-
opment, and which may be offered on motor vehicles
in the near future, do not contain filaments. Thus,
the question arises whether NHTSA has impliedly
excluded HID headlamps as an integi-al beam head-
lamp system by its use of the word "filaments".
NHTSA did not intend to exclude HID systems, and
has amended the two sections mentioned above, and

PART 571; S108-PRE 333

section S5.5.9 as well, to i-emove any language that
might be interpreted as barring HID systems.

VW recommended that the term "beam contribu-
tor" be defined. The agency concurs in this recom-
mendation and a definition is added to section S4 to
specify that a beam contributor is "an indivisible
optical assembly, including lens, reflector, and light
source, that is part of an integi-al beam headlamp
system and contributes only a portion of a headlamp
beam."

Koito requested reconsideration of the application of
the photometric performance of S7.4(aX2) to headlight-
ing systems other than integral beam systems. This
section allows an exception to the performance of
Figure 15. Koito argues that the exception should also
be provided for the Type F sealed beam system, and to
four-lamp replaceable bulb headlighting systems.

In implementing the performance of Figure 15,
and the allowance that the lower beam could remain
activated during upper beam use, the test point
values were specifically adjusted to assure that two
goals could be achieved. The first is that upper beam
foreground illumination would not be any brighter,
relative to down-the-road light, than existing head-
lamp systems. The second is that the upper beam
headlamp could achieve photometric compliance
without the aid of the lower beam lamp. The excep-
tion provided by S7.4(aX2) specifically addressed
GM's 55 X 135 mm integral beam headlamp system.
The lamp that would normally provide the upper
beam in that system is too small to achieve compli-
ance alone; it must have the light emitted by the
lower beam in order that the headlighting system
achieve upper beam compliance.

If such an exception were allowed for the existing
Type F sealed beam system, the result could be
headlamps interchangeable in size, but without a
corresponding identicality in photometric perform-
ance. This could result in deficient upper beam
performance that does not meet the need for safety.
Therefore, NHTSA has decided not to extend the
excepted performance of S7.4(aX2) to other head-
lighting systems, and to deny Koito's petition.

Issue Relating to Replaceable Bulb Headlamp

System
Sections S7.5(dXl) and (eXD provide that there
shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an
individual light source in a replaceable bulb head-
lamp system, or, if there are two light sources,
individual adjustment of each reflector. Koito re-
gards the sections as imposing a design restriction,
and that there is no need for it. Because Standard
No. 108 now permits on-vehicle aiming as an option

vehicle headlamp aiming device, the agency should
not prohibit two reflectors with VHADs within a
single headlamp housing.

The intent of the two sections is to assure that
replaceable bulb headlamps that are mechanically
aimable using lens-mounted aiming pads have an
unalterable relationship between the light source,
reflector, lens, and aiming pads. This requirement is
still required for headlamps that use external aim-
ing devices as required by S7.7.5.1. By amending the
two sections to restrict them to headlamps meeting
the external aiming requirements of S7.7.5.1, the
agency recognizes the validity of Koito's argument,
and grants its petition.

Issues Relating to Aimability Performance
Requirements

Major amendments were adopted in May regard-
ing headlamp aimability and aim. A number of
petitions asked for reconsideration of certain of the
new requirements of section 87. 7 Aimability Perform-
ance Requirements.

Section S7.7.2 called for vehicles to be equipped
with on-board headlamp aiming devices, and used
the term VHAD (vehicle headlamp aiming device) in
reference to them. The amendment did not define
the term. Questions have arisen as to whether the
VHAD must be integral with the headlamp or
headlamp assembly, or whether a detachable VHAD
is permissible. The intent of the requirement is that
the VHAD be a permanent part of the vehicle, and
not separable from it. Thus, the VHAD may be
integi'al with the headlamp, or separate from it but
integral with the headlamp assembly or the vehicle,
but it may not be removable for storage in the vehicle
or elsewhere when not in use. Accordingly, the agency
is adopting a definition for VHAD and correcting
ambiguous language in order to clarify its intent.

The VHAD measures both horizontal and vertical
aim of the headlamp. The requirements for horizon-
tal aimability and the capability of the VHAD were
objected to by GM, MVMA, and Ford. MVMA termed
this "our most serious concern with Notice 8". It
cites previous arguments in support of the deletion
of horizontal aimability requirements from Stan-
dard No. 108, arguing that "design can be employed
wherein horizontal aim will not vary during the
normal course of a vehicle's life, nor will it vary upon
headlamp replacement, thereby obviating the need
for horizontal aimability." Ford believes that the
agency has overstated its concern with the adverse
effects of glare, resulting from improper horizontal
aim.

Specifically, section S7.7.2 requires all headlamps
to be aimable in the vertical and horizontal axes.
Section S7.7.4 specifies a horizontal aim adjustment
range when a headlamp is tested in a laboratory.

PART 571; S108-PRE 334

Ford, claiming that these requirements are unneces-
sarily restrictive for a manufacturer who can assem-
ble cars within a stringent horizontal aim tolerance,
would add an exception to these sections. A manu-
facturer would have the option of installing head-
lamps with a mounting and aiming mechanism that
provides only vertical aim adjustment, if, in addi-
tion, the headlamps as installed meet a horizontal
aim specification of 0.0 -(-0.8/ -0.4 degree. Ford
avers that this specification is at least as stringent
as any current State horizontal aim requirement.

NHTSA has reviewed the petitions by GM,
MVMA, and Ford. First, the agency does not vary
from its conclusion that specification and mainte-
nance of horizontal aim requirements meet the need
for motor vehicle safety. Not only is proper horizon-
tal aim necessary to prevent glare to oncoming
drivers, but it is also necessary to ensure that the
roadway is illuminated by the headlamp in the
manner intended to achieve the headlamp's full
capability of providing light by which the operator
may safely drive. NHTSA finds two fundamental
areas of concern with respect to arguments against
horizontal aimability.

The first is that, without the capability of horizon-
tal aim measurement, the compliance of such a
headlamp with Federal requirements for photomet-
ries could not be verified. This lack of measurement
capability could also create difficulties for owners,
inspectors, and repair personnel in States which
prescribe horizontal aim requirements as part of
their vehicle inspection programs, since there would
be no means to measure and verify the correctness of
aim.

Second, although vehicles manufactured to Ford's
specifications presumably could be manufactured
with proper horizontal aim, circumstances can occur
during the life of the vehicle that adversely affect
maintenance of correct horizontal aim. Thus, the
long-term safety of such vehicles that Ford and
others would build, as a gi'oup, could be lower than
that of vehicles which have horizontal aimability.
Without horizontal aim measurement and adjustment
capability, it is unclear if the accui'acy of horizontal
aim could be assured after repair of accident damage.
Manufacturers could address this concern by providing
dimensional data for precise structural alignment of
the vehicle in shop manuals, and appropriate instruc-
tions for performing the necessary and potentially
extensive parts replacement and vehicle reconstruc-
tion requisite for correct horizontal aim. These data
would assist repair shops in reestablishing the proper
relationship between parts of the VHAD and the
longitudinal axis of the vehicle.

However, a VHAD with horizontal aim capability
would accomplish this with far greater simplicity.

reliability, and less margin for error. While dimen-
sional data and instructions for use would also be
necessary, it would apply only to the relationship of
the VHAD to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle,
thus permitting recalibration of the VHAD alone
and not the whole vehicle. Then, the simple proce-
dure of aligning the "0" mark on the VHAD with
the alignment mark on the headlamp will indicate
and achieve correct horizontal aim.

This solution exists in section S7.7.5.2(aX2Xiv),
which requires the horizontal indicator to be capable
of recalibration over a movement of +2.5 degrees
relative to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle to
accommodate this necessary adjustment for recali-
brating the indicator due to crash damage, or after
vehicle repair. Ford and others would make no pro-
vision for either recalibration of indicators or head-
lamp adjustment for realm. With the May amend-
ments. Standard No. 108 assures that all headlamps
can be horizontally aimable throughout the life of
the vehicle by requiring adjustability and external
mechanical aimer compatibility, or aim verification
hardware (VHADs) and aim hardware recalibration
features. Ford's system would provide none of these
for horizontal aim. For the reasons discussed above,
NHTSA denies the petitions by Ford, GM, and
MVMA for deletion of VHAD horizontal aimability
requirements.

With respect to on-vehicle aiming, section
S7.7.5.2(aK2) requires the VHAD to have four hori-
zontal aim gi'aduation marks in addition to the "0"
mark. In GM's view, this is superfluous since all
headlamps should be aimed at the "0" mark and
thus the additional marks are unnecessary. GM
claims that it will manufacture certain headlamps
that would not need periodic realm, and thus there is
little likelihood that the aim, if originally set to "0",
should deviate in use, even with lamp replacement.
GM stated that removal of the other graduations
would not affect State aim requirements.

The agency disagrees with GM's statement. Re-
moval of the graduation marks would not permit
State aim inspectors to determine whether head-
lamps are within the State-prescribed tolerances.
Thus, any vehicle headlamp not aimed exactly at the
"0" graduation would have to be assumed to be
misaimed, even though it may in fact be within the
aim range allowed by a State. This would increase
the cost burden on vehicle owners, who might have
to have unnecessary aim adjustments performed in
order to satisfy a State that its requirements had
been met. The agency also does not agi-ee with GM
that headlamps may never need realm. Since not all
persons who replace lamps are familiar with the
specific procedures for replacement, many inadvert-
ently misaim headlamps as part of the replacement
process. GM has provided no evidence that would

PART 571; S108-PRE 335

cause the agency to believe that eliminating hori-
zontal gi-aduation marks, other than the "0" mark,
is appropriate. Therefore, its petition for reconsider-
ation on this issue is denied.

The VHAD's horizontal aim indicator is required
to be capable of recalibration over a range of +2.5
degrees to accommodate the effects of crash damage
and vehicle repair (S7.7.5.2(aKiv)). GM believes this
to be unnecessarily restrictive and recommended
that only a means be provided to ensure that the
indicator will show "0" when the headlamps are
properly aimed after vehicle repair from accident
damage. NHTSA observes that the wording used in
this section is intended to be specific and not subject
to interpretation. The language that GM suggests is
subject to interpretation, and therefore may not be
enforceable under all circumstances. The agency
believes that under GM's language the indicator
could always be made to show "0" when properly
aimed after vehicle repair since the aiming proce-
dure is to align the headlamp to the "0" mark, thus
assuring correct aim. GM's request does not address
the need to relocate the "0" mark if its location
relative to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle has
changed as a result of crash damage or repair. It
implies that the "0" mark will be relocated so that it
is aligned with the headlamp when the headlamp is
properly aimed; however, the headlamp can be prop-
erly aimed only when the "0" mark has the same
relationship to the vehicle longitudinal axis as orig-
inally intended by the vehicle designer, and presum-
ably as it was manufactured. Therefore, recalibra-
tion is necessary. The range of +2.5 degrees is
specified to limit recalibration to the range of re-
quired horizontal aimability of the headlamp. The
intent was to clearly limit rather than leave open-
ended, the range for recalibration, and to make that
range meaningful. Therefore, this request is also
denied.

Section S7.7.2 requires that aiming shall be per-
formed without the removal of vehicle parts, except
for protective covers. GM, MVMA, and Ford asked
for a clarification since the section appears to pro-
hibit the use of shims which would be added or
removed for the purposes of aiming, and which
would not be considered vehicle parts within the
meaning of S7.7.2. NHTSA wishes to clarify that the
use of shims is acceptable as long as all the neces-
sary shims are provided with the vehicle at the time
of sale. Thus, shims would be vehicle parts which
would not be added to or removed from the vehicle
during an aiming adjustment.

Section S7.7.2.1 requires that all headlamp sys-
tems meet certain performance requirements for
independence of vertical and horizontal aim adjust-
ments. If such performance is not possible, then an
instruction label meeting the requirements of

S7.7.5.2(b) shall be placed adjacent to the VHAD.
Petitions were received from MVMA and GM on this
issue. In GM's opinion, such a label might be so
large as to cause a space problem under the hood
adjacent to the VHAD. GM also said that underhood
labels are not as durable as the alternative location
(the owner's manual) for VHAD instructions, and
that cost would increase with such a label.

Virtually all current vehicles have aiming screws
that permit independent adjustment of horizontal or
vertical aim. Given this fact, persons aiming head-
lamps on future vehicles through non-independent
aiming screws would have little reason to be con-
cerned that adjustment of one aiming screw would
cause the aim in the other axis to be changed.
Because increased misaim could occur through use
of other than independent aiming screws, the person
performing the aiming should be made aware of the
proper manner to assure correct aim. Placing the
label next to the VHAD was seen as the best
solution. The agency concluded that service person-
nel would not be likely to refer to the operator's
manual when performing an adjustment on new cars
that they had performed many times on older ones,
and thus may never become aware of the need to
exercise caution about the distinctions of new on-
vehicle aiming devices.

GM is correct in saying that such a label would be
cumbersome if placed adjacent to the VHAD, since a
label meeting the requirements of S7. 7. 5. 2(b) would
be quite large. A better solution would be to modify
the label requirement, to specify a label stating only
the caution specific to that particular aiming design.
For example, such a label could read: "Caution-
adjust horizontal aim first, vertical aim last." Such a
label would be physically smaller and easier to fit
adjacent to the aiming screws or VHAD. The agency,
therefore, has decided to amend S7.7.2.1 to permit
an alternative means of complying with the VHAD
aiming instructions of S7. 7. 5. 2(b), to allow a small
label adjacent to the aiming device which would
have a specific caution about aiming, provided that
the label refers the reader to the operator's manual
for full instructions, and provided that the full
instructions are contained in the manual. This al-
ternative responds to GM's concern. Because the
label refers the reader to the manual, and because
the requirement mandating information in the op-
erator's manual is a new one, those portions of the
rule will not become effective until September 1,
1990.

Section S7.7.3 requires the range of vertical aim of
a headlamp installed on a vehicle to be not less than
the full range of pitch of the vehicle, determinable in
part by "the anticipated effects of suspension sag."
Ford commented that the phrase should be elimi-
nated from 87.7.3, since there is no reliable method

PART 571; S108-PRE 336

for anticipating the amount of suspension sag. It
further commented that the inclusion of this re-
quirement is unnecessary and unreasonable because
such suspension changes would likely occur equally
in the front and rear and thus would have little effect
on pitch angle. Nor does it know of any method to
determine the effects of loadings, age, environment,
and road characteristics on suspension sag.

Standard No. 108's requirement for a ±4 degiee
pitch range for aiming screws was intended, and
continues, to take into account the myriad factors
that could cause a vehicle to need a vertical aiming
range substantially beyond that necessary at the
time of vehicle manufacture. NHTSA believes that
for the performance-oriented requirement now im-
plemented, it is still desirable to account for antici-
pated sag from aging springs. Although the vehicle
manufacturer would be able to give the design value
assigned to accommodate the sag, the actual sag
that a vehicle might exhibit could be different, as
Ford claims. Therefore, verification of this added
range to account for sag is not practicable since it
cannot be related to actual sag during the compli-
ance testing. Accordingly, Ford's request for deletion
of "the anticipated effects of spring sag" is gi-anted.

Ford requests that the requirement for vertical
aim range in S7.7.3 be designated as a "designed to
conform" requirement. Ford claims that since the
design of headlamp aiming and mounting systems
must be accomplished in the early stages of vehicle
design, prototype vehicles are not available for test-
ing to determine the range of pitch angle. It believes
that designing the system to comply with the pitch
range requirement in every manufactured vehicle
may be impracticable. NHTSA believes that the
vehicle manufacturing industry has the capability
through computer simulation and its vast experi-
ence at designing and manufacturing vehicles to
solve this design problem in many practicable ways.
It is unreasonable to believe that vehicle manufac-
turers cannot do so, as it is also unreasonable to
actually manufacture vehicles whose headlamps
cannot be aimed throughout the range of pitch that
a vehicle will experience in actual service. Ford's
request is denied.

Ford requests a clarification that the requirement
of 87.7.3 pertains only to "static pitch". Ford cor-
rectly believes that the range should apply to only
static pitch situations. This was NHTSAs intent.
Therefore, the word "static" has been inserted in
S7.7.3, between the words "The installed range of
and "pitch angle".

In response to the interim final rule (Notice 10),
several commenters stated that the torque defiection
performance requirement specified by S7. 7. 5. 1(a) is
unclear with respect to the means for determining

performance. The agency is revising S7. 7. 5. 1(a) to
incorporate aspects of the language on torque deflec-
tion performance contained in a forthcoming revi-
sion of SAE J1383 Performance Requirements for
Motor Vehicle Headlamps, and information i-eceived
from Ford and Hopkins Manufacturing Corporation.
Ford provided data which showed that the length of
the lever arm used to apply the torque affects the
angular deflection. The Hopkins information pro-
vides the lever arm length for the various adapter/
aimer combinations in use, and those lengths are
used as minima in the text of the standard. NHTSA
believes this revision will eliminate the possibility of
errors in determining compliance, and the need for
NHTSA interpretations relating to such testing.

Legibility requirements of the VHAD
(S7.7.5.2(aXlXvi)) and S7.7.5.2(aX2Kiii)) needs clarifi-
cation to be more pertinent. They specify the legibil-
ity of VHAD indicators at the top of the radiator.
Ford recommends that they be rewritten to specify
that legibility be measured at the top of the gradu-
ations. Ford also believes that these legibility re-
quirements should not apply to the remote reading
indicator of S7.7.5.2(aXlXiii). However, since neither
the location nor the nature of a remote reading
indicator is restricted, such devices could be located
under the hood, and thus the need for legibility still
exists. Therefore, while NHTSA agrees with Ford as
to the location for measuring the illumination (at
the graduation), it disagrees with Ford's comment on
restricting legibility. Appropriate changes are made
to the language of S7.7.5.2(aXlXvi) and (aX2Xiii) to
change the location for measuring the illumination.

As noted above, neither the location nor the na-
ture of the remote reading indicator is restricted,
and such indicatoi'S could be located in the engine
compartment as well as in other vehicular locations
such as the instrument panel. The inclusion of a
remote reading indicator was in response to Ford's
comment to the initially proposed rule to permit an
indicator that might be readable by the driver of the
vehicle. However, questions have arisen with respect
to S7.7.5.2(aXiii) as to whether certain designs are
direct or remote reading indicators. NHTSA's intent
was narrow. A direct reading indicator was intended
to be an indicator mounted on a headlamp or its
mounting hardware. A remote reading indicator was
intended to be, as Ford had envisioned, located in the
instrument panel. Standard No. 108 can be inter-
preted as allowing a greater latitude of locations. It
appears to allow both direct and indirect reading
analog indicators that are not remotely mounted,
both direct and indirect reading analog indicators
that are remotely mounted, and the digital equiva-
lents of these four variants. Thus, to resolve any
questions which may arise, the agency is amending

PART 571; S108-PRE 337

section S.4 to add definitions of direct and remote
reading indicators.

Issues Relating to Tests and Procedures
Ford continues to believe that S8.9, the vibration
test of Standard No. 108, should be deleted, for the
same reasons as stated in its comment to Notice 5 of
this docket. It now recommends that the present
vibration requirements apply to only heavy duty
vehicles (over 80 inches or more in overall width),
and that the SAE J575 JUL83 vibration require-
ments apply to vehicles less than 80 inches wide.
Ford claims that the vibration levels of the present
requirement are much higher than measured on the
road by test vehicles. It also claims that the vibra-
tion levels in SAE J575 JUL83 are shown to be
adequately severe in the frequency ranges of con-
cern, compared to the data from those test vehicles.
It submitted data in substantiation of its position.

NHTSA is not convinced by the Ford data compar-
ison which includes only vibration ranges and inten-
sities. The intent of a vibration test is to assure that
lighting devices are resistant to failure from vehicle
vibration. The comparison of vibration range and
intensity is only part of determining a proper spec-
ification for such a test procedure. The analysis of
lamp failures from the field and the replication of
those failures in the laboratory are also a necessary
part of the development of a proper test procedure.
NHTSA's use of the present Standard No. 108 vibra-
tion test procedure has shown that failures in the
test are also found in the field. The correlation
between lab and field is necessary. Ford has not
demonstrated that its suggested test would be any
more successful in finding poorly designed lighting
devices. It only has shown that its test is less severe.
NHTSA remains to be convinced that a more valid
vibration test exists than that already required by
the standard. Therefore, Ford's petition is denied.

Foi-d also objects to the sealing test of S8.10,
finding its conditions are excessively stringent, ex-
pensive to perform, and burdensome. It recommends
a simpler 10 pounds per square inch gauge (psig),
pressure test and a 10 inches of mercury vacuum
test. Ford states that it has used this procedure for
many years for determining lamp integrity in both
development testing and in quality checks at man-
ufacturing facilities. However, NHTSA believes that
safety demands integrity of lamps not only on the
day they are manufactured but while they are in
service. Such basic pressure and vacuum tests do not
exercise lamps under simulated conditions that re-
flect real world conditions. High temperatures are a
normal envii-onment for headlamps, as are low tem-
peratures. Under those conditions, headlamps are
often energized and often rapidly cooled by rainwa-
ter, causing thermal shock conditions. The rapid

heating and cooling are fully intended to test the
integi-ity of the sealing method used.

Today's headlamps no longer need to be hermeti-
cally sealed with an enclosed inert environment
since such extremes are not necessary for survival of
the filaments in halogen capsules. As a consequence,
lenses and reflectors are adhesively bonded, which
does not provide the same quality of seal as the glass
to glass welding (flame sealing) used on non-halogen
headlamps. Unless the design can be proven to be
capable of withstanding the true vehicle environ-
ment and surviving without performance loss, it
should have a seal test to prove its hermeticity. The
selection of the sealing performance test is now an
option of the lamp designer (S7.4(h)), choosing
whether the lamp will be truly sealed by meeting
S8.10, or if not, then by meeting the same require-
ments as unsealed headlamps (replaceable bulb
types). In implementing this test requirement,
NHTSA applied it to only integral beam headlight-
ing systems, since this category of headlamps is
intended to replace "sealed" beam headlamps.

An area of concern is that the present procedure
may cause some laboratory safety problems for those
manufacturers which may design high voltage head-
lighting systems known today as High Intensity
Discharge systems. NHTSA will consider factual
information documenting the bases for these labora-
tory safety concerns, if they exist, and will consider
modification of those procedures to the extent that
the same test results can be achieved. NHTSA is also
interested in learning if such high-voltage systems
would also pose safety hazai'ds to vehicle owners and
service personnel who may have to deal with such
equipment in less than laboratory conditions.

Although the agency is not in favor of a less
stringent sealing test, it realizes, as Ford points out,
that the procedure might need changes to accommo-
date high test voltages. For now, however, the proce-
dure remains in effect and Ford's request is denied.

