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

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



»•;■•,, • ,•■,■ ■.... * ^ .• 



:^^;; 


•^:.:S<'^'V/.: , 


'^^"' 


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






HI 


IfV.-'-^. 


^^^H 


■Tv^.'^-^;- . 




^^H '-'«■<'- 




^H ' » 


^^H 


B*-vA' 


^^H 


R -/:■-:■■ 


V 


• ,!^.,;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. 

(c) Each petitioner shall include the following 
information in its petition. 

(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. 

(c) Each petitioner shall include the following infor- 
mation in its petition. 

(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. 

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 perma- 
nently 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 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 

(c) A third tire for high speed performance. 

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; 

(c) Vehicle capacity weight; and 

(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 



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 

(c) After the key has been inserted in the locking sys- 
tem and before is has been turned on. 

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. 

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- 



PART 571; S120-PRE 21 



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 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- 



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 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 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; S120-PRE 22 



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 (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. 



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 Tsst 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; 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(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 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 



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 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. 

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 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." 

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 



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. 

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 No. 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 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. 

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; 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. 

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 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. 

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- 



PART 571; S120-PRE 27 



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 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. 

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 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. 

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" failure. For 



PART 571; S120-PRE 28 



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 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." 

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 tire identification code. 

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 



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 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. 

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; 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: 

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. 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. 

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 perma- 
nently 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 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. 

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. 

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: 

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. 

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

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 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: 

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. 

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. 

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 Ptissenger 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 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 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 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" 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. 

"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. 

"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 

84.2.1 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. 

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. 

(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 

(c) A third tire for high speed performance. 

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 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 

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 
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; 

(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 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: 

(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, DC 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 

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- 



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 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. 

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; 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. 

55.3.2.1 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 = ^^^ 



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. 

55.4.2.1 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, and 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 Tfest 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 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: 

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; 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, 

(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. 

55.3.3 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 



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 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. 

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- 



PART 129; S129-PRE 1 



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 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- 



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 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 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 integi'ity 
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 129; 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 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. 



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. 

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 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. 

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 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 



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 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 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." 

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 



PART 129; PRE 5 



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 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. 

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 No. 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, 
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 

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 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. 

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 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. 

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- 



PART 129; PRE 7 



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 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. 

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 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. 

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. 

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" failure. For 



PART 129; PRE 8 



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 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." 

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 tire identification code. 

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 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 

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-integi'al 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 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 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 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: 

(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: 

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. 

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 perma- 
nently 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 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 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: 

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. 

:^ ^. 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: 

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- 
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 

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 TIRE" 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 129; PRE 12 



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. 



+ * 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. 

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 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. 

"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 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" 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. 

"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. 

"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 

84. 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 



PART 129; PRE 13 



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 
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 

(c) A third tire for high speed performance. 

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 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: 

(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, 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- 



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 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. 

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 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. 

55.4.2.1 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, and 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 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: 

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. 

:\!: ■^ ■^ ^ j^ 

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 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. 

(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 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 


1 


^ 




i 
7 


r 


R = 1.0\ 


i 

( 


5 

r 


V 












/ 




^1 



-^- 



Centerline 



23 



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 

(c) A third tire for high speed performance. 

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 


1 


-^ 


1 


r 


R = 1.0 


\ 


A 

6 


V 










^ 


-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. 

(c) Height of one inch greater than the difference be- 
tween 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. 

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. 

(c) Substitute attached Art Page 25-26 for similar page 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 

GM 

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, 


5R 


20 


20 


20 


20 






20L, 


, 20R 


12.5 


12.5 


10 


15 


5U, 


5D 


. . lOL, 


, lOR 


37.5 


37.5 


20 


40 






V 




87.5 


87.5 


70 


90 






lOL, 


, lOR 


50 


50 


35 


40 


H .. 




. 5L, 


5R 


100 


100 


90 


100 






V 




100 


100 


100 


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 


125 


75 


120 


H-5L, 5U-V, H-V, 5D-V, 
H-5R 


Alb 


475 


420 


480 


5U-10R, H-IOR, 5D-10R . 


125 


125 


75 


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." 

(c) SAE Standard J580 DEC 86 Sealed Beam 
Headlamp Assembly, with the following exception: 

(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. 

(c) The lower and upper beams shall be provided 
only as follows where each headlamp contains a 
signal light source. 

(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: 

(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, 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- 



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 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. 

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 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. 

55.3.2.1 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 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 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, and 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 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: 

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; 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. 

(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; 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 


1 


_^ 


I 
7 


f 


R = 1.0 




h 
6 

V 


V 










^ 


— 7 


». 



End View 



Centerline 



23 



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 



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. 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. 

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- 



PART 571; S129-PRE 1 



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 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- 



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 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 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; 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. 

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 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 

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; S129-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 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 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. 

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 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 



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 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." 

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 ^/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. 

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 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." 

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 



PART 571; S129-PRE 5 



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 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. 

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, 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 

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; 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. 

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. 

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 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. 

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- 



PART 571; S129-PRE 7 



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^/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. 

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 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 '/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. 

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 
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" failure. For 



PART 571; S129-PRE 8 



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 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." 

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 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. 

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; S129-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. 

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 

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 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. 

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 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 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; 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: 

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

:)c :t: :^ :{£ 3^ 

(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 gi'eater 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 perma- 
nently 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 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; 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: 

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. 

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 

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 
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. 

"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 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" 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. 

"Tread 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. 

fb) It shall incorporate a tread wear indicator that 



PART 571; S129-PRE 13 



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 
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 

(c) A third tire for high speed performance. 

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 (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; 

(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 S8 of Standard No. 
120 (§571.120). 



PART 571; S129-PRE 14 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE 

SAFETY STANDARD NO. 116 

Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids 

(Docket No. 87-07; Notice 4) 
RIN 2127-AC26 



ACTION: Technical amendment. 

SUMMARY: This notice corrects the labeling require- 
ments of Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake 
Fluids, to reinstate portions of the standard that has 
been inadvertently removed through administrative 
error. Standard No. 116 had set forth detailed safety 
information that had to be labeled on brake fluid and 
hydraulic system mineral oil containers. When the 
method of placing this information on these containers 
was amended in 1988 (to allow the use of permanently 
affixed labels), the notice making the amendment 
inadvertently removed the portions of the standard 
which described the required information. This notice 
replaces those descriptive paragraphs. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 11, 1990. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 28, 
1988, the agency published a final rule, effective 
December 27, 1988, amending Standard No. 116 to per- 
mit the use of permanently-affixed labels (e.g., paper 
or plastic labels) on brake fluid containers to satisfy the 
container information requirements of the standard. 
(53 FR 24272) The amendatory language NHTSA 
chose to identify the portions of the standard that were 
changed was interpreted by the Federal Register as 
removing paragraphs in the standard that described 
the safety information that had to be placed on the con- 
tainers (i.e., S5.2.2.2(a) through (g) and S5.2.2.3(a) 
through (e)). The agency wished to retain those 
paragraphs. 

NHTSA's intent to retain the paragraphs is appar- 
ent in the preamble to the final rule. There the agency 
explained at length that the safety information placed 
on brake fluid containers is important for the proper 
storage and use of fluids. NHTSA stated: 

The safety warning required on brake fluid and 
hydraulic system mineral oil containers warn 
against certain practices in using hydraulic fluid 
for braking systems that might result in the use 
of improper or contaminated fluids. The warnings 
also help to prevent improper storage of the brake 
fluid which could contaminate the fluid or cause 
it to absorb moisture. Avoiding the aJ)sorption of 
moisture is extremely important since moisture 
in a brake system degrades braking performance 



and safety by lowering the brake fluid's boiling 
point, increasing the fluid's viscosity at low at- 
mospheric temperature and increasing the risk of 
brake system component corrosion. Lower boiling 
points increase the risk of brake system failure 
and increase the possibilities of vapor lock. The 
safety warnings also alert users of brake fluid con- 
tainers with capacities less than five gallons that 
the containers should not be refilled. (53 FR at 
U273). 

The preamble to the final rule only discussed amend- 
ments to the method of labeling the safety information 
on brake fluid containers (i.e., the introductory text to 
S5.2.2.2 and S5.2.2.3) and not changes in the agency's 
position regarding the benefits of labeling containers 
or the contents of that labeling. 

The agency's intent to retain paragraphs S5. 2.2. 2(a) 
through (g) and S5. 2. 2. 3(a) through (e) is further evi- 
denced by the agency's referencing those paragraphs 
in S5.2.2.2 and S5.2.2.3 when NHTSA amended these 
sections in the June 1988 final rule. For example, the 
introductory text to S5.2.2.2 requires brake fluid pack- 
agers to "furnish the information specified in para- 
graph (a) through (g) of this section..." 

Nevertheless, Standard No. 116 has been published 
without paragraphs S5. 2. 2. 2(a) through (g) and 
S5. 2. 2. 3(a) and through (e). This notice corrects that 
error by reinstating those paragraphs. 

Because the amendment is corrective in nature and 
the public has already had notice and an opportunity 
to comment on the standard's labeling requirements, 
NHTSA, has determined that a second notice and op- 
portunity to comment thereon are not necessary, and 
that for good cause shown that an effective date earlier 
than 180 days after issuance of the rule is in the public 
interest. The amendment is effective 30 days after pub- 
lication in he Federal Register 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 
is amended as follows: 

PART 571 -FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE 
SAFETY STANDARDS 

1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to 
read as follows: 

AuthoHty: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407; deje- 
gation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. ' ' 



PART 571; S116-PRE 41 



2. Section 571.116 is amended by revising S5.2.2.2 
and S5.2.2.3 to read as follows: 

§ 571.116 Standard No. 116; Motor vehicle brake fluids. 

* * * * 
S5.2.2.2 Each packager of brake fluid shall furnish the 
information specified in paragraphs (a) through (g) of 
this S5.2.2.2 by clearly marking it on each brake fluid 
container or on a label (labels) permanently affixed to 
the container, in any location except a removable part 
such as a lid. After being subjected to the operations 
and conditions specified in S6.14, the information re- 
quired by this section shall be legible to an observer 
having corrected visual acuity of 20/40 (Snellen ration) 
at a distance of one foot, and any label affixed to the 
container in compliance with this section shall not be 
removable without its being destroyed or defaced. 

(a) Certification that the brake fluid conforms to 
§571.116. 

(b) The name of the packager of the brake fluid, 
which may be in code form. 

(c) The name and complete mailing address of the 
distributor. 

(d) A serial number identifying the packaged lot and 
date of packaging. 

(e) Designation of the contents as "DOT 

MOTOR VEHICLE BRAKE FLUID" (FOl in "3," "4," 
or "5" as applicable). 

(f) The minimum wet boiling point in Fahrenheit of 
the DOT brake fluid in the container. 

(g) The following safety warning in capital and lower 
case letters as indicated: 

(1) FOLLOW VEHICLE MANUFACTURER'S 
RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN ADDING BRAKE 
FLUID. 

(2) KEEP BRAKE FLUID CLEAN AND DRY. 
Contamination with dirt, water, petroleum products or 
other materials may result in brake failure or costly 
repairs. 

(3) STORE BRAKE FLUID ONLY IN ITS 
ORIGINAL CONTAINER. KEEP CONTAINER 
CLEAN AND TIGHTLY CLOSED TO PREVENT 
ABSORPTION OF MOISTURE. (The last five words 
of the second sentence may be omitted from the label- 
ing on DOT 5 containers.) 

(4) CAUTION: DO NOT REFILL CONTAINER, 
AND DO NOT USE FOR OTHER LIQUIDS. (Not 
required for containers with a capacity in excess of 5 
gallons.) 



S5.2.2.3 Each packager of hydraulic system mineral 
oil shall furnish the information specified in paragraphs 
(a) through (e) of this S5. 2.2.3 by clearly marking it on 
each brake fluid container or on a label Oabels) perma- 
nently affixed to the container, in any location except 
a removable part such as a lid. After being subjected 
to the operations and conditions specified in S6.14, the 
information required by this section shall be legible to 
an observer having corrected visual acuity of 20/40 
(Snellen ration) at a distance of one foot, and any label 
affixed to the container in compliance with this section 
shall not be removable without its being destroyed or 
defaced. 

(a) The name of the packager of the hydraulic sys- 
tem mineral oil, which may be in code form. 

(b) The name and complete mailing address of the 
distributor. 

(c) A serial number identifying the packaged lot and 
date of packaging. 

(d) Designation of the contents as "HYDRAULIC 
SYSTEM MINERAL OIL" in capital letters at least 
Vs of an inch high. 

(e) The following safety warnings in capital and 
lower case letters as indicated: 

(1) FOLLOW VEHICLE MANUFACTURER'S 
RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN ADDING HYDRAU- 
LIC SYSTEM MINERAL OIL. 

(2) Hydraulic System Mineral Oil is NOT COM- 
PATIBLE with the rubber components of brake sys- 
tems designed for use with DOT brake fluids. 

(3) KEEP HYDRAULIC SYSTEM MINERAL 
OIL CLEAN. Contamination with dust or other mate- 
rials may result in brake failure or costly repair. 

(4) CAUTION: STORE HYDRAULIC SYSTEM 
MINERAL OIL ONLY IN ITS ORIGINAL CON- 
TAINER. KEEP CONTAINER CLEAN AND 
TIGHTLY CLOSED. DO NOT REFILL CONTAINER 
OR USE OTHER LIQUIDS. (The last sentence is on 
in excess of 5 gallons.) 

* * * * 
Issued on September 5, 1990. 



55 F.R. 37328 
September 11, 1990 



PART 571; S116-PRE 42 



PM6,1— M213 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 116 

Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids— Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, 
Buses, and Motorcycles, and Brake Fluid and Brake Fluid Containers 

(Docket No. 70-23; Notice 3) 



51. Scope. This standard specifies require- 
ments for fluids for use in hydraulic brake systems 
of motor vehicles, containers for these fluids, and 
labeling of the containers. 

52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is 
to reduce failures in the hydraulic braking systems 
of motor vehicles which may occur because of the 
manufacture or use of improper or contaminated 
fluid. 

S3. Application. This standard applies to all 
fluid for use in hydraulic brake systems of motor 
vehicles. In addition, S5.3 applies to passenger 
cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, 
buses, trailers, and motorcycles. 

S4. Definitions. 

"Blister" means a cavity or sac on the surface of 
a brake cup. 

"Brake fluid" means a liquid designed for use in 
a motor vehicle hydraulic brake system in which it 
will contact elastomeric components made of 
styrene and butadiene rubber (SBR), ethylene and 
propylene rubber (EPR), polychloroprene (CR) 
brake hose inner tube stock or natural rubber (NR). 

"Chipping" means a condition in which small 
pieces are missing from the outer surface of a 
brake cup. 

"Hydraulic system mineral oil" means a mineral- 
oil-based fluid designed for use in motor vehicle 
hydraulic brake systems in which the fluid is not in 
contact with components made of SBR, EPR or NR. 

"Duplicate samples" means two samples of 
brake fluid taken from a single packaged lot and 
tested simultaneously. 

"Packager" means any person who fills con- 
tainers with brake fluid that are subsequently 
distributed for retail sale. 

"Packaged lot" is that quantity of brake fluid 
shipped by the manufacturer to the packager in a 
single container, or that quantity of brake fluid 
manufactured by a single plant run of 24 hours or 
less, through the same processing equipment and 
with no change in ingredients. 

"Scuffing" means a visible erosion of a portion 
of the outer surface of a brake cup. 

"Sloughing" means degradation of a brake cup 
as evidenced by the presence of carbon black 
loosely held on the brake cup surface, such that a 
visible black streak is produced when the cup, with 



a 500 ±10 gram dead weight on it, is drawn base 
down over a sheet of white bond paper placed on a 
firm flat surface. 

"Stickiness" means a condition on the surface of 
a brake cup such that fibers will be pulled from a 
wad of U.S. P. absorbent cotton when it is drawn 
across the surface. 

S5. Requirements. This section specifies per- 
formance requirements for DOT 3, DOT 4 and DOT 
5 brake fluids, requirements for brake fluid cer- 
tification, and for container sealing, labeling and 
color coding for both brake fluids and hydraulic 
system mineral oils. Where a range of tolerances is 
specified, the brake fluid must be capable of meeting 
the requirements at all points within the range. 

S5.1 Brake fluid. When tested in accordance 
with S6, brake fluids shall meet the following 
requirements. 

55.1.1 Equilibrium reflux boiling point (ERBP). 

When brake fluid is tested according to S6.1, the 
ERBP shall not be less than the following value for 
the grade indicated: 

(a) DOT 3: 205°C (401 °F) 

(b) DOT 4: 230°C (446°F) 

(c) DOT 5: 260°C (500°F) 

55.1.2 Wet ERBP. When brake fluid is tested 
according to S6.2, the wet ERBP shall not be less 
than the following value for the grade indicated: 

(a) DOT 3: 140°C (284°F) 

(b) DOT 4: 155°C (31 PF) 

(c) DOT 5: 180°C (356°F) 

55.1.3 Kinematic viscosities. When brake fluid 
is tested according to S6.3, the kinematic 
viscosities in centistokes (cSt) at stated 
temperatures shall be neither less than 1.5 cSt at 
100° C. (212° F.) nor more than the following 
maximum value for the grade indicated: 



(a) DOT 3 

(b) DOT 4 

(c) DOT 5 



1500 cSt at minus 40°C (minus 40° F) 

1800 cSt at minus 40°C (minus 40° F) 

900 cSt at minus 40°C (minus 40° F) 



55.1.4 pH value. When DOT 3 or DOT 4 brake 
fluid is tested according to S6.4, the pH value shall 
not be less than 7.0 or more than 11.5. 

55.1.5 Brake fluid stability. 

S5. 1.5.1 High-temperature stability. When 
brake fluid is tested according to S.6.5.3 the ERBP 



PART 571; S116-1 



shall not change by more than 3.0°C (5.4°F) plus 
0.05 degree for each degree that the ERBP of the 
fluid exceeds 225°C (437°F). 

S5.1.5.2 Chemical stability. When DOT 3 or 
DOT 4 brake fluid is tested according to S6.5.4, the 
change in temperature of the refluxing fluid mix- 
ture shall not exceed 3.0°C (5.4°F) plus 0.05 
degree for each degree that the ERBP of the fluid 
exceeds 225°C (437°F). 

S5.1.6 Corrosion. When brake fluid is tested 
according to S.6.6— 

(a) The metal test strips shall not show weight 
changes exceeding the limits stated in Table I. 

(b) Excluding the area of contact (13 + 1 mm. 
(V2 ± %2 inch) measured from the bolt hole end of 
the test strip), the metal test strips shall not show 
pitting or etching to an extent discernible without 
magnification; 

(c) The water-wet brake fluid at the end of the 
test shall show no jelling at 23±5°C (73.4 ±9°F); 

(d) No crystalline deposit shall form and adhere 
to either the glass jar walls or the surface of the 
metal strips; 

(e) At the end of the test, sedimentation of the 
water-wet brake fluid shall not exceed 0.10 percent 
by volume; 

(f ) The pH value of water-wet DOT 3 and DOT 4 
brake fluid at the end of the test shall not be less 
than 7.0 nor more than 11.5; 

(g) The cups at the end of the test shall show no 
disintegration, as evidenced by blisters or 
sloughing; 

(h) The hardness of the cup shall not decrease by 
more than 15 International Rubber Hardness 
Degrees (IRHD); and 

TABLE 1 



Test strip material 



Max. permissible 

weight change, 

m^lsq cm of 

surface 



Steel, Tinned Iron, Cast Iron 

Aluminum 

Brass, Copper 



0.2 
0.1 
0.4 



(i) The base diameter of the cups shall not in- 
crease by more than 1.4 mm. (0.055 inch). 

S5.1.7 Fluidity and appearance at low 
temperature. When brake fluid is tested according 



to S6.7, at the storage temperature and for the 
storage times given in Table II— 

(a) The fluid shall show no sludging, sedimenta- 
tion, crystallization, or stratification; 

(b) Upon inversion of the sample bottle, the time 
required for the air bubble to travel to the top of 
the fluid shall not exceed the bubble flow times 
shown in Table II; and 

(c) On warming to room temperature, the fluid 
shall resume the appearance and fluidity that it 
had before chilling. 

TABLE II— Fludity and Appearance at Low Temperatures 



Storage temperature 



Storage 

time 
(hours) 



Max. 
bubble flow 

time 
(seconds) 



minus 40±2°C (minus 

40±3.6°F) 144±4.0 10 

minus 50±2°C (minus 

58±3.6°F) 6 ±0.2 35 

55.1.8 Evaporation. When brake fluid is tested 
according to S6.8— 

(a) The loss by evaporation shall not exceed 80 
percent by weight; 

(b) The residue from the brake fluid after 
evaporation shall contain no precipitate that 
remains gritty or abrasive when rubbed with the 
fingertip; and 

(c) The residue shall have a pour point below 
minus 5°C(^-23°F). 

55.1.9 Water tolerance. 

(a) At low temperature. When brake fluid is 
tested according to [S6.9.3(a)— J 

(1) The fluid shall show no sludging, sedimen- 
tation, crystallization, or stratification; 

(2) Upon inversion of the centrifuge tube, the 
air bubble shall travel to the top of the fluid in not 
more than 10 seconds; 

(3) If cloudiness has developed, the wet fluid 
shall regain its original clarity and fluidity when 
warmed to room temperature; and 

(b) At 60° C. (U0° F.). When brake fluid is 
tested according to [86. 9. 3(b)— J 

(1) The fluid shall show no stratification; and 

(2) Sedimentation shall not exceed 0.15 per- 
cent by volume after centrifuging. 



PART 571; S116-2 



55.1.10 Compatibility. 

(a) At low temperature. When brake fluid is 
tested according to S6. 10.3(a) the test specimen 
shall show no sludging, sedimentation, or 
crystallization. In addition DOT 3 and DOT 4 
fluids shall show no stratification. 

(b) At 60° C. (U0° F.). When brake fluid is 
tested according to S6. 10. 3(b)— 

(1) Sedimentation shall not exceed 0.05 per- 
cent by volume after centrifuging; and 

(2) DOT 3 and DOT 4 fluids shall show no 
stratification. 

55.1.11 Resistance to oxidation. When brake 
fluid is tested according to S6.ll— 

(a) The metal test strips outside the areas in 
contact with the tinfoil shall not show pitting or 
etching to an extent discernible without magnifica- 
tion; 

(b) No more than a trace of gum shall be 
deposited on the test strips outside the areas in 
contact with the tinfoil; 

(c) The aluminum strips shall not change in 
weight by more than 0.05 mg/sq cm; and 

(d) The cast iron strips shall not change in 
weight by more than 0.3 mg/sq cm. 

55.1.12 Effects on cups. When brake cups are 
subjected to brake fluid in accordance with 
[S6.121- 

(a) The increase in the diameter of the base of 
the cups shall be not less than 0.15 mm (0.006 inch) 
or more than 1.40 mm (0.055 inch); 

(b) The decrease in hardness of the cups shall be 
not more than 10 IRHD at 70°C (158°F) or more 
than 15 IRHD at 120°C (248°F), and there shall be 
no increase in hardness of the cups; and 

(c) The cups shall show no disintegration as 
evidenced by stickiness, blisters, or sloughing. 

55.1.13 Stroking properties. When brake fluid 
is tested according to S6.13— 

(a) Metal parts of the test system shall show no 
pitting or etching to an extent discernible without 
magnification; 

(b) The change in diameter of any cylinder or 
piston shall not exceed 0.13 mm (0.005 inch); 

(c) The average decrease in hardness of seven of 
the eight cups tested (six wheel cylinder and one 
master cylinder primary) shall not exceed 15 
IRHD. Not more than one of the seven cups shall 
have a decrease in hardness greater than 17 IRHD; 



(d) None of the eight cups shall be in an 
unsatisfactory operating condition as evidenced by 
stickiness, scuffing, blisters, cracking, chipping, 
or other change in shape from its original 
appearance; 

(e) None of the eight cups shall show an increase 
in base diameter greater than 0.90 mm (0.035 
inch); 

(f ) The average lip diameter set of the eight cups 
shall not be greater than 65 percent; 

(g) During any period of 24,000 strokes, the 
volume loss of fluid shall not exceed 36 milliliters; 

(h) The cylinder pistons shall not freeze or func- 
tion improperly throughout the test; 

(i) The total loss of fluid during the 100 strokes 
at the end of the test shall not exceed 36 milliliters; 

(j) The fluid at the end of the test shall show no 
formation of gels; 

(k) At the end of the test the amount of sediment 
shall not exceed 1.5 percent by volume; and 

(1) Brake cylinders shall be free of deposits that are 
abrasive or that cannot be removed when rubbed 
moderately with a nonabrasive cloth wetted with 
ethanol. 