Issues Relating to Equipment Marking
Comments were received from Ford, GM, and
MVMA on the headlamp lens marking require-
ments of S7.2 and the standardized replaceable light
source marking of S7.6(i). Ford stated that it is
unclear whether the term "manufacturer" refers to
only the assembler of the device or refers also and
alternatively to any manufacturer of a vehicle
equipped with such a device. Ford believes the latter
is the more reasonable and reflects current industry
practice. Ford would like this clarified to state that
either the lamp manufacturer's or vehicle manufac-
turer's name or trademark shall be marked on the
device. Ford also requests that these requirements
also state that nothing in it shall be construed to
authorize the use of such names or trademarks

PART 571; S108-PRE 338

without the owner's consent. While NHTSA's obser-
vations of the marking of headlamps does not en-
tirely reflect that current industry practice espoused
by Ford, it does agree that the requirement can be
made more explicit to the advantage of all involved.
The agency adopts the language requested by Ford
for S7.2 and S7.6(i).

Miscellaneous Issues

In the reprinting of the Standard in May, numer-
ous typogiaphical errors occurred. NHTSA has cor-
rected these errors, both in this notice and Notice 9.
It has also used this notice to paragi'aph and desig-
nate paragraphs within sections where such ap-
peared to contribute to the clarity of the standard.

VW found the final rule confusing in that it did
not incorporate the tables and figures remaining in
effect. It asked that the standard be republished in
its entirety with the tables and figures, or that they
be deleted, or that the agency publish a list of figures
and tables remaining in effect.

To address VW's concern, NHTSA states that all
numbered figures and tables remain in effect. All
unnumbered figures within the text of Standard No.
108 as in effect before June 8, 1989, have been
incorporated as text.

GM states that there is potential for conflict
between the requirements of S5.5.8 and S5.5.9.
S5.5.8 provides for the optional illumination of the
lower beam headlamps on certain headlighting sys-
tems, while S5.5.9 requires that only those lamps
necessary for lower beam photometries be so wired
to be energized and only those lamps necessary for
meeting upper beam photometric shall be illumi-
nated. Clearly these sections conflict. GM recom-
mends adding the phrase "Except as provided in
S5.5.8," to the beginning of S5.5.9. The agency
agrees and gi'ants this request.

Sealed beam headlighting wattages (S7.3.5 and
S7.3.6) were unintentionally omitted in the final
rule, as called to the agency's attention by MVMA.
They have been reinserted into the standard.

Effective Dates

Because of the need to relieve design restrictions
and encourage innovation, it is hereby found for good
cause shown that an effective date earlier than 180
days after publication of the final rule is in the
public interest, and the amendment is effective 30
days after its publication in the Federal Register.
However, those portions of S7.7.5.2.1 and
S7.7.5.2(bK3i which impose requirements of adding a
label to the vehicle, referring the reader to further
information in a vehicle operator manual under the
circumstances prescribed therein become effective
September 1, 1990.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 571.108

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps,
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment is
amended as follows:

1. Definitions of "Beam contributor", "Direct
reading indicator", "Remote reading indicator", and
"Vehicle headlamp aiming device" are added to
section S4 in alphabetical order to read as follows:

"Beam contributor" means an indivisible optical
assembly including a lens, reflector, and light
source, that is part of an integral beam headlighting
system and contributes only a portion of a headlamp
beam.

"Direct reading indicator" means a device that is
mounted in its entirety on a headlamp or headlamp
aiming or headlamp mounting equipment, is part of
a VHAD, and provides information about headlamp
aim in an analog or digital format.

"Remote reading indicator" means a device that is
not mounted in its entirety on a headlamp or head-
lamp aiming or headlamp mounting equipment, but
otherwise meets the definition of a direct reading
indicator.

"Vehicle headlamp aiming device" or "VHAD"
means motor vehicle equipment permanently in-
stalled on a motor vehicle by the manufacturer of the
vehicle, which is used for determining the horizontal
and vertical aim of headlamps.

2. Section S5. 1.1.8 is revised by deleting the
word "and" between the words "photometric" and
"minimum".

3. In section S5.1.1.11, "SAE J585c" is corrected to
read "SAE J586c".

4. In section S5.5.8, the reference to "paragraph
S7.4(aX2)" is corrected to read "section
S7.4(aXlXii)."

5. Section S5.5.9 is revised to read:

"S5.5.9 Except as provided in section S5.5.8, the
wiring harness or connector assembly of each head-
lamp system shall be designed so that only those
light sources intended for meeting lower beam pho-
tometries are energized when the beam selector
switch is in the lower beam position, and that only
those light sources intended for meeting upper beam
photometries are energized when the beam selector
switch is in the upper beam position."

6. Section S5.5.10 is revised by deleting paragi-aph
(b), and redesignating paragraphs (c), (d), and (e), as
paragi-aphs (b), (c), and (d) respectively.

7. Section S7.2 is revised to read:
"S7.2(a)The lens of each original and replacement

equipment headlamp, and of each original equip-
ment and replacement equipment beam contributor
manufactured on or after December 1, 1989, shall be
marked with the symbol 'DOT' either horizontally
or vertically which shall constitute the certification
required by 15 U.S.C. 1403.
(h) The lens of each headlamp and of each beam

PART 571; S108-PRE 339

contributor manufactured on or after December 1,
1989, to which paragraph (a) of this section applies
shall be marked with the name and/or trademark
registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office of the manufacturer of such headlamp or
beam contributor, or its importer, or any manufac-
turer of a vehicle equipped with such headlamp or
beam contributor. Nothing in this paragi-aph shall
be construed to authorize the marking of any such
name and/or trademark by one who is not the owner,
unless the owner has consented to it.

(c) Each headlamp and beam contributor to which
paragraph (a) of this section applies shall be marked
with its voltage and with its part or trade number."

8. In section S7.3.2(aXl), a paragi-aph "4.1.2" is
added between paragraphs 4.1.1 and 4.1.3.

9. The text of section S7.3.5 is designated section
(a). A sentence designated section (b) is added to
read:

"(b) The maximum wattage at 12.8 volts (design
voltage): 65 watts on upper beam, and 55 watts on
lower beam."

10. The text of section S7.3.6 is designated section
(a). A sentence designated section (b) is added to
read:

"(b) The maximum wattage at 12.8 volts (design
voltage): 70 watts on upper beam, and 60 watts on
lower beam."

11. Section S7. 3.7(c) is revised to read:

"(c) SAE Standard J1383 APR85 Performance Re-
quirements for Motor Vehicle Headlamps, Sections
2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 4.1, 4.1.4, and 5.1.4."

12. Section S7.3.7(eX4) is revised to read: "Sections
5.1.1.1 and 5.1.2.3 do not apply."

13. Section S7.3.7(eX7) is revised to read:

"(eX7) Section 5.1.6 is retitled 'Retaining Ring/
Aiming Ring Tests". The phrase "92 x 150 mm . . .
0.340 in (8.6 mm)" is added at the end of the table for
flange thickness. The sentence beginning "The fasten-
ing means" is deleted.

14. In section S7. 3.8(b), a paragraph "4.1.2" is
added between paragraphs 4.1.1 and 4.1.3.

15. In section S7.4(aXlXii), the phrase "and not to
the upper beam test point" is revised to read "and
not to the upper beam headlamp, and the upper
beam test point".

16. In section S7.4(bX2), the word "base" is cor-
rected to read "beam".

17. In section S7.4(c), the word "filament" is
deleted and in lieu thereof the words "light source"
added.

18. In section S7.4(d), and the last sentence of
section S7.5(c), the word "point" is corrected to read
"points".

19. In section S7.4(e), the reference to "S7.4(aXl)"

is deleted and replaced with the words "paragraphs
(aXl) or (aX3) of this section".

20. In section S7.4(f), the phrase "paragraph
S7.4(a)" is revised to read "paragi'aph (a) of this
section".

21. In section S7.5(b), the phrase "subsections (c)
through (f) below" is revised to read "paragraphs (d)
and (e) of this section".

22. The first sentence of section S7.5(c) is revised
to read:

"(c) The test requirements of sections 4.1, 4.1.4,
and 5.1.4 of SAE J1383 APR85, using the photomet-
ric requirements specified in paragi'aphs (d) and (e)
of this section."

23. Section S7.5(dXl) is revised to read:

"(dXD Headlamps designed to conform to the
external aiming requirements of S7. 7. 5.1 shall have
no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individ-
ual light source, or, if there are two light sources,
independent adjustment of each reflector."

24. In section S7.5(eXl), the introductory words
"There shall be" are deleted and in lieu thereof the
words "Headlamps designed to conform to the exter-
nal aim requii-ements of S7.7.5.1 shall have" are
added.

25. In section S7.5(eX2XiiXB), the word "lower" is
corrected to read "upper".

26. In section S7.5(i), the phrase "paragraphs
S7.4(k) and (1), except that the sentence in (k)" is
revised to read "sections S7.4(h) and (i), except that
the sentence in (h)".

27. In section S7.6(d), the number "100" is cor-
rected to read "1,000".

28. Section S7.6(j) is revised to read:

"(j) Each standardized replaceable light source
manufactured on or after December 1, 1989, shall be
marked with the symbol DOT and with a name or
trademark in accordance with S7.2. In addition, the
base of each such light source shall be marked with
its HB Type designation."

29. In section S7.7.1, the word "vertical" is cor-
rected to read "vehicle."

30. In section S7.7.2.1, the first sentence is desig-
nated paragi-aph (a). The second sentence is de-
leted and the following sentence, designated para-
gi-aph (b), is added in lieu thereof:

"(b) If the performance specified in paragraph (a)
of this section is not achievable, the requirements of
S7.7.5.2(bX3) apply, except that if the aiming mech-
anism is not a VHAD, the requirements specific to
VHADs are not applicable, and the instructions
shall be specific to the aiming mechanism
installed."

31. In the third sentence of section S7.7.3, the
word "static" is added between the words "of and
"pitch", the word "truck" is corrected to read

PART 571; S108-PRE 340

"trunk", and the words "suspension sag and" are
deleted.

32. In section S7.7.4, the first "not" is deleted.

33. In section S7. 7. 5. 1(a), the first sentence is
deleted, and the following sentences are added in
lieu thereof:

"(a) The aim of the headlamps in each headlamp
system, other than a headlamp system designed to
conform to section S7.3, that is designed to use such
external aiming devices, shall not deviate more than
0.30 degree when a downward torque of 20 lb. -in.
(2.25 N-m) is removed from the headlamp in its
design operating position. The downward force used
to create the torque shall be applied parallel to the
aiming reference plane, through the aiming pads,
and displaced forward using a lever arm such that
the force is applied on an axis that is perpendicular
to the aiming reference plane and originates at the
center of the aiming pad pattern (see Figures 4-1
and 4-3). For headlamps using the aiming pad
locations of Group 1, the distance between the point
of application of force and the aiming reference
plane shall be not less than 6.625 in. ( 168.3 mm) plus
the distance from the aiming reference plane to the
secondary plane, if used (see section S7.7.5.1(dKl)).
For headlamps using the aiming pad locations of
Group II, the distance between the point of applica-
tion of force and the aiming reference plane shall be
not less than 6.609 in. (167.9 mm) plus the distance
from the aiming reference plane to the secondary
plane, if used. For headlamps using the nonadjust-
able Headlamp Aiming Device Locating Plates for
the 146 mm diameter, the 176 mm diameter, and the
92 X 150 mm sealed beam units, the distance
between the point of application of force and the
aiming plane shall, respectively, be not less than
6.984 in. (177.4 mm), 6.937 in. (176.2 mm), and 7.625
in. (193.7 mm)."

34. In section S7.7.5.2(aXlXvi) and section S7.7.5.2
(aK2Kiii), the word "radiator" is deleted and the word
"graduation" added in lieu thereof.

35. In section S7. 7. 5. 2(b), the first two sentences

are designated as paragraph (bXl); the final sentence
is designated as paragi-aph (bX2); and a new para-
graph (bX3) is added to read as follows:

"(bX3) Should the mechanism not meet the re-
quirements of S7. 7. 2.1, on each motor vehicle man-
ufactured on or after September 1, 1990, a caution-
ary label shall be placed adjacent to the mechanism
stating the caution and including either the reason
for the caution or the corrective action necessary.
Each such label shall also refer the reader to the
vehicle operator's manual for complete instructions.
Each such vehicle shall be equipped with an opera-
tor's manual containing the complete instructions
appropriate for the mechanism installed."

36. In section S7.7.5(cXl), the words "The head-
lamp assembly (the headlamp(s) and the integral or
separate VHAD mechanism)" are removed and the
phrase "The headlamp assembly (the headlamp(s),
and the VHAD(s))" is inserted in their place.

37. In section S7.7.5.2(cX3), paragraphs (3Xiii),
(3Xiv), (3Xv), (3Xvi), and (3Xvii) are redesignated as
paragraphs (3XiiXA), (3XiiXB), (SXiiXC), (3XiiXD), and
(3XiiXE), respectively.

38. The first sentence of section S8.4(b) is amended
by inserting the word "in" between the words "and"
and "its".

39. In section S8.7, the penultimate sentence is
con-ected by changing the number "20" to read
"23".

40. In section S8.10, the fourth sentence is cor-
rected by changing the number "69" to read "70".

41. In sections SlO(a) and (b), the date in the
reference to Standard J1383 "APR83" is corrected to
read "APR85".

Issued on February 2, 1990.

Jeffrey R. Miller
Deputy Administrator

55 FR 4424
February 8, 1990

PART 571; S108-PRE 341-342

PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE
SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment

(Docket No. 89-10; Notice 2)

RIN 2127-AC59

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule adopts a new type of standard-
ized replaceable light source to be used in replace-
able bulb headlamp systems on motor vehicles. Fol-
lowing the nomenclature pre.sently used, the light
source, which has a trade designation as 9007, will
be known as "HB5". The new source employs a base
similar to that of the HBl, but is not interchange-
able with it. Like the HBl, it has two filaments. The
filaments, however, are positioned axially, rather
than transversely as with the HBl. This can permit
use of a reflector with a lesser vertical height,
resulting in a headlamp of lower profile, allowing
lower front ends with the potential to improve fuel
economy through reduction of aerodynamic drag.
Headlamps with HB5 light sources will be designed
to provide the photometries presently specified in
Standard No. 108.

This notice completes action upon a petition for
rulemaking by Ford Motor Co.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 9, 1990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 2,
1983, NHTSA amended Motor Vehicle Safety Stan-
dard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associ-
ated Equipment, to allow, for the first time, the use of
a replaceable bulb headlamp system (48 FR 24690).
This action completed rulemaking on a petition
submitted by Ford Motor Company. Subsequently,
the light source was designated "HBl", to distin-
guish it from additional light sources that were
incorporated into the standard (50 FR 19961). HBl
contains both an upper and lower beam filament,
and thus far has been used in headlamp systems
comprised of two lamps.

Subsequently, Ford petitioned NHTSA for rule-
making to amend Standard No. 108 to pei-mit use of
another dual filament light source. NHTSA granted
the Ford petition, and, on June 29, 1989, proposed
the adoption of the light source that would be known
as "HBS" (54 FR 27399).

The petitioner ascribed the following benefits to
HBS. The two filaments are oriented axially (rather

than transversely as in the HBl) for more efficient
light distribution. Ford said that it achieves greater
efficiency by reason of the axial filament position,
thereby improving the optical relationship between
the filaments and the reflector. With a typical para-
bolic reflector, the HB5, because of its axial filament
configuration, permits more effective use of the
reflector area and allows the design of headlamps
with smaller vertical dimensions than are practica-
ble with the HBl bulb. Installation of lower profile
lamps, in turn, encourages the design of lower front
ends with reduction in aerodynamic drag, which has
the potential of improving fuel economy.

Ford also explained that the design of the base,
although similar to that of the HBl, differs suffi-
ciently that HBl and HB5 could not be interchanged
in a given headlamp body. Other features of the HBS
are that the lower beam filament is designed to
operate at a maximum of 60 watts, and the upper
beam filament at a maximum of 70 watts. A head-
lamp with the HBS, either alone or with the HBl,
would be designed to conform to the photometric
specifications of SAE Standard J579 DEC84 Sealed
Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, presently
incorporated in Standard No. 108, or, if used in
combination with other types of light sources, the
photometric specifications of Figure 15 or Figure 17.

As with some other standardized replaceable light
sources, the HBS is designed to use a seal on the
capsule, as suggested by Ford, to assure proper
centering of the filament in order to meet the
photometric requirements, and to protect the inte-
rior of the lamp housing from the environment.

Comments on the proposal were received from
Ford Motor Company, General Electric (GE), Gen-
eral Motors Corporation (GM), Chrysler Motors,
Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd., and Stanley Electric
Co., Ltd. All commenters supported the proposal.
Several suggested minor changes, which NHTSA
has made in the final rule.

The first change concerns the 12 percent tolerance
specified by section S7.6(e) on both the upper and
lower beams. Ford and GE requested that the toler-

PART 571; SlOS-PRE 343

ance be increased to 15 percent, the amount speci-
fied for the HBl light source, which will compensate
for misapplication of the black cap on the front of the
glass capsule. The luminous flux value was also
addressed by Koito, which recommended reducing
the lower beam filament from 1,000 lumens to 850
lumens, retaining the present 12 percent tolerance.
Koito argued that this would increase bulb life from
an estimated 320 hours to 800 hours. In rebuttal.
Ford commented that this would negate the advan-
tage provided by the bulb because it would require a
larger headlamp body to produce the required head-
lamp beam pattern. The agency has decided, there-
fore, not to adopt Koito's suggestion, but to amend
S7.6(e) consistent with Ford and GE's suggestion.

Several comments were received regarding the
specifications of the bulb drawings (Figures 24 and
25). The drawings have been modified in minor
respects to reflect these comments. However, in one
instance, they have not been changed. Stanley favors
a filament tolerance box for the HB5. Ford pointed
out that it recommends using dimensions with tol-
erances on upper and lower beam filament locations
because it provides all information necessary to
construct the regular shaped boxes. Further, the
HBl light source does not have a filament tolerance
box. Therefore, NHTSA has not adopted Stanley's
suggestion.

Stanley also recommended a change to the dimen-
sions "AD" and "AF" in Figure 24-2, in order to
provide a greater distance between the filaments so
that they will not touch each other. This originally
occurred on the HBl when filaments sagged and
touched each other, or arced between each other
when activated. Appropriate changes were made in
the dimensions. When asked about Stanley's com-
ment. Ford replied that the probability of filament
contact on the HB5 with the present dimensions is
lessened because the filaments lie in different verti-
cal and horizontal planes. Also, vehicle loadings are
vertical in direction, and the filaments are unlikely
to come together in the diagonal plane through
them. NHTSA accepts this explanation, and declines
to make the change suggested by Stanley.

A change in the "AO" dimension on the locking
tab for the wiring harness connector was also re-
quested by Stanley to allow curved surfaces in the
"AO" area. Ford also requested a change in Figure
24-6 or Figure 24-7 to state that such a radius may
be used. Although the agency does not believe that
the figures prohibit curved surfaces even though no
radius is specified, it is nevertheless modifying the
drawings to allow the radius.

Several comments by Ford manifested a misunder-
standing of the proposal. It believed that proposed
S7.5{eX3) would not cover bulb combinations covered
by the existing section. However, S7.5(eX3) clearly

states that the section applies to a headlamp system
"consisting of four lamps, using any type light
source except a Type HBl or a Type HB5. . . ."
Thus, the combinations that concern Ford are cov-
ered by S7.5.(eX3), and no change is required. When
two Type HBls, two TVpe HB5s, or one HBl and one
HB5, are used together, only the photometries of
SAE J579 DEC84 can be used. Otherwise, the sys-
tem must meet the photometric specifications of
Figure 15 or Figure 17. Since there are now five
different types of standardized replaceable light
sources, and an apparent continuing uncertainty
about the photometries appropriate for combina-
tions of light sources, NHTSA is adding a Figure 26
to the standard, referenced in section S7.5(b), which
depicts the photometries that combinations must
meet, as a clarification of the text of the standard.

Ford's comments also assume incorrectly that
Type HB2 light sources must meet SAE J579. These
light sources must meet the photometries of Figure
15 or Figure 17. Section S7.5 has been clarified to
eliminate the possibility of misinterpretation.

Ford's petition and drawings depicted HB5 with a
black cap, and included HB5 with other replaceable
light sources to be tested with the black cap in-
stalled, but HB5 was inadvertently omitted from
section S7.6(g). This section is now amended to
include HB5.

The agency agi-ees with the comments on typo-
graphical errors, many of which have been corrected
by the time of this final rule.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 571.108
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps,
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment is
amended as follows:

1. Section S7.5 is revised to read as follows:

S7.5 Replaceable Bulb Headlamp System. Each
replaceable bulb headlamp system shall be designed
to conform to the following I'equirements:

(a) The system shall provide only two lower beams
and two upper beams and shall incorporate not more
than two standardized replaceable light sources in
each headlamp.

(b) The photometries as specified in paragraphs (e)
through (e) of this section (depicted in Figure 26),
using any standardized light source of the Type
intended for use in such system.

(c) The test requirements of section 4.1, 4.1.4, and
performance requirements of section 5.1.4 of SAE
J1383 APR85, using the photometric requirements
specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section. The
term "aiming plane" means "aiming reference
plane," or an appropriate vertical plane defined by
the manufacturer as required in section S7.7.1. A ^/4
degi-ee re-aim tolerance is permitted for any test

PART 571; S108-PRE 344

point. The test points 10U-90U shall be measured
from the normally exposed surface of the lens face.
(d) For a headlamp system equipped with dual
filament light sources, Type HBl light sources, Type
HB2 light sources. Type HB5 light sources, or Types
HBl and HB5 in combination, the following require-
ments apply:

(1) Headlamps designed to conform to the external
aiming requirements of S7. 7. 5.1 shall have no mech-
anism that allows adjustment of an individual light
source, or, if there are two light sources, independent
adjustment of each reflector.

(2) The lower and upper beams of a headlamp
system consisting of two lamps, each containing
either one or two light sources, shall be provided as
follows:

(i) The lower beam shall be provided in one of the
following ways:

(A) By the outboard light source (or upper one if
arranged vertically) designed to conform to:

(i) the lower beam requirements of Tbble 1 of SAE
Standard J579 DEC84, if the light sources in the
headlamp system are only Type HBl or TVP^ HB5,
or a combination thereof; or

(2) the lower beam requirements of Figure 17, if
the light sources are Type HB2; or

(B) By both light sources in the headlamp, de-
signed to conform to the lower beam requirements
specified above for their type.

(ii) The upper beam shall be provided in one of the
following ways:

(A) By the inboard light source (or the lower one if
arranged vertically) designed to conform to:

(1 ) the upper beam requirements of Tkble 1 of SAE
Standard J579 DEC84, if the light sources in the
headlamp system are only Type HBl or Type HB5,
or a combination thereof; or

(2) the upper beam requirements of Figure 17, if
the light sources are Type HB2; or

(B) By both light sources in the headlamp, de-
signed to conform to the upper beam photometries
specified for their type.