S5.1.14 Fluid color. Brake fluid and hydraulic 
system mineral oil manufactured on or after 
September 1, 1978, shall be of the color indicated: 

DOT 3 and DOT 4-colorless to amber. 

DOT 5-purple. 

Hydraulic system mineral oil— green. 

S5.2 Packaging and labeling requirements for 
motor vehicle brake fluids. 

55.2.1 Container sealing. Each brake fluid or 
hydraulic system mineral oil container with a 
capacity of 6 fluid ounces or more shall be provided 
with a resealable closure that has an inner seal 
impervious to the packaged brake fluid. The con- 
tainer closure shall include a tamper-proof feature 
that will either be destroyed or substantially 
altered when the container closure is initially opened. 

55.2.2 Certification, marking, and labeling. 

S5.2.2.1 Each manufacturer of a DOT grade 
brake fluid shall furnish to each packager, 
distributor, or dealer to whom he delivers brake 
fluid, the following information: 

(a) A serial number identifying the production 
lot and the date of manufacture of the brake fluid. 



(Rev. S/6/86) 



PART 571; S 116-3 



(b) The grade (DOT 3, DOT 4, or DOT 5) of the 
brake fluid. 

(c) The minimum wet boiUng point in Fahrenheit 
of the brake fluid. 

(d) Certification that the brake fluid conforms to 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116. 

S5.2.2.2 Each packager of a brake fluid shall 
furnish the information specified in paragraphs (a) 
through (g) of this section by clearly marking it on 
each brake fluid container or on a label (labels) per- 
manently affixed to the container, in any location 
except a removable part such as a lid. After being 
subjected to the operations and conditions specified 
in S6.14, the information required by this section 
shall be legible to an observer having corrected 
visual acuity of 20/40 (Snellen ratio) at a distance of 
one foot, and any label affixed to the container in 
compliance with this section shall not be removable 
without its being destroyed or defaced. 

(a) Certification that the brake fluid conforms to 
§ 571.116. 

(b) The name of the packager of the brake fluid, 
which may be in code form. 

(c) The name and complete mailing address of 
the distributor. 

(d) A serial number identifying the packaged lot 
and date of packaging. 

(e) Designation of the contents as 

"DOT MOTOR VEHICLE BRAKE FLUID" 

(Fill "3," "4," or "5" as applicable). 

(f) The minimum wet boiling point in Fahrenheit 
of the DOT brake fluid in the container. 

(g) The following safety warnings in capital and 
lower case letters as indicated: 

(1) FOLLOW VEHICLE MANUFAC- 
TURERS RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN AD- 
DING BRAKE FLUID. 

(2) KEEP BRAKE FLUID CLEAN AND 
DRY. Contamination with dirt, water, petroleum 
products or other materials may result in brake 
failure or costly repairs. 

(3) STORE BRAKE FLUID ONLY IN ITS 
ORGINAL CONTAINER. KEEP CONTAINER 
CLEAN AND TIGHTLY CLOSED TO PRE- 
VENT ABSORPTION OF MOISTURE. (The 
last five words of the second sentence may be 
omitted from the labeling on DOT 5 containers.) 

(4) CAUTION: DO NOT REFILL CON- 
TAINER, AND DO NOT USE FOR OTHER LI- 
QUIDS. (Not required for containers with a 
capacity in excess of 5 gallons.) 



55.2.2.3 Each packager of hydraulic system 
mineral oil shall furnish the information specified 
in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section by 
clearly marking it on each brake fluid container or 
on a label (labels) permanently affixed to the con- 
tainer, in any location except a removable part 
such as a lid. After being subjected to the opera- 
tions and conditions specified in S6.14, the infor- 
mation required by this section shall be legible to 
an observer having corrected visual acuity of 20/40 
(Snellen ratio) at a distance of one foot, and any 
label affixed to the container in compliance with 
this section shall not be removable without its 
being destroyed or defaced. 

[(a) The name of the packager of the hydraulic 
system mineral oil, which may be in code form. 

(b) The name of complete mailing address of the 
distributor. 

(c) A serial number identifying the packaged lot 
and date of packaging. 

(d) Designation of the contents as "HYDRAU- 
LIC SYSTEM MINERAL OIL" in capital letters 
at least '/g of an inch high. 

(e) The following safety warnings in capital and 
lower case letters as indicated: 

(1) FOLLOW VEHICLE MANUFAC- 
TURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN AD- 
DING HYDRAULIC SYSTEM MINERAL OIL. 

(2) Hydraulic System Mineral Oil is NOT 
COMPATIBLE with the rubber components of 
brake systems designed for use with DOT brake 
fluids. 

(3) KEEP HYDRAULIC SYSTEM MIN- 
ERAL OIL CLEAN. Contamination with dust or 
other materials may result in brake failure or 
costly repair. 

(4) CAUTION: STORE HYDRAULIC SYS- 
TEM MINERAL OIL ONLY IN ITS ORIGINAL 
CONTAINER. KEEP CONTAINER CLEAN 
AND TIGHTLY CLOSED. DO NOT REFILL 
CONTAINER OR USE OTHER LIQUIDS. (The 
last sentence is not required for containers with 
a capacity in excess of 5 gallons.) (55 F.R. 
37328— September 11, 1990. Effective: October 11. 
1990)1 

55.2.2.4 If a container for brake fluid or 
hydraulic system mineral oil is not normally visible 
but designed to be protected by an outer container 
or carton during use, the outer container or carton 
rather than the inner container shall meet the 
labeling requirements of S5.2.2.2 or S5.2.2.3, as 
appropriate. 



(Rev. 10/11^90) 



PART 571; S116-4 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE 
SAFETY STANDARD NO. 121 



Air Brake Systems 
(Docket No. 87-04; Notice 7) 



ACTION: Final rule; partial response to petitions 
for reconsideration; delay of effective date. 

SUMMARY: In a final rule published in the Federal 
Register (53 FR 7931) on March 11, 1988, NHTSA 
amended Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, to 
clarify the standard's parking brake requirements. 
The amendments permitted manufacturers to com- 
ply with the new requirements as an alternative to 
complying with the requirements being superseded 
effective April 11, 1988, and requii'ed mandatory 
compliance with those requirements effective Sep- 
tember 7. 1988 (180 days after publication). 

NHTSA received two petitions for reconsideration 
of that final rule, from Navistar International Cor- 
poration and Volvo GM Heavy Ti'uck Corporation. In 
partial response to the two petitions for reconsider- 
ation, NHTSA extended the period for which manu- 
facturers may comply with either the earlier or new 
requirements, first to September 7, 1989, and later 
to September 7, 1990. In February 1990, NHTSA 
provided a further response to the petitions and 
proposed revisions to the requirements at issue. This 
notice amends Standard No. 121 by extending the 
period for which manufacturers may comply with 
either the earlier or new requirements for one more 
year, i.e., until September 7, 1991. This extension 
will permit the agency to complete its analysis of the 
comments on the February 1990 notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM), and reach a decision of 
whether to go forward with the proposed changes, 
prior to the time the 1988 amendments become 
effective on a mandatory basis. 

DATES: The amendments made by this rule were 
effective September 7, 1990. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a final rule 
published in the Federal Register (53 FR 7931) on 
March 11, 1988, NHTSA amended Standard No. 121, 
Air Brake Systems, to clarify the standard's parking 
brake requirements. The amendments required ac- 
tuation of a mechanical means for holding the park- 
ing brakes within three .seconds after operation of 
the parking brake control. (For trailers, such actua- 
tion was required within three seconds after venting 



to the atmosphere of the front supply line connection 
is initiated.) In addition, vehicles were required to be 
capable of meeting requirements related to parking 
brake retardation force within the three second 
period. The amendments also required that the 
grade holding test (or alternative drawbar test) be 
met with only the mechanical means of holding the 
parking brakes in operation. The amendments re- 
quired mandatory compliance effective September 7, 
1988 (180 days after publication), while permitting 
manufacturers to comply with the new requirements 
as an alternative to complying with the require- 
ments being superseded effective April 11, 1988. 

The agency stated in the March 1988 notice that it 
believed all parking brakes currently being sold 
complied with the amendments being adopted. The 
agency also stated its belief that since any necessary 
certification could be accomplished by engineering 
analysis and simple tests, 180 days provided a suffi- 
cient time for that purpose. 

NHTSA received two petitions for reconsideration. 
One of the petitioners, Volvo GM Heavy Ti-uck 
Corporation, requested that the agency rescind the 
application of the timing amendment to tandem 
trucks with spring brakes, and that one of the 
specified conditions for the timing tests (initial res- 
ervoir system pressure of 100 psi) be removed. That 
company asserted that compliance with the stan- 
dard as amended is not practicable and is unreason- 
able. Volvo GM suggested that NHTSA was gener- 
ally correct in stating that the rule did not affect 
parking brakes currently being sold, but that the 
agency had overlooked a significant segment of the 
vehicle population, heavy tandem trucks. That com- 
pany submitted test results for two heavy trucks. 
According to Volvo GM, "one exceeds the limit and 
the other does not contain compliance margins suf- 
ficient to accommodate manufacturing tolerances." 
That company also argued that the test condition 
which specifies initial reservoir system pressure of 
100 psi is design restrictive. 

The other petitioner, Navistar International 



PART 571; S121-PRE 193 



Ti-ansportation Corporation, stated that it has con- 
firmed that in its parking brake systems the air 
pressure drops to zero within the allotted time. That 
company stated that based upon this fact and the 
agency's statements in the preamble, it believes that 
its vehicles comply with the timing requirements of 
the final rule. Navistar International added, how- 
ever, that after actuation of the control knob, expe- 
rience has shown that as much as one revolution of 
the braked wheels may be necessary to permit the 
brake shoes to be sufficiently energized to reach 
peak torque. That company stated that this "wrap 
up" process can take several seconds, depending on 
brake characteristics and driver finesse. Navistar 
International stated that should this "wrap up" 
movement not be considered permissible by the 
agency, it requested that its submission be consid- 
ered a petition for reconsideration of the final rule, 
to permit the "wrap up" movement. 

As is clear from the preamble to the March 1988 
final rule, NHTSA did not believe that the amend- 
ments would require changes in any parking brakes 
currently being sold. NHTSA was therefore con- 
cerned that the petitions raised the possibility that, 
contrary to the agency's belief in establishing the 
March 1988 final rule, some current parking brakes 
did not comply with the amended requirements. 

In partial response to the two petitions for recon- 
sideration, NHTSA extended the period for which 
manufacturers may comply with either the earlier or 
new requirements, first to September 7, 1989 (53 FR 
35075; September 9, 1988), and later to September 7, 
1990 (54 FR 25460; June 15, 1989). In February 
1990, NHTSA provided a further response to the 
petitions and proposed revisions to the requirements 
at issue (55 FR 4447, February 8, 1990). 

NHTSA is now in the process of reviewing the 
comments submitted in response to the February 
1990 NPRM. The agency expects to complete its 
analysis of the comments and reach a decision of 
whether to go forward with the proposed changes no 
later than the first half of next year. However, 
mandatory compliance with the March 1988 require- 
ments is scheduled to become effective on September 
7, 1990. Without a delay in the effective date, some 
manufacturers may not be able to certify that cer- 
tain vehicles comply with Standard No. 121. 

Accordingly, in partial response to the two peti- 
tions for reconsideration, NHTSA has decided to 
delay, for one additional year, the time the amend- 
ments become effective on a mandatory basis. This 
delay in effective date will permit the agency to 
complete its analysis of the comments on the Febru- 
ary 1990 NPRM, and reach a decision of whether to 
go forward with the proposed changes, prior to the 
time the 1988 amendments become effective on a 
mandatory basis. Thus, manufacturers may continue 



until September 7, 1991, to comply with either the 
March 1988 requirements or the requirements that 
were superseded by that notice. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 571 
is amended as follows: 

§571.121 [Amended] 

S5.6.3 of §571.121 is revised to read as follows: 
S5.6.3 Application and holding. Each parking 
brake system shall meet the requirements of 
S5.6.3.1 through S5.6.3.4, except that, at the option 
of the manufacturer, vehicles manufactured before 
September 7, 1991 may meet the requirements spec- 
ified in S5.6.3.5. 

55.6.3.1 The parking brake system shall be capa- 
ble of achieving the minimum performance specified 
either in S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 with any single leakage- 
type failure, in any other brake system, of a part 
designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid 
(except failure of a component of a brake chamber 
housing). 

55.6.3.2 For trucks and buses, with an initial 
reservoir system pressure of 100 psi and, if designed 
to tow a vehicle equipped with air brakes, with a 50 
cubic inch test reservoir connected to the supply line 
coupling, at all times after three seconds from the 
time of actuation of the parking brake control, the 
parking brake system shall achieve the minimum 
parking retardation performance specified in 
S5.6.3.1. For trailers, with an initial supply line 
pressure of 100 psi and, if designed to tow a vehicle 
equipped with air brakes, with a 50 cubic inch test 
reservoir connected to the supply line coupling, at 
all times after three seconds from the time venting 
to the atmosphere of the front supply line connection 
is initiated, the parking brake system shall achieve 
the minimum retardation performance specified in 
S5. 6.3.1. 

55.6.3.3 A mechanical means shall be provided 
which is capable, with zero air pressure and zero 
fluid pressure in the vehicle and without electrical 
power, of holding the parking brake application at a 
level meeting the minimum parking retardation 
performance specified in S5.6.3.1. 

55.6.3.4 For trucks and buses, with an initial 
reservoir system pressure of 100 psi and, if designed 
to tow a vehicle equipped with air brakes, with a 50 
cubic inch test reservoir connected to the supply line 
coupling, no later than three seconds from the time 
of operation of the parking brake control, the me- 
chanical means referred to in 85.6.3.3 shall be 
actuated. For trailers, with an initial supply line 
pressure of 100 psi and, if designed to tow a vehicle 
equipped with air brakes, with a 50 cubic inch test 
reservoir connected to the supply line coupling, no 
later than three seconds from the time venting to the 
atmosphere of the front supply line connection is 



PART 571; S121-PRE 194 



initiated, the mechanical means referred to in plied, the parking brakes shall be held in the applied 

S5.6.3.3 shall be actuated. position solely by mechanical means. 

S5.6.3.5 (Optional requirement for vehicles manu- 
factured before September 7, 1991) The parking Issued on August 9, 1990. 
brake system shall be capable of achieving the 

minimum performance specified either in S5.6.1 or , .. r, .n-n 

o,- ,. r. XL 111 4. r 1 Jeffrey R. Miller 

S5.6.2 with any single leakage-type failure, in any ^ }> Administrator 

other brake system, of a part designed to contain 

compressed air or brake fluid (except failure of a 55 FR 33318 

component of a brake chamber housing). Once ap- August 15, 1990 



PART 571; S121-PRE 195-196 



Repeat the procedure six times, increasing the 
brake chamber air pressure by 10. After each stop, 
rotate the brake drum or disc until the tempera- 
ture of the brake falls to between 125°F. and 
200°F. 

55.4.2 Brake power. When mounted on an in- 
ertia dynamometer, each brake shall be capable of 
making 10 consecutive decelerations at an average 
rate of 9 fpsps from 50 mph to 15 mph, at equal in- 
tervals of 72 seconds, and shall be capable of 
declerating to a stop from 20 mph at an average 
deceleration rate of 14 fpsps one minute after the 
10th acceleration. The series of decelerations shall 
be conducted as follows: 

55.4.2.1 With an initial brake temperature be- 
tween 150°F and 200°F for the first brake applica- 
tion, and the drum or disc rotating at a speed 
equivalent to 50 mph, apply the brake and deceler- 
ate at an average deceleration rate of 9 fpsps to 15 
mph. Upon reaching 15 mph, accelerate to 50 mph 
and apply the brake for a second time 72 seconds 
after the start of the first application. Repeat the 
cycle until 10 decelerations have been made. The 
service line air pressure shall not exceed 100 psi 
during any deceleration. 

55.4.2.2 One minute after the end of the last 
deceleration required by S5.4.2.1 and with the 
drum or disc rotating at a speed of 20 mph, 
decelerate to a stop at an average deceleration rate 
of 14 fpsps. 

55.4.3 Brake recovery. Starting 2 minutes 
after completing the tests required by S5.4.2, the 
brake of a vehicle other than either front axle 
brake of a truck-tractor shall be capable of making 
20 consecutive stops from 30 mph at an average 
deceleration rate of 12 ft/s/s, at equal intervals of 1 
minute measured from the start of each brake ap- 
plication. The service line air pressure needed to 
attain a rate of 12 ft/s/s shall be not more than 85 
Ib./in.^, and not less than 20 Ib./in.^ for a brake not 
subject to the control of an antilock system, or 12 
lb./in.2 for a brake subject to the control of an an- 
tilock system. 

S5.5 Antilock system. 



55.5.1 Antilock system failure. On a vehicle 
equipped with an antilock system, electrical failure 
of any part of the antilock system shall not in- 
crease the actuation and release times of the serv- 
ice brakes. 

55.5.2 Antilock system power— trailers. On a 

trailer equipped with an antilock system that re- 
quires electrical power for operation, the power 
shall be obtained from the stop lamp circuit. Addi- 
tional circuits may also be used to obtain redun- 
dant sources of electrical power. 

S5.6 Parking brake system. Each vehicle 
other than a trailer converter dolly shall have a 
parking brake system that under the conditions of 
S6.1 meets the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2, at 
the manufacturer's option, and the requirements 
of S5.6.3 and S5.6.4. However, the trailer portion 
of an auto transporter manufactured before 
January 1, 1980 and any agricultural commodity 
trailer, heavy hauler trailer, or pulpwood trailer, 
shall meet the requirements of this section, or, at 
the option of the manufacturer, the requirements 
of § 393.43 of the title. 

S5.6.1 Static retardation force. With all other 
brakes rendered inoperative, during a static 
drawbar pull in a forward or rearward direction, 
the static retardation force produced by the ap- 
plication of the parking brakes shall be: 

(a) In the case of a vehicle other than a truck- 
tractor that is equipped with more than two axles, 
such that the quotient 

static retardation force 



GAWR 

is not less than 0.28 for any axle other than a 
steer able front axle; and 

(b) In the case of a truck-tractor that is equipped 
with more than two axles, such that the quotient 

static retardation force 



GVWR 



is not less than 0.14. 



S5.6.2 Grade holding. With all parking brakes 
applied, the vehicle shall remain stationary facing 
uphill and facing downhill on a smooth, dry 
Portland cement concrete roadway with a 20% 



(Rev. 5/3/89) 



PART 571; S 121-7 



grade, both (a) when loaded to its gross vehicle 
weight rating, and (b) at its unloaded vehicle 
weight plus 500 pounds (including driver and in- 
strumentation). 

S5.6.3 Application and holding. Each parking 
brake system shall meet the requirements of 
S5. 6.3.1 through S5. 6.3.4, except that, at the op- 
tion of the manufacturer, vehicles manufactured 
before September 7, [19911, >Tiay meet the re- 
quirements specified in S5.6.3.5. (55 F.R. 33318— 
August 15, 1990. Effective September 7, 1990) 

55.6.3.1 The parking brake system shall be 
capable of achieving the minimum performance 
specified either in S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 with any single 
leakage-type failure, in any other brake system, of 
a part designed to contain compressed air or brake 
fluid (except failure of a component of a brake 
chamber housing). 

55.6.3.2 For trucks and buses, with an initial 
reservoir system pressure of 100 psi and, if de- 
signed to tow a vehicle equipped with air brakes, 
with a 50 cubic inch test reservoir connected to the 
supply line coupling, at all times after three 
seconds from the time of actuation of the parking 
brake control, the parking brake system shall 
achieve the minimum parking retardation perfor- 
mance specified in S5. 6.3.1. For trailers, with an 
initial supply line pressure of 100 psi and, if 
designed to tow a vehicle equipped with air brakes, 
with a 50 cubic inch test reservoir connected to the 
supply line coupling, at all times after three 
seconds from the time venting to the atmosphere 
of the front supply line connection is initiated, the 
parking brake system shall achieve the minimum 
retardation performance specified in S5. 6.3.1. 

55.6.3.3 A mechanical means shall be provided 
which is capable, with zero air pressure and zero 
fluid pressure in the vehicle and without electrical 
power, of holding the parking brake application at 
a level meeting the minimum parking retardation 
performance specified in S5.6.3.1. 

55.6.3.4 For trucks and buses, with an initial 
reservoir system pressure of 100 psi and, if de- 
signed to tow a vehicle equipped with air brakes, 
with a 50 cubic inch test reservoir connected to the 
supply line coupling, no later than three seconds 



from the time of operation of the parking brake 
control, the mechanical means referred to in 
S5.6.3.3 shall be actuated. For trailers, with an 
initial supply line pressure of 100 psi and, if de- 
signed to tow a vehicle equipped with air brakes, 
with a 50 cubic inch test reservoir connected to the 
supply line coupling, no later than three seconds 
from the time venting to the atmosphere of the 
front supply line connection is initiated, the 
mechanical means referred to in S5.6.3.3 shall be 
actuated. 

S5.6.3.5. Optional requirement for vehicles 
manufactured before September 7, I1991|. The 

parking brake system shall be capable of achieving 
the minimum performance specified either in 
S5.6.1 or S5.6.2. with any single leakage-type 
failure, in any other brake system, of a part de- 
signed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (ex- 
cept failure of a component of a brake chamber 
housing). Once applied, the parking brakes shall be 
held in the applied position solely by mechanical 
means. (55 F.R. 33318— August 15, 1990. Effective: 
September 7, 1990) 

S5.6.4 Parking brake control— trucks and buses. 

The parking brake control shall be separate from 
the service brake control. It shall be operable by a 
person seated in the normal driving position. The 
control shall be identified in a manner that 
specifies the method of control operation. The 
parking brake control shall control the parking 
brakes of the vehicle and of any air braked vehicle 
that it is designed to tow. 

S5.7 Emergency brake system— trucks and 
buses. Each vehicle shall be equipped with an 
emergency brake system which, under the condi- 
tions of S6.1, conforms to the requirements of 
S5.7.1 through S5.7.3. However, the truck portion 
of an auto transporter need not meet the road test 
requirements of S5.7.1 and S5.7.3. 

S5.7.1 Emergency brake system performance. 

When stopped six times for each combination of 
weight and speed specified in S5.3.1.1 on a road 
surface with a skid number of 81, with a single 
failure in the service brake system of a part de- 
signed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (ex- 
cept failure of a common valve, manifold brake 



(Rev. 8/15/90) 



PART 571; S 121-8 



iS**m HMuoniaJI 




Wheel Size 



118 

17 

16 

15 

14 

13 

12 

11 

10 

320mm 

340mm 

345mm 

365mm 

370mm 

390mm 

415mm .... 
400mm(l) . . 
425mm(l) . . 
450mm(l) . . 
475mm(l) . . 
500mm(l) . . 