(3) The lower and upper beams of a headlamp
system consisting of four lamps, each containing a
single light source, shall be provided as follows:

(i) The lower beam shall be provided by the out-
board lamp (or the upper one if arranged vertically),
designed to conform to:

(A) the lower beam requirements of T^ble 1 of SAE
Standard J579 DEC84, if the light sources in the
headlamp system are only Type HBl or Type HB5,
or a combination thereof; or

(Bi the lower beam requirements of Figure 15, if
the light sources are T>'pe HB2. The lens of each
such headlamp shall be marked with the letter "L".

(ii) The upper beam shall be provided by the

inboard lamp (or the lower one if arranged verti-
cally), designed to conform to:

(A) the upper beam requirements of Ikble 1 of SAE
Standard J579 DEC84, if the light sources in the
headlamp system are only Type HBl or Type HB5,
or a combination thereof; or

(B) the upper beam requirements of Figure 15, if
the light sources are Type HB2. The lens of each
such headlamp shall be marked with the letter "U."

(e) The following requirements apply to a head-
lamp system equipped with any combination of light
sources except those specified in paragraph (d) of this
section:

(1) Headlamps designed to conform to the external
aim requirements of S7.7.5.1 shall have no mecha-
nism that allows adjustment of an individual light
source, or, if there are two light sources, independent
adjustment of each reflector.

(2) The lower and upper beams of a headlamp
system consisting of two lamps, each containing two
light sources (other than those specified in para-
graph (d) of this section) shall be provided only as
follows:

(i) The lower beam shall be provided in one of the
following ways:

(A) By the outboard light source (or the uppermost
if arranged vertically) designed to conform to the
lower beam requirements of Figure 17; or

(B) By both light sources, designed to conform to
the lower beam requirements of Figure 17.

(ii) The upper beam shall be provided in one of the
following ways:

(A) By the inboard light source (or the lower one if
arranged vertically) designed to conform to the
upper beam requirements of Figure 17; or

(B) By both light sources, designed to conform to
the upper beam requirements of Figure 17.

(3) The lower and upper beams of a headlamp
system consisting of four lamps, using any combina-
tion of light sources except those specified in para-
graph (d) of this section, each lamp containing only a
single light source, shall be provided only as follows:

(i) The lower beam shall be produced by the
outboard lamp (or upper one if arranged vertically),
designed to conform to the lower beam requirements
of Figure 15. The lens of each such headlamp shall
be permanently marked with the letter "L."

(ii) The upper beam shall be produced by the
inboard lamp (or lower one if arranged vertically),
designed to conform to the upper beam requirements
of Figure 15. The lens of each such headlamp shall
be marked with the letter "U."

(f) Each lens reflector unit manufactured as re-
placement equipment shall be designed to conform
to the requirements of paragraphs (d) and (e) of this

PART 571; S108-PRE 345

section when any standardized replaceable light
source appropriate for such unit is inserted in it.

(g) The lens of each replaceable bulb headlamp
using any type light source, except HBl used singly
or dually, within a headlamp system on a motor
vehicle, shall permanently display the type designa-
tion for that light source on the lens in front of each
light source.

(h) The system shall be aimable in accordance
with section S7.7.

(i) Each headlamp shall meet the requirements of
sections S7.4(h) and (i), except that the sentence in
paragraph (h) to verify sealing according to section
S8.10 Sealing does not apply.

2. Section S7.6 is revised to read as follows:

S7.6 Standardized Replaceable Light Sources.
Each standardized replaceable light source shall be
designed to conform to the following requirements:

(a) A Type HBl light source shall be designed to
conform to the dimensions specified in Figure 3 and
shall incorporate a silicone 0-ring. Its maximum
power on the lower beam shall be 50 watts, and on
the upper beam, 70 watts. Its luminous flux in
lumens shall be 700 + 15% on the lower beam and
1,200 + 15% on the upper beam.

(b) A type HB2 light source shall be designed to
conform to the dimensions specified in Figure 23. Its
maximum power on the lower beam shall be 65
watts, and on the upper beam, 72 watts. Its lumi-
nous flux in lumens shall be 910 + 10% on the lower
beam, and 1,500 + 10% on the upper beam.

(c) A Type HB3 light source shall be designed to
conform to the dimensions specified in Figure 19. Its
maximum power on the upper beam shall be 70
watts. Its luminous flux in lumens shall be 1,700
+ 12% on the upper beam.

(d) A Type HB4 light source shall be designed to
conform to the dimensions specified in Figure 20. Its
maximum power shall be 60 watts on the lower
beam, and its luminous flux in lumens on the lower
beam shall be 1,000 ± 15%.

(e) A Type HB5 light source shall be designed to
conform to the dimensions specified in Figure 24. Its
maximum power shall be 60 watts on the lower
beam, and 70 watts on the upper beam. Its luminous
flux in lumens shall be 1,000 + 15% on the lower
beam, and 1,350 + 15% on the upper beam.

(f) The filament of a light source shall be seasoned
before measurement of maximum power and lumi-
nous flux.

(g) Measurement of maximum power and lumi-
nous flux shall be made with the direct current test
voltage regulated within one quarter of one percent.
The test voltage shall be design voltage, 12. 8v. The
measurement of luminous flux shall be in accor-

dance with the Illuminating Engineering Society of
North America, LM-45; lES Approved Method for
Electrical and Photometric Measurements of General
Service Incandescent Filament Lamps (April 1980),
shall be made with the black cap installed on Type
HBl, Type HB2, Type HB4, and Type HB5, and shall
be made with the electrical conductor and light
source base shrouded with an opaque white-colored
cover, except for the portion normally located within
the interior of the lamp housing. The measurement
of luminous flux for the Types HB3 and HB4 shall be
with the base covered with a white cover shown in
Figures 19-1 and 20-1. The white covers are used to
eliminate the likelihood of incorrect lumen measure-
ment that will occur should the reflectance of the
light source base and electrical connector be low.

(h) The capsule, lead wires and/or terminals, and
seal on each Type HBl, Type HB3, Type HB4, and
Type HB5 light source shall be installed in the base
as shown in Figure 25 so as to provide an airtight
seal. Such a seal exists when no air bubbles shall
appear on the low pressure (connector) side after the
light source has been immersed in water for one
minute while inserted in a cylindrical aperture
specified for the light source in Figure 25, and
subjected to an air pressure of 70kPa (10 P.S.I. G.) on
the glass capsule side.

(i) After the force deflection test conducted in
accordance with S9, the permanent deflection of the
glass envelope shall not exceed 0.005 in. (0.13 mm)
in the direction of the applied force.

(j) A general tolerance shall apply to Figure 3 as
follows: +0.004 in. (0.10 mm) to all linear dimen-
sions and + 1 degree 00 minutes to all angular
dimensions except for referenced dimensions and
unless otherwise specified.

(k) Each standardized light source manufactured
on or after December 1, 1989, shall be marked with
the symbol DOT and with a name or trademark in
accordance with S7.2. In addition, the base of each
such light source shall be marked with its HB Type
designation.

3. Figure 8 is revised to add to the table: HB5
44.50 ± .25 mm (1.75 ± 0.01 in.).

4. New Figures 24, 25, and 26 are added as follows:

Issued on March 30, 1990.

Jeffrey R. Miller
Deputy Administrator

55 FR 13138
April 9, 1990

PART 571; S108-PRE 346

PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE
SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment

(Docket No. 88-17; Notice 2)

RIN 2127-AC65

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This notice amends Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 108 to incorporate by reference
(with minor exceptions) the current SAE Standards for
stop lamps and turn signal lamps. The principal sub-
stantive effect of the rule is to require vehicles whose
overall width is 80 inches or more to be equipped with
stop lamps and rear turn signal lamps with a mini-
mum luminous lens ai-ea of 12 square inches, which is
presently required only if those lamps are spaced less
than 22 inches apai-t. Other amendments are adopted
essentially as proposed.

DATE: The overall effective date of the rule is No-
vember 1, 1990. The requirement for stop lamps and
turn signal lamps with a larger minimum luminous
lens area on certain vehicles is effective November 1,
1991.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice of pro-
posed rulemaking on this subject was published
September 9, 1988 (53 FR 35097). Comments were
received from the Truck Safety Equipment Institute
(TSEI), Grote Manufacturing Company, Peterson
Manufacturing Company, Tiuck Lite, Hella AG.,
Ford Motor Company, Chrysler Motors, Volkswagen
of America (VW), and Volvo of North America.

1. Updating Certain SAE Standards Incorporated

by Reference
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equip-
ment incorporates by reference SAE Standard J586c
Stop Lamps. August 1970, and SAE Standard J588e
Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970, as the basic
requirements for those items of motor vehicle light-
ing equipment. NHTSA's proposal granted a petition
by TSEI for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108
to substitute four updated SAE standards for the two
presently incorporated. The updated standards are
SAE J586 FEB84 Stop Lamps for Use on Motor
Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width, SAE
J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor
Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width. SAE

J1395 APR85 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor
Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width, and
SAE J 1398 MAY85 Stop Lamps for Use on Motor
Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width. In its
new standards, the SAE distinguishes between vehi-
cles whose overall width is less than 80 inches (2,032
mm), and vehicles of greater width, a distinction
made from the beginning by Standard No. 108 in its
tables. TSEI supported its petition with the argu-
ment that the Society of Automotive Engineers had
determined that it was desirable to adopt separate
standards for certain devices when used on wider
vehicles, which because of their size should be more
conspicuous and better delineated with lighting de-
vices than smaller vehicles. In the final rule,
NHTSA has adopted the SAE revisions, with the
exceptions proposed in 1988, subject to the com-
ments discussed below.

A. Increase in Minimum Lens Area for Wide
Vehicles

Until now, the minimum lens area for turn signal
and stop lamps on vehicles 80 inches and wider has
been 8 square inches, except that if the stop and turn
signal lamps are mounted less than 22 inches apart,
lenses with a minimum area of 12 square inches are
required. The new SAE standards increase the min-
imum to 12 square inches regardless of the mount-
ing location. In proposing the adoption of this re-
quirement, NHTSA accepted the rationale of the
SAE that the increase for all wider vehicles is
necessary regardless of lamp spacing because they
are susceptible to build up of grime, and concluded
that an increase in lens area would enhance vehicle
conspicuity and contribute to safety.

Five comments were received on this aspect of the
proposal. Volvo believes that wide vehicles currently
meet the specification. Peterson, Ti'uck Lite, Grote,
and Chrysler supported it. Chrysler, however, ques-
tioned applying the requirement to dual rear wheel
pickup trucks, which are derivatives from those of
lesser width, and asked that they be exempted from
the requirement, or that a 3-year leadtime be af-

PART 571; SlOS-PRE 347

forded for compliance. Truck Lite read the SAE
requirements as applying to each compartment of a
multiple compartment lamp, and asked that the
requirement apply to a multicompartment lamp in
tota

NHTSA notes that Chrysler's wide body pickup
trucks are already equipped with identification and
clearance lamps, lighting equipment not required
for the pickup trucks from which they are derived.
NHTSA does not believe that Chrysler has shown
good cause for exempting widebody pickups from one
of the requirements for wide truck lighting, while
maintaining in effect the other requirements. The
agency believes that widebody lighting should be
consistent, and therefore has denied Chrysler's re-
quest for an exemption. Because lamps are readily
available that meet the requirement, NHTSA re-
gards Chrysler's request for 3 years in which to
comply as excessive. However, it is establishing an
effective date for this requirement of approximately
18 months after publication of this rule, which
should afford sufficient time for compliance by the
1992 model year.

The agency has carefully reviewed Truck Lite's
comment, and concurs in its interpretation that the
SAE materials appear to require compliance of each
compartment with the minimum lens area specifica-
tion. In the older SAE materials, there are different
photometric requirements depending on the number
of compartments and the number of lamps in a
system. Since the new standard contains only one set
of photometric specifications, there appears to be no
reason to require one level of performance from a
lamp with a single compartment, and a multiple of
that level of performance from a lamp with more
than one compartment. However, in 4.1.5.2, there is
a requirement that each compartment of a multi-
compartment lamp meet the photometric specifica-
tions. If read literally, this would mean that a lamp
with one compartment would meet the minimum
intensity values shown in Table 1 of the SAE stan-
dards, but that a lamp with five compartments
would have to have minimum intensity values that
are five times those for the single compartment
lamp. The agency does not believe that this is the
effect that the SAE hoped to achieve with these
revisions. There is no discussion of why this refer-
ence to individual compartments is retained, even
though the photometric specifications have been
changed. This inclusion of reference to individual
compartments seems to be an inappropriate provi-
sion. A similar situation exists for the area of the
lamp and compartments. Paragraph 5.3.2 specifies
that each compartment of a multicompartment lamp
must be at least 12 square inches. There appears to

be no basis for this. Therefore, the agency is adopt-
ing appropriate amendments.

Truck Lite also expressed concern that auxiliary
stop and turn signal lamps would be required, under
the amendments, to meet the same minimum lens
area requirements as equipment installed in compli-
ance with the standard. NHTSA does not interpret
the new SAE materials as having this effect. The
auxiliary lamps are subject only to the general
requirement for supplementary lamps that they not
impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment re-
quired by Standard No. 108.

B. Maintenance of Minimum, Lens Area for
Narrower Vehicles

The new SAE standards reduce the minimum lens
area for rear turn signal lamps and stop lamps on
vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches
from 8 square inches to 6 square inches. NHTSA did
not concur, and, in the interest of safety, proposed an
exception that retains the current minimum of 8
square inches.

The proposal to retain the existing requirement of
a minimum of 8 square inches was supported by
TSEI, Grote, Peterson, and Truck Lite, and opposed
by VW and Ford. Those who supported the proposal
did so on the basis that there is no need to change a
requirement presently in effect and being met. Fur-
ther, the masking effects of road grime, dirt, and
winter slush will be greater on lamps with smaller
lens areas. Finally, smaller lenses may be subject to
a greater likelihood of distortion caused by
internally generated heat.

Those who opposed the proposal commented that a
reduction of 2 square inches is supported by recent
research, while NHTSA's current requirement is
unsupported. More specifically, commenters pointed
to recent studies, including a report, UMTRI-86-28
"Evaluation of Brake-lamp Photometric Require-
ments". In this report, a test is described that used
lamps with lenses of 12 and 24 square inches.
UMTRI found that at a distance of 50 feet, the
average or equivalent luminance of the lamp was a
better predictor of reaction time than was luminous
intensity. However, at a longer distance (145 feet),
luminous intensity was the best predictor Based on
these findings, UMTRI concluded that the use of
luminous intensity as the photometric parameter for
stop lamps was appropriate. This experiment was
conducted under simulated daytime conditions, and
did not address the question of glare and its relation-
ship to either luminous intensity or luminance.
Although the experiment did not include lamps with
lenses of either 6 or 8 square inches, the results seem
to support the position that area is not as important
as intensity.

PART 571; S108-PRE 348

SAE has also run several tests which have ad-
dressed this question. Ford has cited these tests and
certain findings as a primary basis for the recom-
mendation to reduce the minimum lens area from 8
to 6 square inches, e.g., that observers found "ac-
ceptable" a 6-square inch area, and that the differ-
ence in attention-getting quality between the two
lamps was not statistically significant. NHTSA ob-
serves that the SAE tests do seem to support the
UMTRI conclusion that intensity should be the
primary parameter for stop lamp photometries. With
respect to specific tests, the agency notes that in the
SAE study of October 15, 1980, examining effective-
ness of yellow and red signals under both daytime
and nighttime conditions, at 50 and 500 feet, lamps
with lenses of 8 square inches were judged more
acceptable than those with 6. In the test of Septem-
ber 10, 1981, there was a slight tendency to mistake
a stop lamp for a tail lamp when lamps of 80 cd and
lenses of 4 square inches were used. In the daytime
tests run at Ottawa on October 5, 1982, a lamp with
a lens of 8 square inches was judged slightly more
attention getting than one with 20 square inches (no
lenses of 6 square inches were used in these tests).

Ford also provided a review of contrast in light of
the work done by Blackwell. The analysis provided
by Ford suggests that the contrast of a target of
either 6 or 8 square inches would exceed the thresh-
old value of contrast for the example that it chose.
This analysis appears consistent with the SAE test
results. These tests and the Ford analysis suggest
that there is little difference in conspicuity between
lamps with lenses of either 6 or 8 square inches.

A related question is whether a lamp with a lens
area of 6 square inches would produce excessive
glare when compared to the glare from a lamp with
a lens area of 8 square inches and of the same
candela. Currently there is no basis for answering
this question.

One of the requirements for the center high-
mounted stop lamp is that it have a lens area not less
than 4.5 square inches. Many lamps are close to this
minimum, and when the lamp first appeared, the
agency had some complaints about glare. However,
none of the complaints included details of area and
intensity. The complaints, though anecdotal in na-
ture, could indicate that small stop lamps may
produce glare that reaches the level of discomfort.

On balance, the agency did not find a dispositive
basis either for or against adoption of the proposal to
retain lenses at their present minimum size. There-
fore, NHTSA believes there is justification in retain-
ing the present minimum area requirements rather
than proceeding to a smaller lens that may raise
questions of glare creation and other concerns.

C. The Turn Signal— Headlamp Intensity
Multiplier

An additional difference between the new SAE
turn signal specifications and the ones currently
contained in Standard No. 108 concerns intensity. If
a turn signal lamp is closer than 4 inches (100 mm)
to a lower beam headlamp, it must have 2.5 times
the intensity otherwise required. The SAE applies
the factor of 2.5 only if the turn signal is closer than
60 mm to the lower beam headlamp. NHTSA pro-
posed retention of the current requirement. The SAE
specification applies the photometric multiplier in
three steps, from 60 mm to 100 mm. VW stated that
the failure of NHTSA to adopt the SAE requirement
was design restrictive and not in the interests of
harmonization. Ford also supported the graduated
turn signal intensity multiplier, as did Hella. Peter-
son, Grote, and TSEI supported retention of the
existing requirement.

Ford based its argument on SAE Information
Report J1221 DEC84 Headlamp-Turn Signal Spac-
ing which documents the change in the SAE speci-
fications. NHTSA notes that the research in the
report was performed in 1977, which was before
higher intensity headlamps which comply with SAE
J579c were in common use. As these headlamps are
now in almost universal use in the United States,
NHTSA regards the earlier research as not truly
relevant today. Given the advent and usage of higher
intensity headlamps, there appears to be an even
greater need than before to preserve the intensity
ratio. NHTSA has done so by retaining the existing
requirement.

D. The Vibration Test

A further difference between old and new SAE
standards concerns the vibration test equipment;
the new SAE standards reference SAE J575 JUL83
which specifies a test environment and a "shaker
type" vibration machine that differs from those spec-
ified in SAE Standard J575, July 1970, currently
applicable in Standard No. 108 to vibration tests for
turn signal lamps, stop lamps, and other types of
lighting equipment. The agency saw no safety pur-
pose served by introduction of a different vibration
test requiring different test protocols for turn signal
lamps and stop lamps, depending upon whether they
were manufactured as original or replacement
equipment. It proposed to retain the 1970 vibration
test requirements for equipment covered by the new
SAE standards.

The proposal was supported by Truck Lite, Grote,
TSEI, and Peterson, principally on the basis that
current lamps were specifically built to withstand
this test, and that it has proven its worth over the
years. Ford opposed the test as too severe; in its view,

PART 571; S108-PRE 349

the new SAE test is more representative of real
world conditions.

NHTSA notes that work has begun within the
SAE and other industry organizations to develop a
new vibration requirement, reflecting the fact that
the 1983 test is not universally accepted. When the
SAE has developed this test, NHTSA will review it.
Until such time, the agency will retain the existing
1970 test.

E. Zonal Photometric Measurement
The new SAE standards provide that photometric
compliance is determined through sums of test
points within a group, instead of doing so at individ-
ual test points. Because this is an option currently
permitted by Standard No. 108, an amendment of
the standard to adopt the SAE updates will result in
the option becoming the mandatory requirement.
Truck Lite, Peterson, Grote, and TSEI supported the
effect of the proposal to make mandatory the previ-
ous option of measuring photometries according to
groups of test points. The SAE standards also con-
tain a restriction, not previously in Standard No.
108, that the value measured at any test point be at
least 60% of the required minimum for that test
point. This would ensure that the performance of the
lamp does not depart too much from the intent of its
designer. No comments were received on this point.
Adoption of the updated standards requires amend-
ment of S5.1.1.11, with respect to motorcycle turn
signal lamps, to substitute reference to the new SAE
requirements for Figure lb. This notice makes that
amendment.

2. Definitions

NHTSA proposed that definitions be adopted for
the terms "Functional Lighted Area", "Multiple
Compartment Lamp", and "Multiple Lamp Ar-
rangement". The new SAE standards use the term
"functional lighted area" instead of "effective pro-
jected luminous lens area" presently used in Stan-
dard No. 108. NHTSA sought comment with support-
ing data or arguments on whether it was more
desirable to require compliance with the "projected
area", or with the actual lens area as in the new SAE
standards. The notice asked whether the new lan-
guage eliminated or reduced problems of interpreta-
tion associated with such phrases as "barely lighted
perimeter area" and "beads and rims". Conversely,
NHTSA asked whether it would be more appropriate
to use a proposed ECE definition of "illuminating
surface" (TRANS/SC1AVP29/R.388, Proposed Revi-
sion of Regulation No. 48).

There were no comments regarding the proposed
definitions of "Multiple Compartment Lamp" and
"Multiple Lamp Arrangement", other than by Peter-
son, which supported them. They have been adopted

as proposed. With respect to "Functional Lighted
Area", Grote prefers this term instead of either
"effective projected luminous lens area" or the ECE
definition of illuminating surface. However, Truck
Lite favors "effective projected luminous lens area".
Ford suggested using a definition appropriate for
"effective projected luminous lens area" that
NHTSA had used in past interpretations, and Peter-
son suggested a new definition for that term which
would be similar to that provided in interpretations.

NHTSA has carefully reviewed these comments.
The ECE definition is the most objective of these
terms, involving the measurement of light output as
the means of establishing the boundary of the area.
However, the size of the area that may be established
using that procedure could be larger than the actual
lens area. For example, the size for a circular lens, as
established by the ECE procedure, may be as much
as 27 percent larger than the actual lens area.

NHTSA's past interpretations have failed to indi-
cate that the part of the lens that is the basis for the
measurement is "the part of the lens optical system
that directs light to the photometric test pattern"
(the phrase used in the proposal). Thus, the interpre-
tations are also unsuitable as the complete defini-
tion. Peterson commented on this failure, and ad-
dressed it by suggesting use of the term "that area of
the light emitting surface."

The definition that the agency proposed in 1988
would use the actual area of the lens instead of a
projection of the lighted area of the lens. None of the
other definitions incorporate actual area. Vehicle
operators see the projected area rather than the
actual area. Also, measurement of actual area would
be more difficult than measurement of projected
area. Therefore, the agency has decided that the
definition adopted should be for the projected area,
and has adopted a modification of the definition
proposed. The clarification suggested by Peterson is
also incorporated. Because the SAE uses the term
"Functional Lighted Lens Area", a new section 86.3
has been added to clarify that the term "Effective
Projected Luminous Lens Area" is identical to it,
and should be substituted wherever it appears in the
SAE materials incorporated by reference and subref-
erence in Standard No. 108.