Dimension "A" for tires with 
maximum inflation pressure 



Other than 
60 lbs/in^ 



60 lbs/in^ 



12.00 

11.50 

11.00 

10.50 

10.00 

9.50 

9.00 

8.50 

8.50 

9.00 

9.25 

9.75 

10.00 

11.00 

11.50 

10.25 

10.75 

11.25 

11.75 

12.25 



11.401 
10.60 
9.90 
9.40 
8.90 
8.40 



(1) for CT tires only 
Figure 1 — Bead Unseating Fixture— Dimensions in Inches 
(55 F.R. 6288— February 15, 1991. Effective: March 18, 1991) 



(Rev. 2;i5f91) 



PART 571; S 109-5 



(k 



1.0 R 




SECTION A-A 




10^ 




SECTION B-B 
TANGENT 




MATERIAL: Cast Aluminum 355 
T-6 Condition 
Finish-50 Micro Inch 

FIGURE 2— Diagram of Bead Unseating Blocit Dimensions in Inches 

PART 571; S 109-6 




1.0 R 



SECT. A - A 






SECT. B - B 




MATERIAL: CAST ALUMINUM 355 
T-6 CONDITION 
FINISH -50 MICRO INCH 



FIGURE 2A— Diagram of Bead Unseating Block Dimensions in Inches 

PART 571; S 109-7 



S5.2.1 .3 Mount the wheel and tire in the fixture 
shown in Figure 1, and force the bead unseating 
block shown in Figure 2 or Figure 2A against the 
tire sidewall as required by the geometry of the fix- 
ture. However, in testing a tire that has an infla- 
tion pressure of 60 psi, only use the bead unseating 
block described in Figure 2A. 

S5.2.2 Test procedure. 

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

55.2.2.2 Increase the load until the bead unseats 
or the applicable value specified in S4.2.2.3 is 
reached. 

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

S5.3 Tire strength. 
S5.3.1 Preparation of tire. 

55.3.1 .1 Mount the tire on a test rim and inflate 
it to the applicable pressure specified in Table 11; 

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

55.3.1 .3 Readjust its pressure to that specified in 
S5.3.1.1. 



S5.3.2.3 Compute the breaking energy for each 
test point by means of the following formula: 



FxP 



W=- 



S5.3.2 Test procedure. 

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

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



(Rev. 12/17/81) 



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

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

S5.4 Tire endurance. 

55.4.1 Preparation of tire. 

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

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

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

55.4.2 Test procedure. 

55.4.2.1 Mount the tire and wheel 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 section 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 size designation, type, and 
maximum permissible inflation pressure. 

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

55.4.2.3 Conduct the test at 50 miles per hour in 
accordance with the following schedule without 
pressure adjustment or other interruptions: 

(The loads for the following periods are the 
specified percentage of the maximum load rating 
marked on the tire sidewall: 

Percent 

4 hours 85 

6 hours 90 

24 hours 100 

(46 F.R. 61473— December 17, 1981. Effective: 
6/16/82)1 

PART 571; S 109-8 



S5.4.2.4 Immediately after running the tire the 
required time, measure its inflation pressure. 
Allow the tire to cool for one hour. Then deflate the 
tire, remove it from the test rim, and inspect it for 
the conditions specified in S4. 2. 2. 5(a). 

S5.5 High-speed performance. 

55.5.1 (After preparing the tire in accordance 
with S5.4.1, mount the tire and wheel assembly in 
accordance with S5.4.2.1, and press it against the 
test wheel with a load of 88 percent of the tire's 
maximum load rating as marked on the tire side- 
wall. (46 F.R. 61473— December 17, 1981. Effective: 
6/16/82)1 

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

55.5.3 Allow it to cool to 100 ± 5°F and readjust 
the inflation pressure to the applicable pressure 
specified in Table II. 



55.5.4 Without readjusting inflation pressure, 
test at 75 mph for 30 minutes, 80 mph for 30 
minutes, and 85 mph for 30 minutes. 

55.5.5 Immediately after running the tire the re- 
quired time, measure its inflation pressure. Allow 
the tire to cool for one hour. Then deflate the tire, 
remove it from the test rim, and inspect it for the 
conditions specified in S4. 2. 2. 5(a). 



S6. Nonconforming tires. (No tire that is designed 
for use on passenger cars and manufactured on or 
after October 1, 1972, but does not conform to all 
the requirements of this standard, shall be sold, of- 
fered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduc- 
tion into interstate commerce, or imported into the 
United States, for any purpose. (46 F.R. 61473— 
December 17, 1981. Effective: 6/16/82)1 



(Rev. 12/17/81) 



PART 571; S 109-9 



Table I — Minimum Breaking Energy Values (Inch-Pounds) 
Table l-A.— For Bias Ply Tires With Designated Section Width 6 Inches and Above 





Majdmum permissible inflation 


Cord Material 


Si 
Ihslx-n} 


S6 
Ws/in^ 


Ibs/m' 


■2i0 
kPa 


280 
kPa 


300 
kPa 


SiO 
kPa 




Rayon Nylon or in-lbs) 


1.650 


2.574 


3.300 


1.650 


3.300 


1.650 


3,300 








Polyester (in-lbs) 


2.600 


3,900 


5.200 


2.600 


5.200 


2,600 


5,200 









(1) For CT tires only 



Table l-B.— For Bias 


Ply Tires With Designated Section Width 


Below 6 Inches 




Manmum permissible inflation 


Cord Material 


32 

U)s/in' 


36 

IbsHn^ 


iO 
IbsHn' 


240 
kPa 


280 
kPa 


300 
kPa 


SiO 
kPa 




Rayon Nylon or (in-lbs) 


1.000 


1.875 


2,500 


1,000 


2,500 


1,000 


2,500 








Polyester (in-lbs) 


1,950 


2,925 


3,900 


1,900 


3.900 


1.950 


3,900 









(1) For CT tires only 





Table l-C 


— For Radia 


1 Ply Tires 














Maximum permissible inflation 


Size Designation 


32 
Ibs/in' 


36 
Ibs/in' 


iO 
Ibs/in' 


2i0 
kPa 


280 
kPa 


SCO 
kPa 


SiO 
kPa 


[(1) 
290 
kPa 


(1) 
330 
kPa 


(1) 
350 
kPa 


(1) 
390 
kPa 


Below 160 mm (in-lbs) 


1,950 


2,925 


3,900 


1,950 


3,900 


1,950 


3,900 


1,950 


3.900 


1,950 


3,900 


160 mm or above (in-lbs) 


2,600 


3,900 


5,200 


2,600 


5,200 


2,600 


5,200 


2,600 


5,200 


2,600 


5,2001 



(1) For CT tires only 



Table 1— D.For Tires With 60 Ib./in^ Maximum Permissi- 
ble Inflation Pressure and Maximum Load Rating of 880 
Pounds and Above 



Cord Material 



Inch-Pounds 



Rayon 

Nylon or Polyester 



1,650 
2,600 



Table I— E. — For Tires With 60 Ib./in^ Maximum Permis- 
sible Inflation Pressure and Maximum Load Rating Be- 
low 880 Pounds 



Cord Material 



Inch-Pounds 



Rayon 

Nylon or Polyester 



1,000 
1,950 



Table II.— Test Inflation Pressures 



Maximum permissible inflation pressure to be used for the following test: 


Test Type 


lbs/in' 


kPa 


[kPa(l) 


32 


36 


iO 


60 


2i0 


280 


300 


540 


290 


330 


550 


590 


Physical dimensions, t>ead 
unseating, tire strength, and 
tire endurance 


24 


28 


32 


52 


180 


220 


180 


220 


230 


270 


230 


270 


High speed performance 


30 


34 


38 


58 


220 


260 


220 


260 


270 


310 


270 


310 



(1) For CT tires onlyl ( 55 F.R. 49618— November 30, 1990. Effective: December 31. 1990 ) 

(Rev. UI30I90) PART 571; S 109 A- 1 



^ECfl^ 




15 Micro Inch Finish on these 
Surfaces Max All Around 



Plan View 



G 

Two Places 



Low Beam Filament Shown 
At Focal Point of Parabola (Ref) 



Low Beam Focal 
Point (Ref) 




1 



J 






H 




i 



^P 



P N 



kl 



Side View 
(Section A) 



Front View 



Figure 24-8. - Specification for the HB5 Replaceable Bulb 

Bulb Holder 



PART 571;S108-Art Page 91 



(See reverse page for 
dimensional specifications) 



Dimension 
B 



D 

E 
F 
G 
H 
J 
K 
L 
N 
P 



Dinnensional Specifications 
Figure 24-8 

Inches 

Ref Line 
Lamp Parabola 

0.079 ± 0.002 
0.002 Either Side of CL 

1.067 ± 0.008 

120° 

150° 

0.079 ± 0.008 

0.596 ± 0.008 

0.437 ± 0.008 

0.374 ± 0.008 

0.108 ± 0.008 

1.348 + 0.003/- 0.002 

1.130 + 0.004/- 0.002 

Diameter P shall be concentric to 

diameter N within + 0.002 

0.015 + 0.004 



Millimeters 

Ref Line 
Lamp Parabola 

2.00 ± 0.05 
0.05 Either Side of CL 

27.10 ± 0.20 

120° 

150° 

2.00 ± 0.20 

15.15 ± 0.20 

11.10 ± 0.20 

9.50 + 0.20 

2.75 ± 0.20 

34.24 + 0.08/- 0.05 

28.70 + 0.10/- 0.05 

Diameter P shall be concentric 

to diameter N within + 0.05 

0.38 + 0.10 



Tolerance for All Angular 
Dimensions + 1° 



Figure 24-9. 



Specification for tlie I-IB5 Replaceable Bulb 
Bulb Holder 



PART 571;S108-Art Page 92 



Pressure Chamber 



Air 

Pressure 

Source 




Bulb 



Bulb Aperture Manufactured to Dimensions as Referenced Below: 



Bulb Type 

HB1, HB5 
HB3 
HB4 



Aperture Diameter 
Inches Millimeters 



1.350/1.346 
0.796 ± 0.004 
0.875 + 0.004 



34.3/34.2 
20.22 ± 0.10 
22.22 + 0.10 



Figure 25. - Pressure Chamber 

PART 571;S108-Art Page 93 



(See reverse page for 
dimensional specifications) 



Light Source 
Type 


HB1 


HB2 


HB3 


HB4 


HB5 


HB1 


Table 1 SAE 

J579 DEC84 

(4,2) 


Fig. 15(4) 
Fig. 17(2) 


Fig. 15(4) 
Fig. 17(2) 


Fig. 15(4) 
Fig. 17(2) 


Table 1 SAE 

J579 DEC84 

(4,2) 


HB2 


Fig. 15(4) 
Fig. 17(2) 


Fig 
Fig 


15(4) 
17(2) 


Fig 
Fig 


15(4) 
17(2) 


Fig 
Fig 


15(4) 
17(2) 


Fig. 15(4) 
Fig. 17(2) 


HB3 


Fig. 15(4) 
Fig. 17(2) 


Fig 
Fig 


15(4) 
17(2) 


Fig 

Fig 


15(4) 
17(2) 


Fig 

Fig 


15(4) 
17(2) 


Fig. 15(4) 
Fig. 17(2) 


HB4 


Fig. 15(4) 
Fig. 17(2) 


Fig 

Fig 


15(4) 
17(2) 


Fig 
Fig 


15(4) 
17(2) 


Fig 
Fig 


15(4) 
17(2) 


Fig. 15(4) 
Fig. 17(2) 


HB5 


Table 1 SAE 

J579 DEC84 

(4,2) 


Fig 
Fig 


15(4) 
17(2) 


Fig 
Fig 


15(4) 
17(2) 


Fig 

Fig 


15(4) 
17(2) 


Table 1 SAE 

J579 DEC84 

(4,2) 



Figure 26. - Table of Photometric Requirements for 

1 . Four-l-ieadlamp Systems (4) 

2. Two-IHeadlamp Systems (2) 



PART 571;S108-Art Page 94 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE 

SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires— Labeling 
(Docket No. 90-02; Notice 2) 



RIN 2127-AD22 



ACTION: Final Rule. 



SUMMARY: This notice implements the petition by 
the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation 
(E.T.R.T.O.) requesting that NHTSA amend its labeling 
requirements in Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic 
Tires— Passenger Cars to require a manufacturer to 
place the required markings between the bead and a 
point one-half the distance from the bead to the 
shoulder of the tire, if the tire's maximum section width 
is close to the bead. This amendment adds to Standard 
No. 109 a provision previously added by the agency to 
another tire standard, the one related to tires on 
vehicles other than passenger cars. 

DATES: This amendment is effective November 9, 
1990. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section S4.3 of 
Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires— Passenger 
Cars (49 CFR §571.109) sets forth information labeling 
requirements for tires, including requirements 
regarding the positioning of the information on the 
sidewall to ensure that it is readily visible and to 
minimize the possibility that it will be scuffed off if the 
sidewall hits a curb or similar object. Until the effective 
date of this rule, it provides that the information shown 
in paragraphs S4.3(a) through (g) (e.g., number of plies 
and inflation pressure) shall appear between the 
maximum section width and bead. Sections S4.3.1 and 
S4.3.2 provide more extensive locational requirements 
for other information (e.g., the DOT certification and 
the name of the manufacturer or brand name and 
number assigned to the manufacturer) to be placed on 
car tires. They provide that the labeling should be done 
"in the manner specified in Part 574." Part 574, which 
applies to both car tires and tires for vehicles other than 
cars, begins in the same manner as S4.3 of Standard 
No. 109, specifying that the tire identification number 
shall appear between the maximum section width and 
bead. However, Part 574 goes on to provide that if a 
tire's maximum section width falls within one-fourth 
of the distance from the bead to the tire shoulder, the 
tire identification number must appear between the 
bead and a point one half the distance from the bead 
to the shoulder of the tire. Section S4.3 does not refer 
to Part 574 or otherwise provide guidance about the 



placing of the markings required by S4.3(a)— (g) in 
situations where the tire has its maximum section 
width close to the bead. 

The agency addressed the problem of labeling tires 
whose maximum section width is close to the bead in 
a 1985 rulemaking regarding tires for vehicles other 
than passenger cars. (49 PR 37816, September 26, 
1984; 50 FR 10773, March 18, 1985). That rulemaking 
amended Part 574. Tire Identification and 
Recordkeeping (49 CFR §574.4) and Standard No. 119, 
New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than 
Passenger Cars (49 CFR §571.119) to permit placing 
markings at a different location in order to permit the 
introduction of a new tire concept for vehicles other 
than cars where the tire's maximum section width is 
at the bead. In particular. Figure 1 of Part 574 was 
amended to specify the requirements for the label's 
position if a tire's maximum section wadth falls within 
one-fourth of the distance from the bead to the tire 
shoulder. In that case, a marking must appear between 
the bead and a point one half the distance from the bead 
to the shoulder of the tire. Amending Part 574 had the 
practical effect of applying the new requirement to 
section S4.3.1 and S4.3.2 of Standard No. 109 given 
that these provisions state that tires must be labeled 
"in the manner specified in Part 574." However, the 
1985 final rule did not amend the labeling requirements 
for car tires in section S4.3 of Standard No. 109. 
Nevertheless, the notice did expressly amend section 
S6.5 of Standard No. 119 to permit this new tire 
technology. 

On Jime 29, 1989, the European Tyre and Rim 
Technical Organisation (E.T.R.T.O.) notified NHTSA 
that a new type of pneumatic tire for passenger cars 
with its maximum section width close to the bead would 
not comply with the current requirements in S4.3 of 
Standard No. 109. As a result, E.T.R.T.O. petitioned the 
agency to amend section S4.3 to permit labeling on this 
new type of tire consistent with Figure 1 of Part 574. 

After reviewing the petition, the 1985 rulemaking, 
and the existing regulations NHTSA decided to grant 
the petition and propose the petitioner's request to 
expressly include the marking location provisions of 



PART 571; S109-PRE 65 



Figure 1 of Part 574 in section S4.3 of Standard No. 
109. (55 FR 4445, February 8, 1990) The agency 
tentatively concluded that amending the standard in 
this fashion would better address situations in which 
the maximum section width of passenger car tires is 
near the bead. 

The only commenter to this rulemaking was the 
petitioner, which requested that the effective date be 
30 days after publication of the notice rather than the 
180 days proposed in the NPRM. E.T.R.T.O claimed 
that an earlier effective date should be permitted given 
that the proposal is not "major" nor "significant" and 
does not impose any new requirements. In addition, it 
stated that the 180 days between the effective date and 
the publication of the Final Rule would result in 
considerable delay in the availability of certain vehicles 
currently in production that are designed to be 
equipped with the tires relevant to this notice. Thus, 
it believed that the later effective date would impose 
an undue burden on both the vehicle and tire 
manufacturers concerned. 

NHTSA has decided to adopt the amendment as 
proposed, except that it has decided to adopt the earlier 
effective date suggested by E.T.R.T.O. The agency 
finds that there is good cause for making this final rule 
effective in less than 180 days because the amendment 
permits the production of a new type of passenger car 
tire that is comparable to currently produced non- 
passenger car tires. The agency further notes that the 
amendment will facilitate the marking of labeling 
information without any foreseeable adverse impact on 
safety. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 571 
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, 1401, 1403 and 1407; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 

§ 571.109 [AMENDED] 

2. S4.3. of 571.109 is revised to read as follows: 



S4.3 Labeling Requirements. Except as provided in 
S4.3.1 and S4.3.2, each tire shall have permanently 
molded into or onto both sidewalls, in letters and 
numerals not less than 0.078 inches high, the 
information shown in paragraphs S4.3 (a) through (g). 
On at least one sidewall, the information shall be 
positioned in an area between the maximum section 
width and bead of the tire, unless the maximum section 
width of the tire falls between the bead and one-fourth 
of the distance from the bead to the shoulder of the 
tire. For tires where the maximum section width falls 
in that area, locate all required labeling between the 
bead and a point one-half the distance from the bead 
to the shoulder of the tire. However, in no case shall 
the information be positioned on the tire so that it is 
obstructed by the flange or any rim designated for use 
with that tire in Standard Nos. 109 and 110 (§571.109 
and §571.110 of this part). 

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

(b) Maximum permissible inflation pressure; 

(c) Maximum load rating; 

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

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

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

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



Issued on: October 3, 1990. 



Jeffrey R. Miller 
Deputy Administrator 

55 F.R. 41190 
October 10, 1990 



PART 571; S109-PRE 66 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE 

SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars— CT Tires 
, (Docket No. 90-04; Notice 2) 



RIN 2127-AD21 



ACTION: Final Rule 



SUIMMARY: This notice amends Standard No. 109, 
New Pneumatic Tires, to permit passenger car tires 
with a maximum inflation pressure of 290, 330, 350, 
or 390 kPa, in response to a petition to allow the "CT" 
tire and rim (an inverted flange tire and rim system). 
The tire has run-flat capability. After evaluating the 
petition and comments to the proposal, NHTSA has 
concluded that the CT tire has the potential for 
increased safety, especially in the deflated condition, 
and may result in incidental benefits such as increased 
fuel efficiency. Conforming amendments have been 
made throughout Standard No. 109 and the Uniform 
Tire Quality Grading Standards to establish criteria 
suitable for tires with the new pressures. 

DATES: Effective date: The final rule is effective on 
December 31, 1990. 

SUPPLEIMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, 
New Pneumaiic Tires, (49 CFR §571.109) specifies tire 
dimensions and laboratory test requirements for bead 
unseating resistance, tire strength, tire endurance, and 
high speed performance; defines tire load ratings; and 
specifies labeling requirements for new pneimiatic tires 
used on passenger cars. 

Until the effective date of the amendments adopted 
in this rule. Standard No. 109 requires passenger car 
tires to have a maximum inflation pressure of either 
32, 36, 40, or 60 psi (pounds per square inch), or 240, 
280, 300, or 340 kPa (kiloPascals). These maximum 
inflation pressures are incorporated in Table I-C 
"Radial Ply Tires" and Table II, "Test Inflation 
Pressures," which are in Appendix A. In addition. 
Figure 1 specifies wheel sizes for tires relative to the 
tubeless tire bead unseating resistance tests in section 
S5.2.1. The Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards 
("UTQGS" at 49 CFR 575.104) sets forth similar 
requirements for maximum permissible inflation 
pressures for the testing procedures in Table 1, Table 
2, and Table 2A. 



A new pneumatic passenger car tire must comply 
with requirements for bead unseating, tire strength, 
tire endurance, and high speed endurance at a 
maximum permissible inflation pressure specified in 
Standard 109. The agency specifies a limited number 
of permissible maximum inflation pressures (or wheel 
sizes, in the case of the bead unseating test) to facilitate 
compliance testing. 

On March 8, 1989, Continental AG. Daimler-Benz, 
and General Tire Inc. petitioned the agency to amend 
Standard No. 109 and the UTQGS to permit the use 
of a new tire and rim concept knowm as the "CT" tire. 
With this tire, the rim flanges point radially inward and 
the tire fits on the underside of the rim in a manner 
that encloses the rim flanges inside the air cavity of 
the tire. The amendments were necessary because the 
CT tire is usable only at maximum inflation pressures 
that were not specified in Standard No. 109. 
Accordingly, the petitioners requested the agency to 
amend the standard to include four new maximum 
inflation pressures-290, 330, 350, and 390 kPa. The 
petitioners stated that amending Standard No. 109 to 
permit the CT tire would result in an increased level 
of safety compared to conventional radial tires in cases 
of flats, significant under-inflation from gradual air 
loss, or blowouts from sudden air loss. They stated that 
unlike a conventional tire, a CT tire with a flat may 
still be driven safely at normal highway speeds for up 
to 200 miles. A driver therefore could travel to a service 
station instead of changing the flat tire in a dangerous 
or inconvenient setting. They also stated that unlike 
a conventional tire, a CT tire that is under-inflated or 
experiences sudden air loss would not result in any 
appreciable loss of control because the tire would not 
leave the rim. The petitioners stated that the requested 
amendment would result in incidental benefits, 
including allowing a vehicle to have larger brake, 
suspension, and anti-lock brake systems, shorter 
stopping distances, greater resistance to hydroplaning, 
better distribution of the tire footprint pressure, and 
increased fuel savings by reducing the overall vehicle 
weight. The petitioner's test and other data on the 
performance of the CT tire indicated that the tire, when 



PART 571; S109-PRE 67 



properly inflated, would comply with Standard No. 
109's performance requirements. They also tested the 
CT tire while in its deflated stage to determine whether 
the tire would leave the rim or come apart when driven 
through various maneuvers. 

On February 14, 1990, the agency issued a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to amend 
Standard No. 109 to include additional maximum 
inflation pressures for pneumatic tires on passenger 
cars (55 FR 5237). The NPRM summarized previous 
rulemakings in which the agency amended Standard 
No. 109 to permit additional maximum inflation 
pressures. (See 53 FR 17950, May 19, 1988, 53 FR 936, 
January 14, 1988; and (43 FR 8570, March 2, 1978; 43 
FR 24310, June 5, 1978). In those earlier rulemakings, 
the agency determined that amending the standard's 
specifications for the maximum permissible inflation 
pressure was necessary to permit a new tire technology 
to carry a load comparable to that carried by tires 
already in compliance with the standard. 

NHTSA decided to propose amending Standard No. 
109 to permit tires with maximiun inflation pressures 
of 290, 330, 350, or 390 kPa, after tentatively 
concluding that the CT tire had the potential for 
increased safety, especially in the deflated condition. 
The agency also tentatively concluded that allowing the 
CT tire might result in incidental benefits such as 
increased fuel efficiency. The notice proposed 
conforming amendments to Standard No. 109 and the 
Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (49 CFR 
575.104) to establish test criteria suitable for tires with 
the new maximimi inflation pressures. 

NHTSA received comments from ETRTO, the 
Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA), and five tire 
or motor vehicle manufacturers. All commenters 
favored the proposal. The agency therefore is adopting 
the proposed amendments for the reasons set forth in 
the NPRM. 

In response to technical comments, the agency is 
modifying certain provisions in its UTQGS regulations 
relative to the inclusion of CT tires. NHTSA agrees 
with the petitioner's comment that the proposal's 
headings in Tables 1 and 2 of 49 CFR 575.104 do not 
best reflect temperature resistance testing under the 
UTQGS. The final rule therefore adopts more 
appropriate wording suggested in the petitioner's 
comments. The final rule also includes certain 
treadwear and traction testing multipliers to Table 2, 
which were inadvertently omitted in the NPRM. 

The agency agrees with RMA's comment that the 
agency should not include the phrase "or equivalent" 
to 575.104(eX2Xi) given that the tires on any one vehicle 
should be of the same size designation and that the 
additional phrase would have added imprecision to 
UTQGS. 

The agency has decided not to adopt RMA's request 
to amend 575.104(fX2XB) rather than (fX2XDXviii) (sic) 



because the CT tire inflation pressures are for 
candidate tires subject to 575.104 (fX2Xvlii); while 
(fX2XB) refers to standard test tires. 

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. The agency has 
concluded that there is "good cause" not to provide the 
full 180 day lead-in period given that this amendment 
will facilitate the introduction of certain tires without 
imposing any mandatory requirement on 
manufacturers. In addition, the public interest will be 
served by not delaying the introduction of tires that 
can provide better performance without having any 
negative impact on safety. Therefore, the agency has 
determined that there is good cause to set an effective 
date 30 days after publication of the final rule. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 571 
and 575 is amended as follows: 

1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to 
read as follows: 

{Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50) 

571.109 [AMENDEDl 

2. Section S3 is amended by adding the following 

definition after the definition for "Cracking": 

* * * * 

"CT" means a pneumatic tire with an inverted flange 
tire and rim system in which the rim is designed with 
rim flanges pointed radially inward and the tire is 
designed to fit on the underside of the rim in a manner 
that encloses the rim flanges inside the air cavity of 

the tire. 

* » * • 

3. Section S4.2.1(b) is revised to read as follows: 

* * * * 

(b) Its maximum permissible inflation pressure shall 
be either 32, 36, 40, or 60 psi, or 240, 280, 300, 340 
kPa. For a CT tire the maximum permissible inflation 
pressure shall be either 290, 330, 350, or 390 kPa. 

* * * » 

4. S4. 2. 2.2(2) is revised to read as follows: 

* * * * 

(2) (For tires with a maximum permissible inflation 
pressure of 60 psi, or 240, 280, 290, 300, 330, 340, 350, 
or 390 kPa) 7 percent or 0.4 inch, whichever is larger. 

* * * * 

5. Section S4.3.4 is revised to read as follows: 

* * * * 

S4.3.4 If the maximum inflation pressure of a tire 
is 240, 280, 290, 300, 330, 340, 350, or 390 kPa, then: 

(a) Each marking of that inflation pressure pursuant 
to S4.3(b) shall be followed in parenthesis by the 



PART 571; S109-PRE 68 



Piviot on Centerline 
of Beam 



"A" 



(Beam Horizontal) 



q. Beam 




Wheel Size 


Dimension 
maximum 


•A" for 
inflation 


tires with 
pressure 


Other than 
60 lbs/in^ 




60 lbs/in^ 


17 


12.00 

11.50 

11.00 

10.50 

10.00 

9.50 

9.00 

8.50 

8.50 

9.00 

9.25 

9.75 

10.00 

11.00 

11.50 

10.25 

10.75 

11.25 

11.75 

12.25 






16 

15 

14 

13 

12 


9.90 
9.40 
8.90 
8.40 


11 




10 




320 




340 




345 




365 




370 




390 




415 




400(1) 

425(1) 

450(1) 

475(1) 

500(1) 















(1) for CT tires only 
Figure 1 — Bead Unseating Fixture— Dimensions in inches 

PART 571; S109-PRE 69 





Table l-C 


—For Radia 


1 Ply Tires 














Maximum permissible inflation 


Size Designation 


32 
lbs/in^ 


36 

lbs/in^ 


40 
lbs/in^ 


240 
kPa 


280 
kPa 


300 
kPa 


340 
kPa 


(1) 
290 
kPa 


(1) 
330 
kPa 


(1) 
350 
kPa 


(1) 
390 
kPa 


Below 160 mm (in-lbs) 


1,950 


2,925 


3,900 


1,950 


3,900 


1,950 


3,900 


1,950 


3,900 


1,950 


3,900 






160 mm or above (in-lbs) 


2,600 


3,900 


5,200 


2,600 


5,200 


2,600 


5,200 


2,600 


5,200 


2,600 


5,200 



(1) For CT tires only 



Table II.— Test Inflation Pressures 



Maximum permissible inflation pressure to be used for the following test: 




lbs/in^ 


kPa 


kPa (1) 


Test Type 


32 


36 


40 


60 


240 


280 


300 


340 


290 


330 


350 


390 


Physical dimensions, bead 
unseating, tire strength, and 
tire endurance 


24 


28 


32 


52 


180 


220 


180 


220 


230 


270 


230 


270 






High speed performance 


30 


34 


38 


58 


220 


260 


220 


260 


270 


310 


270 


310 



(1) For CT tires only 



PART 571; S109-PRE 70 



Table 1.— Test Inflation Pressures 



Maximum permissible inflation pressure for the following test: 



Test Type 


lbs/in^ 


kPa 


kPa (1) 


32 


36 


40 


60 


240 


280 


300 


5.40 


290 


330 


350 


390 


Treadwear test 


24 


28 


32 


52 


180 


220 


180 


220 


230 


270 


230 


270 




Temperature resistance test .... 


30 


34 


38 


58 


220 


260 


220 


260 


270 


310 


270 


310 


(1) For CT tires only 



























Table 2 



Maximum 
Inflation 
Pressure 



Multiplier to be 

used for 
treadwear testing 



Multiplier to be 

u^ed for 
traction testing 



32 lbs/in^ 
36 lbs/in2 
40 lbs/in2 
240 kPa . 
280 kPa . 
300 kPa . 
340 kPa . 
290 kPa (1) 
330 kPa (1) 
350 kPa (1) 
390 kPa (1) 



.851 
.870 
.883 
.866 
.887 
.866 
.887 
.866 
.887 
.866 
.887 



.851 

.797 
.753 
.866 
.804 
.866 
.804 
.866 
.804 
.866 
.804 



(1) For CT tires only 

' Prior to July 1, 1984, the multipliers in the above table are not 
to be used in determining loads for the tire size designations listed 
below in Table 2A. For those designations, the load specifications 
in that table shall be used in UTQG testing during that period. 
These loads are the actual loads at which testing shall be con- 
ducted and should not be multiplied by the 85 percent factors 
specified for treadwear and traction testing. 



PART 571; S109-PRE 71 



equivalent inflation pressure in psi, rounded to the next 
higher whole number; and 

(b) Each marking of the tire's maximum load rating 
pursuant to S4.3(c) in kilograms shall be followed in 
parenthesis by the equivalent load rating in pounds, 

rounded to the nearest whole number. 

* * * * 

6. The revised table of wheel sizes and test fixture 
dimensions in Figure 1 follows. 

7. Revised Table I-C of Appendix A follows. 

8. Revised Table II of Appendix A follows. 
PART 575 [AMENDED] 

9. The authority citation for part 575 continues to 
read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407, 1421, and 
1423; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 

10. A new sentence is added to 575.104(fX2Xviii) 
immediately after the first sentence. The first sentence 
is being republished for the convenience of the reader. 



/^ * * * * 
(2)* * * * 

(viii) Prepare two candidate tires of the same 
construction type, manufacturer, line, and size 
designation in accordance with paragraph (fX2Xi) of this 
section, mount them on the test apparatus, and test 
one of them according to the procedures of paragraph 
(fX2Xii) through (v) of this section, except load each tire 
to 85 percent of the test load specified in 575 104(h). 
For CT tires, the test inflation of candidate tires shall 
be 230 kPa. 

11. Revised Table 1 of Part 575 follows. 

12. Revised Table 2 of Part 575 follows. 

Issued on: November 9, 1990. 

Jeffrey R. Miller 
Deputy Administrator 

55 F.R. 49618 
November 30, 1990 



PART 571; S109-PRE 72 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE 

SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

Pneumatic Tires— Bead Unseating Tire Dimensions 

(Doclcet No. 90-10; Notice 2) 

RIN 2127-AD36 



ACTION: Final Rule. 

SUIVIIMARY: This notice takes final action on a petition 
by the Rubber Manufacturers Association to amend 
Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires— Passenger 
Cars, to permit the testing of 17 and 18 inch T-Type 
temporary spare tires. Prior to this amendment, the 
dimensions set forth in the table in Figure 1 for bead 
unseating did not permit tires of these sizes. 

DATES: Effective date: These amendments are 
effective March 18, 1991. 

SUPPLEIVIENTARY INFORMATION: Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic 
Tires, (49 CFR 571.109) contains performance 
requirements and tests for pneumatic tires for 
passenger cars, including specifications for bead 
unseating resistance in S4.2.2.3 and S5.2. In 
preparation for the test, the tire to be tested must be 
washed, dired, and inflated to an inflation pressure 
specified in Table II of the standard. Then, after 
mounting the wheel and tire in a fixture described in 
Figure 1 of the standard, a load must be applied 
through a testing block until the bead unseats or the 
specified value is reached. 

A table in Figure 1 specifies dimensions of the bead 
unseating fixture for various wheel sizes. Among the 
dimensions is "dimension A for tires with maximum 
inflation pressure." "Dimension A" is a subsection of 
the bead unseating fixture for the center of mounted 
wheel and tire combination to the point at which the 
test anvil contacts the tire at the beginning of the bead 
unseating test. The point of contact is the maximum 
section width of a properly inflated tire. The 
permissible wheel sizes are currently 10 inches to 17 
inches, at one inch intervals. 

The Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) 
petitioned the agency to amend the permissible 
dimensions in the bead unseating fixture specified in 
the table in Figure 1. It requested that in Figure 1, the 
table include "dimension A's" of 10.6 inches for 17 inch 
tires and 1 1 .4 inches for 18 inch tires having maximum 
inflation pressure of 60 Ib./in^. The petition stated that 
new "dimension A's" were needed for 17 and 18 inch 



T-Type tires which had been standardized by the Tire 
and Rim Association. 

After its initial review, the agency granted the 
petition and issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) to amend the table in Figure 1 in Standard, 
No. 109. (55 FR 24280, June 15, 1990). The agency 
tentatively concluded in the proposal that the requested 
amendment would permit the introduction of 17 and 
18 inch T-Type tires, for which Standard No. 109 did 
not contain provisions. The notice explained that when 
the agency initially amended the standard to permit 
T-Type tires, only tires with diameters of 13 inches to 

16 inches where anticipated. (44 FR 12869, March 7, 
1977). 

The notice continued that the "A values" in Figure 
1 were uniformly derived from a formula which added 
a constant value of 1.9 inches after the wheel size was 
divided by two. Applying the formula to the proposed 

17 and 18 inch tires results in values of 10.4 inches for 
17 inch wheels and 10.9 inches for 18 inch wheels. In 
contrast, RMA recommended values of 10.6 inches and 
11.4 inches, stating that these larger values would 
allow tires to be tested without having the test anvil 
come into contact with the rim during a bead unseating 
test. The notice proposed these larger values, which 
the agency tentatively concluded would more 
appropriately test 17 and 18 inch T-Type tires. The 
NPRM requested comments about the need to amend 
the wheel sizes in the table in Figure 1 and the 
appropriateness of the proposed values. 

In response to the NPRM, the agency received 
comments from the European Tyre and Rim Technical 
Organisation (ETROT) and General Motors (GM). Both 
commenters supported the proposal's intent. No 
comment opposed the proposal. NHTSA has considered 
the points by the commenters in developing this final 
rule. The commenter's significant points are addressed 
below, along with the agency's response to those 
points. 

Along with supporting the proposal to adding testing 
dimensions, for 17 and 18 inch T-Type tires to the table 
in Figure 1, the commenters expressed additional 
thoughts. ETRTO requested amending the table 



PART 571; S109-PRE 73 



to include additional "dimension A's" for 18 inch 
conventional tires and 19 inch T-Type tires. GM 
suggested that the agency amend Standard No. 109 by 
eliminating the table in Figure 1 and replacing it with 
a imiform formula for calculating "dimension A." Their 
recommended formula would be the distance between 
the center of the wheel to the point of maximum section 
width of the inflated tire mounted in the bead unseating 
fixture in Figure 1. GM believed that specifying this 
formula instead of specific numerical values for each 
wheel diameter would eliminate the need to amend the 
standard each time a tire with a new wheel diameter 
was introduced. It suggested that a footnote could be 
added to Figure 1 stating that manufacturers could 
increase of decrease the value for "dimension A" in 
specified increments if the bead unseating test could 
not be completed due to testing difficulties. GM further 
stated that to facilitate NHTSA's enforcement testing, 
the angency could require tire manufacturers to 
provide that value for "dimension A" used for its 
certification before conducting the bead unseating test. 

Based on the reasons in the NPRM and the 
commenters' general agreement with the proposal, 
NHTSA has decided to amend the table in Figure 1 of 
Standard No. 109, as proposed. Accordingly, the table 
in Figure 1 is amended to include new "dimension A's" 
for 17 and 18 inch T-Type tires. 

NHTSA is currently evaluating the merits of the 
commenters' additional recommendations about testing 
for bead unseating. If the agency determines that these 
recommendations are worthwhile, it will issue an 
NPRM initiating a rulemaking. 

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. Given that this amendment facilitates the 
introduction of certain tires without imposing 
additional requirements on manufacturers and that the 
public interest is served by not delaying the 
introduction of these alternative tire designs, the 
agency has determined that there is good cause to have 
the amendment become effective 30 days after 
publication of the final rule. 



In § 571-109, the Table in Figure 1 is revised to read 
as follows: 





Dimension 


"A"for 


tires with 


Wheel Size 


maximum i 


inflation 


■ pressure 










Other than 








60 lbs/in^ 




60 lbs/in^ 


18 






11.40 


17 


12.00 


10.60 


16 


11.50 




9.90 


15 


11.00 




9.40 


14 


10.50 




8.90 


13 


10.00 




8.40 


12 


9.50 






11 


9.00 






10 


8.50 
8.50 






320mm 




340mm 


9.00 






345mm . . . . 


9.25 






365mm 


9.75 






370mm 


10 00 






390mm 


11.00 






415mm . . . . 


11.50 
10.25 






400mm(l) . . 
425mm(l) . . 
450mm(l) . . 
475mm(l) . . 
500mm(l) • • 




10.75 






11.25 






11.75 






12.25 








(1) for CT tires 


only 







Figure 1 — 
Bead Unseating Fixture— Dimensions in Inches 



Issued on: February 11, 1991. 



Jerry Ralph Curry 
Administrator 

56 F.R. 6288 
February 15, 1991 



PART 571; S109-PRE 74 



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



51. Scope. This standard specifies tire dimen- 
sions and laboratory test requirements for bead 
unseating resistance, strength, endurance, and 
high-speed performance; defines tire load ratings; 
and specifies labeling requirements for passenger 
car tires. 

52. Application. This standard applies to new 
pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars 
manufactured after 1948. However, it does not 
apply to any tire which has been altered so as to 
render impossible its use, or its repair for use, as 
motor vehicle equipment. 

53. Definitions. "Bead" means that part of the 
tire made of steel wires, wrapped or reinforced by 
ply cords, that is shaped to fit the rim. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Cracking" means any parting within the tread, 
sidewall, or innerliner of the tire extending to cord 
material. 

["CT" means a pneumatic tire with an inverted 
flange tire and rim system in which the rim is 
designed with rim flanges pointed radially inward 
and the tire is designed to fit on the underside of 
the rim in a manner that encloses the rim flanges 
inside the air cavity of the tire. (55 F.R. 49618— 
November 30, 1990. Effective: December 31, 1990)1 

"Groove" means the space between two adjacent 
tread ribs. 

"Innerliner" means the layer(s) forming the in- 
side surface of a tubeless tire that contains the in- 
flating medium within the tire. 

"Innerliner separation" means the parting of the 
innerliner from cord material in the carcass. 



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

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

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

"Open splice" means any parting at any junction 
of tread, sidewalls, or innerliner that extends to 
cord material. 

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

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

"Ply separation" means a parting or rubber com- 
pound between adjacent plies. 

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

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

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

"Section width" means the linear distance bet- 
ween the exteriors of the sidewalls of an inflated 
tire, excluding elevations due to labeling, decora- 
tion, or protective bands. 

"Sidewall" means that portion of a tire between 
the tread and the bead. 

"Sidewall separation" means the parting of the 
rubber compound from the cord material in the 
sidewall. 

"Test rim" means, with reference to a tire to be 
tested, any rim that is listed as appropriate for use 
with that tire in accordance with S4.4. For pur- 
poses of this section and § 571.110 of this chapter, 
each rim listing shall include dimensional specifica- 
tions and a diagram of the rim. 

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



(Rev. 11/30/90) 



PART 571; S 109-1 



"Tread rib" means a tread section running cir- 
cumferentially around a tire. 

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

S4. Requirements. 

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

54.2 Performance requirements. 

S4.2.1 Generai. Each tire shall conform to each 
of the following: 

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

(b) Its maximum permissible inflation pressure 
shall be either 32, 36, 40, or 60 psi, or 240, 280, 
300, or 340 kPa. [For a CT tire the maximum per- 
missible inflation pressure shall be either 290, 330, 
350, or 390 kPa. (55 F.R. 49618— November 30. 1990. 
Effective: December 31, 1990)1 

(c) Its load rating shall be that specified in a sub- 
mission made by an individual manufacturer, pur- 
suant to S4.4.1(a), or in one of the publications 
described in S4.4.1(b) for its size designation, type 
and each appropriate inflation pressure. If the 
maximum load rating for a particular tire size is 
shown in more than one of the publications des- 
cribed in S4.4.1(b), each tire or that size designa- 
tion shall have a maximum load rating that is not 
less than the published maximum load rating, or if 
there are differing maximum load ratings for the 
same tire size designation, not less than the lowest 
published maximum load rating. 

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

(e) It shall, before being subjected to either the 
endurance test procedure specified in S5.4 or the 
high-speed performance test procedure specified in 
S5.5, exhibit no visual evidence of tread, sidewall, 
ply, cord, innerliner, or bead separation, chunking, 
broken cords, cracking or open splices. 

(f) 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 
other tires. 

S4.2.2 Test requirements. 

54.2.2.1 Test sample. For each test sample use— 

(a) One tire for physical dimensions, resistance 
to bead unseating, and strength, in sequence; 

(b) Another tire for tire endurance; and 

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

54.2.2.2 Physical Dimensions. The actual section 
width and overall width for each tire measured in 
accordance with S5.1, shall not exceed the section 
width specified in a submission made by an in- 
dividual manufacturer, pursuant to S4.4.1(a) or in 
one of the publications described in S4.4.1(b) for its 
size designation and type by more than: 

(1) (For tires with a maximum permissible in- 
flation pressure of 32, 36, or 40 psi) 7 percent, or 

(2) [(For tires with a maximum permissible in- 
flation pressure of 60 psi or 240, 280, 290, 300, 330, 
340, 350, or 390 kPa) 7 percent or 0.4 inch, 
whichever is larger. (55 F.R. 49618— 
November 30, 1990. Effective: December 31, 1990)1 

Its size factor shall be at least as large as that 
specified in a submission made by an individual 
manufacturer, pursuant to S4.4.1(a), or in one of 
the publications described in S4.4.1(b) for its size 
designation and type. 

54.2.2.3 Tubeless tire resistance to bead 
unseating. 

S4.2.2.3.1 When a tubeless tire that has a max- 
imum inflation pressure other than 60 psi is tested 
in accordance with S5.2, the applied force required 
to unseat the tire bead at the point of contact shall 
be not less than: 

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

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

(c) 2,500 pounds for tires with a designated sec- 
tion width of eight (8) inches or more, using the 
section width specified in a submission made by an 
individual manufacturer, pursuant to S4.4.1(a), or 
in one of the publications described in S4.4.1(b) for 
the applicable tire size designation and type. 



(Rev. 11/30/90) 



PART 571; S 109-2 



S4.2.2.3.2 When a tire that has a maximum infla- 
tion pressure of 60 psi is tested in accordance with 
S5.2, the applied force required to unseat the tire 
bead at the point of contact shall be not less than: 

(a) 1500 pounds for tires with a maximum load 
rating of less than 880 pounds; 

(b) 2000 pounds for tires with a maximum load 
rating of 880 pounds or more but less than 1400 
pounds; 

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

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

54.2.2.5 Tire endurance. When the tire has been 
subjected to the laboratory endurance test 
specified in S5.4, using a test rim that undergoes 
no permanent deformation and allows no loss of air 
through the portion that it comprises of the tire- 
rim pressure chamber: 

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

(b) The tire pressure at the end of the test shall 
be not less than the initial pressure specified in 
S5.4.1.1. 

54.2.2.6 High-speed performance. When the tire 
has been subjected to the laboratory high-speed 
performance test specified in S5.5, using a test rim 
that undergoes no permanent deformation and 
allows no loss of air through the portion that it 
comprises of the tire-rim pressure chamber, the 
tire shall meet the requirements set forth in 
S4.2.2.5(a) and (b). 

S4.3 Labeling requirements. Except as provided 
in S4.3.1 and S4.3.2 each tire shall have per- 
manently molded into or onto both sidewalls, in 
letters and numerals not less than 0.078 inches 
high, [the information shown in paragraphs S4.3 
(a) through (g). On at least one sidewall, the 
information shall be positioned in an area between 



the maximum section width and bead of the tire, 
unless the maximum section width of the tire falls 
between the bead and one-fourth of the distance 
from the bead to the shoulder of the tire. For tires 
where the maximum section width falls in that 
area, locate all required labeling between the bead 
and a point one-half the distance from the bead to 
the shoulder of the tire. However, in no case shall 
the information be positioned on the tire so that it 
is obstructed by the flange or any rim designated 
for use with that tire in Standard Nos. 109 and 110 
(S 571.109 and § 571.110 of this part). (55 F.R. 
41190— October 10, 1990. Effective: November 9, 
1990)] 

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

(b) Maximum permissible inflation pressure; 

(c) Maximum load rating; 

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

(e) Actual number of plies in the sidewall, and 
the actual number of plies in the tread area if dif- 
ferent; 

(f) The words "tubeless" or "tube type" as ap- 
plicable; and 

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

54.3.1 Each tire shall be labeled with 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 vehi- 
cle safety standards. 

54.3.2 Each tire shall be labeled with the name 
of the manufacturer, or brand name and number 
assigned to the manufacturer in the manner 
specified in Part 574. 

54.3.3 Each tire manufactured between March 
1, 1971, and May 22, 1971, shall either- 

(a) Comply with S4.3(dX2) and S4.3(i) (as effec- 
tive until May 22, 1971); or 

(b) Be labeled with the tire identification number 
required by Part 574.5 of this chapter and comply 
with S4.3.1 and S4.3.2 (as effective on and after 
May 22, 1971). 



(Rev. 10/10/90) 



PART 571; S 109-3 



S4.3.4 [If the maximum inflation pressure of a tire 
is 240, 280, 290, 300, 330, 340, 350, or 390 kPa, 
then: (55 F.R. 49618— November 30, 1990. Effective: 
December 31, 1990)1 

(a) Each marking of that inflation pressure pur- 
suant to S4.3(b) shall be followed in parenthesis by 
the equivalent inflation pressure in psi, rounded to 
the next higher whole number; and 

(b) Each marking of the tire's maximum load 
rating pursuant to S4.3(c) in kilograms shall be 
followed in parentheses by the equivalent load 
rating in pounds, rounded to the nearest whole 
number. 

S4.3.5 If the maximum inflation pressure of a 
tire is 60 psi, the tire shall have permanently 
molded into or onto both sidewalls, in letters and 
numerals not less than V2 inch high, the words "In- 
flate to 60 psi." On both sidewalls, the words shall 
be positioned in an area between the tire shoulder 
and the bead of the tire. However, in no case shall 
the words be positioned on the tire so that they are 
obstructed by the flange of any rim designated for 
use with that tire in this standard or in Standard 
No. 110 (§ 571.110 of this part). 

S4.4 Tire and rim matching information. 

S4.4.1 Each manufacturer of tires shall ensure 
that a listing of the rims that may be used with 
each tire that he produces is provided to the public. 
A listing compiled in accordance with paragraph 
(a) of this section need not include dimensional 
specifications or diagram of a rim if the rim's 
dimensional specifications and diagram are con- 
tained in each listing published in accordance with 
paragraph (b). The listing shall be in one of the 
following forms: 

(a) Listed by manufacturer name or brand name 
in a document furnished to dealers of the manufac- 
turer's tires, to any person upon request, and in 
duplicate to: Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, 
Crash Avoidance Division, National Highway Traf- 
fic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590; or 

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

The Tire and Rim Association. 
The European Tyre and Rim Technical 
Organisation. 
(Rev. 11/30/90) PART 571; 



Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' 
Association, Inc. 
Deutsche Industrie Norm. 
British Standards Institution. 
Scandinavian Tire and Rim Organization. 
The Tyre and Rim Association of Australia. 