3. Miscellaneous
In accordance with past practice, replacement
stop lamps and turn signal lamps may continue to be
designed to conform with the same versions of the
SAE standards as the equipment they replace, and
appropriate amendments are adopted in S5. 1.1.6
and S5.1.1.7 to clarify this point. Tables I and III are
amended by replacing the references to the old SAE
standards for turn signal lamps and stop lamps with
the new ones.

PART 571; SlOS-PRE 350

4. Effective Dates
The effective date of this final rule is November 1,
1990, except that the requirement that vehicles
whose overall width is 80 inches or more be equipped
with stop lamps and rear turn signal lamps with a
minimum luminous lens area of 12 square inches is
effective November 1, 1991. The agency notes that
Volvo requested a lead time of 2 years, and Chrysler,
an effective date of September 1, 1993. Equipment is
currently available that meets the requirements,
but the retooling involved in equipping vehicles with
these lamps provides sufficient cause for finding
that an effective date later than one year after
issuance is in the public interest, and the agency has
chosen one that is approximately 18 months after
issuance of the final rule.

5. Parallel Action of Office of Motor Carrier
Standards

Concurrently with the publication of this rule, the
Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway
Administration, is proposing adoption of the updated
SAE standards in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations, 49 CFR Part 393, for commercial motor
vehicles operating in interstate commerce (55 FR [to
be completed by the Federal Register]).

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 571
and Sec. 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.
108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated
Equipment, is amended as follows:

1. S4 Definitions is amended by adding the follow-
ing definitions in alphabetical order:

"Effective projected luminous lens area" means
that area of the projection on a plane perpendicular
to the lamp axis of that portion of the light-emitting
surface that directs light to the photometric test
pattern, and does not include mounting hole bosses,
refiex reflector area, beads or rims that may glow or
produce small areas of increased intensity as a result
of uncontrolled light from small areas (1/2 deg. radius
around the test point).

"Multiple compartment lamp" means a device
which gives its indication by two or more separately
lighted areas which are joined by one or more
common parts, such as a housing or lens.

"Multiple lamp arrangement" means an array of
two or mor separate lamps on each side of the
vehicle which operate together to give a signal.

2. S5.1.1.6 is revised by designating the text as
paragraph (a), and by adding new paragraphs (b) and
(c) to read:

"(b) Each stop lamp manufactured to replace a
stop lamp that was designed to conform to SAE
Standard J586c, Stop Lamps, August 1970, may also
be designed to conform to J586c.

"(c) A multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, bus,
or trailer whose overall width is 80 inches or more,

manufactured on or before November 30, 1991, and
whose stop lamps are located more than 22 inches
apart, may be equipped with stop lamps designed to
conform to SAE Standard J586c, Stop Lamps, Au-
gust 1970."

3. S5.1.1.7 is revised by designating the text as
paragraph (a), and by adding new paragraphs (b) and
(c) to read:

"(b) Each turn signal lamp manufactured to re-
place a turn signal lamp that was designed to
conform to SAE Standard J588e, Turn Signal
Lamps, September 1970, may also be designed to
conform to SAE Standard J588e. Note 6 of Table 1 of
SAE Standard J588e 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.

(c) A multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, bus,
or trailer, whose overall width is 80 inches or
greater, manufactured on or before October 31, 1991,
and whose turn signal lamps are located more than
22 inches apart, may be equipped with turn signal
lamps designed to conform to SAE Standard J588e,
Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970.

4. The first sentence of S5. 1.1. 11 is revised to read:

55.1.1.11 A parking lamp, tail lamp, stop lamp
manufactured to replace a stop lamp designed to
conform to SAE Standard J586c, Stop Lamps, Au-
gust 1970, or turn signal lamp manufactured to
replace a turn signal lamp that was designed to
conform to SAE Standard J588e, Turn Signal
Lamps, September 1970, shall meet the minimum
percentage specified in Figure la of the correspond-
ing minimum allowable value specified in Figure lb.

5. In the last sentence of S5.1.1.11 the words
"Figure lb" are removed, and "Table 1 and Table 3 of
SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps" are inserted
in their place.

6. S5.1.1.12 is revised to read:

55.1.1.12 A parking lamp, tail lamp, stop lamp
manufactured to replace a stop lamp designed to
conform to SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, August
1970, or turn signal lamp manufactured to replace a
turn signal lamp manufactured to conform to SAE
Standard J588e, Turn Signal Lamps, September
1970, is not required to meet the minimum photo-
metric value at each test point specified in this
standard if the sum of the percentages of the mini-
mum candlepower measured at the test points is not
less than that specified for each group listed in
Figure Ic.

7. New sections S5. 1.1.30 and S5.1.1.31 are added
to read:

S5.1.1.30 On a motor vehicle whose overall width
is less than 80 inches:

(a) The functional lighted lens area of a single
compartment stop lamp, and a single compartment

PART 571; S108-PRE 351

rear turn signal lamp, shall be not less than 50
square centimeters.

(b) If a multiple compartment lamp or multiple
lamps are used to meet the photometric require-
ments for stop lamps and rear turn signal lamps, the
functional lighted lens area of each compartment or
lamp shall be at least 22 square centimeters, pro-
vided the combined area is at least 50 square
centimeters.

S5. 1.1.31 On a motor vehicle, except a passenger
car, whose overall width is 80 inches or more, meas-
urements of the functional lighted lens area, and of
the photometries, of a multiple compartment stop
lamp, and a multiple compartment turn signal lamp,
shall be made for the entire lamp and not for the
individual compartments.

8. S5.3.1.7 is revised to read:

S5.3.1.7 On a motor vehicle on which the front
turn signal lamp is less than 100 mm from the
lighted edge of a lower beam headlamp, the multi-
plier applied to obtain the required minimum lumi-
nous intensities shall be 2.5.

9. In S6.1, the exception clause of the first sen-
tence is revised to read:

S6.1 . . . , except that the SAE standard re-
ferred to as "J575" is J575e, Tests for Motor Vehicle
Lighting Devices and Components, August 1970, for
stop lamps designed to conform to SAE Standards
J586c, J586 FEB84, and J1398 MAY 85; for tail
lamps designed to conform to SAE Standards J585d
and J585e; for turn signal lamps designed to con-

form to SAE Standards J588e, J588 NOV84, and
J1395 APR85; and for high-mounted stop lamps de-
signed to conform to SAE Recommended Practice
J186a.

10. New section S6.3 is added to read:

S6.3 The term "effective projected luminous lens
area" has the same meaning as the term "functional
lighted lens area" in any SAE Standard or Recom-
mended Practice incorporated by reference or by
subreference in this standard.

11. In Table I, the applicable SAE standard (final
column) for stop lamps is revised to read "SAE J1398
MAY85," and for turn signal lamps "SAE J1395
APR85."

12. In Tkble III, the applicable SAE standard (final
column) for stop lamps is revised to read "SAE J586
FEB84," and for turn signal lamps "SAE J588
NOV84."

13. In Ikbles I and III, in the first column, the
number "2" referencing footnote 2 is removed from
"Stop lamps" and "Turn signal lamps."

Issued on May 10, 1990.

Jerry Ralph Curry
Administrator

55 FR 20158
May 15, 1990

PART 571; SlOB-PRE 352

PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE

SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment

(Docket 89-24; Notice 2)

RIN 2127AC77

SUMMARY: This rule deletes the prohibition against
optical combinations of clearance lamps and
identification lamps. The purpose of this action is to
eliminate a requirement deemed no longer necessary
for safety.

This notice responds to a petition by the Truck Safety
Equipment Institute (TSEI), and adopts a proposal
published in December 1989.

DATES: The rule is effective December 6, 1990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice
completes rulemaking on one of the proposals published
on December 5, 1989, which had as its purpose the
deletion of all references to "optical combinations" of
lamps (54 FR 50254). Because comments did not
support other aspects of the proposal, NHTSA will
issue a supplementary notice proposing adoption of the
definition of the Society of Automotive Engineers.

From its very beginning, Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No 108, in one version or another, has
allowed two or more lamps, reflective devices, or items
of associated equipment to be combined, if the
requirements for each are met, provided that certain
specified lamps were not "optically combined" {See,
e.g., sections S3.3, S3.4.4.3, 23 CFR Sec. 255.21 revised
as of January 1, 1968, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
No. 108). The current provisions addressed by this rule
are contained in section S5.4.1.

Specifically, section S5.4.1 permits lighting
equipment to be "combined", provided that "no
clearance lamp may be combined optically with any
taillamp or identification lamp, and no high mounted
stop lamp shall be combined with any other lamp or
reflective device." The agency has never adopted a
definition of "optically combined", but has over the
years attempted to clarify the term by issuing a variety
of interpretations.

On June 14, 1988, the Truck Safety Equipment
Institute ("TSEI") petitioned the agency for
rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to adopt the
Society of Automotive Engineers' (SAE) definition of
the term "combined optically" as set forth in SAE

Information Report J387 OCT88 "Terminology-Motor
Vehicle Lighting." Until the revision of SAE J387 in
1988, the term had been undefined, though appearing
in the two SAE standards for many years, as well as
Standard No. 108. TSEI had examined the opinion
letters issued by NHTSA and concluded that they were
inconsistent, alleging, for example, that one had
"apparently been used to justify designs which have
the clearance lamp bulb mounted in close proximity to
the dual filament stop/tail lamp bulb .... Both use a
common lens area for the output of the tail and
clearance functions. It does not appear that this is in
keeping with either the spirit or the intent of FMVSS
108." The petitioner also mentioned that Canada had
adopted, effective September 2, 1987, a definition of
"combined optically" which is substantially similar to
that of the SAE.

In considering TSEFs petition, NHTSA examined the
existing prohibitions against lamp combinations. The
agency tentatively concluded that it is no longer
necessary to forbid the "optical combination" of
clearance lamps and identification lamps. The locational
requirements of Standard No. 108 with respect to each
are so dissimilar that they could not be met with an
"optically combined" lamp. Under Table II of Standard
No. 108, the three lamp cluster of identification lamps
are to be mounted within a narrow space around the
vertical centerline on vehicles whose overall width is 80
inches or more, while clearance lamps must be mounted
to indicate the overall width of that vehicle. Further,
under paragraph S5.3.1.4, when the rear identification
lamps are mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle,
the rear clearance lamps need not be located as close
as practicable to the top of the vehicle. In the judgment
of the agency, the likelihood of "optical combination"
of identification and clearance lamps was infinitesimal.

Accordingly, the agency proposed a revision of the
requirement under which lighting equipment could be
"combined if the requirements for each .... are met,
except that a taillamp shall not share a light source, lens,
or lamp body with a clearance lamp, and a center
highmounted stop lamp shall not share a light source, lens,
or lamp body with any other lamp or reflective device."

PART 571; S108-PRE 353

Comments were received from White/GMC Trucks,
Chrysler Corporation, General Motors Corporation,
Truck Safety Equipment Institute (TSEI), Peterson
Manufacturing Company, Grote Manufacturing
Company, Ford Motor Company, Truck-Lite Company,
and Dry Launch. Commenters supported the deletion
of the prohibition against optical combination of
clearance lamps and identification lamps, for the
reasons given by NHTSA in its proposal. However, all
commenters other than Chrysler specifically objected
to the terminology used by NHTSA to substitute
clarifying language for "optical combination." In their
views, adoption of the proposed language would
prohibit use of currently-permissible lamps that share
a lamp body. Each of the commenters who objected
urged NHTSA to consider adoption of the SAE
definition, as TSEI had originally requested.

The agency also considered the prohibition against
optically combining other lamps. Similarly, the
commenters objected to these proposals, and
recommended adoption of the SAE definition. NHTSA
will address these comments in a supplemental notice
of proposed rulemaking, Notice 3.

Because the rule will remove an existing restriction,
it is hereby found for good cause shown that an
effective date earlier than 180 days after issuance is
in the public interest. Accordingly, the amendment is
effective 30 days after its publication in the Federal
Register.

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

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment
is amended as follows:

PART 571 (AMENDED)

1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to
read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407; delegations of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

§ 571.108 [Amended]

2. S5.4. of Standard No. 108 is revised to read as
follows:

S5.4 Equipment comMnutions. Two or more lamps,
reflective devices, or items of associated equipment
may be combined if the requirements for each lamp,
reflective device, and item of associated equipment are
met, except that no clearance lamp may be optically
combined with any taillamp, and no high-mounted stop
lamp shall be combined with any other lamp or
reflective device.

3. S5.4.1 of Standard No. 108 is removed.
Issued on: October 31, 1990.

Jeffrey R. Miller
Deputy Administrator

55 F.R. 46669
November 6, 1990

PART 571; S108-PRE 354

PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE

SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment

(Docitet 88-17; Notice 3)

RIN 2127-AC65

ACTION: Final Rule.

SUMMARY: This notice responds to petitions for
reconsideration of amendments to Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 published in May 1990
that incorporated by reference (with minor exceptions)
the current SAE Standards for stoplamps and turn
signal lamps. The agency denies a petition to remove
the exclusions from the definition of "effective
projected luminous lens area." However, in recognition
that this may create an immediate compliance problem,
the agency is delaying the effective date of all
amendments from December 1, 1990, to December 1,
1991.

EFFECTIVE DATES: The effective date of the rule is
December 1, 1991.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A final rule was
published May 15, 1990 (55 FR 20158) adopting
updated SAE standards for stop lamps and turn signal
lamps. The updated standards are SAE J586 FEB84
Stop Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032
mm in Overall Width, SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal
Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm
in Overall Width, SAE J1395 APR85 Turn Signal
Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in
Overall Width, and SAE J1398 MAY85 Stop Lamps
for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall
Width. Petitions for reconsideration of the rule were
received from Ford Motor Company and General
Motors Corporation. Subsequently, comments were
received from Peterson Manufacturing Company,
which this notice will also address. The comments
concerned the intensity multiplier, definition of
"effective projected luminous lens area," and
miscellaneous items.

i. Issne of The Turn Signal— Headlamp Intensity
Multiplier

In the final rule, paragraph S5.3.1.7 was adopted to
clarify that if a turn signal lamp is closer than 4 inches
(100 mm) to a lower beam headlamp, it must have 2.5
times the intensity otherwise required. The purpose of
the requirement was to distinguish it from the SAE
specification, which applies the factor of 2.5 only if the

turn signal is closer than 60 mm to the lower beam
headlamp. In the previous SAE specification
incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108,
measurement was taken from the optical center of the
turn signal lamp. The updated SAE specification
requires it to be taken from the centroid of the lens.
This has presented a problem to Ford, which stated
that several 1991 and later model year vehicles cannot
meet the requirements of the final rule without
substantial redesign, if measurement is to be taken
from the centroid. Ford pointed out that the new SAE
requirement is intended to be used in combination with
graduated turn signal intensity multipliers, which
NHTSA did not adopt. Peterson, Grote, and TSEI
supported retention of the existing requirement.

Ford based its argument on SAE Information Report
J1221 DEC84 Headlamp-Turn Signal Spacing which
documents the change in the SAE specifications.
NHTSA notes that the research in the Report was
performed in 1977, which was before higher intensity
headlamps which comply with SAE J579c were in
common use. As these headlamps are now in almost
universal use in the United States, NHTSA regards the
earlier research as not truly relevant today. Given the
advent and usage of higher intensity headlamps, there
appears to be an even greater need than before to
preserve the intensity ratio. NHTSA has done so by
retaining the previously existing requirement of
measurement from the optical center of the lens. The
petition for reconsideration is granted, and an
appropriate revision is made in S5.3.1.7.

2. Issu£ of Definitions
NHTSA adopted a definition for the term "effective
projected luminous lens area" which specifically
excluded "mounting hole bosses, reflex reflector area,
beads or rims that may glow or produce small areas
of increased intensity as a result of uncontrolled light
from small areas (V2 deg. radius around the test point)."
In its petition for reconsideration, GM called to the
agency's attention a 20-year-old interpretation
provided American Motors Corporation stating that
"molded optical rings or markings shall be considered
part of the total .... even if they do not contribute

PART 571; S108-PRE 355

significantly to the total light output." GM went on to
say that it has depended on this interpretation as the
basis for calculating lens area. In particular, GM has
included the rim (or leg) of lenses in the calculation of
lens area in those instances where the rim transmits
imobstructed light. GM argues that it is disadvantaged
by the new definition because at least one of its current
production models requires inclusion of the lens rim
area to meet the minimum lens area as now defined
by Standard No. 108. It asked that NHTSA adopt the
SAE definition. This same request was made by Ford,
also concerned by the differences between the NHTSA
definition, and SAE's.

NHTSA has carefully reviewed these comments. The
definition in SAE J387 OCT88 includes lens parts,
"even if they do not contribute significantly to the total
light output." The agency has concluded that areas that
do not contribute significantly to light output should
not be included in determinations of minimum lens area
because they do not add to the "effectiveness" of the
lamp. To be fully effective, the lamp must project light
in an appropriate manner. The optical parts of the
reflector and lens are designed to achieve that purpose.
Mounting bosses, screw holes, lens rims or legs do not
contribute to the optical design. They take up surface
area that can reduce the area of the optically designed
part of the lens if they are allowed to be included in
the computation of minimum lens area. After due
consideration, the agency denies the petitions for
adoption of the SAE definition.

3. Issue of Terminology
Paragraphs S5.1.1.11 and S5.1.1.12 establish
requirements for lamps that are "manufactured to
replace" equivalent lamps "designed to conform" to
specified SAE requirements. Ford commented that the
use of the word "manufactured" appeared to be in
error, and that the word should have been "designed",
in keeping with the standard's general requirement
that equipment be "designed to conform", rather than
"conform." Choice of the word "manufactured" was
deliberate, and not an error. The agency wished to
avoid the use of the word "designed" twice in a single
sentence, and found awkward the phrase "lamps
designed to replace lamps designed to conform" to the
SAE requirements. Such a phrase would not of itself
require design compliance of replacement lamps with
the SAE requirements. Neither section requires that
the replacement lamps meet the SAE requirements
that their original equipment counterparts are designed
to meet (in which case the "design" language would
be appropriate). Further, each provides an exception
from those requirements if the lamps meet the specific
requirements of Figure 1 of Standard No. 108. No
petitioner argued that the lamps should be "designed
to meet" Figure 1 which in this context appears the
more appropriate argument.

However, in one instance Ford is correct. The phrase
"manufactured to conform to SAE Standard J588e"
appears in S5.1.1.12. NHTSA is amending that section
to substitute "designed" for "manufactured".

Jf. Issue of Effective Date

The effective date of the final rule published on May
15, 1990 is December 1, 1990, except that the
requirement that vehicles whose overall width is 80
inches or more be equipped with stoplamps and rear
turn signal lamps with a minimum luminous lens area
of 12 square inches is effective December 1, 1991. The
retooling involved in equipping vehicles with the new
lamps provided sufficient cause for finding that an
effective date later than one year after issuance was
in the public interest.

As noted previously, NHTSA's actions in this
rulemaking appear to have presented compliance
problems for GM. The company has stated that
NHTSA's definition of "effective projected luminous
lens area" has created a compliance problem for it. This
problem remains because NHTSA has denied GM's
petition to adopt the SAE definition of the term. In
recognition of GM's problems, NHTSA has decided to
delay the effective date for the amendments published
on May 15, 1990, to December 1, 1991.

Therefore, the effective date for the amendments to
49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.
108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated
Equipment published on May 15, 1990 (55 FR 20158)
is hereby changed from December 1, 1990, to
December 1, 1991.

The final rule contained an erroneous effective date
in paragraph S5. 1.1. 7(c), and an appropriate
amendment is made.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(dXl), this notice is effective
on December 1, 1990, a period less than 30 days after
its issuance, because it is a substantive rule that
relieves a restriction.

5. Miscellaneous Issue

Peterson brought to the agency's attention the
possibility that confusion could be caused by the
statement in the summary information in the final rule
that rear turn signal lamps require a minimum
luminous lens area of 12 square inches, implying that
there is a different requirement for the front turn
signal lamps.

There is no different requirement for front turn
signal lamps. The newly incorporated SAE documents
make clear that the minimum luminous lens area
requirements apply to all turn signal lamps. The thrust
of the agency's rulemaking was toward rear lamps, and
it regrets any confusion that may have been caused by
not mentioning the front lamps.

PART 571; S108-PRE 356

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 571
and Sec. 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.
108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated
Equipment, are amended as follow:

1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to
read:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

2. In S5.1. 1.7(c), the date "October 31, 1991" is
changed to "November 30, 1991."

3. In S5.1.1.12, the phrase "manufactured to
conform to SAE Standard J588e" is revised to read
"designed to conform to SAE Standard J588e."

4. S5.3.1.7 is revised to read:

S5.3.1.7 On a motor vehicle on which the front turn
signal lamp is less than 100 mm from the lighted edge
of a lower beam headlamp, as measured from the
optical center of the turn signal lamp, the multiplier
applied to obtain the required minimum luminous
intensities shall be 2.5.

Issued on: November 28, 1990.

Jerry Ralph Curry
Administrator

55 F.R. 50182
December 5, 1990

PART 571; S108-PRE 357-358

MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment— Passenger Cars, IVIultipurpose
Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, Trailers, and Motorcycles

(Docket No. 69-18)

51. Scope. This standard specifies require-
ments for original and replacement lamps, reflec-
tive devices, and associated equipment.

52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to
reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries
resulting from traffic accidents, by providing ade-
quate illumination of the roadway, and by enhanc-
ing the conspicuity of motor vehicles on the public
roads so that their presence is perceived and their
signals understood, both in daylight and in
darkness or other conditions of reduced visibility.

53. 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 vehicles
to which this standard applies.

54. Definitions. "Aiming Reference Plane"
means a plane which is perpendicular to the
longitudinal axis of the vehicle and tangent to the
forwardmost aiming pad on the headlamp.

"Beam contributor" means an indivisible optical
assembly including and lens, reflector, and light
source, that is part of an integral beam
headlighting system and contributes only a portion
of a headlamp beam.

"Direct reading indicator" means a device that is
mounted in its entirety on a headlamp or headlamp
aiming or headlamp mounting equipment, is part
of a VHAD, and provides information about
headlamp aim in an analog or digital format.

["Effective projected luminous lens area" means
that area of the projection on a plane perpendicular
to the lamp axis of the portion of the light-emitting
surface that directs light to the photometric test
pattern, and does not include mounting hole
bosses, reflex reflector area, beads or rims that
may glow or produce small areas of increased in-
tensity as a result of uncontrolled light from small

areas (V2 deg. radius around the test point). (55
F.R. 20158— May 15, 1990. Effective: December 1,
1990)]

"Flash" means a cycle of activation and deac-
tivation of a lamp by automatic means, continuing
until stopped either automatically or manually.

"Headlamp test fixture" means a device de-
signed to support a headlamp or headlamp
assembly in the test position specified in the
laboratory tests and whose mounting hardware
and components are those necessary to operate the
headlamp as installed in a motor vehicle.

"Integral Beam Headlamp" means a headlamp
comprising an integral and indivisible optical
assembly including lens, reflector, and light
source, that is neither a standardized sealed beam
headlamp designed to conform to paragraph S7.3
nor a replaceable bulb headlamp designed to con-
form to paragraph S7.5.

["Multiple compartment lamp" means a device
which gives its indication by two or more separ-
ately lighted areas which are joined by one or more
common parts, such as a housing or lens. (55 F.R.
20158— May 15, 1990. Effective: December 1, 1990)1

["Multiple lamp arrangement" means an array
of two or more separate lamps on each side of the
vehicle which operate together to give a signal. (55
F.R. 20158— May 15, 1990. Effective: December 1,
1990)1

["Remote reading indicator" means a device
that is not mounted in its entirety on a headlamp or
headlamp aiming or headlamp mounting equip-
ment, but otherwise meets the definition of a direct
reading indicator.

"Replaceable bulb headlamp" means a headlamp
comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly
and one or two standardized replaceable light
sources.

"Seasoning" means a process of energizing the
filament of a headlamp, at design voltage, for a
period of time equal to 1 percent of average rated
laboratory life.

(Rev. 5/15/90)

PART 571; S 108-1

"Standardized replaceable light source" means
an assembly of a capsule, base, and terminals, that
meets the requirements of S7.6.

["Vehicle headlamp aiming device" or "VHAD"
means motor vehicle equipment permanently in-
stalled on a motor vehicle by the manufacturer of
the vehicle, which is used for determining the
horizontal and vertical aim of headlamps.

S5. Requirements.

S5.1 Required motor vehicle lighting equipment.

S5.1.1 Except as provided in succeeding para-
graphs of S5.1.1, each vehicle shall be equipped
with at least the number of lamps, reflective
devices, and associated equipment specified in
Tables I and III and S7, as applicable. Required
equipment shall be designed to conform to the
SAE Standards 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 applies to passenger cars and motor-
cycles and to multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks, trailers, and buses, less than 80 inches in
overall width.

55.1.1.1 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 con-
structed (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.

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

55.1.1.3 Intermediate side marker devices are
not required on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall
length.

55.1.1.4 Reflective material conforming to
Federal Specification L-S-300, Sheeting and
Tape, Reflective; Non-exposed 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 either Table I
or Table lA of SAE Standard J594f , Reflex Reflec-
tors, January 1977.

55.1.1.5 The turn signal operating unit on each
passenger car and multipurpose passenger vehicle,
truck, and bus less than 80 inches in overall width
shall be self-canceling by steering wheel rotation
and capable of cancellation by a manually operated
control.

55.1.1.6 [(a)l Each stop lamp manufactured to
replace a stop lamp that was designed to conform
to SAE Standard J586b Stop Lamps, June 1966,
may also be designed to conform to J586b. It shall
meet the photometric minimum candlepower re-
quirements for Class A red turn signal lamps
specified in SAE Standard J575d, Tests for Motor
Vehicle Lighting Devices and Components, August
1967. Each such lamp manufactured for use 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 projected
luminous area not less than 3V2 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 3V2
square inches; however, the photometric
requirements may be met by a combination of
compartments or lamps.

((b) Each stop lamp manufactured to replace a
stop lamp that was designed to conform to SAE
Standard J586c, Stop Lamps, August 1970, may
also be designed to conform to J586c. (55 F.R.
20158— May 15, 1990. Effective: December 1, 1990)1

[(c) A multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck,
bus, or trailer whose overall width is 80 inches or
more, manufactured on or before November 30,
1991, and whose stop lamps are located more than
22 inches apart, may be equipped with stop lamps
designed to conform to SAE Standard J586c, Stop
Lamps, August 1970." (55 F.R. 20158— May 15,
1990. Effective: December 1, 1990)]

55.1.1.7 (a) Each turn signal lamp manufactured
to replace a turn signal lamp that was designed to
conform to SAE Standard J588d Turn Signal
Lamps, June 1966, may also be designed to con-
form to J588d, and shall meet the photometric
minimum candlepower requirements for Class A
turn signal lamps specified in SAE Standard
J575d, Tests for Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices
and Components, August 1967. Each such lamp
manufactured for use 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 projected luminous area not less than

(Rev. 5/15/90)

PART 571; S 108-2

3V2 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 3V2 square inches; however, the
photometric requirements may be met by a com-
bination of compartments or lamps. Each such
lamp manufactured for use on a multipurpose
passenger vehicle, truck, trailer or bus 80 inches or
more in overall width shall have an effective pro-
jected luminous area not less than 12 square
inches.

[(b) Each turn signal lamp manufactured to
replace a turn signal lamp that was designed to
conform to SAE Standard J588e, Turn Signal
Lamps, September 1970, may also be designed to
conform to SAE Standard J588e. Note 6 of Table 1
of SAE Standard J588e 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. (55 F.R. 20158— May 15, 1990.
Effective: December 1, 1990)1

1(c) A multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck,
bus, or trailer, whose overall width is 80 inches or
greater, manufactured on or before November 30,
1991, and whose turn signal lamps are located
more than 22 inches apart, may be equipped with
turn signal lamps designed to conform to SAE
Standard J588e, Turn Signal Lamps, September
1970. (55 F.R. 20158— May 15, 1990. Effective:
December 1, 1990)1

ments of the SAE Standards applicable to such
lamps referenced in Tables I and III.

S5.1.1.11 (A parking lamp, tail lamp, stop lamp
manufactured to replace a stop lamp designed to
conform to SAE Standard J586c, Stop Lamps,
August 1970, or turn signal lamp manufactured to
replace a turn signal lamp that was designed to
conform to SAE Standard J588e, Turn Signal
Lamps, September 1970, shall meet the minium
percentage specified in Figure la of the
corresponding minimum allowable value specified
in Table 1 and Table 3 of SAE J588 NOV84 Turn
Signal Lamps. (55 F.R. 20158— May 15, 1990. Effec-
tive: December 1, 1990)1

Test points (deg)

Turn
signal

Stop

Park-
ing

Tail

lOU,

lOD . . ,

. . 5L,

20L,

, 20R

12.5

5U,

. . lOL,

, lOR

37.5

87.5

lOL,

, lOR

H ..

. 5L,

100

Figure la.— Required percentages of minimum candlepower
of Figure lb.

NOTE.— Minimum design candlepower requirements are determined by
multiplying the percentages given in this Figure by the minimum
allowable candlepower values in Figure lb. The resulting values shall be
truncated after one digit to the right of the decimal point.

55.1.1.8 For each motor vehicle less than 30 feet
in overall length, the photometric-minimum
candlepower requirements 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 distance 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.

55.1.1.9 A boat trailer whose overall width is 80
inches or more need not be equipped with both
front and rear clearance lamps provided an amber
(to front) and red (to rear) clearance lamp is
located at or near the midpoint on each side so as
to indicate its extreme width.

55.1.1.10 iMultiple license plate lamps and
backup lamps may be used to fulfill the require-

Lamp

Lighted Sections
1 2 3

Stop 80/300 95/360 110/420

Tail' 2/18 3.5/20 5.0/25

Parking^ 4.0/125

Red turn signal 80/300 95/360 110/420

Yellow turn signal rear 130/750 150/900 175/1050

Yellow turn signal front 200/ - 240/ - 275/ -

Yellow turn signal front' .... 500/ - 600/ - 685/ -

Figure lb.— Minimum and maximum allowable candlepower
values.

' Maximum at H or above.

^ The maximum candlepower value of 125 applies to all test points at H
or above. The maximum allowable candlepower value below H is 250.

' Values apply when the optical axis (filament center) of the front-turn
signal is at a spacing less than 4 inches (10 cm.) from the lighted edge of
the headlamp unit providing the lower beam, or from the lighted edge of
any additional lamp installed as original equipment and which sup-
plements the lower beam. lower beam.

(Rev. 5/15/90)

PART 571; S 108-3

5U-10L, H-IOL, 5D-10L .

125

120

H-5L, 5U-V, H-V, 5D-V,
H-5R

Alb

475

420

480

5U-10R, H-IOR, 5D-10R .

125

120

S5.1.1.12 (A parking lamp, tail lamp, stop lamp
manufactured to replace a stop lamp designed to
conform to SAE Standard J586c Stcrp Lamps,
August 1970, or turn signal lamp manufactured to
replace a turn signal lamp designated to conform
to the SAE Standard J588e, Turn Signal Lamps,
September 1970, is not required to meet the
minimum photometric value at each test point
specified in this standard if the sum of the percen-
tages of the minimum candlepower measured at
the test points is not less than that specified for
each group listed in Figure Ic. (55 F.R. 20158— May
15, 1990. Effective: December 1, 1990)]

Groups and test points '^""*, Stop ^°-'^^' Tail
signal mg

10U-5L, 5U-20L, 5D-20L,
10D-5L 65 65 60 70

U-IOL. H

I-5L, 5U-
H-5R ■ .

U-IOR, H

10U-5R, 5U-20R, 5D-20R,
10D-5R 65 65 60 70

Figure Ic— Sum of the percentages of grouped minimum
candlepower.

55.1.1.13 Each passenger car, and each
multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, and bus of
less than 80 inches overall width, shall be equipped
with a turn signal operating unit designed to com-
plete a durability test of 100,000 cycles.

55.1.1.14 A trailer that is less than 30 inches in
overall width may be equipped with only one tail
lamp, stop lamp, and rear reflex reflector, which
shall be located at or near its vertical centerline.

55.1.1.15 A trailer that is less than 6 feet in
overall length, including the tongue, need not be
equipped with front side marker lamps and front
side reflex reflectors.

55.1.1.16 A lamp 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 J 573d, Lamp Bulbs and
Sealed Units, December 1986, shall meet the ap-
plicable 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 operated at
the bulb's design voltage.

55.1.1.17 Except for a lamp having a sealed-in
bulb, a lamp shall meet the applicable requirements
of this standard when tested with a bulb whose fila-
ment 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 manufacturer.

55.1.1.18 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, February 1968 if the sum of the
candlepower measured at the test points within
each group listed in Figure 2 is not less than the
group totals specified in that figure.

(a) Each headlamp system, other than a
headlamp system designed to conform to
paragraph S7.5, that is designed to use such exter-
nal aiming devices shall not deviate more than 0.30
degree when a downward torque of 201b.-in. (2.25
N-m) is applied to the headlamp in its normal
operating position, through the lamp's mechanical
axis at the plane of the forwardmost aiming pad.
Each headlamp system that is designed to conform
to paragraph S7.5 and that is designed to use such
external aiming devices, and which is manufac-
tured on or after September 1, 1990, shall comply
with this paragraph.

55.1.1.19 Each variable load turn signal flasher
shall comply with voltage drop and durability re-
quirements of SAE Standard J590b, Turn Signal
Flasher, October 1965 with the maximum design
load connected, and shall comply with starting
time, flash rate, and percent current "on" time re-
quirements of J590b both with the minimum and
with the maximum design load connected.

55.1.1.20 The lowest voltage drop for turn signal
flashers and hazard warning signal flashers
measured between the input and load terminals
shall not exceed 0.8 volt.

55.1.1.21 A motor-driven cycle whose speed at-
tainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less need not be
equipped with turn signal lamps.

55.1.1.22 A motor-driven cycle whose speed at-
tainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less may be equipped
with a stop lamp whose effective projected

(Rev. 5/15/90)

PART 571; S 108-4

luminous lens area is not less than SVz square in-
ches and 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.

55.1.1.23 Each tail lamp manufactured to
replace the tail lamp designed to conform to SAE
Standard J585d, Tail Lamps, August 1970, may
also be designed to conform to J585d.

55.1.1.24 Each turn signal lamp manufactured to
replace a turn signal lamp (on a motorcycle) that
was designed to conform to SAE Standard J588d,
Turn Signal Lamps, June 1966, may also be
designed to conform to J588d.

55.1.1.25 Each turn signal lamp on a motorcycle
manufactured on and after January 1, 1973, shall
have an effective projected luminous area of not
less than 3V2 square inches.

55.1.1.26 Note 6 of Table 1 in SAE Standard
J588e, Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970, does
not apply. A stop lamp that is not optically com-
bined with a turn signal lamp shall remain ac-
tivated when the turn signal is flashing.

55.1.1.27 Each passenger car manufactured on
or after September 1, 1985, shall be equipped with
a high-mounted stop lamp which:

(a) Shall have an effective projected luminous
area not less than 4V2 square inches.

(b) Shall have a signal visible to the rear through
a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45
degrees to the right of the longitudinal axis of the
vehicle.

(c) Shall have the minimum photometric values
in the amount and location listed in Figure 10, in-
stead of those in Table 1 of SAE Recommended
Practice J 186a, Supplemental High-Mounted Stop
and Rear Turn Signal Lamps, September 1977.

(d) Need not meet the requirements of
paragraphs 3.1.6 Moisture Test, 3.1.7 Dust Test,
and 3.1.8 Corrosion Test of SAE Recommended
Practice J186a if it is mounted inside the vehicle.

(e) Shall provide access for convenient replace-
ment of the bulb without the use of special tools.

55.1.1.28 Instead of the headlamps specified by
Table III, a motorcycle may be equipped with one
half of any headlighting system specified in S7
which provides both a full upper beam and full

lower beam, and where more than one lamp must
be used, the lamps shall be mounted vertically,
with the lower beam as high as practicable. When
installed on a motorcycle such half system need not
meet the aiming requirements specified in S7.

S5.1.1.29 Each replaceable bulb headlamp that is
designed to meet the photometric requirements of
SAE Recommended Practice J584, Motorcycle
Headlamps, April 1964, and that is equipped with a
light source other than a standardized replaceable
light source, and that is manufactured on or after
September 1, 1990 ...all have the word "motor-
cycle" permanently marked on the lens in
characters not less than 0.114 inch (3mm) in
height.

[S5.1.1.30 On a motor vehicle whose overall
width is less than 80 inches:

(a) The functional lighted lens area of a single
compartment stop lamp, and a single compartment
rear turn signal lamp, shall be not less than 50
square centimeters.

(b) If a multiple compartment lamp or multiple
lamps are used to meet the photometric re-
quirements for stop lamps and rear turn signal
lamps, the functional lighted lens area of each com-
partment or lamp shall be at least 22 square cen-
timeters, provided the combined area is at least 50
square centimeters. (55 F.R. 20158— May 15, 1990.
Effective: December 1, 1990)1

IS5.1.1.31 On a motor vehicle, except a
passenger car, whose overall width is 80 inches or
more, measurements of the functional lighted lens
area, and of the photometries, of a multiple com-
partment stop lamp, and a multiple compartment
turn signal lamp, shall be made for the entire lamp
and not for the individual compartments. (55 F.R.
20158— May 15, 1990. Effective: December 1, 1990)1

S5.1.2 Plastic materials used for optical parts
such as lenses and reflectors shall conform to SAE
Recomn^ended Practice J576c, May 1970, except that:

(a) Plastic lenses used for inner lenses or those
covered by another material and not exposed
directly to sunlight shall meet the requirements of
paragraphs 3.4 and 4.2 of SAE J576c, when
covered by the outer lens or other material;

(b) After the outdoor-exposure test, the haze
and loss of surface luster of plastic materials used

(Rev. 5/15/90)

PART 571; S 108-5

for lamp lenses shall not be greater than 30 per-
cent haze as measured by ASTM-1003-61, Haze
and Luminous Transmittance of Transparent
Plastic; and

(c) After the outdoor exposure test, plastic
materials used for reflex reflectors shall meet the
appearance requirements of paragraph 4.2.2 of
SAE J576C.

55.1.3 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.

55.1.4 Each school bus shall be equipped with a
system of either:

(a) Four red signal lamps designed to conform to
SAE Standard J887, School Bus Red Signal
Lamps, July 1964, and installed in accordance with
that standard; or

(b) Four red signal lamps designed to conform to
SAE Standard J887, School Bus Red 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 2V2
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 en-
trance door is opened.

55.1.5 The color in all lamps, reflective devices,
and associated equipment to which this standard
appHes shall comply with SAE Standard J578c,
Color Specification for Electric Signal Lighting
Devices, February 1977.

S5.2. Other requirements.

S5.2.1. 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, recom-

mended in SAE Standard J887, School Bus Red
Signal Lamps, July 1964, are not required.

S5.2.2 The words "Type 1 (5%")," "Type 2
(5%")," "Type 2 (7")," "Type lA," "Type 2A," and
"Type 2B" appearing in any SAE Standard or
Recommended Practice referenced or subreferenced
in this standard shall also be read as setting forth re-
quirements respectively for the following types of
headlamps: ICl, 2C1, 2D1, lAl, 2A1, and 2B1.

S5.3. Location of required equipment.

5.3.1 Except as provided in succeeding para-
graphs of S5.3.1 (and S71 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
requirements of Tables I or III [as applicable, and
S7, and in the location] specified in Table II
(multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, trailers,
and buses 80 or more inches in overall width) and
Table IV (all passenger cars, and motorcycles, and
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, trailers,
and buses less than 80 inches in overall width), as
applicable. (54 F.R. 30223— July 19, 1989. Effective:
July 19, 1989)

S5.3.1.1 Except as provided in S5. 3. 1.1.1, each
lamp and reflective device shall be located so that it
meets the visibility requirements specified in any
applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Prac-
tice. In addition, no part of the vehicle shall pre-
vent 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 Ic and 2, 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 reflective devices, an auxiliary
lamp or device meeting the requirements of this
paragraph shall be provided.

S5.3.1.1.1 Clearance lamps may be mounted at a
location other than on the front and rear if
necessary to indicate the overall width of a 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.

(Rev. 7f19/89)

PART 571; S 108-6

55.3.1.2 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.

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

55.3.1.4 When the rear identification lamps are
mounted at the extreme height of a vehicle, rear
clearance lamps need not meet the requirement of
Table II that they be located as close as practicable
to the top of the vehicle.

55.3.1 .5 The center of the lens referred to inSAE
Standard J593c, Backup Lamps, Februaryl968, is
the optical center.

55.3.1.6 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.

55.3.1 .7 [On a motor vehicle on which the front
turn signal lamp is less than 100 mm from the
lighted edge of a lower beam headlamp, as
measured from the optical center of the turn signal
lamp, the multiplier applied to obtain the required
minimum luminous intensities shall be 2.5. (55 F.R.
50182— December 5, 1990. Effective: December 1,
1991)1

55.3.1.8 Each high-mounted stop lamp shall be
mounted with its center on the vertical centerline
of the passenger car as the car is viewed from the
rear. The lamp may be mounted at any position on
the centerline, including the glazing. If the lamp is
mounted inside the vehicle, means shall be pro-
vided to minimize reflections from the light of the
lamp upon the rear window glazing that might be
visible to the driver when viewed directly, or in-
directly in the rearview mirror. If the lamp is
mounted below the rear window, no portion of the
lens shall be lower than 6 inches below the rear
window on convertibles, or 3 inches on other
passenger cars.

S5.4 Equipment combinations. Two or more
lamps, reflective devices, or items of associated
equipment may be combined if the requirements

for each lamp, reflective device, and item of
associated equipment are met, except that no
clearance lamp may be optically combined with any
taillamp, and no high-mounted stop lamp shall
be combined with any other lamp or reflective
device.

S5.4.1. [Removed]

(55 F.R. 46669 November 6, 1990)

S5.5. Special wiring requirements.

S5.5.1. Each vehicle shall have a means of
switching between lower and upper 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. Except as provided in S5.5.8, the lower and
upper beams shall not be energized
simultaneously except momentarily for temporary
signalling purposes or during switching between
beams.

55.5.2 Each vehicle shall have a means for in-
dicating to the driver when the upper beams of the
headlamps are on that conforms to SAE Recom-
mended Practice J564a, April 1964, except that
the signal color need not be red.

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

55.5.4 The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be
activated upon application of the service brakes.
The high-mounted stoplamp on each passenger car
shall be activated only upon application of the
service brakes.

55.5.5 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.

55.5.6 Each vehicle equipped with a turn signal
operating unit shall also have an illuminated pilot
indicator. Failure of one or more turn signal lamps
to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE

(Rev. 12/5/90)

PART 571; S 108-7

Standard J588e, Turn Signal Lamps, September
1970, except when 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.

55.5.7. On each passenger car, and motorcycle,
and multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, and bus
of less than 80 inches overall width:

(a) When 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 shall
also be activated.

55.5.8. On a motor vehicle equipped with a
headlighting system designed to conform to the
photometric requirements of Figure 15, the lamps
marked "L" or "LF" may be wired to remain per-
manently activated when the lamps marked "U"
or "LF" are activated. On a motor equipped with
an Integral Beam headlighting system meeting the
photometric requirements of section S7.4(a)(l)(ii),
the lower beam headlamps shall be wired to remain
permanently activated when the upper beam
headlamps are activated.

55.5.9. [Except as provided in Section S5.5.8,
the wiring harness or connector assembly of each
headlamp system shall be designed so that only
those light sources intended for meeting lower
beam photometries are energized when the beam
selector switch is in the lower beam position, and
that only those light sources intended for meeting
upper beam photometries are energized when the
beam selector switch is in the upper beam position.
(55 F.R. 4424— February 8, 1990. Effective: March 12,
1990)]

55.5.10. The wiring requirements for lighting
equipment in use are:

(a) Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal
lamps, apd school bus warning lamps shall be wired
to flash;

[(b)l Headlamps and side-marker lamps may be
wired to flash for signalling purposes;

[(c)l A motorcycle headlamp may be wired to
allow either its upper beam or its lower beam, but
not both, to modulate from a higher intensity to a
lower intensity in accordance with Section S4.6;

((d)l All other lamps shall be wired to be steady-
burning. (55 F.R. 4424— February 8, 1990. Effective:
March 12, 1990)1

S5.6. Motorcycle headlamp modulation system.

S5.6.1. A headlamp on a motorcycle may be
wired to modulate either the upper beam or the
lower beam from its maximum intensity to a lesser
intensity provided that:

(a) The rate of modulation shall be 240 ±40
cycles per minute.

(b) The headlamp shall be operated at maximum
power for 50 to 70 percent of each cycle.

(c) The lowest intensity at any test point shall be
not less than 17 percent of the maximum intensity
measured at the same point.

(d) The modulator switch shall be wired in the
power lead of the beam filament being modulated
and not in the ground side of the circuit.

(e) Means shall be provided so that both the
lower beam and upper beam remain operable in the
event of a modulator failure.

(f) The system shall include a sensor mounted
with the axis of its sensing element perpendicular
to a horizontal plane. Headlamp modulation shall
cease whenever the level of light emitted by a
tungsten filament light operating at 3000° Kelvin
is either less than 270 lux (25 footcandles) of direct
light for upward pointing sensors or less than 60
lux (5.6 footcandles) of reflected light for
downward pointing sensors. The light is measured
by a silicon cell type light meter that is located at
the sensor and pointing in the same direction as
the sensor. A Kodak Gray Card (Kodak R-27) is
placed at ground level to simulate the road surface
in testing downward-pointing sensors.