S4.4.2 Information contained in any publication 
specified in S4.4.1(b) which lists general categories 
of tires and rims by size designation, type of con- 
struction and/ or intended use, shall be considered 
to be manufacturer's information pursuant to 
S4.4.1 for the listed tires and rims, unless the 
publication itself or specific information provided 
according to S4.4.1(a) indicates otherwise. 



S5 Test procedures. 

S5.1 Pliysical Dimensions. Determine tire 
physical dimensions under uniform ambient condi- 
tions as follows: 

(a) Mount the tire on a test rim having the test 
rim width specified in a submission made by an in- 
dividual manufacturer, pursuant to S4.4.1(a), or in 
one of the publications described in S4.4.1(b) for 
that tire size designation and inflate it to the 
applicable pressure specified in Table II. 

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

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

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

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

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



S5.2 Tubeless tire bead unseating resistance. 
S5.2.1 Preparation of tire-wfieel assembly. 

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

55.2.1.2 Inflate it to the applicable pressure 
specified in Table II at ambient room temperature. 

S 109-4 



Force Applied to 
Glass in Direction 
of Arrow 



Smallest Dimension 

of the Pressed Glass Seal of the 

Glass Capsule 




Reference Plane 



Bulb Base Rigidly Mounted 
to Fixture 



Point of 

Direction 

Measurement 



Standardized Replaceable 
Light Source Type 



Dimesion 
"A" 



HB1 
HB2 
HB3 
HB4 
[HB5 



44.50 ± 0.38 mm (1.75 ± 0.015 in) 

31.25 ± 0.40 mm (1.23 ± 0.012 in) 

31.50 ± 0.20 mm (1.24 ± 0.008 in) 

31.50 ± 0.20 mm (1.24 ± 0.008 in) 

44.50 ± 0.25 mm (1.75 ± 0.010 in)] 



(55 F.R. 13138— April 9, 1990. Effective: May 9, 1990) 

Figure 8. - Bulb Deflection Test 



PART 571;S108-Art Page 25-26 




Side View 
(Sec A) 



Figure 24-1 . - Specification for the HB5 Replaceable Bulb 

PART 571;S108-Art Page 83 



(See reverse page for 
dimensional specificatio 



Dimensional Specifications 
Figure 24-1 



AR 

AS 
AT 
AV 



Dimension 


ln< 


ches 


Millimeters 


A 


(0.085/0.083) 0.002 Either Side CL 


(2.15/2.10) 0.05 Either Side CL 


F 


0.906 


± 0.008 


23.00 ± 0.20 


H 


0.079 


± 0.004 


2.00 ± 0.20 


K Low Beam 


1.752 


± 0.010 


44.50 ± 0.25 


High Beam 


CL High Beam to be within 
+ 0.025 of CL of low beam 


CL High Beam to be within 
± 0.64 of CL of low beam 


M 


0.978 Max. 


24.85 Max. 


N 


(1.335/1.331) 0.002 Either Side CL 


(33.90/33.80) 0.05 Either Side CL 





0.965 Max. 


24.5 Max. 


P 


1.673 


± 0.008 


42.50 ± 0.20 


R 


(1.126/1.122) 0.002 Either Side CL 


(28.60/28.50) 0.05 Either Side CL 


U 


1.181 


± 0.008 


30.00 ± 0.20 


V 


0.413 


± 0.020 


10.50 ± 0.50 


W 


0.128 


± 0.008 


3.25 ± 0.20 


X 


0.189 


± 0.008 


4.80 ± 0.20 


AC 


0.015 


± 0.015 


0.38 ± 0.38 


AD 


0.063 


± 0.025 


1.60 ± 0.64 


AE 


0.000 


± 0.015 


0.000 ± 0.38 


AF 


0.063 


± 0.032 


1.60 ± 0.81 


AH 


0.356 


± 0.008 


9.05 ± 0.20 


AM 


0.415 


± 0.008 


10.54 ± 0.20 


AN 


0.673 


± 0.008 


17.10 ± 0.20 


AO 


2.756 Max. 


70.0 Max. 


AP 


Seal must withstand 


a minimum of 70 kPa 





(10 PSIG) when bulb-seal assembly is 

inserted into a cylindrical aperture of 

34.3/34.2 mm (1 .350/1 .346 in). 

Glass capsule and supports shall not 
exceed this envelope. 

0.335 ± 0.079 

0.665 ± 0.035 

Support wires extending forward of 

the filaments shall be within + 45° of 

vertical. 



8.5 ± 2.0 
16.9 + 0.90 



/l\ Bulb must be equipped with a seal 

Figure 24-2. - Specification for the IHB5 Replaceable Bulb 



PART 571;S108-Art Page 84 





Ref. Plane 



CONSTANT 




Rad 
3 PLCS 



View W 



View Y 



Terminals must be perpendicular 
to base and parallel within + 1.5° 
Left Terminal— Low Beam 
Right Terminal— High Beam 
Center Terminal— Grd 



Figure 24-3. - Specification for the HB5 Replaceable Bulb 



PART 571;S108-Art Page 85 



(See reverse page for 
dimensional specification; 



Dimension 

AA 

AB 

AC 

AD 

AE 

AF 

AG 

AJ 

AK 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

G 

J 

K 

L 

M 

R 

S 

U 

W 



Dimensional Specifications 
Figure 24-3 

Inches 



120° 

150° 

0.193 Min. 

44° 30' 

0.722 ± 0.008 

120° 

120° 
0.142 ± 0.008 

60° 
1.028 ± 0.008 
0.289 ± 0.010 
0.289 ± 0.010 
0.051 ± 0.008 
0.055 ± 0.008 
0.278 ± 0.006 
0.059 ± 0.008 
0.142 ± 0.010 
0.811 ± 0.008 
0.535 ± 0.008R 
0.118 ± 0.004 
0.075 ± 0.010 
0.025 + 0.002 
0.222 ± 0.008R 
0.010 + 0.006 



Millimeters 

120° 

150° 

4.9 Min. 

44° 30' 

18.35 ± 0.20 

120° 

120° 
3.6 ± 0.20 

60° 

26.10 ± 0.20 

7.35 ± 0.25 

7.35 ± 0.25 

1.30 ± 0.20 

1.40 ± 0.20 

7.05 ± 0.15 

1.50 ± 0.20 

3.60 + 0.25 

20.60 ± 0.20 

13.60 ± 0.20R 

3.00 ± 0.10 

1.90 ± 0.25 

0.63 ± 0.05 

5.65 ± 0.20R 

0.25 ± 0.15 



Tolerance for All Angular 
Dimensions + 1° 



Figure 24-4. - Specification for the HB5 Replaceable Bulb 



PART 571;S108-Art Page 86 



Opaque 
Coating 



'x. of Undistorted Portion 
of Glass Tubing 




Pt "A' 



Higfi Beam Filament 



Point P 




Undistorted — ' 
Glass 



Plan View 



Side View 



Dimensional Specifications 



Dimension 

F 
G 
N 



(N/2)TAN 38° ± 1.0 mm (±0.039 in) 

(N/2)TAN 43° Minimum 

Actual Capsule Dia. (To Be Established By 
Manufacturer) 

Entire Radius and Distorted Glass Shall Be 
Covered to the Plane Passing Through Point "P" 
Perpendicular to the Glass Capsule Centerline. 



Figure 24-5. - Specification for the HB5 Replaceable Bulb 



PART 571;S108-Art Page 87-88 




L-AC 



Exploded Side View 



Blending Radii Permitted 



Must Be Free of Flash 




Exploded Plan View 

Figure 24-6. - Specification for the HB5 Replaceable 
Bulb Locking Feature 

(See reverse page for 
PART 571 ;S 108— Art Page 89 dimensional specifications) 



Dimensional Specifications 
Figure 24-6 



Dimension 


Inches 


Millimeters 


AC 


0.179 ± 0.008 


4.55 ± 0.20 


AD 


30° ± 3° 


30° ± 3° 


AG 


0.098 ± 0.008 


2.50 ± 0.20 


AK 


35° ± 3° 


35° ± 3° 


AM 


0.217 ± 0.008 


5.50 ± 0.20 


AN 


0.157 + 0.008 


4.00 ± 0.20 


AO* 


0.02 ± 0.008 


0.5 ± 0.20 


AP 


0.45 ± 0.008 


11.4 ± 0.20 



* Blending radii permitted 



Figure 24-7. - Specification for the HB5 Replaceable 
Bulb Locking Feature 

PART 571;S108-Art Page 90 



following: The table on the adapter plate shall be of 
sufficient size to completely contain the test fix- 
ture base with no overhang. The vibration shall be 
applied in the vertical axis of the headlamp system 
as mounted on the vehicle. The filament shall not 
be energized. (54 F.R. 20006— May 9, 1989. Effective: 
June 8. 1989)] 

CS8.10 Sealing. An unfixtured headlamp in its 
design mounting position shall be placed in water 
at a temperature of 176 +/- 5 degrees F (60 +/- 
3 degrees C) for one hour. The headlamp shall be 
energized in its highest wattage mode, with the 
test voltage at 12.8 +/- 0.1 V. during immersion. 
The lamp shall then be de-energized and im- 
mediately submerged in its design mounting posi- 
tion into water at 32 +5-0 degrees F (0 -h3-0 
degrees C). The water shall be in a pressurized 
vessel, and the pressure shall be increased to psi 
(70 kPa), upon placing the lamp in the water. The 
lamp shall remain in the pressurized vessel for a 
period of thirty minutes. This entire procedure 
shall be repeated for four cycles. Then the lamp 
shall be inspected for any signs of water on its in- 
terior. During the high temperature portion of the 
cycles, the lamp shall be observed for signs of air 
escaping from its interior. If any water occurs on 
the interior or air escapes, the lamp is not a sealed 
lamp. (54 F.R. 20006— May 9, 1989. Effective: June 8, 
1989)] 

(S9. Deflection test for standardized replaceable 
light sources. With the light source rigidly 
mounted in a fixture in a manner indicated in 
Figure 8, a force of 4.0 ± 0.1 pounds (17.8 ± 0.4N) 
is applied at a distance "A" from the reference 
plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the 
glass capsule and parallel to the smallest dimen- 
sion of the pressed glass capsule seal. The force 
shall be applied (using a rod with a hard rubber tip 
with a minimum spherical radius of .039 in (1 mm) 
radially to the surface of the glass capsule in four 
locations in a plane parallel to the reference plane 
and spaced at a distance "A" from that plane. 
These force applications shall be spaced 90 degrees 
apart starting at the point perpendicular to the 
smallest dimension of the pressed seal of the glass 
capsule. The bulb deflection shall be measured at 
the glass capsule surface at 180 degrees opposite 



to the force application. (54 F.R. 20006— May 9, 
1989. Effective: June 8, 1989)] 

S10. Simultaneous Aim Phiotometry Tests. 

1(a) Type F Headlamp Systems. The assembly 
shall be located on a goniometer placed not less 
than 60 feet (18.3m) from the photometer. The LF 
unit shall be aimed mechanically by centering the 
unit on the photometer axis and by alingning the 
aiming plane of the lens perpendicular to the 
photometer axis. Then the assembly shall be 
moved in a plane parallel to the established aiming 
plane of the LF headlamp until the UF headlamp is 
centered on the photometer axis. Photometry 
measurements of the UF photometry unit shall be 
completed using the aiming plane so established, 
and the procedures of section S4.1 and 4.1.4 
Standard J1383 APR 85, and Figure 15. A realm 
tolerance of ± 'A degree is permitted in any direc- 
tion at any test point. 

(b) Integral Beam Headlamp Systems. The 
assembly used for simultaneously aiming more 
than one integral beam headlamp shall be placed 
on a test fixture on a goniometer located not less 
than 60 feet (18.3m.) from the photometer. The 
assembly shall be aimed by centering the 
geometric center of the lower beam lens(es) on the 
photometer axis and by aligning the photometer 
axis to be perpendicular to the aiming reference 
plane or appropriate vertical plane defined by the 
manufacturer of any lower beam contributor. 
Photometric compliance of the lower beam shall be 
determined with all lower beam contributors 
illuminated and in accordance with sections 4.1 
and 4.1.6 of SAE Standard J1383 APR 85, and 
Figure 15. The assembly shall then be moved in a 
plane parallel to the established aiming plane of the 
lower beam until the assembly is located with the 
geometric center of the upper lens(es) on the 
photometer axis. Photometric compliance for 
upper beam shall now be determined using the 
figure and procedure specified for the lower beam. 
During photometric testing, a V4 degree realm is 
permitted in any direction at any test point. (54 
F.R. 20006— May 9, 1989. Effective: June 8. 1989)] 

35 F.R. 16842 
October 31, 1970 



(Rev. S/9/89) 



PART 571; S 108-23-24 



Table I.— Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment Other Than Headlamps- 
Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Trailers, and Buses, of 80 or More Inches 

Overall Width 



Item 
Column 1 


Multipurpose passenger vehicles, 

trucks and buses 

Column 2 


1 


Trailers 
Column 3 


Applicable SAE standards 

or recommended practice 

Column 4 




Taillamps ^ 


2 red 




2 red 




J585e, September 1977 


Stopiamps 


2 red 




2 red 




[SAE J1398 May 1985] 


License plate lamp ' 


1 white 




1 white 




J587, October 1981 


Reflex reflectors 


4 red; 2 amber 




4 red; 2 amber 


J594f, January 1977 


Side marker lamps 


4 red; 2 amber 




2 red; 2 amber 


J592e, July 1972 


Backup lamp ' 


1 white 




None 




J593c, February 1968 


Turn signal lamps 


2 red or amber; 


2 amber 


2 red or 


amber. 


ISAE J1395 April 19851 


Turn signal operating unit. ' 


1 




None 




J589, April 1964 


Turn signal flasher 


1 




None 




J590b, October 1965 


Vehicular hazard warning 
signal operating unit 


1 




None 




J910, January 1966 


Vehicular hazard warning 
signal flasher 


1 




None 




J945, February 1966 


Identification lamps 


3 amber; 3 red 




3 red 




J592e, July 1972 


Clearance lamps 


2 amber; 2 red 




2 amber; 2 red 


J592e, July 1972 


Intermediate side marker 
lamps. ' 


2 amber 




2 amber 




J592e, July 1972 


Intermediate side reflex 
reflectors * 


2 amber 




2 amber 




J594f, January 1977 



(55 F.R. 20158— May 15. 1990. Effective: December 1, 1990)] 

> See S5.1. 1.10. ^ SeeSS.l. 1.11-12. 'SeeSS.S.G. " SeeS5.1.1.3. 



(R«v. S/1Sf90) 



PART 571; S 108-25 



Table II.— Location of Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment 
Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Trailers, and Buses, Of 80 Or More Inches 

Overall Width 



Item 
Column 1 



Location on- 



Multipurpose passenger vehicles, 

trucks, and buses 

Column 2 



Trailers 
Column 3 



Height above road 
surface measured from 

center of item on 

vehicle at curb weight 

Column 4 



Headlamps On the front, each headlamp providing 

the upper beam, at the same height, 1 
on each side of the vertical centerline, 
each headlamp providing the lower 
beam, at the same height, 1 on each 
side of the vertical centerline, as far 
apart as practicable. ISee also S7] 



Not required 



Not less than 22 inches 
(55.9 cm) nor more 
than 54 inches 
(137.2 cm) 



Taillamps On the rear, 1 on each side of the 

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



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



Not less than 15 
inches, nor more 
than 72 inches 



Stoplamps On the rear, 1 on each side of the 

vertical centerline, at the same 

height, and as far apart as practi- 
cable 



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



Not less than 15 
inches, nor more 
than 72 inches 



License-plate 
lamp 



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



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



No requirement 



Backup lamp 



On the rear 



Not required 



No requirement 



Turn-signal At or near the front— 1 amber on 

lamps each side of the vertical centerline, 

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



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



Not less than 15 
inches, nor more 
than 83 inches 



Identification On the front and rear— 3 lamps, 

lamps amber in front, red in rear, as 

close as practicable to the top of 
the vehicle, at the same height, 
as close as practicable to the 
vertical centerline, with lamp 
centers spaced not less than 6 
inches or more than 12 inches 
apart. Alternatively, the front lamps 
may be located as close as practicable 
to the top of the cab. 



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



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



Clearance On the front and rear— 2 amber 

lamps lamps on front, 2 red lamps on 

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



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



No requirement 



Intermediate On each side— 1 amber lamp located 

side marker at or near the midpoint between 

lamps the front and rear side-marker 

lamps 



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



Not less than 15 inches 



Intermediate On each side— 1 amber located at or 

side reflex near the midpoint between the 

reflectors front and rear side reflex reflectors 



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



Not less than 15 inches 
nor more than 60 
inches 



Reflex On the rear— 1 red on each side of 

reflectors the vertical centerline, as far 

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



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

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



Not less than 15 inches 
nor more than 60 
inches 



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

lamps rear as practicable, and 1 amber 

as far to the front as practicable 



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



Not less than 15 inches, 
and on the rear of 
trailers not more than 
60 inches 



• 1(54 F.R. 30223-July 19, 1986. Effective: July 19, 1986)1 
(Rev. 7/19/86) PART 571; S 108-26 



Table hi.— Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment 

All Passenger Cars and Motorcycles, and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, 

Trailers, and Buses, of Less Than 80 Inches Overall Width 



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



Motorcycles Applicable SAE standards 

or recommended practices 
Column 4 Column 5 



Headlamps 
Taillamps ^ 



SeeS7 



2 red 



2 red 



Ired 



J585e, September 1977. 



Stoplamps 


2 red 


2 red 


Ired 




[SAE J586, February 1984.] 


High mounted 
stoplamp 


1 red, for passenger 
only 


cars Not required 


Not required 


J186a, September 1977. 


License plate lamp ' 


1 white 


1 white 


1 white 




J587, October 1981. 


Parking lamps ' 


2 amber or white 


None 


None 




J222, December 1970. 


Reflex reflectors 


4 red, 12) amber 


4 red; 2 amber 


3 red; 2 amber 


J594f, January 1977. 


Intermediate side 
reflex reflectors ' 


2 amber 


2 amber 


None 




J594f, January 1977. 


Intermediate side 
marker lamps * 


2 amber 


2 amber 


None 




J592e, July 1972. 


Side marker lamps 


2 red, 2 amber 


2 red; 2 amber 


None 




J592e, July 1972. 


Backup lamp 


1 white 


None 


None 




J593c, February 1968. 


Turn signal lamps ' 


2 red or amber; 
2 amber. 


2 red or amber. 


2 amber; 
amber. 


2 red or 


ISAE J588, November 1984.1 


Turn signal 
operating unit ' * 


1 


None 


1 




J589, April 1964. 


Turn signal flasher 


1 


None 


1 




J590b, October 1965. 


Vehicular hazard 
warning signal 
operating unit 


1 


None 


None 




J910, January 1966. 


Vehicular hazard 
warning signal 
flasher 


1 


None 


None 




J945, February 1966. 



1(55 F.R. 20158- 
1 See S5.1.1.10. 



May 15, 1990. Effective: December 1, 1990)1 

2 See S5.1. 1.11-12. ' gee S5.5.6. " See S5.1.1.5. = See S5.1.1.3. 



(Rev. 5/15/90) 



PART 571; S 108-27 



housing, or vice versa, it shall conform with the 
photometries applicable to it with the lens at any 
position relative to the reflector within the aim 
range limits of paragraphs S7.7.3 and S7.7.4, or 
any combination. 

(S7.7.3. When a headlamp system is tested in a 
laboratory, the range of its vertical aim shall not be 
less than +/- 4 degrees from the nominal correct 
air position for the intended vehicle application. 
When installed on a motor vehicle, the range of 
vertical aim shall be not less than the full range of 
pitch of the vehicle on which the headlamp system 
is installed. The installed range of static pitch 
angle shall as a minimum be determined from 
unloaded vehicle weight to gross vehicle weight 
rating, and incorporate pitch angle effects from 
maximum trailer or truck loadings, the full range 
of tire intermix sizes and suspensions recom- 
mended and/or installed by the vehicle manufac- 
turer, and the anticipated effects of variable 
passenger loading. The vertical aim adjustment 
mechanism shall be continuously adjustable over 
the full range. 

[S7.7.4. When a headlamp system is tested in a 
laboratory, the range of its horizontal aim shall be 
not less than 2.5 degrees from the nominal correct 
aim position for the intended vehicle application. 

[S7.7.5. When a headlamp system is installed on 
a motor vehicle, it shall be aimable with either an 
externally applied aiming device or on-vehicle 
headlamp aiming devices installed by the vehicle 
manufacturer. When activated in a steady-burning 
state, headlamps shall not have any styling orna- 
ment or other feature, such as a translucent cover 
or grill, in front of the lens. Headlamp wipers may 
be used in front of the lens provided that the 
headlamp system is designed to conform with all 
applicable photometric requirements with the 
wiper stopper in any position in front of the lens. 

[S7.7.5.1. External aiming, (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 prependicular 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 loca- 
tions 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(dXl)). 
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 
nonadjustable 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). (55 F.R. 
4424— February 8, 1990. Effective: March 12, 1990)1 

Each headlamp system that is designed to con- 
form to paragraph S7.5 and that is designed to use 
such external aiming devices, and which is 
manufactured on or after December 1, 1989, shall 
comply with this paragraph. 

(b) When a headlamp is installed on a motor 
vehicle, its aim in any direction shall not change by 
more than 0.30 degree nor shall the lamp recede 
more than 0.1 in. (2.5 mm.) after being subjected to 
an inward force of 50 pounds (222 newtons) applied 
evenly to the lens parallel to the mechanical axis. 

(c) Each headlamp system mounting and aiming 
mechanism shall be subjected to a salt spray (fog) 
test in accordance with ASTM B 117-73 Method of 
Salt Spray (Fog) Testing for a period of 50 hours, 
consisting of two successive 25 hour periods of 24 
hours exposure followed by 1 hour of drying. At 
the end of 50 hours, the headlamp system shall be 
capable of meeting any of the applicable re- 
quirements of paragraph S7.7. 

(d) Each headlamp system which is designed to 
use the Headlamp Aiming Device Locating Plates 
with adjustable legs for the 100 x 165 mm unit and 
the 142 X 200 mm unit, and which has adjustable 
length legs, shall meet the requirements of sub- 
paragraphs (1) and (2) below. 



(Rev. 2/8/90) 



PART 571; S 108-17 



Total for group, 

Group Test point, degrees candela (see note 
1) 

1' 45L-5U, 45L-H, 45L-5D, ■ ■ . 45 

2' 30L-H, 30L-5D 50 

3 lOL-lOU, 10L-5U, V-lOU, 100 
V-5U. lOR-lOU, 10R-5U . . . 

4 lOL-H, 10L-5D, V-H, V-5D, 
lOR-H, 10R-5D 360 

5' 30R-H, 30R-5D 50 

6' 45R-5U, 45R-H, 45R-5D . . . 45 

Figure 2— Minimum Luminous Intensity Requirement for 
Backup Lamps 

' When 2 lamps of the same or symmetrically opposite design are used, 
the reading along the vertical axis and the averages of the readings for 
the same angles left and right of vertical for 1 lamp shall be used to deter- 
mine compliance with the requirements. If 2 lamps of differing designs 
are used, they shall be tested individually and the values added to deter- 
mine that the combined units meet twice the candela requirements. 

When only 1 backup lamp is used on the vehicle, it shall be tested to 
twice the candela requirements. 

(1) The lens shall have three aiming pads 
which meet the requirements of Figure 4, 
Dimensional Specifications for Location of Aim- 
ing Pads on Replaceable Bulb Headlamp Units. 
The aiming pads need not be centered at the 
geometric center of the lens, or on the optical 
axis. Except as provided in subparagraph (2), a 
whole number, which represents the distance in 

, tenths of an inch (i.e. 0.3 inch = 3) from the 
aiming reference plane to the respective aiming 
pads which are not in contact with that plane, 
shall be inscribed adjacent to each respective 
aiming pad on the lens. The height of these 
numbers shall be not less than .157 in (4 mm). If 
there is interference between the plane and the 
area of the lens between the aiming pads, the 
whole number represents the distance to a secon- 
dary plane. The secondary plane shall be located 
parallel to the aiming reference plane and as 
close to the lens as possible without causing in- 
terference. 

(2) If the most forward aiming pad is the lower 
inboard aiming pad, then the dimensions may be 
placed anywhere on the lens. The dimension for 
the outboard aiming pad (Dimension F in Figure 
4) shall be followed by the letter "H" and the 
dimension for the center aiming pad shall be 
followed by the letter "V." The dimensions shall 
be expressed in tenths of an inch. 



(e) Each headlamp may be designed to use the 
nonadjustable Headlamp Aiming Device Locating 
Plate for the 100 x 165 mm unit, the 142 x 200mm 
unit, the 146 mm diameter unit, or the 178 mm 
diameter unit of SAE J602, or the 92 x 150 mm 
Type F unit, and incorporate lens mounted aiming 
pads as specified for those units in Figures 10, 13, 
5, or 7 respectively in SAE J1383 APR 85, or 
Figure 1 1 of this standard for the Type F unit. If so 
designed, no additional lens marking is necessary 
to designate the type of plate or dimensions. 

IS7.7.5.2 On-vehicle aiming. Each headlamp 
system that is capable of being aimed by equipment 
installed on the vehicle shall include a Vehicle 
Headlamp Aiming Device (VHAD) that conforms 
to the following requirements: 

(a) Aim. The VHAD shall provide for headlamp 
air inspection and adjustment in both the vertical 
and horizontal axes. 

(1) Vertical aim: The VHAD shall include the 
necessary references and scales relative to the 
horizontal plane to assure correct vertical aim 
for photometry and aiming purposes. An off- 
vehicle measurement of the angle of the plane of 
the ground is permitted. In addition, an equal 
number of graduations from the "0" position 
representing angular changes in the axis in the 
upward and downward directions shall be pro- 
vided. 

(i) Each graduation shall represent a change 
in the vertical position of the mechanical axis 
not larger then 0.19 degree (1 in. at 25 ft.) to 
provide for variations in aim at least 1.2 
degrees above and below the horizontal, and 
have an accuracy relative to the zero mark of 
less than 0.1 degree. 

(ii) The VHAD shall be marked to indicate 
headlamp aim movement in the upward and 
downward directions. 

(iii) Each graduation shall indicate a linear 
movement of the scale indicator of not less 
than 0.05 in. (1.27 mm) if a direct reading 
analog indicator is used. If a remote reading 
indicator is provided, it shall represent the ac- 
tual aim movement in a clear, understandable 
format. 

(iv) The vertical indicator shall perform 
through a minimum range of +/ - 1.2 degrees. 

(v) Means shall be provided in the VHAD for 
compensation for deviations in floor slope not 



(Rev. 2/8f90) 



PART 571; S 108-18 



less than 1.2 degrees from the horizontal that 
would affect the correct positioning of the 
headlamp for vertical aim. 

(vi) The graduations shall be legible under 
an illumination level not greater than 30 foot 
candles, measured at the top of the graduation, 
by an observer having 20/20 vision (Snellen), 
and shall permit aim adjustment to within 0.19 
degree (1 in. at 25 ft.). 

(2) Horizontal aim. The VHAD shall include 
references and scales relative to the longitudinal 
axis of the vehicle necessary to assure correct 
horizontal aim for photometry and aiming pur- 
poses. An "0" mark shall be used to indicate 
alignment of the headlamps relative to the 
longitudinal axis of the vehicle. In addition, an 
equal number of graduations from the "0" 
position representing equal angular changes in 
the axis relative to the vehicle axis shall be pro- 
vided. 

(i) Each graduation shall represent a change 
in the horizontal position of the mechanical 
axis not greater than 0.38 degree (2 in. at 25 
ft.) to provide for variations in aim at least 0.76 
degree (4 in. at 25 ft.) to the left and right of 
the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, and shall 
have an accuracy relative to the zero mark of 
less than 0.1 degree. 

(ii) The VHAD shall be marked to indicate 
headlamp aim movement in the left and right 
directions. 

(iii) The graduations shall be legible under 
an illumination level not greater than 30 foot 
candles, measured at the top of the top of the 
radiator, by an observer having 20/20 vision 
(Snellen), and shall permit aim adjustment to 
within 0.38 degree (2 in. at 25 ft.). 

(iv) The horizontal indicator shall perform 
through a minimum range of -»■/- 0.76 degree 
(4 in. at 25 ft.); however, the indicator itself 
shall be capable of recalibration over a move- 
ment of +/- 2.5 degrees relative to the 
longitudinal axis of the vehicle to accom- 
modate any adjustment necessary for recali- 
brating the indicator after vehicle repair from 
accident damage. 

(b) Aiming instructions. (1) The instructions 
or properly aiming the headlighting system using 
he VHAD shall be provided on a label perman- 
ently affixed to the vehicle adjacent to the VHAD, 
ir in the vehicle operator's manual. The instruc- 



tions shall advise that the headlighting system is 
properly aimed if the appropriate vertical plane (as 
defined by the vehicle manufacturer) is perpen- 
dicular to both the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, 
and a horizontal plane when the vehicle is on a 
horizontal surface, and the VHAD is set at "0" 
vertical and "0" horizontal. 

(2) Should a remote indicator or a remote in- 
dicator and adjuster be provided, the instructions 
shall be placed in the operator's manual, and 
may also be placed on a label adjacent to the 
VHAD. 

[(3) Should the mechanism not meet the re- 
quirements of S7.7.2.1, on each motor vehicle 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1990, a 
cautionary 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 com- 
plete instructions. Each such vehicle shall be 
equipped with an operator's manual containing the 
complete instructions appropriate for the 
mechanism installed. (55 F.R. 4424— February 8, 
1990. Effective: March 12, 1990)1 

(c) Testing the VHAD. 

(1) The headlamp assembly (the headlamp(s) 
and the VHAD(s) mechanism) shall be mounted 
on a level goniometer, aligned to a photometer 
located not less than 60 ft. (18.3m) from the 
VHAD assembly. The assembly shall be 
mechanically aimed using the VHAD in accor- 
dance with the manufacturer's instructions as 
provided with the vehicle on which the VHAD is 
intended to be used. A V4 degree realm is per- 
mitted in any direction at any test point to allow 
for variations in readings between laboratories. 
The test shall be conducted in accordance with 
the procedures of paragraphs 4.1 and 4.1.4 of 
SAE J1383 APR 85. Under these conditions the 
mounted headlamp assembly shall be designed to 
conform to the photometric requirements ap- 
propriate for the headlamp system under test. 

(2) When tested in accordance with subsection 
(1) of this section, with any replacement 
headlamp unit(s) or light sources intended for 
use in the system under test, the VHAD and 
headlamp system shall be designed to conform to 
the photometric performance requirements ap- 
propriate for the system under test. 



^ev. 2/8/90) 



PART 571; S 108-19 



(3) The same VHAD and associated 
headlamp(s) (or headlamp assembly) shall be 
rigidly mounted in a headlamp test fixture and 
comply with the following laboratory test pro- 
cedures: 

(i) Each graduation on the horizontal and 
vertical aim scales shall be checked and any 
variation from the correct aim shall not exceed 
+/- 0.2 degree, and +/- 0.1 degree, respec- 
tively. 

(ii) With the aiming plane horizontal and 
vertical and with the scale on the device set at 
0, the aimer shall be adjusted before each of 
the following tests to assure that the indicators 
are centered at 0. 

(ii)(A) The VHAD and an unlighted 
headlamp assembly shall be stabilized at 20 
+ / - 5 degrees F ( - 7 -h / - 3 degrees C) in a cir- 
culating air environmental test chamber. After 
a period of 30 minutes, when measured at that 
soak temperature, the variation from correct 
horizontal or vertical aim shall not exceed +1 - 
0.2 degree, and +1 - 0.1 degree, respectively. 

(ii)(B) The VHAD, and the headlamp 
assembly with its highest wattage filament (or 
combination of filaments intended to be used 
simultaneously) energized at its design 
voltage, shall than be stabilized at 100 +/- 5 
degrees F (38 +1 - 3 degrees C) in a circulating 
air environmental test chamber. After a period 
of 30 minutes, when measured at that soak 
temperature, the variation from correct 
horizontal and vertical aim shall not exceed 
+ 1- 0.2 degree, and +1- 0.1 degree, respec- 
tively. 

(ii)(c) The VHAD and an unlighted headlamp 
assembly shall then be placed in a circulating 
air environmental test chamber and exposed to 
a temperature of 140 +1- 5 degrees F (60 +1- 
3 degrees C) for 24 hours, followed by a 
temperature of - 40 5 degrees F ( - 40 +1 - 3 
degrees C) for 24 hours and then permitted to 
return to room temperature, after which the 
VHAD and headlamp assembly shall show no 
damage which would impair its ability to per- 
form as specified herein. The variation from 
correct horizontal or vertical aim shall not ex- 
ceed + 1- 0.2 degree, and +1- 0.1 degree, 
respectively. 

(ii)(d) The VHAD and headlamp assembly 
shall then be tested according to the corrosion 
test procedure of paragraph S7. 7. 5. 1(c). 



(ii)(E) The VHAD and headlamp assembly 
shall then be tested for photometric compliance 
as specified in paragraphs S7.7.5.2(cXl) and (2). 

S8 Tests and Procedures for Integral Beam and 
Replaceable Bulb Headlighting Systems. When 
tested in accordance with the following pro- 
cedures, each integral beam headlamp shall meet 
the requirements of paragraph S7.4, and each 
replaceable bulb headlamp shall meet the re- 
quirements of paragraph S7.5. 

S8.1 Photometry. Each headlamp to which 
paragraph S8 applies shall be tested according to 
paragraphs 4.1 and 4.1.4 of SAE Standard J1383 
APR 85 for meeting the applicable photometric re- 
quirements, after each test specified in paragraphs 
S8.2, S8.3, S8.5, S8.6.1, S8.6.2, and S8.7. A Va, 
degree realm is permitted in any direction at any 
testpoint. 

S8.2. Abrasion, (a) A headlamp shall be 
mounted in the abrasion-test fixture in the manner 
indicated in Figure 5 with the lens facing upward. 

(b) An abrading pad meeting the requirements 
in paragraphs (c) (1) through (c) (4) of this section 
shall be cycled back and forth (1 cycle) for 11 cycles 
at 4 ± 0.8 in. (10 cm ± 2 cm) per second over at least 
80 percent of the lens surface, including all the 
area between the upper and lower aiming pads, but 
not including lens covers and edges. 

(c) (1) The abrading pad shall be not less than 
1.0±.04 in. (2.5 cm + .l cm) wide, constructed of 
0000 steel wool, and rubber cemented to a rigid 
base shaped to the same vertical contour of the 
lens. The "grain" of the pad shall be perpendicular 
to the direction of motion. 

(2) The abrading pad support shall be equal in 
size to the pad and the center of the support sur- 
face shall be within ± .08 in. ( + 2 mm) of parallel 
to the lens surface. 

(3) The density of the abrading pad shall be 
such that when the pad is mounted to its support 
and is resting unweighted on the lens, the base of 
the pad shall be no closer than .125 in. (3.2 mm) 
to the lens at its closest point. 

(4) When mounted on its support and resting 
on the lens of the test headlamp, the abrading 
pad shall then be weighted such that a pad 
pressure of 2.0 ± .15 psi (14 + 1 kPa) exists at the 
center and perpendicular to the face of the lens. 



PART 571; S 108-20 



(d) A pivot shall be used if it is required to follow 
the contour of the lens. 

(e) Unused steel wool shall be used for each test. 

[S8.3.] Chemical resistance, (a) The entire ex- 
terior lens surface of the fixtured headlamp and 
top surface of the lens-reflector joint shall be wiped 
once to the left and once to the right with a 6-inch- 
square soft cotton cloth (with pressure equally ap- 
plied) which has been saturated once in a container 
with 2 ounces of one of the test fluids listed in 
paragraph (b) of this section. The lamp shall be 
wiped within 5 seconds after removal of the cloth 
from the test fluid. 

(b) The test fluids are: 

(1) ASTM Reference Fuel C, which is com- 
posed of Isooctane 50 volume % and Toluene 50 
volume %. Isooctane must conform to A2.7 in 
Annex 2 of the Motor Fuels Section of the 1985 
Annual Book of ASTM Standards Vol. 05.04, and 
Toluene must conform to ASTM specification 
D362-84, Standard Specification for Industrial 
Grade Toluene. ASTM Reference Fuel C must be 
used as specified in: 

(i) Paragraph A2.3.2 and A2.3.3 of Annex 2 
to Motor Fuels, Section 1 in the 1985 Annual 
Book of ASTM Standards; and 

(ii) OSHA Standard 29 CFR 1910.106- 
Handling Storage and Use of Flammable Com- 
bustible Liquids. 

(2) Tar remover (consisting by volume of 45% 
xylene and 55% petroleum base mineral spirits). 

(3) Power steering fluid (as specified by the 
vehicle manufacturer for use in the motor vehicle 
on which the headlamp is intended to be in- 
stalled). 

(4) Windshield washer fluid consisting of 0.5% 
monoethanolamine with the remainder 50% con- 
centrations of methanol /distilled water by volume. 

(5) Antifreeze (50% concentration of ethylene 
glycol /distilled water by volume). 

(c) After the headlamp has been wiped with the 
test fluid, it shall be stored in designed operating 
attitude for 48 hours at a temperature of 73°F ± 7° 
(23°C±4°) and a relative humidity of 30 ±10 per- 
cent. At the end of the 48-hour period, the head- 
lamp shall be wiped clean with a soft dry cotton 
cloth and visually inspected. 

[S8.4.] Corrosion, (a) A connector test shall be 
performed on each filament circuit prior to the test 



in subparagraph (b) according to Figure 1 of SAE 
Standard J580, [DEC 86]. The power source shall 
be set to provide 12.8 volts and the resistance shall 
be set to produce 10 amperes. 

(b) The headlamp with connector attached to the 
terminals, unfixtured and in its designed operating 
attitude with all drain holes, breathing devices or 
other designed openings in their normal operating 
positions, shall be subjected to a salt spray (fog) test 
in accordance with ASTM B117-73, Method of Salt 
Spray (FOG) Testing, for a period of 240 hours, con- 
sisting of 10 successive 24-hour periods. During 
each interval, the headlamp shall be mounted in the 
middle of the chamber and exposed for 23 hours to 
the salt spray. The spray shall not be activated for 
the 24th hour. The bulb shall be removed from the 
headlamp and from the test chamber during the one 
hour of salt spray deactivation and reinserted for 
the start of the next test cycle, at the end of the first 
and last three 23-hour periods of salt spray ex- 
posure, and at the end of any two of the fourth 
through seventh 23-hour periods of salt-spray ex- 
posure. The test chamber shall be closed at all times 
except for a maximum of 2 minutes which is allowed 
for removal or replacement of a bulb during each 
period. After the ten cycles, the lens reflector unit 
without the bulb shall be immersed in deionized 
water for five minutes, then secured and allowed to 
dry by natural convection only. 

(c) Using the voltage, resistance and pretest 
setup of subparagraph (a), the current in each fila- 
ment circuit shall be measured after the test con- 
ducted in subparagraph (b). 

[S8.5.I Dust. The headlamp, mounted on a 
headlamp test fixture, with all drain holes, 
breathing devices or other designed openings in 
their normal operating positions, shall be posi- 
tioned within a cubical box, with inside 
measurements of 35.4 in. (900 mm) on each side, or 
larger if required for adequate wall clearance, i.e., 
a distance of at least 5.9 in. (150 mm) between the 
headlamp and any wall of the box. The box shall 
contain 9.9 lb. (4.5 kg) of fine powdered cement 
which conforms to the ASTM C150-77 Specifica- 
tion for Portland Cement. Every 15 minutes, the 
cement shall be agitated by compressed air or fan 
blower(s) by projecting blasts of air for a 2-second 
period in a downward direction so that the cement 
is diffused as uniformly as possible throughout the 
entire box. This test shall be continued for five 
hours, after which the exterior surfaces of the 
headlamp shall be wiped clean. 



(Rev. 5/9/89) 



PART 571; S 108-21 



IS8.6.] Temperature and internal heat test. A 

headlamp with one or more standardized 
replaceable light sources shall be tested according 
to [S8.6.11 and [88.6.2.] Tests shall be made with 
all filaments lighted at design voltage that are in- 
tended to be used simultaneously in the headlamp 
and which in combination draw the highest total 
wattage. These include but are not hmited to 
filaments used for turn signal lamps, fog lamps, 
parking lamps, and headlamp lower beams lighted 
with upper beams when the wiring harness is so 
connected on the vehicle. If a turn signal is in- 
cluded in the headlamp assembly, it shall be 
operated at 90 flashes a minute with a 75 ±2% cur- 
rent "on time". If the lamp produces both the 
upper and lower beam, it shall be tested in both the 
upper beam mode and the lower beam mode under 
the conditions above described, except for a 
headlamp with a single [Type HBl or HB21 light 
source. 

[S8.6.1.] Temperature cycle. A headlamp, 
mounted on a headlamp test fixture, shall be sub- 
jected to 10 complete consecutive cycles having the 
thermal cycle profile shown in Figure 6. During the 
hot cycle, the lamp shall be energized commencing 
at point "A" of Figure 6 and de-energized at point 
"B." Separate or single test chambers may be used 
to generate the environment of Figure 6. All drain 
holes, breathing devices or other openings or vents 
of the headlamp shall be in their normal operating 
positions. 

[S8.6.2.1 Internal Heat Test, (a) The headlamp 
lens surface that would normally be exposed to 
road dirt shall be uniformly sprayed with any 
appropriate mixture of dust and water or other 
appropriate materials to reduce the photometric 
output at the H-V test point of the upper beam (or 
the V2D-I V2R test point of the lower beam as 
appropriate) to 25 ±2% of the output originally 
measured in the photometric test [conducted pur- 
suant to paragraphs S7.4(i), or S7.5(a) through (e), 
as applicable. A headlamp with a single [Type HBl 
or HB2I light source shall be tested on the upper 
beam only]. 

Such reduction shall be determined under the 
same conditions as that of the original photometric 
measurement. 

(b) After the photometric output of the lamp has 
been reduced as specified in paragraph (a), the 
lamp and its mounting hardware shall be mounted 
in an environmental chamber in a manner similar 



to that indicated in Figure 7, Dirt/Ambient Test 
Setup. The headlamp shall be soaked for one hour 
at a temperature of 95 + 7-0 degrees F (35 -t- 4-0 
degrees C) and then the lamp shall be energized ac- 
cording to [SB. 6) for one hour in a still air condi- 
tion, allowing the temperature to rise from the 
soak temperature. 

(c) The lamp shall be returned to a room ambient 
temperature of 73 -(-7-0 degrees F (23-1-4-0 
degrees C) and a relative humidity of 30 ± 10% and 
allowed to stabilize to the room ambient 
temperature. The lens shall then be cleaned. 

[S8.7.] Humidity. The headlamp mounted on a 
test fixture shall be placed in a controlled environ- 
ment consisting of a temperature of 100-1-7-0 
degrees F (38 -t-4-0 degrees C) with a relative 
humidity of not less than 90%. All drain holes, 
breathing devices, and other designed openings 
shall be in their normal operating positions. The 
headlamp shall be subjected to 20 consecutive 
6-hour test cycles. In each cycle, it shall be ener- 
gized for 1 hour at design voltage with the highest 
combination of filament wattages that are intended 
to be used, including a turn signal flashing at 90 
flashes a minute with a 75 ±2% current "on-time," 
if so equipped, and then de-energized for 5 hours. 
After completion of the last cycle, the lamp shall be 
soaked for 1 hour at 73-1-7-0 degrees F 23 -t-4-0 
degrees C) and relative humidity of 30 ±10% 
before it is removed for photometric testing. The 
headlamp shall be tested for photometries at 10 ± 1 
minute following completion of the humidity test. 

{S8.8.] Impact. The headlamp shall be rigidly 
mounted in a headlamp test fixture on the seating 
lugs with the mechanical axis (bulb /socket axis) 
vertical, and the lens upward. The seating plane of 
the test fixture shall consist of oakwood 0.5 inch 
(13 mm) thick. One impact shall be delivered to the 
center of the lens on the mechanical axis, using a 
steel ball bearing with a diameter of .9055 in. (23 
mm) weighing 1.76 oz. (50 gm), dropped freely 
from a distance of 15.75 in. (40 cm) from the 
bottom of the ball to the surface of the lens, at the 
intersection of the ball trajectory and the 
mechanical axis of the headlamp. 

[S8.9 Vibration. A vibration test shall be con- 
ducted in accordance with the procedures of SAE 
Standard J575e Tests for Motor Vehicle Lighting 
Devices and Components August 1970, and the 



(Rev. 5/9/89) 



PART 571; S 108-22 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE 
SAFETY STANDARD NO. 208 

Occupant Crash Protection 

(Docket No. 85-08; Notice 5) 

RIN2127-AC86 



ACTION: Final rule. 



SUMMARY: The requirements for safety belt sys- 
tems in trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of more 
than 10,000 pounds manufactured on or after Sep- 
tember 1, 1990 include special provisions to make 
those safety belt systems more comfortable and 
convenient to use. The final rule that originally 
established these requirements set forth special per- 
formance requirements for belt systems equipped 
with automatic locking retractors (ALRs). For such 
belt systems, that rule's special performance require- 
ments focused exclusively on the working of the 
retractor mechanism itself as the means of ensuring 
comfort for users of these belt systems. 

Following receipt of a petition for reconsideration 
and the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking, 
the agency is issuing this final rule which expands 
the special performance requirements for belt sys- 
tems equipped with ALRs to encompass the working 
of the entire safety belt system instead of focusing on 
the retractor mechanism alone. This approach 
achieves the agency's goal of ensuring comfort for 
users of belt systems equipped with ALRs, without 
imposing unnecessary restrictions on innovative 
means of ensuring comfort that do not depend upon 
the workings of the retractor mechanism alone. 

DATES: The changes made in this rule are effective 
September 1, 1990. These requirements will apply to 
all trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehi- 
cles with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 
10,000 pounds manufactured on or after that date. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Since January 
1, 1972, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR §571.208) 
has required vehicle manufacturers to install safety 
belt systems in heavy vehicles (i.e., trucks, buses, 
and multipurpose passenger vehicles [MPVs] with a 
gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 
pounds). The safety belts required in those vehicles 
have had to meet all of the strength requirements set 
for belt systems in passenger cars and light trucks, 



buses, and MPVs (those with a gross vehicle weight 
rating of 10,000 pounds or less). However, the safety 
belts required in iieavy vehicles have not had to 
meet several requirements for lighter vehicle safety 
belt systems that make the safety belts more com- 
fortable to wear and easier to use. 

The agency adopted several changes to the re- 
quirements for belt systems in heavy vehicles to 
make such belt systems more comfortable to wear 
and easier to use in a final rule that was published 
on July 6, 1988 (53 FR 25337). With respect to the 
type of retractor required to be installed on heavy 
vehicle belt systems, this rule required that such 
belt systems be equipped with either an emergency 
locking retractor (ELR) or an ALR with anti-cinch 
capability. For the purposes of that rule, the deter- 
mination of whether a heavy vehicle safety belt 
system with an ALR had this anti-cinch capability 
was mad© by exaraihing tbe'jvorking of the retractor 
■ mechanism alone. In the<:aiBa of a safety belt assem- 
bly equipped with an ALR and installed in a heavy 
vehicle to comply with this requirement, the retrac- 
tor could not retract webbing to the next locking 
position until at least ^/i of an inch of webbing had 
moved into the retractor. 