(g) When tested in accordance with the test pro-
file shown in Figure 9, the voltage drop across the
modulator when the lamp is on at all test condi-
tions for 12-volt systems and 6-volt systems shall
not be greater than .45 volt. The modulator shall
meet all the provisions of the standard after com-
pletion of the test profile shown in Figure 9.

(h) Means shall be provided so that both the
lower and upper beam function at design voltage

(Rev. 2/8/90)

PART 571; S 108-8

when the headlamp control switch is in either the
lower or upper beam position when the modulator
is off.

S5.6.2. (a) Each motorcycle headlamp modula-
tor not intended as original equipment, or its con-
tainer, shall be labeled with the maximum wattage,
and the minimum wattage, appropriate for its use.
Additionally, each such modulator shall comply
with S5.6.1 (a) through (g) when connected to a
headlamp of the maximum rated power and a
headlamp of the minimum rated power and shall
provide means so that the modulated beam func-
tions at design voltage when the modulator is off.

(b) Instructions, with a diagram, shall be pro-
vided for mounting the light sensor including loca-
tion on the motorcycle, distance above the road
surface, and orientation with respect to the light.

S5.7. Replacement equipment.

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

55.7.2. Unless otherwise specified in this stan-
dard, each lamp, reflective device, or item of
associated equipment to which section S5.7.1 ap-
plies may be labeled with the symbol DOT, which
shall constitute a certification that it conforms to
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

S6. Subreferenced SAE Standards and
Recommended Practices.

S6.1. SAE Standards and Recommended Prac-
tices subreferenced by the SAE Standards and
Recommended Practices included in Tables I and
III and paragraphs S5.1.4 and S5.5.1 are those
published in the 1970 edition of the SAE Hand-
book, except that the SAE standard referred to as
"J575" is J575e, Tests for Motor Vehicle Lighting
Devices and Components, August 1970, [for stop-
lamps, designed to conform to SAE Standards
J586c, J586 FEB84, and J1398 MAY85; for
taillamps designed to conform to SAE Standards
J585d and J585e; for turn signal lamps designed to
conform to SAE Standards J588e, J588 NOV84,
and J1395 APR85; and for high-mounted
stoplamps designed to conform to SAE Recom-
mended Practice J 186a.] The reference in J585e
to J256 does not apply. For headlamps, unless

otherwise specified in this standard, the version of
SAE Standard J575 is JUN 80, and the version of
SAE Standard J602 is OCT 80. (55 F.R. 20158-May
15, 1990. Effective: December 1, 1990)1

S6.2. Requirements of SAE Standards incor-
porated by reference in this standard, other than
J576b and J576c, do not include tests for warpage
of devices with plastic lenses.

[S6.3. The term "effective projected luminous
lens area" has the same meaning as the term
"functional lighted lens area" in any SAE Stan-
dard or Recommended Practice incorporated by
reference or by subreference in this standard. (55
F.R. 20158— May 15, 1990. Effective: December 1,
1990)1

[S7. Headlighting requirements.

[S7.1. Each passenger car, multipurpose
passenger vehicle, truck, and bus shall be equipped
with a headlighting system designed to conform to
the requirements of S7.3, S7.4, or S7.5. (54 F.R.
20006— May 9, 1989. Effective: June 8, 1989)1

S7.2. [(a) The lens of each original and replace-
ment equipment headlamp, and of each original
equipment and replacement equipment beam con-
tributor manufactured on or after December 1,
1989, shall be marked with the symbol "DOT,"
either horizontally or vertically which shall con-
stitute the certification required by 15 U.S.C.
1403.

(b) The lens of each headlamp and of each beam
contributor manufactured on or after December 1,
1989, to which paragraph (a) of this section applies
shall be marked with the name and /or trademark
registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office of the manufacturer of such headlamp or
beam contributor, or its importer, or any manufac-
turer of a vehicle equipped with such headlamp or
beam contributor. Nothing in this paragraph shall
be construed to authorize the marking of any such
name and/or trademark by one who is not the
owner, unless the owner has consented to it.

(c) Each headlamp and beam contributor to
which paragraph (a) of this section applies shall be
marked with its voltage and with its part or trade
number.

S7.3 Sealed beam headlighting system. A sealed
beam headlighting system shall be designed to

(Rev. 5/15/90)

PART 571; S 108-9

meet the requirements of one of the following sub-
paragraphs of S7.3.2 through S7.3.9. In references
to Figures in SAE J1383 APR 85 for headlamp
dimensional requirements, only those dimensions
marked "I" for interchangeability are appHcable.

57.3.1 The lens of each sealed beam headlamp
designed to conform to S7.3.2 through S7.3.6 shall
be marked according to paragraph 5.4.3 through
5.4.5 of SAE Standard J1383 April 85 Perfor-
mance Requirements for Motor Vehicle Headlamps.

57.3.2 Type A headlighting system. A Type A
headlighting system consists of two Type lAl and
two Type 2A1 headlamps and associated hard-
ware, which are designed to conform to the follow-
ing requirements:

(a) SAE Standard J1383 APR 85 Performance
Requirements for Motor Vehicle Headlamps, with
the following exceptions:

(1) Paragraphs 1, 2.1.2, 2.8.2, 3, 4.1.1, 4.1.2,
4.1.3, 4.4, 4.6, 4.8 through 4.18, 5.1.1, 5.1.3, 5.1.5,
5.1.7 through 5.1.16, 5.2.2, 5.3.5, 5.4.1, 5.4.2, and 6
through 6.4 do not apply.

(2) In paragraph 5.3.2, the words "and retain-
ing rings" are omitted.

(3) In paragraphs 4.5.2 and 5.1.6, the words
"either Table 1 or Table 2 of SAE J579 DEC 84 as
appropriate" are substituted for "Table 3."

(b) SAE Standard J580 DEC 86 Sealed Beam
Headlamp Assembly (except paragraphs 3, 4.1.1,
5.1.1.1, 5.1.2.3, and the second sentence of 5.1.6);
in 5.2.1, delete the words "and retaining rings;"
the correct reference is SAE J1383 Figure 6, 9, 12
and 14.

(c) After a vibration test conducted in accor-
dance with paragraph S8.9, there shall be no
evidence of loose or broken parts, other than
filaments, visible without magnification.

(d) The maximum wattage at 12.8 volts (design
voltage): Single filament headlamp, 55 watts on
the upper beam; dual filament headlamp, 43 watts
on the upper beam and 65 watts on the lower
beam.

57.3.3 Type B headlighting system. A Type B
headlighting system consists of two Type 2B1
headlamps and associated hardware, which are
designed to conform to the following require-
ments:

(a) The requirements of paragraphs S7.3.2(a)
through (c).

(b) The maximum wattage at 12.8 volts (design
voltage): 70 watts on the upper beam and 60 watts
on the lower beam.

57.3.4 Type C headlighting system. A Type C
headlighting system consists of two Type ICl and
two Tjrpe 2C1 headlamps and associated hardware,
which are designed to conform to the requirements
of paragraph S7.3.2(a) through (d).

57.3.5 Type D headlighting system, (a) A Type
D headlighting system consists of two Type 2D1
headlamps and associated hardware, which are
designed to conform to the requirements of
paragraph S7.3.2(a) through (c).

[(b) The maximum wattage at 12.8 volts (design
voltage): 65 watts on upper beam, and 55 watts on
lower beam. (55 F.R. 4424— February 8, 1990. Effec-
tive: March 12, 1990)1

57.3.6 Type E headlighting system, (a) A Type
E headlighting system consists of two Type 2E1
headlamps and associated hardware, which are
designed to conform to the requirements of
paragraph S7. 3.2(a) through (c).

1(b) The maximum wattage at 12.8 volts (design
voltage): 70 watts on upper beam, and 60 watts on
lower beam. (55 F.R. 4424— February 8, 1990. Effec-
tive: March 12, 1990)]

57.3.7 Type F headlighting system. A Type F
headlighting system consists of two Type UF and
two Type LF headlamps and associated hardware,
which are designed to conform to the following
requirements:

(a) Figures 11, 12, 13, and 14 as appropriate.

(b) The photometric requirements of Figure 15
of this standard. A realm tolerance of +/- V4
degree is allowed for any test point on the Type LF
lamp when tested alone, but is not allowed on the
Type UF lamp when tested alone. For the test
point 10U-90U, measurement shall be from the
normally exposed surface of the lens face.

(c) SAE Standard J1383 APR 85 Performance
Requirements for Motor Vehicle Headlamps, Sec-
tions 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 4.1, 4.1.4 and (5.1.41.

(d) When tested in accordance with section (c),
the mounted assembly (either Type UF or Type LF
headlamps, respective mounting ring, aiming ring,
and aim adjustment mechanism) shall be designed
to conform to the requirements of Figure 15 for
upper or lower beams respectively without realm

(Rev. 2/8/90)

PART 571; S 108-10

when any conforming Type UF or LF headlamp is
tested and replaced by another conforming
headlamp of the same Type.

(e) SAE J580 DEC 86 Sealed Beam Headlamp
Assembly with the following exceptions:

(1) Section 2.2 Mounting Ring reads: "the ad-
justable ring upon which the sealed beam unit is
mounted and which forces the sealed beam unit
to seat against the aiming ring when assembled
into a sealed beam assembly."

(2) The definition "2.3 Aiming Ring" reads:
"The clamping ring that retains the sealed beam
unit against the mounting ring, and that pro-
vides an interface between the unit's aiming/
seating pads and the headlamp aimer adapter
(locating plate)."

(3) Section 4.1.1 Vibration Test does not apply.

(4) Section 5.1.1.1 [and 5.1.2.3 do) not apply.

(5) Section 5.1.2.1 reads: "When the headlamp
assembly is tested in the laboratory, a minimum
aiming adjustment of +/- 2.5 degrees shall be
provided in the horizontal plane and +/- 4
degrees in the vertical plane."

(6) Section 5.1.2.2 concludes:". . . through
and angle of -t-/- 2.5 degrees and +/- 4 degrees
respectively."

(7) Section 5.1.6 is retitled "Retaining Ring/
Aiming Ring Tests." The phrase "92 x 150mm
. . .0.340 in (8.6 mm)" is added at the end of the
table for flange thickness. The sentence beginn-
ing 'The fastening means' is deleted. (55 F.R.
4424— February 8, 1990. Effective: March 12, 1990)1

(8) Figures 2, 3, and 4 do not apply, and the
reference to them in section 4.5 is replaced by
"Figure 16, Deflectometer, of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108."

(f) A lens for a Type F headlamp incorporating
an upper beam shall be labeled "UF". A lens for a
Type F headlamp incorporating a lower beam shall
be labeled "LF". The face of letters, numbers, or
other symbols molded on the surface of the lens
shall not be raised more than 0.020 in (0.5 mm),
and shall be placed no closer to the photometric
center of the lens than 2.75 in (70 mm.). The mark-
ing shall be molded in the lens and shall be not less
than V4 in. (6.35 mm.) in size.

(g) The maximum wattage at 12.8 volts (design
voltage): 70 watts on the upper beam and 60 watts
on the lower beam.

(h) Type F headlamps may be mounted on com-
mon or parallel seating and aiming planes to
permit simultaneous aiming of both headlamps
provided that when tested with any conforming
Type UF and LF headlamps according to Section
SIO:

(1) The assembly (consisting of the Type UF
and LF headlamps, mounting rings, the aim-
ing/seating rings, and aim adjustment
mechanism), shall be designed to conform to the
test point values of Figure 15.

(2) There shall be no provision for adjustment
between the common or parallel aiming and
seating planes of the two lamps.

(i) After a vibration test conducted in accor-
dance with paragraph S8.9, the Type F system
shall show no evidence of loose or broken
parts, other than filaments, visible without
magnification.

(S7.3.8 Type G headlighting system. A Type G
headlamp system consists of two Type IGl
headlamps and two Type 2G1 headlamps each of
which is designed to conform to the following re-
quirements:

(a) Figures 18 and 21.

(b) SAE Standard J1383 APR 85 Performance
Requiremfients for Motor Vehicle Headlamps (except
paragraphs 1, 2.1.2, 2.8.2, 3, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.4,
4.6, 4.8 through 4.18, 5.1.1, 5.1.3, 5.1.5 through
5.1.16, 5.2.2, 5.3.5 through 6.4). In paragraph 5.3.2
the words "and retaining rings" are omitted. In
paragraph 4.5.2, the words either Table 1 or Table
2 or SAE J579 DEC 84, as appropriate" are
substituted for the words "Table 3."

(1) Sections 2.2, 2.3, 4.1.1, 5.1.1.1, 5.1.2.3,
5.1.6 and 5.2.1.

(2) Section 4.5 reads: "Torque Deflection Test.
The headlamp assembly to be tested shall be
mounted in the designed vehicle position and set
at nominal aim (0.0). A special adapter (Figure
22) for the deflectometer (Figure 3) shall be
clamped onto the headlamp assembly. A torque
of 20 in.-lbs. (2.25 N-m) shall be applied to the
headlamp assembly through the deflectometer,
and a reading on the thumb wheel shall be taken.
The torque shall be removed and a second
reading on the thumb wheel shall be taken."

(Rev. 2/8/90)

PART 571; S 108-11

(d) After a vibration test conducted in accor-
dance with paragraph S8.9, there shall be no
evidence of loose or broken parts, other than
filaments, visible without magnification.

(e) The maximum wattage at 12.8 volts (design
voltage) for the IGl and 2G1 upper beam is 55
watts and 43 watts respectively; for the 2G1 lower
beam, 65 watts.

(f) A lens for a Type G headlamp incorporating
only part of an upper beam shall be labeled IGl. A
lens for a Type G headlamp incorporating both
parts of an upper beam and a lower beam shall be
labeled 2G1. The face of letters, numbers, or other
symbols molded on the surface of the lens shall not
be raised more than 0.020 in. (0.5 mm.), and shall
be placed no closer to the geometric center of the
lens than 2.75 in. (70 mm.). The marking shall be
molded in the lens and shall be not less than V4 in.
(6.35 mm) in size.

S7.3.9 Type H headlighting system. A Type H
headlamp system consisting of two Type 2H1
headlamps and associated hardware, which are
designed to conform to the following require-
ments:

(a) Paragraph S7.3.8(a) through (d).

(b) The maximum wattage at 12.8 volts (design
voltage): 70 watts on the upper beam and 60 watts
on the lower beam.

(c) A lens for a Type H headlamp incorporating
both an upper beam and a lower beam shall be
labeled 2H1. The face of letters, numbers, or other
symbols molded on the surface of the lens shall not
be raised more than 0.020 in. (0.5 mm), and shall be
placed no closer to the geometric center of the lens
than 2.75 in. (70 mm.) The marking shall be molded
in the lens and shall be not less than Vi in. (6.35
mm) in size.

S7.4 Integral Beam Headlighting System. An in-
tegral beam headlighting system shall be designed
to conform to the following requirements:

(a) The system shall provide in total not more
than two upper beams and two lower beams of the
performance described in one of the following:

(a)(1) In a four-headlamp system, each upper
beam headlamp and each lower beam headlamp
shall be designed to conform to the photometries
of one of the following:

(i) Figure 15;

(ii) Figure 15 except that the upper beam
test values at 2V2 D-V and 2V2 D-12R and 12L
shall apply to the lower headlamp [and not to
the upper beam headlamp, and the upper beam
test point. (55 F.R. 4424— February 8, 1990. Ef-
fective: March 12, 1990)1

(iii) Table 2 of SAE J579 DEC 84.

(a)(2) In a two-headlamp system, each
headlamp shall be designed to conform to the
photometries of one of the following:

(i) Figure 17; or

(ii) Table 1 of SAE J579 DEC 84.

(a)(3) In a system in which there is more than
one beam contributor providing a lower beam,
and /or more than one beam contributor providing
an upper beam, each beam contributor in the
system shall be designed to meet only the
photometric performance requirements of
[Figure 15] based upon the following
mathematical expression: conforming test point
value = 2 (Figure 15 test point value)/total
number of lower or upper beam contributors for
the vehicle, as appropriate. The system shall be
designed to use the Vehicle Headlamp Aiming
Device (VHAD) as specified in paragraph S7.7.5.2.

(b) The lower and upper beams shall be provided
only as follows where each headlamp contains two
light sources:

(1) The lower beam shall be provided either by
the most outboard light source (or the uppermost
if arranged vertically), or by all light sources.

(2) The upper beam shall be provided either by
the most inboard light source (or the uppermost
if arranged vertically), or by all light sources.

(1) The lower beam shall be provided by the
most outboard headlamps (or the uppermost if
arranged vertically), and the lens of each such
headlamp shall be permanently marked with the
letter "L."

(2) The upper shall be provided by the most in-
board headlamps (or lowermost if arranged ver-
tically), and the lens of each such headlamp shall
be permanently marked with the letter "U."

(d) A tolerance of +1- V4 degree realm
tolerance during photometric performance tests is
permitted for any headlamp. The test points
10U-90U shall be measured from the normally ex-
posed surface of the lens face.

PART 571; S 108-12

(e) A headlamp or beam contributor designed to
meet paragraphs (aXl) or (aX3) of this section and
S7.7.5.1 may be mounted in an assembly to permit
simultaneous aiming of the beam(s) contributors,
provided that with any complying contributor the
assembly complete with all lamps meets the ap-
propriate photometric requirements when tested
in accordance with SIO.

(f) Each integral beam headlamp system shall be
designed to conform to the applicable photometric
performance requirements in paragraph (a) of this
section when tested in accordance with Sections
4.1 and 4.1.4 of SAE Standard J 1383 APR 85 with
any headlamp intended for use in such system. The
term "aiming plane" means "aiming reference
plane," or an appropriate vertical plane defined by
the manufacturer as required in paragraph S7.7.1.

(g) The system shall be aimable in accordance
with the requirements of paragraph S7.7. A
system that incorporates any headlamp or beam
contributor that does not have a VHAD as an in-
tegral and indivisible part of the headlamp or beam
contributor shall be designed so that the ap-
propriate photometries are met when any correctly
aimed and photometrically conforming headlamp
or beam contributor is removed from its mounting
and aiming mechanism, and is replaced without
realm by any conforming headlamp or beam con-
tributor of the same type.

(h) A headlamp with a glass lens need not meet
the abrasion resistance (S8.2), chemical resistance
(S8.3), or impact (S8.8) tests. If, in addition to a
glass lens, the headlamp uses a non-plastic
reflector, it need not meet the internal heat test of
paragraph SB. 6.2. A headlamp of sealed design as
verified in paragraph S8.10 Sealing need not meet
the corrosion (S8.4), dust (S8.5), or humidity (S8.7)
tests, however, the headlamp shall meet the
requirements of paragraphs 4.1, 4.1.2, 4.4 and
5.1.4 for corrosion and connector of SAE Standard
J580 DEC 86 Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly.

[(i)l When tested according to any of the pro-
cedures indicated in subparagraphs (i) through
(viii) each headlamp or beam contributor shall meet
the appropriate requirement:

(i) After an abrasion test conducted in accor-
dance with paragraph S8.2, the headlamp shall
meet the photometric requirements applicable to
the headlamp system under test.

(ii) After a chemical resistance test involving
exposure to any of the fluids listed in paragraph

S8.3, there shall be no surface deterioration,
coating delamination, fractures, deterioration of
bonding materials, color bleeding or color pickup
visible without magnification, and the headlamp
shall meet the photometric requirements ap-
plicable to the headlamp system under test.

(iii) After a corrosion test conducted in accor-
dance with paragraph S8.4 there shall be no
evidence of external or internal corrosion or rust
visible without magnification. Loss of adhesion
of any applied coating shall not occur more than
0.125 in. (3.2 mm) from any sharp edge on the in-
side or outside. Corrosion may occur on ter-
minals only if the current produced during the
test of paragraph S8.4(c) is not less than 9.7
amperes.

(iv) After a dust test conducted in accordance
with paragraph S8.5, the headlamp shall meet
the photometric requirements applicable to the
headlamp system under test.

(v) The headlamp shall first meet the re-
quirements of subparagraph (A) and then those
of subparagraph (B).

(A) After a temperature cycle test con-
ducted in accordance with paragraph S8.6.1,
the headlamp shall show no evidence of
delamination, fractures, entry of moisture or
deterioration of bonding material, color
bleeding, warpage or deformation visible
without magnification or lens warpage greater
than .118 in (3 mm) when measured parallel to
the optical axis at the point of intersection of
the axis of each light source with the exterior
surface of the lens, and its shall meet the
photometric requirements applicable to the
headlamp system under test.

(B) After an internal heat test conducted in
accordance with paragraph S8.6.2, there shall
be no lens warpage greater than .118 in (3 mm)
when measured parallel to the optical axis at
the point of intersection of the axis of each
light source with the exterior surface of the
lens, and it shall meet the photometric re-
quirements applicable to the headlamp system
under test.

(vi) After a humidity test conducted in accor-
dance with paragraph S8.7, the inside of the
headlamp shall show no evidence of delamination
or moisture, fogging or condensation visible
without magnification, and the headlamp shall
meet the photometric requirements applicable to
the headlamp system under test.

PART 571; S 108-13

(vii) After an impact test on a headlamp with a
plastic lens, conducted in accordance with
paragraph S8.8, there shall be no fracture of the
adhesion of the lens coating or delamination of
materials visible without magnification, and the
lens shall not be broken, cracked, or chipped.

(viii) After a vibration test conducted in accor-
dance with paragraph S8.9, there shall be no
evidence of loose or broken parts, other than
filaments, visible without magnification.

S7.5 Replaceable Bulb Headlamp System.

Each replaceable bulb headlamp system shall be
designed to conform to the following requirements:

(a) The system shall provide only two lower
beams and two upper beams and shall incorporate
not more than two standardized replaceable light
sources in each headlamp.

(b) [The photometries as specified in paragraphs
(c) through (e) of this section (depicted in Figure
26), using any standardized light source of the
Type intended for use in such system. (55 F.R.
13138— April 9, 1990. Effective: May 9, 1990)1

(c) [The test requirements of sections 4.1, 4.1.4,
and performance requirements of section 5.1.4 of
SAE J1383 April 85, using the photometric re-
quirements specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) of
this section.] The term "aiming plane" means
"aiming reference plane," or an appropriate ver-
tical plane defined by the manufacturer as required
in paragraph S7.7.1. A Vi degree reaim tolerance is
permitted for any test point. The test points
10U-90U shall be measured from the normally
exposed surface of the lens face. (55 F.R.
13138— April 9, 1990. Effective: May 9, 1990)]

(d) [For a headlamp system equipped with dual
filament light sources, Type HBl light sources,
Type HB2 light sources. Type HB5 light sources,
or Types HBl and HB5 in combination, the follow-
ing requirements apply:

(1) Headlamps designed to conform to the ex-
ternal aiming requirements of S7.7.5.1 shall have
no mechanism that allows adjustment of an in-
dividual light source, or, if there are two light
sources, independent adjustment of each reflec-
tor. (55 F.R. 13138— April 9, 1990. Effective: May
9, 1990)]

(2) The lower and upper beams of a headlamp
system consisting of two lamps, each containing
one or two light sources, shall be provided as
follows:

(i) The lower beam shall be provided in one
of the following ways:

(A) By the outboard light source (or upper
one if arranged vertically) designed to con-
form to:

(1) the lower beam requirements of
Figure 17, if the light sources are type HB2;
or

(B) Both light sources, in the headlamp
designed to conform to the lower beam re-
quirements specified above for their Type.

(ii) The upper beam shall be provided in one
of the following ways:

(A) By the inboard light source (or the
lower one if arranged vertically) designed to
conform to:

(1) the upper beam requirements of
Table 1 of SAE Standard J579 DEC84, if the
light sources are only Type HBl; or Type
HB5, or a combination thereof; or

(2) the upper beam requirements of
Figure 17, if the light sources are Type HB2;
or

(B) By both light sources in the headlamp,
designed to conform to the upper beam
photometries specified above for their type.

(3) The lower and upper beams of a headlamp
system consisting of four lamps, each containing
a single light source, shall be provided as follows:

(i) The lower beam shall be provided by the
outboard lamp (or upper one if arranged ver-
tically), designed to conform to:

(A) the lower beam requirements of
Table 1 of SAE Standard J579 DEC 84, if
the light sources are only Type HBl; or Type
HB5, or a combination thereof; or

(B) the lower beam requirements of
Figure 15, if the light sources are Type HB2.
The lens of each such headlamp shall be
marked with the letter "L."

(ii) The upper beam shall be provided by the
inboard lamp (or the lower one if arranged ver-
tically), designed to conform to:

(A) the upper beam requirements of Table
1 of SAE Standard J579 DEC 84, if the light
sources are only Type HBl; or Type HB5, or
a combination thereof; or

(B) the upper beam requirements of
Figure 15, if the light sources are Type HB2.
The lens of each such headlamp shall be
marked with the letter "U."

(Rev. 4/9/90)

PART 571; S 108-14

(e) (The following requirements apply to a
headlamp system equipped with any combination
of light sources except those specified in paragraph
(d) of this section: (55 F.R. 13138— April 9, 1990.
Effective: May 9, 1990)1

(1) There shall be no mechanism that allows
adjustment of an individual light source, or, if
there are two light sources, independent adjust-
ment of each reflector.

(2) The lower and upper beams of a headlamp
system consisting of two lamps, each containing
two light sources ((other than those specified in
paragraph (d) of this section)) shall be provided
only as follows: (55 F.R. 13138— April 9, 1990. Ef-
fective: May 9, 1990)1

(i) The lower beam shall be provided in one of
the following ways:

(A) By the outboard light source (or the
uppermost if arranged vertically) designed to
conform to the lower beam requirements of
Figure 17; or

(B) By both light sources, designed to con-
form to the lower beam requirements of
Figure 17.

(ii) The upper beam shall be provided in one
of the following ways:

(A) By the inboard light source (or the
lower one if arranged vertically) designed to
conform to the upper beam requirements of
Figure 17; or

(B) By both light soiorces, designed to con-
form to the upper beam requirements of
Figure 17.

(3) (The lower and upper beams of a headlamp
system consisting of four lamps, using any con-
bination of light sources except those specified in
paragraph (d) of this section, each lamp contain-
ing only a single light source, shall be provided
only as follows: (55 F.R. 13138— April 9, 1990. Ef-
fective: May 9, 1990)1

(i) The lower beam shall be produced by the
outboard lamp (or upper one if arranged ver-
tically), designed to conform to the lower beam
requirements of Figure 15. The lens of each
such headlamp shall be permanently marked
with the letter "L."

(ii) The upper beam shall be produced by the
inboard lamp (or lower one if arranged verti-
cally), designed to conform to the upper beam
requirements of Figure 15. The lens of

each such headlamp shall be marked with the
letter "U."

(f) Each lens reflector unit manufactured as
replacement equipment shall be designed to con-
form to the requirements of paragraphs (d) and (e)
of this section when any standardized replaceable
light source appropriate for such unit is inserted in
it.

(g) (The lens of each replaceable bulb headlamp
using any Type light source, except HBl used singly
or dually, within a headlamp system on a motor
vehicle, shall permanently display the Type designa-
tion for that light source on the lens in front of each
light source. (55 F.R. 13138— April 9, 1990. Effec-
tive: May 9, 1990)1

(h) The system shall be aimable in accordance
with paragraph S7.7.

(i) Each headlamp shall meet the requirements of
paragraphs S7.4(h) and (i), except that the sentence
in (h) to verify sealing according to S8.10 Sealing
does not apply.

S7.6 Standardized Replaceable Light Sources.

Each standardized replaceable light source shall be
designed to conform to the following requirements:

(a) A Type HBl light source shall be designed to
conform to the dimensions specified in Figure 3 and
shall incorporate a silicone 0-ring. Its maximimi
power on the lower beam shall be 50 watts, and on
the upper beam, 70 watts. Its luminous flux in
lumens shall be 700 +/- 15% on the lower beam
and 1200 +/- 15% on the upper beam.

(b) A Type HB2 light source shall be designed to
conform to the dimensions specified in Figure 23.
Its maximum power on the lower beam shall be 65
watts, and on the upper beam, 72 watts. Its
luminous flux in lumens shall be 910 plus or minus
10% on the lower beam, and 1500 plus or minus 10%
on the upper beam.

(c) A Type HB3 light source shall be designed to
conform to the dimensions specified in Figure 19.
Its maximum power on the upper beam shall be 70
watts. Its luminous flux in lumens shall be 1700
+ /- 12%.

(d) A Type HB4 light source shall be designed to
conform to the dimensions specified in Figure 20.
Its maximum power shall be 60 watts on the lower
beam, and its luminous flux in lumens on the lower
beam shall be 1000 +/- 15%.

(Rev. 4/9/90)

PART 571; S 108-15

(e) [A Type HB5 light source shall be designed
to conform to the diemensions specified in Figure
24. Its maximum power shall be 60 watts on the
lower beam, and 70 watts on the upper beam. Its
luminous flux in lumens shall be 1000 +/- 15% on
the lower beam, and 1350 +/- 15% on the upper
beam. (55 F.R. 13138— April 9, 1990. Effective: May
9, 1990)1

(f) [The filament of a light source shall be sea-
soned before measurement of maximum power and
luminous flux. (55 F.R. 13138— April 9, 1990. Effec-
tive: May 9, 1990)1

I(g)l Measurement of maximum power and
luminous flux shall be made with the direct current
test voltage regulated within one quarter of one
percent. The test voltage shall be design voltage,
12.8v. The measurement of luminous flux shall be
in accordance with the Illuminating Engineering
Society of North America, LM-45; lES Approved
Method for Electrical and Photometric
Measurements of General Service Incandescent
Filament Lamps (April 1980), shall be made with
the black cap installed on [Types HBl, HB2, and
HB4, and Type HB5, and shall be made with the
electrical conductor and light source base shrouded
with an opaque white colored cover, except for the
portion normally located within the interior of the
lamp housing. The measurement of luminous flux
for the Types HB3 and HB4 shall be with the base
covered with a white cover shown in Figures 19-1
and 20-1. The white covers are used to eliminate
the likeHhood of incorrect lumen measurement
that will occur should the reflectance of the light
source base and electrical connector be low.

1(h) The capsule, lead wires and/or terminals,
and seal on each Type HBl, Type HB3, Type HB4,
and Type HB5 light source shall be installed in the
base as shown in Figure 25 so as to provide an air-
tight seal. Such a seal exists when no air bubbles
shall appear on the low pressure (connector) side
after the light source has been immersed in water
for one minute while inserted in a cylindrical aper-
ture specified for the light source in Figure 25, and
subjected to an air pressure of 70 kPa (10 P.S.I.G.)
on the glass capsule side. (55 F.R. 13138— April 9,
1990. Effective: May 9, 1990)1

[(i)l After the force deflection test conducted in
accordance with S9, the permanent deflection of
the glass envelope shall not exceed 0.005 in.
(0.13mm) in the direction of the applied force.

[(j)l A general tolerance shall apply to Figure 3
as follows: +/- 0.004 in. (0.10 mm) to all linear

dimensions and +/- 1 degree 00 minutes to all
angular dimensions except for referenced dimen-
sions and unless otherwise specified.

[(k) Each standardized light source manufac-
tured on or after December 1, 1989, shall be
marked with the symbol DOT and with a name or
trademark in accordance with S7.2. In addition,
the base of each such light source shall be marked
with its HB Type designation. (55 F.R. 13138—
April 9, 1990. Effective: May 9, 1990)1

S7.7 Aimability Performance Requirements.

57.7.1 Each headlamp (other than a headlamp
designed to conform to paragraph S7.3), or beam
contributor, shall be equipped with fiducial marks,
aiming pads or similar references of sufficient
detail and accuracy for determination of an ap-
propriate vehicle plane to be used with the
photometric procedures of SAE J1383 APR 85 for
correct alignment with the photometer axis when
being tested for photometric compliance, and to
serve for the aiming reference when the lamp is
installed on a motor vehicle. The fiducial marks,
aiming pads, or similar references are protrusions,
bubble vials, holes, indentations, ridges, scribed
lines, or other readily identifiable marks estab-
lished and described by the vehicle or lamp
manufacturer.

57.7.2 Each headlamp shall be installed on a
motor vehicle with a mounting and aiming
mechanism that allows aim inspection and adjust-
ment of both vertical and horizontal aim, and is
accessible for those uses without removal of any
vehicle parts, except for protective covers
removable without the use of tools.

S7.7.2.1. (a) When installed on the vehicle, ad-
justment of one aim axis through its full on-vehicle
range shall not cause the aim of the other axis to
deviate more than +/~ 0.76 degree.

(b) If the performance specified in paragraph (a)
of this section is not achievable, the requirements
of paragraph S7.7.5.2(b)(3)apply, except that if the
aiming mechanism is not a VHAD, the re-
quirements specific to VHADs are not applicable,
and the instructions shall be specific to the aiming
mechanism installed.

[S7.7.2.2. If a headlamp is aimed by moving the
reflector relative to the lens and headlamp

(Rev. 4/9/90)

PART 571; S 108-16

S4.4 Non-Pneumatic Tire Identification Code and
Non-Pneumatic Rim/Wheel Center Member Match-
ing Information. For purposes of this standard, S8 of
49 CFR 571.110 and SlO of 49 CFR 571.120, each
manufacturer of a non-pneumatic tire that is not an
integi-al part of a non-pneumatic tire assembly shall
ensure that it provides a listing to the public for each
non-pneumatic tire that it produces. The listing
shall include the non-pneumatic tire identification
code, tire load rating, dimensional specifications and
a diagi'am of the portion of the tire that attaches to
the non-pneumatic rim or wheel center member, and
a list of the non-pneumatic rims or wheel center
members that may be used with that tire. For each
non-pneumatic rim or wheel center member in-
cluded in such a listing, the information provided
shall include a size and type designation for the
non-pneumatic rim or wheel center member, and
dimensional specifications and a diagram of the
non-pneumatic rim or portion of the wheel center
member that attaches to the tire. A listing compiled
in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section need
not include dimensional specifications or a diagram
of the non-pneumatic rim or portion of the wheel
center member that attaches to the tire if the
non-pneumatic rim's or portion of the wheel center
member's dimensional specifications and diagi'am
are contained in each listing published in accor-
dance with paragraph (b) of this section. The listing
shall be in one of the following forms:

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

The Tire and Rim Association

The European Tire and Rim Technical Organization

Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Associa-
tion, Inc.

Deutsche Industrie Norm

British Standards Institute

Scandinavian Tire and Rim Organization

Tyre and Rim Association of Australia

S5 Test Procedures.

S5.1 Physical Dimensions. After conditioning the
tire at room temperature for at least 24 hours, using
equipment with minimum measurement capabili-

55.2 Lateral Strength.

55.2.1 Preparation of the tire.

55.2.1.1 If applicable, mount a new tire on a non-
pneumatic test rim or test wheel center member.

55.2.2 Test Procedure.

B = A - 1 inch

B = A - 2 inches

B = A - 3 inches

B = A - 4 inches

B = A - 5 inches, and

B = A - 6 inches
However, if at any time during the conduct of the
test, the test block comes in contact with the non-
pneumatic test rim or test wheel center member, the
test shall be suspended and no further testing at
smaller values of the distance B shall be conducted.
When tested to the above procedure, satisfying the
requirements of S4.2.2.3 for all values of B greater
than that for which contact between the non-
pneumatic test rim or test wheel center member and
the test block is made, shall constitute compliance to
the requirements set forth in S4.2.2.3.

55.3 Tire Strength.

S5.3.1 Preparation of the Tire.
S5.3.1.1 If applicable, mount the tire on a non-
pneumatic test rim or test wheel center member.

PART 571; S129-PRE 15

S5.3.1.2 Condition the tire assembly at room tem-
perature for at least three hours.
S5.3.2 Test Procedures.

55.3.2.2 The test cleat is made of steel and has the
following dimensions:

(a) Length of one inch greater than the maximum
tire width of the tire.

(b) Width of one-half inch with the surface which
contacts the tire's tread having one-quarter inch
radius.

55.3.2.3 The energy level is calculated by the
following formula:

E =

F X P

where

E = Energy level, inch-pounds;

F = Force, pounds; and

P = Penetration, inches

S5.4 Tire Endurance.

55.4.1 Preparation of the tire.

55.4.1.1 If applicable, mount a new tire on a non-
pneumatic test rim or test wheel center member

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

55.4.2 Test Procedure.

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

Percent

4 hours 85

6 hours 90

24 hours 100

S5.4.2.4 Immediately after running the tire the
required time, allow the tire to cool for one hour,
then, if applicable, detach it from the non-pneumatic
test rim or test wheel center member, and inspect it
for the conditions specified in S4.2.2.5.

S5.5 High Speed Endurance.

55.5.2 Break in the tire by running it for 2 hours
at 50 m.p.h.

55.5.3 Allow to cool to 100 ± 5° F

55.5.4 Test at 75 m.p.h. for 30 minutes, 80 m.p.h.
for 30 minutes, and 85 m.p.h. for 30 minutes.

12. Figures 1 and 2 are added following the text of
Standard No. 129, appearing as follows:

Part 574 [Amended]

13. The first sentence of 574.4 Applicability is
revised to read as follows:

*****

14. The first sentence of 574.5 Tire identification
requirements is revised to read as follows:

PART 571; S129-PRE 16

containing the information set fortii in paragi'apiis
(a) through (d) of this section.

symbols, shall be used to identify the non-pneumatic
tire identification code.

15. Section 574.5 is amended by adding the follow-
ing to the end of the opening paragi'aph:

17. Section 574.6, Identification Mark, is revised to
read as follows:

Each manufacturer of a non-pneumatic tire or a
non-pneumatic tire assembly shall permanently
mold, stamp, or otherwise permanently mark into or
onto one side of the non-pneumatic tire or non-
pneumatic tire assembly a tire identification num-
ber containing the information set forth in para-
gi-aphs (a) through (d) of this section. In addition, the
DOT symbol required by the Federal motor vehicle
safety standards shall be positioned relative to the
tire identification number as shown in Figure 1, and
the symbols to be used for the other information are
those listed above. The labeling for a non-pneumatic
tire or a non-pneumatic tire assembly shall be in the
manner specified in Figure 1 and positioned on the
non-pneumatic tire or non-pneumatic tire assembly
such that it is not placed on the tread or the
outermost edge of the tire and is not obstructed by
any portion of the non-pneumatic rim or wheel
center member designated for use with that non-
pneumatic tire in S4.4 of Standard No. 129 (49 CFR
571.129).

16. Section 574.5(b) is amended by adding the
following after the opening sentence:

Hfi :fli :)p. ^ ■:)(:

For a new non-pneumatic tire of a non-pneumatic
tire assembly, the second group, of not more than two

To obtain the identification mark requii'ed by
574.5(a), each manufacturer of new or retreaded
pneumatic tires, non-pneumatic tires, or non-
pneumatic tire assemblies shall apply in writing to
"Tire Identification and Recordkeeping," National
Highway Ti-affic Safety Administration, Department
of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590, identify
itself as a tire manufacturer or retreader and furnish
the following information:

(a) The name, or other designation identifying the
applicant, and its main office address.

(b) The name, or other identifying designation, of
each individual plant operated by the manufacturer
and the address of each plant, if applicable.

Issued on July 12, 1990.

Jeffrey R. Miller
Deputy Administrator

55 FR 29581
July 20, 1990

PART 571; S129-PRE 17-18

Pivot on Centerline
ot Beam

(Beam Horizontal)

Lateral Force
Test Block

Non-Pneumatic
Tire Assembly

Rotational Axis of
Non-Pneumatic Tire Assembly

Figure 1. - Lateral Force Test Fixture (Dimension in Inches)

2.5

I
7

R = 1.0

h
6

— 7

».

End View

Centerline

Front View

Figure 2. - Lateral Force Test Block (Dimension in Inches)
Dimensional Tolerance is +0.050 in

PART 571; S129-PRE 19-20

PREAMBLE TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY
STANDARD NO. 129

New Non-Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars

(Docket No. 87-12; Notice 3)

RIN 2127-AC18

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This notice amends Standard No. 110,
Tire Selection and Rims, and Standard No. 120, Tire
Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passen-
ger Cars, to permit new passenger cars, multipur-
pose passenger vehicles, and light trucks equipped
with passenger car tires to be equipped with a
non-pneumatic spare tire. These standards had re-
quired all new vehicles to be equipped with pneu-
matic tires. The notice also establishes I'equii-ements
requiring non-pneumatic tires to bear a label stating
that the tires are to be used only as a temporary
spare tire and only at limited speeds. It requires the
manufacturer to place a placard in the vehicle and
information in the owner's manual explaining the
proper use of these tires. In addition, the notice
establishes Standard No. 129, New Non-Pneumatic
Tires for Passenger Cars, which includes definitions
relevant to non-pneumatic tires and specifies perform-
ance, testing, and additional labeling requirements
for these tires. In particular, the new standard
contains performance requirements related to phys-
ical dimensions, lateral strength, strength (in verti-
cal loading), tire endurance, and high speed perform-
ance. The agency has determined that these
requirements provide the basic tests to ensure the
structural integrity of non-pneumatic tires. To en-
sure an even higher degree of safety, a non-
pneumatic tire must be labeled for use only as a
temporary spare tire at limited speeds. NHTSA
believes that these performance requirements to-
gether with these labels ensure the safety of non-
pneumatic tires.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The rule is effective on August
20, 1990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110,

Tire Selection and Rims (49 CFR §571.110), specifies

requirements for the selection of tires to be used on

passenger cars. Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and

Section S4.1 of Standard No. 110 requires passen-
ger cars to be equipped with tires that meet the
requirements of §571.109, "New Pneumatic Tires-
Passenger Cars" (49 CFR §571.109). Section S5.1.1
of Standard No. 120 similarly requires vehicles other
than passenger cars to be equipped with pneumatic
tires that meet the requirements of Standard No.
109 or Standard No. 119 "New Pneumatic Tires for
Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars" (49 CFR
§571.119).

The practical effect of Standard No. 109's applica-
bility to only pneumatic tires, together with Stan-
dard No. 1 lO's requirement that passenger cars must
be equipped with tires that meet Standard No. 109's
requirements, is to prohibit any new passenger car
from being equipped with non-pneumatic tires. Sim-
ilarly, Standard Nos. 109, 119 and 120 together
prohibit any vehicle subject to Standard No. 120
fi'om being equipped with non-pneumatic tires.

PART 571; S129-PRE 1

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

More specifically, the notice proposed three
amendments to Standard No. 110. First, it proposed
that section S4.1 be amended to allow passenger
cars to be equipped with a non-pneumatic spare tire.
Second, the notice proposed that Standard No. 110
contain additional labeling requirements and vehi-
cle placarding requirements explaining that such
tires should be used only as a spare tire on a
temporary basis at speeds not to exceed 50 m.p.h.
Third, the notice proposed that safety information
about the use of a non-pneumatic tire be included in
the owner's manual of the passenger car

The NPRM also proposed to supplement the label-
ing requirements in Standard No. 110 by including
in Standard No. 129 labeling requirements similar

PART 571; S129-PRE 2

to those set forth in section S4.3 of Standard No. 109
for size designation, load rating, rim size and type
designation, manufacturer or brand name, certifica-
tion, and the tire identification number. The notice
proposed to allow methods of marking other than
"molding," provided the mai'king was permanent
because the agency tentatively concluded that it
might be difficult to mold the required information
on some types of anticipated non-pneumatic tire
designs. The agency also tentatively concluded that
the temporary use and maximum speed labeling
requirements would provide an extra margin of
safety related to handling and braking. In addition,
the agency noted that compact pneumatic T-type
tires that are currently used as temporary spare
tires have been shown to be safe, even though they
are not subject to performance requirements beyond
those applicable to full size tires in Standard No.
109. The agency believed that in some respects this
comparison was relevant since, like the compact
T-type pneumatic tires, the non-pneumatic tires al-
lowed by these amendments would be limited to use
as temporary spare tires.

definition of a "non-pneumatic spare tire assembly",
which was defined as a device "intended for tempo-
rary use in place of one of the pneumatic tires and
rims that are fitted to a passenger car . . .", be
revised to state that the NPSTA be "in support of as
well as "in place of." According to the commenter,
this modification would allow future NPSTAs to be
fitted on tire and wheel assemblies without remov-
ing the deflated pneumatic tire. The agency has
decided not to adopt Michelin's suggestion which is
beyond the scope of the current proposal and its test
procedures. Further, the agency needs more informa-
tion about devices used "in support of" a deflated
pneumatic tire, especially about the procedures for
testing them while they are mounted on a deflated
pneumatic tire. Therefore, NHTSA has decided not
to expand the definition as requested by Michelin.

A. Proposal to Amend Standard Na 110

Definitions

The NPRM proposed to add definitions to para-
graph S3 for "non-pneumatic spai'e tire assembly,"
"non-pneumatic tire," "non-pneumatic tire assem-
bly," "rim," and "wheel center member." The agency
intended these definitions to be general in order to
better ensure a generic standard appropriate to any
type of non-pneumatic tire. These definitions were
patterned after analogous definitions in NHTSA's
safety standard for pneumatic tires and SAE Recom-
mended Practice J328a, "Wheels— Passenger Cars-
Performance Requirements and Test Procedures."