NHTSA received three petitions for reconsidera- 
tion of this rule. The only one of those petitions that 
is relevant to this rule is the one that was filed by 
Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc. (IMMI). IMMI's 
petition asked NHTSA to amend its July 6, 1988 
rule to permit safety belt systems that are equipped 
with an ALR and installed in heavy vehicles to 
comply with the '/i inch minimum webbing travel 
requirement by means other than the working of the 
retractor itself. According to IMMI, a minimum 
webbing travel requirement that considered the per- 
formance of the entire belt system in meeting the 
goal of preventing "cinch down," instead of focusing 
on the performance of the retractor alone, would 
permit the development of more innovative means of 
overcoming the cinch-down problem for safety belt 
systems equipped with ALRs. 

NHTSA reexamined its minimum webbing travel 



PART 571; S208-PRE 459 



requirements in response to this petition. The pur- 
pose of including minimum webbing travel require- 
ments for safety belt systems equipped with ALRs 
was to ensure that these belt systems would be more 
comfortable for users than safety belt systems 
equipped with ALRs that cinched down. Any safety 
belt system equipped with an ALR that provided 
enhanced comfort for belt users by preventing "cinch 
down" would seem to fulfill the purpose served by 
the minimum webbing travel requirement, regard- 
less of whether the retractor alone met that require- 
ment. Accordingly, NHTSA tentatively determined 
that the current requirement for heavy vehicle 
safety belt systems is unnecessarily restrictive. 

To reflect this tentative determination, the agency 
issued a July 11, 1989 notice, published at 54 FR 
29069, proposing to adopt a less restrictive approach 
to ensuring occupant comfort when using safety belt 
systems equipped with ALRs. Instead of focusing 
solely on the workings of the retractor mechanism to 
determine if the belt system complies with the 
minimum webbing travel requirement, as the July 
1988 final rule on this subject did, NHTSA proposed 
in this notice to examine the workings of the belt 
system as a whole to determine if it complies with 
the minimum webbing travel requirement. A bench 
test would be used to evaluate the workings of the 
belt system as a whole. First, the belt system would 
be buckled. Then the retractor end of the belt system 
would be anchored. The other end of the belt system 
would not be anchored during this bench test, and is 
referred to as the "free end" of the belt system in 
this rule. The belt webbing would be extended to 75 
percent of its length and the ALR would be locked 
after this initial adjustment. A load of 20 pounds 
would be applied to the free end of the belt system in 
the direction away from the retractor. The position of 
the free end of the belt system would be recorded. 
Then the 20 pound load would be slowly released 
(i.e., released within a 30 second period) until the 
retractor moves to the next locking position. The 
position of the free end of the belt system would be 
i-ecorded again. The distance between the recorded 
positions of the free end of the belt system would 
have to be equal to or greater than % inch. 

NHTSA stated in the July 11, 1989 proposal the 
agency's belief that this proposed bench test would 
be satisfied by any safety belt system incorporating 
an ALR that meets the current requirement for a ^/a 
inch spacing between ratcheting positions on the 
retractor. Additionally, vehicles could comply with 
this proposed bench test if the safety belt system 
incorporates a device or devices external to the ALR 
mechanism itself that will operate automatically to 
prevent cinch down. This proposed bench test would 
not be satisfied by devices that must be manually 
operated to prevent cinch down, because no manual 



adjustments will be performed during the bench 
testing. 

Four commenters responded to the request for 
comments on this proposed action. IMMI supported 
the proposal. The State of Connecticut commented 
that it supports the concept of moving toward a more 
performance-oriented test of the entire safety belt 
system, as proposed in the NPRM, but that it was 
concerned about the specifics of the bench test pro- 
posed in the NPRM. More specifically, Connecticut 
noted that the proposed bench test would apply a 20 
pound load to the free end of the belt system and 
slowly decrease the load until the retractor moved to 
the next locking position. Connecticut was con- 
cerned that the absence of some intermediate force 
level at which the belt system must not yet have 
moved to the next locking position could permit the 
use of safety belt systems that exert constant force 
levels objectionable to most wearers. 

For instance, Connecticut commented that a belt 
system would comply with the proposed requirement 
if it exerted a constant 19 pound load on the wearer. 
According to Connecticut's comment, a constant 19 
pound pull on the safety belt would be objectionable 
to most wearers and would not represent a satisfac- 
tory solution to the cinch-down problems associ- 
ated with ALRs in the past. This commenter sug- 
gested that this potential problem could be avoided if 
the agency were to include a requirement that the 
free end of the belt assembly shall move less than ^4 
inch when the 20 pound pre-load has reached 10 
pounds, or some other level. Connecticut commented 
that this intermediate force level, whether it is set at 
10 pounds or some lower level, would be a limit on 
the belt tension that could be imposed on the wearer. 

NHTSA was not persuaded by this comment. 
While Standard No. 209 does not currently establish 
any maximum forces that an ALR can impose on a 
lap belt, NHTSA is unaware of any ALRs currently 
in use that impose a retractor force of more than one 
or two pounds. Manufacturers would have no reason 
to now increase the retractor force up to a level of 19 
pounds, because such an increase would make the 
retractor more expensive and the safety belt system 
heavier and less comfortable for wearers. Hence, 
there is no apparent reason for a regulatory require- 
ment to prohibit increases from current retractor 
force levels. 

Additionally, NHTSA does not believe that Con- 
necticut's suggestion to establish an intermediate 
force level of 10 pounds has any correlation to the 
real life operational characteristics of an oscillating 
occupant in a safety belt system. For example, IMMI 
stated in its submissions that its device requires 14 
pounds of force to extend it (which means it would 
not comply with Connecticut's suggested intermedi- 
ate force level requirement), but that the force levels 



PART 571; S208-PRE 460 



on the occupant drop to 9 pounds as soon as the 
occupant begins to move the system inward. Then 
the 9 pound force is reduced to 3 to 4 pounds at the 
retractor, due to belt/clothing friction. If the maxi- 
mum operational force for anti-cinch devices were 
limited to 10 pounds, as suggested by Connecticut, it 
would be possible for a device to be tested at 10 
pounds, operate at 5 pounds, and only provide 1 or 2 
pounds of force at the retractor, which may not be 
sufficient to prevent the retractor spring force from 
extending the anti-cinch device. In effect, then, this 
10 pound intermediate force would require safety 
belt systems to comply with the anti-cinch require- 
ments by means of the retractor mechanism, because 
it would be very difficult for any anti-cinch devices 
external to the retractor to overcome the mass and 
frictional forces needed to prevent cinch down and to 
comply with this intermediate force level. After 
considering this comment, NHTSA has concluded 
that the approach proposed in the NPRM offers the 
best balance of ensuring occupant comfort (by limit- 
ing maximum lap belt forces) while allowing maxi- 
mum design flexibility for manufacturers to achieve 
the necessary occupant comfort. 

Ford Motor Company (Ford) made a comment 
similar to Connecticut's. Ford stated that belt ten- 
sions of up to 20 pounds would be allowed by this 
proposal, and that such tension levels would be 
objectionable to most users. Instead, Ford com- 
mented that anti-cinch characteristics should be 
measured at force levels that are more typical and 
more likely to be acceptable to users, which Ford 
suggested would be not more than five pounds for 
the lap belt. 

The agency's response to Ford's comment about 
the need for a test force lower than 20 pounds is the 
same as that offered above in Connecticut's comment 
about the need for a lower test force. Essentially, the 
agenc>- has no reason to believe that manufacturers 
would raise retractor force levels above the current 
one or two pound level, because an increase would 
make the retractor heavier, bulkier, and more expen- 
sive, and would be less comfortable for the wearer. 

In addition, the anti-cinch device developed by 
IMMI was reportedly developed to a specific force 
level and displacement to fulfill the needs of occu- 
pants in heavy trucks. IMMI reported that its anti- 
cinch device has a steady state load on the occupant 
of 4 to 6 pounds measured at the anti-cinch device, a 
corresponding load of 2 to 3 pounds when the load is 
measured at the retractor, but that in the bench test 
proposed in the NPRM for this rule 13 to 14 pounds 
is needed to cause the IMMI device or any other 
anti-cinch device external to the retractor mecha- 
nism to function. NHTSA believes that the data 
reported by IMMI are consistent with what would be 
expected and that a 13 to 14 pound minimum force 



level would be required for effective operation of an 
anti-cinch device external to the retractor mecha- 
nism. The agency is not aware of any consumer 
complaints about safety belt systems equipped with 
the IMMI anti-cinch device. To the contrary, the 
IMMI device appears to have proven successful in 
the marketplace. 

This information suggests that persons operating 
heavy trucks have found 4 to 6 pounds of lap belt 
force to be reasonably comfortable. It also suggests 
that some systems that impose approximately 6 
pounds of lap belt force in the real world require 
much higher force levels to function as designed 
when subjected to the proposed bench test. Accord- 
ingly, Ford's suggestion to establish a 5 pound max- 
imum force level as measured in this bench test is 
not persuasive, nor would it be viable for any anti- 
cinch devices external to the retractor. 

Finally, the Automotive Occupant Restraints 
Council (AORC) commented that, while it agrees 
that the requirements for safety belt comfort and 
convenience should not restrict design or innovation, 
the requirements must preclude the possibility of 
the introduction of excessive slack in the lap belt 
when it is engaged about the occupant. AORC com- 
mented that the current requirements in S4.3(i) of 
Standard No. 209 limit the amount of slack that can 
be introduced into a belt system by an ALR to one 
inch. AORC commented that a device that could be 
manually adjusted to lock-out the ALR would not 
appear to comply with the proposed test, because the 
proposed test does not provide for manual adjust- 
ment of any devices on the safety belt system. 
However, AORC was concerned that a device exter- 
nal to the retractor that did not require any manual 
adjustment would apparently be permitted to intro- 
duce unlimited slack under the proposed test. AORC 
commented that unlimited slack should not be per- 
mitted in the final rule, and asked that devices 
external to the retractor not be permitted to intro- 
duce more slack into the belt system than the one 
inch permitted for the ALR. 

NHTSA agrees with AORC's comment that anti- 
cinch devices external to the ALR should not be 
permitted to introduce an unlimited amount of slack 
into the safety belt system. Therefore, this rule 
adopts a limitation on the maximum amount of 
slack that may be introduced by such anti-cinch 
devices. However, the agency does not agree with 
AORC that the same one inch limitation specified 
for the ALR should be specified for these external 
devices, for a number of reasons. First, allowing only 
two inches of slack (one inch from the ALR and one 
inch from the anti-cinch device) might not solve the 
cinch-down problem for ALRs installed in trucks 
that commonly experience rough riding for occu- 
pants, such as cement trucks and garbage trucks. If 



PART 571; S208-PRE 461 



this rule does not solve the cinch-down problem for 
ALRs in those trucks, it will not have achieved its 
intended purpose. 

Second, the larger occupant space of medium- and 
heavy-duty trucks means that there is a lesser safety 
need to minimize occupant excursion in these vehi- 
cles than is the case in smaller vehicles. For in- 
stance, a Chevrolet Caprice passenger car has a 
head-to-windshield header distance of 13.9 inches 
and a head-to-windshield distance of 18.7 inches, 
using a 50th percentile adult male test dummy for 
these measurements. A GMC Astro 95 truck tractor 
has a head-to-windshield header distance of 27 
inches and a head-to-windshield distance of 31 
inches, measured with the same size test dummy. 
Because of this larger occupant space, permitting 
greater slack in these vehicles than would be per- 
mitted in passenger cars would not have a signifi- 
cant influence on restraint system effectiveness in 
these larger vehicles. 

Third, the IMMI anti-cinch system has been de- 
signed to allow more than one inch of slack. As 
explained above, NHTSA is reluctant to preclude in 
effect the use of a currently available means of 
solving the cinch-down problem absent some indica- 
tions of a need to do so. In this case, NHTSA is 
unaware of any indications of safety problems asso- 
ciated with the IMMI anti-cinch device. Accordingly, 
the agency concludes it would be inappropriate to 
preclude the continued use of the IMMI anti-cinch 
device as a means of complying with the new anti- 
cinch requirements for heavy trucks. 

After considering these facts, the agency has de- 
cided to include in this rule a provision to limit total 
slack measured during this bench test of the safety 
belt system to three inches. This three inch total 
reflects a maximum of one inch slack permitted to be 
introduced by the ALR, pursuant to Standard No. 
209, and a maximum of two inches slack associated 
with an anti-cinch device external to the retractor 
itself. The agency would like to note that the safety 
belt system must comply with this anti-cinch re- 
quirement without requiring any additional actions 
by the belt wearer Thus, a device that could be 
manually adjusted to lock-out the ALR could not be 
the means for complying with this new requirement. 

These requirements will apply to trucks, buses, 
and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross 
vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. This 
date was chosen since that is also the effective date 
of the July 1988 amendment to Standard No. 208 
requiring that the safety belt systems on these 
vehicles comply with the anti-cinch requirements by 
means of the retractor mechanism alone. This rule 
relieves a restriction in the July 1988 amendments 
by permitting the anti-cinch requirements to be 



satisfied either by the working of the retractor 
mechanism itself or by an external device that 
automatically operates to prevent cinch down. This 
rule does not impose any additional costs on any 
party, since any manufacturer that wishes to comply 
with the anti-cinch requirements by means of the 
retractor mechanism will continue to be permitted 
to do so under this rule. Therefore, NHTSA finds for 
good cause that this rule should become effective on 
September 1, 1990, instead of at least 180 days after 
issuance, as specified in section 103(c) of the Safety 
Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(c)). 

NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemak- 
ing action and determined that it is neither "major" 
within the meaning of Executive Order 12291 nor 
"significant" within the meaning of the Department of 
Transportation's regulatoi-y policies and procedures. 
The agencj' has also determined that the economic and 
other impacts of this rule are so minimal that a full 
regulatory evaluation is not required. 

Those heavy vehicle manufacturers that choose to 
rely on the working of the retractor mechanism 
alone to comply with the test for cinch down, as 
required by the current regulatory language will not 
have to change their plans in response to this final 
rule. On the other hand, this rule will also give 
manufacturers the option of adopting other innova- 
tive approaches to comply with the test for cinch 
down. Those manufacturers that choose to take 
advantage of this rule to use an innovative means of 
solving cinch down could experience some slight 
cost savings. However, the costs of complying with 
the anti-cinch retractor requirement have been esti- 
mated throughout this rulemaking as being mini- 
mal, so any savings from the costs of anti-cinch 
retractors would necessarily also be minimal. 

NHTSA has also considered the effects of this rule 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby cer- 
tify that this rule will not have a significant eco- 
nomic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Few, if any, of the heavy vehicle manufac- 
turers are small entities. To the extent that these 
manufacturers might experience a cost savings as a 
result of this proposal, the savings will be minimal, 
as explained above. Likewise, small organizations 
and small governmental entities will not be signifi- 
cantly affected by this rule. Although those gi'oups 
do purchase heavy vehicles, this rule will not result 
in any price increases for heavy vehicles. 

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

1. S4. 3.2.2 of Standard No. 208 is revised to read as 
follows: 

S4.3.2 Trucks and multipurpose passenger vehi- 
cles with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds, 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. * * * 



PART 571; S208-PRE 462 



S4.3.2.2 Second option— belt system. The vehicle 
shall, at each designated seating position, have 
either a Type 1 or a TVP^ 2 seat belt assembly that 
conforms to §571.209 of this Part and S7.2 of this 
Standard. A Type 1 belt assembly or the pelvic 
portion of a dual retractor Type 2 belt assembly 
installed at a front outboard seating position shall 
include either an emergency locking retractor or an 
automatic locking retractor. If a seat belt assembly 
installed at a front outboard seating position in- 
cludes an automatic locking retractor for the lap belt 
or the lap belt portion, that seat belt assembly shall 
comply with the following: 

(a) An automatic locking retractor used at a front 
outboard seating position that has some type of 
suspension system for the seat shall be attached to 
the seat structure that moves as the suspension 
system functions. 

(b) The lap belt or lap belt portion of a seat belt 
assembly equipped with an automatic locking re- 
tractor that is installed at a front outboard seating 
position must allow at least '/i inch, but less than 3 
inches, of webbing movement before retracting web- 
bing to the next locking position. 

(c) Compliance with S4. 3. 2. 2(b) of this standard is 
determined as follows: 

(1) The seat belt assembly is buckled and the 
retractor end of the seat belt assembly is anchored to 
a horizontal surface. The webbing for the lap belt or 
lap belt portion of the seat belt assembly is extended 
to 75 percent of its length and the retractor is locked 
after the initial adjustment. 

(2) A load of 20 pounds is applied to the free end of 
the lap belt or the lap belt portion of the belt 
assembly (i.e., the end that is not anchored to the 
horizontal surface) in the direction away from the 
retractor. The position of the free end of the belt 
assembly is recorded. 

(3 1 Within a 30 second period, the 20 pound load is 
slowly decreased, until the retractor moves to the 
next locking position. The position of the free end of 
the belt assembly is recorded again. 

(4) The difference between the two positions re- 
corded for the free end of the belt assembly shall be 
at least '/i inch but less than 3 inches. 

2. S4.4.2.2 of Standard No. 208 is revised to read as 
follows: 

S4.4.2 Buses manufactured on or after September 
1. 1990. * * * 

***** 

S4.4.2.2 Second option— belt system— driver only. 



The vehicle shall, at the driver's designated seating 
position, have either a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt 
assembly that conforms to §571.209 of this Part and 
S7.2 of this Standard. A Type 1 belt assembly or the 
pelvic portion of a dual retractor Type 2 belt assem- 
bly installed at the driver's seating position shall 
include either an emergency locking retractor or an 
automatic locking retractor. If a seat belt assembly 
installed at the driver's seating position includes an 
automatic locking retractor for the lap belt or the lap 
belt portion, that seat belt assembly shall comply 
with the following: 

(a) An automatic locking retractor used at a driv- 
er's seating position that has some type of suspen- 
sion system for the seat shall be attached to the 
seat structure that moves as the suspension system 
functions. 

(b) The lap belt or lap belt portion of a seat belt 
assembly equipped with an automatic locking re- 
tractor that is installed at the driver's seating posi- 
tion must allow at least ■y4 inch, but less than 3 
inches, of webbing movement before retracting web- 
bing to the next locking position. 

(c) Compliance with S4. 4. 2. 2(b) of this standard is 
determined as follows: 

(1) The seat belt assembly is buckled and the 
retractor end of the seat belt assembly is anchored to 
a horizontal surface. The webbing for the lap belt or 
lap belt portion of the seat belt assembly is extended 
to 75 percent of its length and the retractor is locked 
after the initial adjustment. 

(2) A load of 20 pounds is applied to the free end of 
the lap belt or the lap belt portion of the belt 
assembly (i.e., the end that is not anchored to the 
horizontal surface) in the direction away from the 
retractor. The position of the free end of the belt 
assembly is recorded. 

(3) Within a 30 second period, the 20 pound load is 
slowly decreased, until the retractor moves to the 
next locking position. The position of the free end of 
the belt assembly is recorded again. 

(4) The difference between the two positions re- 
corded for the free end of the belt assembly shall be 
at least ^4 inch but less than 3 inches. 

Issued on May 1, 1990. 



Jeffrey R. Miller 
Deputy Administrator 

55 FR 18889 
May 7, 1990 



PART 571; S208-PRE 463-464 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR 
VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 208 

Occupant Crash Protection 

(Docket No. 87-08; Notice 6) 

PIN 2127-AD12 



ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for 
reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: In November 1989, this agency pub- 
lished a final rule mandating the installation of 
lap/shoulder safety belts in all forward-facing rear 
outboard seating positions in convertible passenger 
cars, light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehi- 
cles (e.g., passenger vans and utility vehicles), and 
small buses. This new requirement applies to all 
such vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 
1991. NHTSA received 14 petitions for reconsidera- 
tion of this rule. 

In response to these petitions, the agency is mak- 
ing several changes to the final rule published in 
November 1989. These changes are: 

1. This notice rescinds the requirement adopted in 
the November 1989 rule that lap belt portions of 
safety belts provide some means of locking the lap 
belt and preventing additional webbing spool out, 
other than an external device that requires manual 
attachment or activation by a driver or passenger. 
Throughout the remainder of this preamble, this 
requirement is identified as the "lockability require- 
ment." Many petitioners asserted that no objective 
test for determining compliance with the lockability 
requirement was specified in the November 1989 
final rule, and that the public had not been given 
notice of and the opportunity to comment on the 
lockability requirement. This notice responds to 
these objections by deleting the lockability require- 
ment from the final rule. 

However, the agency again tentatively concludes 
that the substantive purpose of the lockability re- 
quirement, i.e., to ensure that rear seat safety belts 
can tightly secure child safety seats, needs to be 
addressed in NHTSA's safety standards. The agency 
hopes to shift the discussion of the lockability re- 
quirement toward its substantive merits, and away 
from the types of objections made to the November 
1989 final rule. To that end, a notice of proposed 
rulemaking to adopt a lockability requirement, in- 
cluding a specific procedure for testing compliance. 



is published elsewhere in today's edition of the 
Federal Register. 

2. The November 1989 final rule included special 
provisions for lap/shoulder belts installed at rear 
outboard seating positions on readily removable 
seats. Such belts were permitted to detach at the 
upper anchorage only. If those belts were detachable 
at the upper anchorage, the means of detaching 
could not include any sort of pushbutton release. A 
petition for reconsideration asked that lap/shoulder 
belts on readily removable seats be permitted to 
detach at either the upper or lower anchorage and 
that the means of detachment should be permitted 
to include a pushbutton release. This notice grants 
the request to permit lap/shoulder belts on readily 
removable seats to be detachable at either the upper 
or lower anchorage, but denies the request to permit 
the detachability to be accomplished by a pushbut- 
ton release. 

3. The November 1989 final rule required that lap 
belts or the lap belt portion of lap/shoulder belts 
installed at any rear outboard seating position be 
equipped with an emergency locking retractor 
(ELR). A petitioner asked that this requirement be 
limited to forward-facing rear outboard seating po- 
sitions, so that side-facing or rear-facing outboard 
seating positions could continue to be equipped with 
automatic locking retractors (ALRs) on lap belts. 
Since this rulemaking action had been focused on 
rear outboard seating positions that are forward- 
facing, or at least adjustable to be forward-facing, 
this notice grants the petitioner's request to limit 
the requirement for ELRs to those types of rear 
outboard seats. 

4. The November 1989 final rule excluded seating 
positions adjacent to aisleways from the definition of 
"outboard designated seating position" in trucks, 
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. A peti- 
tioner asked that this same exclusion be extended to 
passenger cars. This notice gi'ants that request. 

DATES: The amendments to S7. 1.1.3 and S7.1.1.5 



PART 571; S208-PRE 465 



are effective on September 1, 1991. That is the date 
on which the version of those requirements pub- 
lished in the November 1989 final rule would have 
become effective. The other amendments made by 
this rule take effect on [January 28, 1991, 180 days 
after publication of this rule in the Federal Register]. 
Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 
1991 must be certified as complying with the re- 
quirements of this rule. 

Background 

On November 29, 1988 (53 FR 47982), NHTSA 
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
proposing to require rear seat lap/shoulder belts to 
be installed in certain new vehicles. Specifically, this 
NPRM proposed to require passenger cars (including 
convertibles), light trucks, light multipurpose pas- 
senger vehicles (MPVs), and small buses to be 
equipped with lap/shoulder safety belts at all 
forward-facing rear outboard seating positions. Ad- 
ditionally, the NPRM proposed that these rear seat 
lap/shoulder belts be equipped with a particular 
type of retractor, that such belts be integral (i.e., the 
shoulder belt could not be detachable from the lap 
belt), and that such belts comply with some of the 
comfort and convenience requirements in Standard 
No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 
§571.208). 

The agency received more than 70 comments on 
this NPRM. The issue of whether passenger cars 
other than convertibles should be equipped with 
rear seat lap/shoulder belts was relatively straight- 
forward and noncontroversial. The consensus of the 
commenters was that such a requirement would be 
appropriate. Hence, to ensure the earliest possible 
implementation of such a requirement, NHTSA pub- 
lished a final rule on June 14, 1989 (54 FR 25275). 
That rule addressed only passenger cars other than 
convertibles, and required that all such vehicles 
manufactured on or after December 11, 1989 be 
equipped with rear seat lap/shoulder belts. That rule 
also expressly deferred resolution of all of the other 
issues proposed in the NPRM until a later date. 