The agency received two comments about the
proposed definitions. Michelin requested that the

Labeling Requirements

PART 571; S129-PRE 3

Section S6(a) contained a proposal that each non-
pneumatic spare tire be labeled "FOR TEMPO-
RARY USE ONLY." The NPRM explained that this
mandatory warning would be in the interest of
motor vehicle safety by encouraging the limited use
of non-pneumatic tires as a replacement for T-type
temporary spare tires. The agency further believed
such labeling would provide consumers with valu-
able guidance about this new type of tire. All com-
menters mentioning the proposal to require tempo-
rary use labeling agi-eed that it had merit given the
current level of technology and agreed that the
extended use of a non-pneumatic tire would be
inappropriate.

NHTSA received four comments on the proposal to
require a maximum speed warning of 50 m.p.h.
While Goodyear and Firestone supported the pro-

posal, Uniroyal and General Motors opposed it, stat-
ing that it should be at the discretion of the vehicle
manufacturer, the entity responsible for the vehicle's
braking, handling, and other performance charac-
teristics. Uniroyal stated that such a requirement is
unnecessary since T-type pneumatic spares are not
required to have such labeling. It also commented
that the maximum speed labeling in ECE Regula-
tion 64 is inapplicable to the non-pneumatic spare,
since the non-pneumatic tire would be subject to
more stringent performance requirements. GM com-
mented that a maximum speed labeling requirement
was not warranted, stating that "there is no generic
technical or safety reason for it," a non-pneumatic
spare tire is not different from current temporary
compact spare tires, the maximum recommended
speed of 50 m.p.h. might unduly alarm some drivers,
and consumers might misinterpret the "50 ntph.
speed" label as a "50 mile use" restriction.

After reviewing the maximum speed labeling re-
quirement in light of these comments, NHTSA con-
tinues to believe that such a requirement would be
in the interest of safety. The agency notes that
according to information provided by Uniroyal, there
are some differences in performance characteristics
between non-pneumatic spare tires and pneumatic
spai'es. For instance, the non-pneumatic tire tends to
"nibble," i.e., generate lateral forces when crossing a
longitudinal road irregularity. While differences
with conventional pneumatic spare tires are not
significant enough to justify a prohibition of non-
pneumatic tires, these relative shortcomings, which
might alarm a driver unfamiliar with them, appear
to be exacerbated at gi-eater speeds. Until more
experience is gained with non-pneumatic tires, the
agency believes that GM's claim that there is no
safety reason to justify maximum speed labeling is
premature. The agency notes that GM included a 50
m.p.h. maximum speed marking on its pneumatic
temporary spare tire for the first five years after its
introduction, suggesting that a newly introduced
temporary tire design should contain such a maxi-
mum speed warning. Based on the above consider-
ations, the agency concludes that to satisfy the Vehicle
Safety Act's mandate, the 50 m.p.h. maximum speed
marking must be a mandatoi-y requirement and not be
left to the manufacturers' discretion.

Section S6(c) of Standard No. 110 contained a
proposal that the non-pneumatic tire be labeled with
the "size designation(s) of the pneumatic tires that
this non-pneumatic tire spare assembly is intended
to replace or, at the manufacturer's option, is capable
of replacing." All those who commented on this
provision opposed it, stating that the requirement
could result in lengthy information that might con-
fuse consumers. For instance, a consumer might
mistakenly conclude that a 15 inch non-pneumatic

PART 571; S129-PRE 4

After reviewing these comments, NHTSA has de-
termined that instead of designations of the pneu-
matic tires replaced, a "non-pneumatic tire identify-
ing code (NPTIC)" should be required to identify a
non-pneumatic tire. Like the tire size designation of
a pneumatic tire, the NPTIC's purpose is to provide
consumers information about the proper application
of a non-pneumatic tire. The agency believes that
this method of identification is superior to requiring
a non-pneumatic tire to be labeled with the pneu-
matic tire size or the non-pneumatic spare tire's
specific vehicle applicationCs) given the potential for
many different non-pneumatic tire designs. A man-
ufacturer may still mark specific vehicle applica-
tion(s) on the tire provided that the additional infor-
mation did not obscure or confuse the required
information. Manufacturers are urged, therefore, to
avoid unnecessarily long vehicle application infor-
mation or unnecessarily long identifying codes.
Based on the above considerations, the manufac-
turer will be required to label a non-pneumatic spare
tire or spare tire assembly with a "non-pneumatic
tire identification code," (NPTIC), which is defined
in section S3 of Standard 129. A manufacturer also
is required to place the NPTIC on the vehicle placard
and in the owner's manual. In addition, the NPTIC
will replace any reference in the regulatory text to
the "non-pneumatic tire size designation."

should be used only as a spare tire at limited speeds for
a limited period of time.

Volkswagen commented that the size of the letter-
ing proposed in S7.1 would result in a placard that
was too large to easily fit in the trunk. Thus, it
requested that the standard require the words to be
"legible and conspicuous," or in the alternative, to
change the 1.0 inch requirement to ^/k inch and the
1/^ inch requirement to '/i inch. NHTSA rejects the
first suggestion because the Vehicle Safety Act re-
quires its requirements to be stated in objective
terms. However, it has decided to adopt the re-
quested size reductions which the agency believes
will be less intrusive but still conspicuous.

Uniroyal and GM objected to the proposal to
require an owner's manual to contain information

PART 571; S129-PRE 5

NHTSA continues to believe that the require-
ments in S7.2 provide valuable safety information
about non-pneumatic tires, a new type of tire design
with which consumers will be less familiar than
temporary pneumatic tires. As for GM's criticism
that this requirement would result in a "costly
redundancy," the agency believes that requiring the
safety information to appear in each of the proposed
locations provides a safety benefit. It is reasonable to
label the tire since a motorist must handle the tire
itself before installing it on the vehicle. It is also
reasonable to require the information on a placard in
the trunk near where the spare tire is stored, be-
cause a motorist may not notice the information on
the tire, especially at night or during inclement
weather. Similarly, it is reasonable to supplement
these brief messages with more detailed information
in the owner's manual, since a motorist typically
consults his or her owner's manual when seeking
detailed information about vehicle usage.

B. Standard Na 129

No commenter supported limiting the use of non-
pneumatic tires to passenger cars. Instead, Chrysler,
Goodyear, Uniroyal, KM A, Firestone, and GM com-
mented that the agency should extend the applica-
bility of Standard No. 129 to permit use of non-
pneumatic spare tires on light trucks and similar
vehicles that use passenger car temporary tires. For
instance, Uniroyal stated that the agency should not
restrict the non-pneumatic spare tire to passenger
cars given that many new light trucks and vans are
equipped with passenger car tires.

NHTSA agrees with the comments and has de-
cided to permit the use of a non-pneumatic spare tire
on any vehicle that is equipped with passenger car
tires. Accordingly, the agency is revising section
S5.1.1 to permit the use of a non-pneumatic tempo-
rary spare tire assembly on vehicles subject to Stan-
dard No. 120 such as light trucks provided that the
vehicle is equipped with passenger car tires. In
addition, amendments, like those to Standard No.
110, are made to Standard No. 120 to include new
informational requirements for tire labeling, vehicle
placarding, and the owner's manual.

Definitions

Uniroyal suggested that the definition for
"maximum tire width," should be changed so that it
uses the phrase "exterior edges" in place of "outer
and inner surfaces" which appears in reference to

PART 571; S129-PRE 6

"carcass" and "tread." The agency has decided to
adopt the suggested wording which it believes pro-
vides a more generic and thus more appropriate
definition.

Performance Requirements and Testing Procedures
in Standard Na 129

General Considerations
The NPRM proposed certain performance require-
ments and testing procedures for non-pneumatic
tires. In developing a proposed standard for non-
pneumatic tires, the agency reviewed the petition,
the docket comments responding to the agency's
request for comments, and the purpose for and
mechanics of the requirements and tests for pneu-
matic tires in Standard No. 109. As a result of this
analysis, the agency proposed the following require-
ments which it believed would ensure the safety of
non-pneumatic tires. These included a lateral
strength requirement instead of Standard No. 109's
bead unseating requirement; and requirements for
strength (in vertical loading), tire endurance, and
high speed performance with modifications to take
into account a non-pneumatic tire's lack of air pres-
sure. The agency also proposed requirements related
to the non-pneumatic tire assembly's size and con-
struction, load rating, and a tread wear indicator.
NHTSA tentatively concluded that the lateral
strength, strength (in vertical loading), endurance,
and high speed requirements would assure the struc-
tural integrity and durability of a non-pneumatic
tire. The agency further believed that these perform-
ance requirements together with the proposed label-
ing requirements explaining that a non-pneumatic
tire should be used only as a temporary spare tire
and at limited speeds would assure their safety.
Therefore, it decided not to propose additional tests
beyond those equivalent to the ones in Stan-

dard No. 109. The agency's consideration of com-
ments addressing these factors will be discussed
separately.

Lateral Strength Performance Requirements

PART 571; S129-PRE 7

Uniroyal, RMA, and Firestone each recommended
that the lateral test force block be made lighter and
smaller to make testing easier and safer. The lateral
force test block shown in Figure 2 and referenced in
S5.2, would have weighed 120 pounds and have been
6.5 inches in height, 14 inches in depth and 18
inches in width. Uniroyal commented that the
block's depth could be reduced by 7 inches which
would reduce the block's weight by over 50 percent.
Firestone stated that the width should be retained to
ensure that the test block would envelop the side
wall of each tire.

After reviewing these comments, NHTSA believes
that the test block size can be reduced to facilitate
testing without adversely affecting the test proce-
dure's effectiveness. In particular, the agency is
adopting Uniroyal's recommendation to reduce the
depth by 7 inches by removing 3^/6 inches from each
end of the block and to reduce the height by remov-
ing one inch from the bottom of the block. After
reviewing Firestone's concerns about the block's
"envelopment" of a non-pneumatic spare tire, the
agency concludes that it is necessary to widen the
test block to 23 inches. The agency calculates that
these changes will reduce the test block's weight to
approximately 55 pounds, a 53 percent reduction.

In the NPRM, the agency considered also propos-

ing a "cleat" test, like the one suggested in GM's
petition, which would have required a non-
pneumatic tire to withstand a load exerted by a
"cleat." This "cleat" would be '/i inch thick with the
edge, that is forced against the tread of the non-
pneumatic tire, rounded with 1/4 inch radius, and the
"cleat" would be one inch wider than the non-
pneumatic tire's tread width. The agency tentatively
rejected the cleat device because it believed that the
plunger test would better simulate real world haz-
ards and because the petitioner did not provide
sufficient documentation in support of its test de-
vice. The agency expressly requested comments on
both the plunger test and the cleat test.

Goodyear provided extensive comments in opposi-
tion to any vertical strength test requirement. It
argued that the main concern addressed by the "tire
strength" requirement in Standard No. 109 is punc-
ture resistance (i.e., the integrity of the air chamber
in resistance to vertical forces exerted by nails and
similar penetrating objects). It believed that such a
concern was not applicable to a non-pneumatic tire.
Alternatively, Goodyear stated that if a strength test
were deemed necessary, then GM's cleat test would
be more appropriate because it evaluates a non-
pneumatic tire's capability to withstand loading
from curbs, potholes, or railroad tracks. While
Uniroyal, RMA, Firestone, and GM also stated that
the cleat test would be superior to a plunger test, no
commenter supported the plunger test.

NHTSA continues to believe that a vertical strength
test is necessary to evaluate a non-pneumatic tire's
structm-al integi'ity. However, after reevaluating the
proposal in light of the comments, the agency agrees
that a cleat test, similar to the one requested in GM's
petition, would better evaluate the real world prob-
lems that will most likely cause a non-pneumatic tire
to experience a structural failui'e.

PART 571; S129-PRE 8

Uniroyal recommended that S4.2.2.4 be amended
so that the minimum breaking energy would be 525
inch pounds for tires with load ratings below 880
pounds and 700 inch pounds for load ratings of 880
pounds or above. After reviewing Uniroyal's exten-
sive comments in support of the reduced energy
levels, NHTSA still believes that the proposed levels
are appropriate to ensure a non-pneumatic tire's
ability to withstand road hazards. The agency notes
that the proposed energy levels are more comparable
to the energy levels that a pneumatic temporary
spare tire is required to withstand. Given the agen-
cy's belief that it is appropriate to require the
non-pneumatic tires to be capable of absorbing en-
ergy at a level comparable to the pneumatic tempo-
rary spare tires that they are intended to replace,
the agency has decided to adopt the energy levels as
proposed rather than to adopt Uniroyal's suggested
energy levels. The agency's review of Uniroyal's data
further indicates that the higher energy levels will
better protect against real world hazards.

After reviewing S4.2.2.4, NHTSA has decided to
modify its language related to a non-pneumatic tire's
failure. As proposed, this section stated "Each tire
shall meet the requirements for minimum breaking
energy when tested in accordance with S5.3 to the
strength requirements . . . ." Because a non-
pneumatic tire is unlikely to "break," the agency
has decided to adopt the statement in the petition
and express the requirement in terms of "no visual
evidence of tread or carcass separation, cracking or
chunking." The agency notes that this will be con-
sistent with the requirements for lateral strength,
tire endurance, and high speed performance, which
are all expressed in this manner. As a result, the

title of the table "Breaking Energy" will be changed
to "Minimum Energy Level."

Labeling Requirements in Standard 129
As explained earlier in this notice, the agency is
adopting new labeling requirements in S6 of Stan-
dard No. 110 and 88 of Standard No. 120. The reader
should refer to the discussions in earlier sections of
this notice about such issues as a label's perma-
nency, information to be provided about the tire's
temporary use and maximum speed, and the tire size
labeling/non-pneumatic tire identification code.

GM requested that a load rating not be required
on a non-pneumatic tire, claiming this information
might cause a motorist to use a non-pneumatic spare
tire that would be inappropriate for a vehicle. The
agency disagrees with the comment, noting that a
tire's load rating is a straightforward item of infor-
mation that has been required on pneumatic tires
without confusing consumers. The agency believes
this information is necessary for safety because
some vehicle owners have been known to increase a

PART 571; S129-PRE 9

Uniroyal commented that S4.3(D, which proposed
requiring labeling with Part 574's tire identification
number, should be amended given that that number
refers, in part, to tire size. As the agency noted above
in its discussion of tire size designations and the
NPTIC, it believes that use of the NPTIC is prefer-
able to use of tire size. While the agency agi-ees that
a change is therefore necessary to reflect the NPTIC,
it has decided to accomplish this by amending Part
574 to apply to non-pneumatic spare tire assemblies
and by amending 574.5(b) to expressly refer to the
NPTIC. Section 574.4, "applicability," and 574.6,
"identification mark," are also revised to expressly
refer to non-pneumatic tires and tire assemblies.

Tire and Rim/Wheel Center Member Matching
Information

Uniroyal recommended changing the first sen-
tence of S4.4 to exempt from the section's require-
ments, a non-pneumatic spare tire that is an inte-
gral part of a non-pneumatic spare tire assembly.
The agency agi-ees that such an exemption is appro-
priate given that the section's purpose is to provide
information about the matching of non-integral tires
and rims.

After reviewing this provision, NHTSA has de-
cided to modify S4.4. to require the submission to

include the NPTIC. This modification to require the
inclusion of the NPTIC rather than the tire size is a
conforming change made to reflect another change
addressed earlier in the notice. In addition, the
agency notes that it proposed in the definition of
"test rim" in S3 to require each tire and rim match-
ing information listing to include the load rating.
After further review, the agency has determined
that it more appropriate to include this requirement
in section S4.4.

IV. Effective Date

§571.110 [Amended]

1. Paragraph S2 of Standard 110 is revised to read
as follows:

S2 Application. This standard applies to passen-
ger cars and to non-pneumatic spare tire assemblies
for use on passenger cars.

2. Paragraph S3 of Standard No. 110 is amended
by adding the following definitions in the proper
alphabetical location:

"Non-pneumatic rim" is used as defined in
§571.129.

"Non-pneumatic spare tire assembly" means a

PART 571; S129-PRE 10

non-pneumatic tire assembly intended for tempo-
rary use in place of one of the pneumatic tires and
rims that are fitted to a passenger car in compliance
with the requirements of this standard.

"Non-pneumatic tire" and "non-pneumatic tire
assembly" are used as defined in §571.129.

"Rim" is used as defined in §571.109.

"Wheel center member" is used as defined in
§571.129.

*****

3. Paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 110 is revised to
read as follows:

*****

4. Paragraph S4.3(c), (d), and (e) is revised to read
as follows:

:)c :t: :^ :{£ 3^

(d) Vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size
designation; and

5. Standard No. 110 is amended by adding para-
graphs S5, S6, S7 and S8 to read as follows:

55 Load Limits for Non-Pneumatic Spare Tires.
The highest vehicle maximum load on the tire for
the vehicle shall not be gi'eater than the load rating
for the non-pneumatic spare tire.

56 Labeling Requirements for Non-Pneumatic
Spare Tires or Tire Assemblies.

(a) FOR TEMPORARY USE ONLY; and

(b) MAXIMUM 50 M.RH.

57 Requirements for Passenger Cars Equipped
with Non-Pneumatic Spare Tire Assemblies.

(a) A statement indicating the labeling related to
appropriate use for the non-pneumatic spare tire
including at a minimum the information set forth in
S6(a) and (b) and in S4.3(e);

(b) An instruction to drive carefully when the
non-pneumatic spare tire is in use, and to install the
proper pneumatic tire and rim at the first reason-
able opportunity; and

(c) A statement that operation of the passenger car
is not recommended with more than one non-
pneumatic spare tire in use at the same time.

58 Non-Pneumatic Rims and Wheel Center Members

PART 571; S129-PRE 11

pneumatic tire identification code, with which the
vehicle is equipped.

§571.120 [Amended]

6. Paragraph S3 of Standard 120 is revised to read
as follows:

3f; :{; ^ ;(: :};

7. Paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 is revised
to read as follows:

55.1.1 Except as specified in S5.1.3, each vehicle
equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service
shall be equipped with tires that meet the require-
ments of §571.109, New Pneumatic Tires— Passenger
Cars, or §571.119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles
Other than Passenger Cars, and rims that are listed
by the manufacturer of the tires as suitable for use
with those tires, in accordance with S4.4 with
§571.109, or S5.1 of §571.119, as applicable, except
that vehicles may be equipped with a non-pneumatic
spare tire assembly that meets the requirements of
§571.129, New Non-Pneumatic Tires for Passenger
Cars, and S8 and SIO of this standard. Vehicles
equipped with such an assembly shall meet the
requirements of S5.3.6, S7, and S9 of this standard.

8. The introductory text of paragraph S5.3.2 of
Standard No. 120 is revised to read as follows:

55.3.2 Vehicles Manufactured on or after December
1, 1984. Each vehicle manufactured on or after
December 1, 1984, shall show the information spec-
ified in S5.3.3 through 85. 3. 5, and in the case of a
vehicle equipped with a non-pneumatic spare tire,
also that specified in S5.3.6, in the English lan-
guage, lettered in block capitals and numerals not
less than three thirty-seconds of an inch high and in
the format set forth following this section. This
information shall appear either—

9. Paragraph S5.3.6 is added to Standard No. 120
to read as follows:

S5.3.6 The non-pneumatic tire identification code,
with which that assembly is labeled pursuant to
S4.3(a) of §571.129.

10. Standard 120 is amended by adding para-
graphs S7, S8, S9, and SlO.

87 Load Limits for Non-Pneumatic Spare Tires.
The highest vehicle maximum load on the tire for
the vehicle shall not be greater than the load rating
for the non-pneumatic spare tire.

S8 Labeling Requirements for Non-Pneumatic

Spare Tires or Tire Assemblies. Each non-pneumatic
tire or, in the case of a non-pneumatic tire assembly
in which the non-pneumatic tire is an integi'al part
of the assembly, each non-pneumatic tire assembly
shall be permanently molded, stamped, or otherwise
permanently marked into or onto both sides in
letters or numerals not less than 0.156 inches high,
the information specified in paragraphs 86.(a)
through (b). Except, in the case of a non-pneumatic
tire assembly which has a particular side that must
always face outward when mounted on a vehicle, the
information shown in paragi-aphs 86(a) through (b)
shall only be required on the outward facing side.
The information shall be positioned on the tire or
tire assembly such that it is not placed on the tread
or the outermost edge of the tire and is not ob-
structed by any portion of any non-pneumatic rim or
wheel center member designated for use with that
tire in this standard or in Standard No. 129.

(a) FOR TEMPORARY USE ONLY; and

(b) MAXIMUM 50 M.RH.

S9 Requirements for Vehicles Equipped with Non-
Pneumatic Spare Tire Assemblies

(a) A statement indicating the labeling related to
appropriate use for the non-pneumatic spare tire
including at a minimum the information set forth in
S8(aJ and (b) and in 85.3.6;

(b) An instruction to drive carefully when the
non-pneumatic spare tire is in use, and to install the
proper pneumatic tire and rim at the first reason-
able opportunity; and

(c) A statement that operation of the vehicle is not
recommended with more than one non-pneumatic
spare tire in use at the same time.

810 Non-Pneumatic Rims and Wheel Center Members
810.1 Non-Pneumatic Rim Requirements. Each
non-pneumatic rim that is part of a separable non-
pneumatic spare tire assembly shall be constructed
to the dimensions of a non-pneumatic rim that is
listed pursuant to 84.4 of §571.129 for use with the
non-pneumatic tire, designated by its non-

PART 571; S129-PRE 12

pneumatic tire identification code, with which the
vehicle is equipped.

S10.2 Wheel Center Member Requirements. Each
wheel center member that is part of a separable
non-pneumatic spare tire assembly shall be con-
structed to the dimensions of a wheel center member
that is listed pursuant to S4.4 of §571.129 for use
with the non-pneumatic tire, designated by its non-
pneumatic tire identification code, with which the
vehicle is equipped.

^ "^K -f* 'l^ •T'

11. Part 571 is amended by the addition of 49 CFR
§571.129 which would read as follows:

§571.129 Standard No. 129; New Non-Pneumatic
T^res for Passenger Cars.

Si Scope. This standard specifies tire dimensions
and laboratory test requirements for lateral
strength, strength, endurance, and high speed per-
formance; defines the tire load rating; and specifies
labeling requirements for non-pneumatic spare
tires.

52 Application. This standard applies to new tem-
porary spare non-pneumatic tires for use on passen-
ger cars.

53 Definitions.

"Carcass" means the tire structure except for the
tread which provides the major portion of the tire's
capability to deflect in response to the vertical loads
and tractive forces that the tire transmits from the
roadway to the non-pneumatic rim, the wheel center
member, or the vehicle and which attaches to the
vehicle or attaches, either integrally or separably, to
the wheel center member or non-pneumatic rim.

"Carcass separation" means the pulling away of
the carcass from the non-pneumatic rim or wheel
center member.

"Chunking" means the breaking away of pieces of
the carcass or tread.

"Cracking" means any parting within the carcass,
tread, or any components that connect the tire to the
non-pneumatic rim or wheel center member and, if
the non-pneumatic tire is integi-al with the non-
pneumatic rim or wheel center member, any parting
within the non-pneumatic rim, or wheel center
member.