NHTSA published a final rule addressing the 
other issues raised in the NPRM, including the 
other vehicle types required to have rear seat lap/ 
shoulder belts, the types of retractors with which 
those safety belts should be equipped, and the other 
performance attributes those safety belts should 
have, on November 2, 1989 (54 FR 46257). The 
agency received 14 petitions for reconsideration of 
this rule. This notice responds to those petitions. For 
the convenience of the reader, this notice uses the 
same organization and format that the November 2, 
1989 final rule did. When a section heading used in 
the November 2, 1989 preamble is not set forth in 
this preamble, it means that no petitions for recon- 



sideration requested changes to the rule's provisions 
discussed in that section. 

Requirements of the Rule 

Seating Positions Subject to the Requirements 

The November 2, 1989 rule limited the require- 
ment for rear seat lap/shoulder belts to outboard 
seating positions only. The term "outboard desig- 
nated seating position" is defined at 49 CFR §571.3 
as a designated seating position that, among other 
things, is less than 12 inches from the inside of the 
vehicle. A separate definition of "outboard desig- 
nated seating position" was set forth in the Novem- 
ber 1989 final rule to exclude seating positions 
adjacent to aisleways running between the seating 
position and the near side of the vehicle, even if 
those seating positions were less than 12 inches from 
that side of the vehicle. This exclusion of aisleway 
seats from the rear seat lap/shoulder belt require- 
ment reflected NHTSA's determination that the 
shoulder belt stretched across the aisleway of a 
vehicle could cause entry and exit problems for 
occupants of seating positions to the rear of the 
aisleway seating position. 

The November 1989 rule excluded aisleway seats 
from the rear seat lap/shoulder belt requirement 
only if the aisleway seats were in trucks, MPVs, and 
buses. NHTSA did not extend this exclusion to 
aisleway seats in the rear of passenger cars because 
the agency was not aware of any passenger car 
designs either currently in production or to be pro- 
duced in the future that incorporate aisleways next 
to the second row of seats so as to permit access to 
the third and other more rearward rows of seats. 

In its petition for reconsideration. Ford Motor 
Company (Ford) asserted that the exclusion of aisle- 
way seats from the rear seat lap/shoulder belt re- 
quirement should be broadened to apply to aisleway 
seats in passenger cars as well as the other types of 
vehicles. According to Ford, the reasons for exempt- 
ing aisleway seats in vans from rear seat lap/ 
shoulder belt requirements are equally applicable, 
irrespective of whether the vehicle is classified as a 
passenger car, truck, MPV, or bus. Ford is implicitly 
suggesting that passenger vans, especially mini- 
vans, could be classified as passenger cars, and that, 
if such a classification were made, the aisleway seats 
in the vans would be required to be equipped with 
lap/shoulder belts if the aisleway seats were out- 
board seating positions. Ford believes that such 
aisleway seats should continue to be excluded from 
the rear seat lap/shoulder belt requirement, regard- 
less of whether the minivan is classified as a passen- 
ger car, light truck, MPV, or bus. 

NHTSA agrees with Ford's point that the same 
safety standards should apply to light trucks, MPVs, 



PART 571; S208-PRE 466 



buses, and passenger cars, as reflected in the agen- 
cy's rulemaking actions extending provisions that 
had applied only to passenger cars so that those 
same provisions will now also apply to light trucks, 
MPVs, and buses. Accordingly, this rule includes the 
same definition of "rear outboard designated seating 
position" for passenger cars that was previously 
specified for trucks, MPVs, and buses. 

Retractor TS'pes Required for Rear Seat 
Lap/Shoulder Belts 
The NPRM contained a detailed discussion of the 
agency's previous statements on this subject, and 
repeated the agency's previous conclusion that only 
ELRs should be permitted as the retractor for the lap 
belt portion of the lap/shoulder belt system. See 53 
FR 47987-47989; November 29, 1988. This proposed 
requirement was based on the fact that ELRs for the 
lap belt made the belt system more comfortable and 
convenient for adult occupants, thereby tending to 
increase use of the belt system. Although active 
children can make some child restraints unstable if 
the child restraint is secured by a lap belt that 
incorporates an ELR, NHTSA knows of no data 
showing that this potential instability would affect 
the safety performance of the child restraint in a 
crash. Additionally, the agency stated that products 
called "locking clips" can be installed on the web- 
bing of belts equipped with an ELR to prevent 
webbing movement. 

After analyzing its proposal in response to the 
many comments received on this subject, NHTSA 
concluded that the low-speed movement of child 
safety seats held by safety belts that use an ELR 
seems to have given rise to questions and concerns 
about the safety and effectiveness of child seats 
when used with such belts. In the preamble to the 
fmal rule, NHTSA stated: 

Even if these questions and concerns have not 
been substantiated, the public may not be as 
likely to use child safety seats if there are per- 
ceived questions about the effectiveness of those 
seats. NHTSA has concluded that it is appropriate 
to take action to remove those perceived questions, 
so as to maintain public trust and confidence in 
the efficacy of child seats. 54 FR 46262; November 
2, 1989. 

To implement this conclusion, NHTSA devised an 
approach in its final rule intended to both ensure 
comfort for adult occupants of safety belt systems 
and tight securing of child safety seats by those 
same safety belt systems. First, the final rule re- 
quired that any lap belt or lap belt portion of a 
lap/shoulder belt installed at an outboard seating 
position in compliance with Standard No. 208 be 
equipped with an ELR. In its petition for reconsid- 
eration. Ford correctly noted that this requirement 



would mean that side-facing and rear-facing out- 
board seating positions would be required to be 
equipped with ELRs for the lap belts, even though 
side-facing and rear-facing outboard seating posi- 
tions were expressly excluded from the lap/shoulder 
belt requirements. Ford asserted that this was a 
major change from the proposal, which had been 
limited to forward-facing outboard seating positions, 
and that insufficient leadtime had been permitted to 
allow it to install ELRs on the lap belt in its vehicles 
with side-facing seats (such as extended cab pickups) 
and rear-facing seats (such as station wagons). 

Upon reconsideration, NHTSA has decided that 
this provision of the final rule was overly broad. The 
agency will examine the issue of whether it may be 
appropriate to amend the retractor requirements for 
side-facing or rear-facing outboard seating positions. 
If NHTSA decides to propose such an action, that 
proposal will be the subject of a separate rulemaking 
action. For this rulemaking action, however, the 
agency did not intend to establish or amend any 
requirements, including retractor requirements, for 
seating positions that are not forward facing or ad- 
justable to a forward-facing position. See 54 FR 
46258-46259; November 2, 1989. Therefore, in re- 
sponse to Ford's petition, this notice limits the 
retractor requirements of S7. 1.1.3 to seating posi- 
tions that are forward facing or adjustable to a 
forward-facing position. 

The second prong of the final rule's approach to 
ensuring adult comfort and tight securing of child 
seats from the same belt systems was a new require- 
ment that safety belts that incorporate an ELR in 
the lap belt or lap belt portion of a lap/shoulder belt 
shall provide some means, other than an external 
device requiring manual attachment or activation, 
that will prevent any further webbing fi'om spooling 
out until that means is released or deactivated. This 
requirement, which was set forth in a new S7. 1.1.5 of 
Standard No. 208, would allow safety belt systems 
equipped with an ELR to secure child seats as 
tightly as belt systems equipped with an ALR. 

All but one of the fourteen petitioners for recon- 
sideration objected to this new requirement in Stan- 
dard No. 208. The two primary objections to this 
requirement did not relate to the merits of promot- 
ing the tight securing of child seats. First, the 
petitioners asserted that the NPRM had not given 
the public notice or opportunity to comment on such 
a requirement. Hence, according to this argument, 
the adoption of such a requirement in the final rule 
violated the informal rulemaking provisions set 
forth in the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 
551 et seq.}. Second, the petitioners asserted that the 
absence of any procedures for determining compli- 
ance with this requirement meant that the require- 
ment was not stated in objective terms, as required 



PART 571; S208-PRE 467 



by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 
(15 U.S.C. 1381 etseq.). 

NHTSA has tentatively concluded anew that it is 
necessary and appropriate for Standard No. 208 to 
include a requirement to ensure that safety belt 
systems are both comfortable for adult users and can 
tightly secure child safety seats. In the November 2, 
1989 final rule, the agency sought to achieve this 
purpose by means of 87.1.1.5. The petitioners for 
reconsideration did not address the fundamental 
questions of the necessity for and validity of the 
agency's underlying purpose. Instead, the petition- 
ers focused exclusively on the means chosen to 
accomplish that purpose. 

NHTSA wants to focus attention on the purpose of 
the requirement in S7. 1.1.5 and away from the 
details of the means chosen to achieve that purpose. 
To do so, this rule removes S7. 1.1.5 from Standard 
No. 208. Elsewhere in today's edition of the Federal 
Register, the agency has published a proposal to 
readopt S7. 1.1.5. The proposed S7. 1.1.5 includes an 
objective test procedure for determining compliance. 
The addition of the compliance test procedure and 
the opportunity to comment on this new regulatory 
requirement will eliminate the procedural objec- 
tions raised in the petitions for reconsideration. 
Additionally, since S7. 1.1.5 as promulgated in the 
November 1989 final rule was not scheduled to take 
effect until September 1991, this new notice and 
opportunity for comment will not result in any 
needless delays in establishing a new requirement 
for safety belts to be both comfortable for adult 
occupants and able to tightly secure child safety- 
seats. 

The Requirements With Which Rear Seat Lap/ 
Shoulder Belts Must Comply For Readily Removable 
Seats. The November 1989 final rule included spe- 
cial provisions for lap/shoulder belts installed at rear 
outboard seating positions on readily removable 
seats. Such belts are permitted to detach at the 
upper anchorage only. If those belts are detachable 
at the upper anchorage, the means of detaching 
cannot include any sort of pushbutton release. Ford's 
petition for reconsideration asked that lap/shoulder 
belts on readily removable seats be permitted to 
detach at either the upper or lower anchorage and 
that the means of detachment should be permitted 
to include a pushbutton release. 

In the final rule, the agency permitted lap/ 
shoulder belts on readily removable rear seats to be 
detachable only at the upper anchorage point in 
response to comments by Ford and GM. Those man- 
ufacturers both commented that permitting lap/ 
shoulder belts to be detachable at the upper anchor- 
age would ease the problems of providing lap/ 
shoulder belts at outboard seating positions on readily 
removable seats. After conducting its own analysis of 



this question, NHTSA concurred with these comments 
and adopted the requested provision. 

However, in its petition for reconsideration. Ford 
asserted that limiting the detachment point to the 
upper anchorage point was "overly design restric- 
tive." This was because, according to Ford, there was 
no safety reason for permitting the belt system to 
detach at the upper, but not the lower, shoulder belt 
anchorage point. While the agency believes there are 
legitimate safety reasons for permitting the belts to 
be detachable at only one point, there is no apparent 
safety purpose served by specifying that the single 
detachment point must be the upper, and not the 
lower, shoulder belt anchorage point. Accordingly, 
this notice amends Standard No. 208 to permit 
lap/shoulder safety belt systems installed at out- 
board seating positions on readily removable seats to 
detach at either the upper or lower shoulder belt 
anchorage, but not both. 

Ford also asked in its petition that Standard No. 
208 be amended to permit the means of detachment 
to be a pushbutton release. In the November 1989 
final rule, NHTSA noted that S7.2 of Standard No. 
208 has long required safety belt systems to use a 
single pushbutton buckle that releases the occupant 
from the lap belt and the shoulder belt simulta- 
neously. Because of this requirement, the agency 
explained that manufacturers could not use a push- 
button release to detach the safety belt from the 
vehicle at an anchorage point, because the belt 
system would then have two pushbutton releases. 
The agency explained that the requirement for a 
single pushbutton release helped ensure that an 
occupant could not easily release either the lap belt 
or shoulder belt portion of the safety belt system and 
use only the unreleased portion of the safety belt 
system. Instead of a pushbutton release at the an- 
chorage point where the safety belt detaches from 
the vehicle, the agency indicated that manufactur- 
ers could use a slide button or slide collar as the 
release. 

Ford asked for reconsideration of this require- 
ment, asserting that a slide button or slide collar 
release "tends' to rattle and provides less control 
over . . . the fit of the shoulder belt." Even accept- 
ing these assertions as correct, NHTSA does not 
believe they are sufficient reason to permit the use of 
a pushbutton release as the means for detaching the 
lap/shoulder belt from the vehicle. As explained in 
the final rule and above, a pushbutton mechanism 
that detached a safety belt assembly from the vehi- 
cle at an anchorage point would increase the ease 
with which an occupant could detach either the lap 
belt or shoulder belt portion of the belt system and 
use only one part of the safety belt. The agency 
again concludes that a slide button or slide collar 
used as the means of detaching a shoulder belt will 



PART 571; S208-PRE 468 



permit the belt to be detached when the readily 
removable seat is removed, and minimize the possi- 
bility that an occupant will detach a portion of the 
lap/shoulder belt system when the readily removable 
seat is in place in the vehicle. To emphasize the 
agency's intent, express language has been added to 
the standard prohibiting the use of pushbutton 
mechanisms to detach lap/shoulder belt systems 
installed for readily removable seats. With respect to 
Ford's assertions that slide button or collar releases 
tend to rattle and present more problems for proper 
shoulder belt fit, NHTSA concludes that the manu- 
facturers have sufficient engineering expertise to 
resolve such issues. 

Ford asked in its petition for an additional year of 
leadtime for installing rear seat lap/shoulder belts 
at outboard positions on readily removable seats, if 
its request to use a pushbutton release to detach 
safety belts at such positions were denied. Ford 
stated that this extra leadtime was needed because 
it would now be required to make changes to its 
safety belt systems, the anchorages for those sys- 
tems, and the seat structure of the readily removable 
seats to comply with the requirement for a single 
pushbutton release on a belt system. NHTSA be- 
lieves that this request is reasonable. Ford's vehicles 
represent an appreciable percentage of the total 
number of vehicles equipped with readily removable 
seats, most notably the Aerostar and Econoline 
vans. These vehicles do not currently use, nor did 
Ford plan to begin using, a release mechanism that 
complies with the requirements that are scheduled 
to take effect on September 1, 1991. Accordingly, 
Ford will need to make the changes described in its 
petition. NHTSA has concluded that an additional 
year of leadtime is needed to allow Ford to make the 
necessary changes. Therefore, this notice delays the 
requirement for rear seat lap/shoulder belts to be 
installed at outboard seating positions on readily 
removable seats for one year, so that it now applies to 
vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 
1992. 

Economic and Other Impacts of the November 1989 
Final Rule 
The Recreation Vehicle Industry Association 
(RVIA) filed a petition for reconsideration of the 
November 1989 final rule, based on the economic 
impacts that rule would have on vans, especially 
vans modified by final stage manufacturers and 
alterers. RVIA asked that vans with a gross vehicle 
weight rating (GVWR) of more than 6,000 pounds be 
excluded from the requirement for rear seat lap/ 
shoulder belts, instead of the 10,000 pound GVWR 
cap that was established in the November 1989 final 
rule. The basis for this request was that there would 
be lesser safety benefits resulting from rear seat 



lap/shoulder belts in these vehicles (because the 
vehicles are "structurally stronger, larger and 
heavier than passenger cars") and higher costs to 
install those belts (because of the necessary struc- 
tural modifications). 

NHTSA has reexamined its previous decision in 
response to this request and determined that RVIA 
has not presented any reasons for changing the 
requirements of the previously published rule. Not- 
withstanding RVIA's general assertions about the 
differences between large vans and passenger cars, 
the 1988 fatality rate for large vans was slightly 
higher than the fatality rate for large cars. These 
comparative fatality rates show that RVIA's asser- 
tion that occupants of large vans have a lesser need 
for safety protection because of the structural differ- 
ences between vans and cars is not borne out by real 
world experience. 

The agency has acknowledged that the costs of 
installing rear seat lap/shoulder belts in vans will be 
greater than the costs of installing those safety belts 
in passenger cars, because vehicles other than pas- 
senger cars may need structural modifications to 
accommodate the shoulder belt portion of lap/ 
shoulder belts at rear seating positions. However, 
the agency has concluded that the structural modi- 
fications generally do not pose any serious technical 
difficulties and that the safety benefits that would 
result from rear seat lap/shoulder belts in these 
vehicles were more than sufficient to justify the 
additional burden. See NHTSA's Final Regulatory 
Evaluation of this rule in Docket No. 87-08; Notice 5 
and the discussion in the NPRM for this rule at 53 
FR 47986; November 29, 1988. These agency conclu- 
sions were reached after a thorough consideration of 
all available data. RVIA's petition sets forth no 
additional evidence or other reasons to believe that 
the agency conclusions were wrong, so NHTSA has 
no basis for changing those conclusions in response 
to the RVIA petition. 

Alternatively, RVIA asked that the rear seat lap/ 
shoulder belt requirement be limited to vans that 
are within the weight limits established for dynamic 
testing of manual safety belts, i.e., a GVWR of 8,500 
pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 
5,500 pounds or less. The justification for this request 
was the costs and burdens that would be imposed on 
van converters to equip rear outboard seating posi- 
tions with lap/shoulder safety belts. 

NHTSA has often acknowledged that final stage 
manufacturers and alterers lack the technical exper- 
tise and financial resources of the larger manufac- 
turers. Because of the lesser technical and financial 
capabilities of the final stage manufacturers and 
alterers, the burdens associated with NHTSA's reg- 
ulatory requirements will always be proportionally 
larger for these small entities than for the larger 



PART 571; S208-PRE 469 



manufacturers. Thus, the relevant question is not 
whether the burden is proportionally larger for 
these small entities, but instead whether the burden 
imposed by a new regulatory requirement is exces- 
sive for small entities. 

When developing the final rule for rear seat lap/ 
shoulder belts to be installed by small entities like 
van converters, NHTSA carefully considered the 
potential burdens the rule would impose on small 
businesses and determined that any such burdens 
would be i-elatively minor. All rear outboard seating 
positions already installed in the vehicles delivered 
to van converters for conversion must be equipped 
with rear seat lap/shoulder safety belts. Thus, if the 
van converter is not making any modifications to the 
seating position, it can simply leave in place the rear 
seat lap/shoulder belt assembly and anchorages in- 
stalled by the original manufacturer of the vehicle. 
This imposes no burdens on the van converter. 

If the van converter is adding a new rear outboard 
seating position, or modifying an existing outboard 
seating position, the van converter will be subject to 
some additional burdens, but those burdens are far 
fi-om excessive. For all types of motor vehicles other 
than buses, manufacturers (including van convert- 
ers) have long been required to install lap-only belts 
and anchorages for those belts at each designated 
seating position. To certify compliance with these 
requirements, van converters must now add two 
weldments or make some simple structural modifi- 
cations for the lap belt anchorages and install a 
lap-only belt at every rear outboard seating position 
it adds to a conversion van. To install lap/shoulder 
belts, instead of lap-only belts, at those seating 
positions, the van converter must add an additional 
weldment or make an additional simple structural 
modification and install a lap/shoulder belt in place 
of the lap-only belt. This added burden does not 
require any additional engineering expertise or 
crash testing. In the Final Regulatory Evaluation 
that accompanied the November 1989 final rule, 
NHTSA estimated that the rear seat lap/shoulder 
belt requirement would increase costs by $13 for 
each rear outboard seating position in these vehi- 
cles. NHTSA concluded that these burdens are not 
excessive, and RVIA provided no information indi- 
cating either that this previous agency conclusion 
was wrong or that NHTSA had failed to consider 
some relevant information in reaching this conclu- 
sion. Accordingly, RVIA's petition to amend the rear 
seat lap/shoulder belt requirements is denied. 

RVIA also challenged NHTSA's certification that 
the rear seat lap/shoulder belt rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial num- 
ber of small entities. RVIA noted that a publication 
identifies more than 2,600 van converters in the 
United States. However, NHTSA's certification was 



based upon the fact that the rear seat lap/shoulder 
belt requirements will not have a significant eco- 
nomic impact on small entities, as explained above, 
regardless of the number of small entities that will 
be affected. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 571 
is amended as follows: 

1. S4.1.4 of Standard No. 208 is amended by 
revising S4. 1.4.2(b), adding a new S4. 1.4.2(c), and 
revising S4.1.4.2.2, to read as follows: 

S4.1.4 Passenger cars manufactured on or after 
September 1, 1989. 

S4.1.4.2 (a) * * * 

(b) Except as provided in S4.1.4.2.1 and S4.1.4.2.2, 
each passenger car, other than a convertible, manu- 
factured on or after September 1, 1990 and each 
convertible passenger car manufactured on or after 
September 1, 1991 shall be equipped with an inte- 
gral Type 2 seat belt assembly at every forward- 
facing rear outboard designated seating position. 
Type 2 seat belt assemblies installed in compliance 
with this requirement shall comply with Standard 
No. 209 (49 CFR §571.209) and with S7.1 and S7.2 of 
this standard. If a Type 2 seat belt assembly in- 
stalled in compliance with this requirement incorpo- 
rates any webbing tension-relieving device, the ve- 
hicle owner's manual shall include the information 
specified in S7.4.2(b) of this standard for the tension 
relieving device, and the vehicle shall comply with 
S7.4.2(c) of this standard. 

(c) As used in this section, "rear outboard desig- 
nated seating position" means any "outboard desig- 
nated seating position" (as that term is defined at 49 
CFR 571.3) that is rearward of the front seat(s), 
except any designated seating position adjacent to a 
walkway that is located between the seat and the 
near side of the vehicle and is designed to allow 
access to more rearward seating positions. 

S4 1421 * * * * * 

S4. 1.4.2.2 Any rear outboard designated seating 
position on a readily removable seat (that is, a seat 
designed to be easily removed and replaced by means 
installed by the manufacturer for that purpose) in a 
vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 1992 
shall meet the requirements of S4. 1.4.2 and may use 
an upper torso belt that detaches at either its upper 
or lower anchorage point, but not both anchorage 
points, to meet those requirements. The means for 
detaching the upper torso belt shall not use any 
pushbutton action. 

2. S4.2.4 of Standard No. 208 is amended by 
revising the introductory text and S4.2.4.3 to read as 
follows: 

S4.2.4 Trucks and multipurpose passenger vehi- 
cles manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 with 



PART 571; S208-PRE 470 



a GVWR of 10, 000 pounds or less. Except as provided 
in S4.2.4.2 and S4.2.4.3, each truck and each multi- 
purpose passenger vehicle, other than a motor home, 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 that 
has a gi'oss vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or 
less shall be equipped with an integi'al Type 2 seat 
belt assembly at every forward-facing rear outboard 
designated seating position. Type 2 seat belt assem- 
blies installed in compliance with this requirement 
shall comply with Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 
§571.209) and with S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard. If 
a Type 2 seat belt assembly installed in compliance 
with this requirement incorporates any webbing 
tension-relieving device, the vehicle owner's manual 
shall include the information specified in S7.4.2(b) of 
this standard for the tension relieving device, and the 
vehicle shall comply with S7.4.2(c) of this standard. 

^f; jjc ^ 3{c 4= 

S4.2.4.3 Any rear outboard designated seating 
position on a readily removable seat (that is, a seat 
designed to be easily removed and replaced by means 
installed by the manufacturer for that purpose) in a 
vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 1992 
shall meet the requirements of S4.2.4 and may use 
an upper torso belt that detaches at either its upper 
or lower anchorage point, but not both anchorage 
points, to meet those requirements. The means for 
detaching the upper torso belt shall not use any 
pushbutton action. 

3. S4.4.3 of Standard No. 208 is amended by 
revising S4.4.3.2 and 84.4.3.2.3 to read as follows: 

S4.4.3 Buses manufactured on or after September 
1, 1991. 

:i)c :je :{; :f: :^ 

S4.4.3.2 Except as provided in S4.4.3.2.2 and 
84.4.3.2.3, each bus with a gross vehicle weight 
rating of 10,000 pounds or less, except a school bus, 
shall be equipped with an integral Type 2 seat belt 
assembly at the driver's designated seating position 
and at the front and every rear forward-facing out- 
board designated seating position, and with a Type 1 
or Type 2 seat belt assembly at all other designated