(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"

TD 8.6/2:990/siipp.46 

Federal Motor Vehicle Saf... 



0^ 



US Department 
of Transportation 



Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards and Regulations 

?ra£fSy'"°' SupplemBnt 46— Amendments 

^"^^^^^s^^""^' ^^^ Interpretations Issued 
i During 1991 

APR 2 9 Wb/ 1 

i Bo^oNPUBucuBBAgv P^QB Control Chart 

(1) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106 

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 571; S106-PRE 63 through 65-66 behind page in book numbered 
PART 571; S106-PRE 62. 

(b) Substitute attached page numbered PART 571; S106-7 for similarly numbered page in book. 

(2) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 571; SllO-PRE 27 through PRE 32 behind page in book numbered 
PART 571; SllO-PRE 25-26. 

(b) Substitute attached pages numbered PART 110-1 through 3 for similarly numbered pages in book. 

^ (3) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116 

^^ (a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 571; S116— PRE 43 through 49 behind page in book numbered 

PART 571; S116-PRE 42 
(b) Substitute attached Standard 116 for Standard 116 in book. 

(4) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118 

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 571; S18— PRE 15 through PRE 20 behind page in book numbered 
PART 571; S118-PRE 13-14. 

(b) Substitute attached page numbered PART 571; S118-1 for similarly numbered page in book. 

(5) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Safety Standard No. 120 

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 571; S120-PRE 39 through PRE 44 behind page in book numbered 
PART 571; S120-PRE 37-38. 

(b) Substitute attached Standard 120 for Standard 120 in book. 

(6) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 129 

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 571; S129— PRE 21 through 26 behind page in book numbered 
PART 571; S129-PRE 19-20. 

(b) Substitute attached Standard 129 for Standard 129 in book. 

(7) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131 

Insert attached pages numbered PART 571; S131-PRE 1 through PART 571; S131-1 behind page in book 
numbered PART 571; S129-PRE 26 mentioned above. 

(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. 



TD 8.6/2:990/siipp.46 

Federal Motor Vehicle Saf... 



© 



Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards and Regulations 

?raS?5y'"'' SupplGment 46— Amendnnents 



us Department 
of Transportation 



Traffic Safety 

^"'''^'^"BiliSr'''" ^^^ Interpretations Issued 

APR 2 9 bb, I 

BOSTON PUBUC U8RARV 



During 1991 

Page Control Chart 



(1) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106 

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 571; S106— PRE 63 through 65-66 behind page in book numbered 
PART 571; S106-PRE 62. 

(b) Substitute attached page numbered PART 571; S106-7 for similarly numbered page in book. 

(2) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 571; SllO-PRE 27 through PRE 32 behind page in book numbered 
PART 571; SllO-PRE 25-26. 

(b) Substitute attached pages numbered PART 110-1 through 3 for similarly numbered pages in book. 

(3) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116 

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 571; S116— PRE 43 through 49 behind page in book numbered 
PART 571; S116-PRE 42 

(b) Substitute attached Standard 116 for Standard 116 in book. 

(4) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118 

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 571; S18-PRE 15 through PRE 20 behind page in book numbered 
PART 571; S118-PRE 13-14. 

(b) Substitute attached page numbered PART 571; S118-1 for similarly numbered page in book. 

(5) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Safety Standard No. 120 

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 571; S120-PRE 39 through PRE 44 behind page in book numbered 
PART 571; S120-PRE 37-38. 

(b) Substitute attached Standard 120 for Standard 120 in book. 

(6) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 129 

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 571; S129— PRE 21 through 26 behind page in book numbered 
PART 571; S129-PRE 19-20. 

(b) Substitute attached Standard 129 for Standard 129 in book. 

(7) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131 

Insert attached pages numbered PART 571; S131-PRE 1 through PART 571; S131-1 behind page in book 
numbered PART 571; S129-PRE 26 mentioned above. 

(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. 



Page Control Chart— Continued 



(8) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 571; S208-PRE 479 through PRE 519-520 behind page in book 
numbered PART 572; S208-PRE 477-478. 

(b) Substitute attached Standard 208 for Standard 208 in book. 

(9) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 571; S209— PRE 53 through 59-60 behind page in book numbered 
PART 571; S209-PRE 52. 

(b) Substitute attached pages numbered PART 571; S209-5 through 8 for similarly numbered pages in book. 

(10) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216 

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 571; S216— PRE 7 through 15-16 behind page in book numbered 
PART 571; S216-PRE 5-6. 

(b) Substitute attached page numbered PART 571; S216-1 for similarly numbered page in book. 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO 
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 106 

Brake Hoses 

(Docket No. 90-09) 
RIN 2127AC55 



ACTION: Final rule. 



SUMMARY: This final rule amends Standard 106, 
Brake Hoses, so that Table III of the standard express- 
ly applies to rubber brake hoses only, and thus does 
not apply to hoses made from plastic tubing. Table III 
specifies dimensional requirements for air brake hoses 
intended for use with reusable end fittings. This rule, 
which is intended to facilitate the use of plastic tubing 
for brake hoses, responds to a petition for rulemaking 
from Volvo White Truck Corporation 

DATES: This rule is effective March 27, 1991. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 15, 
1990 (55 FR 24278), the agency proposed to amend the 
language in Standard 106 that requires hoses manufac- 
tured for use with reusable end fittings to conform to 
the dimensional requirements of Table III. NHTSA 
proposed to amend the standard so that Table III would 
expressly apply to brake hoses made from synthetic or 
natural elastomeric rubber only, and thus would not 
apply to hoses made from thermoplastic materials, such 
as polyamide nylon. (The latter types of brake hose are 
usually referred to as plastic "tubing.") Tubing is 
manufactured under industry specifications that ensure 
that all tubing of a given outside diameter has the same 
inside diameter. Table 111 was adopted to distinguish 
between two types of rubber brake hose, one of which 
has a larger outside diameter than the other for a given 
inside diameter. Since these differences in sizing do not 
occur in tubing, there appeared to be no reason for 
Table III to apply to tubing. To the extent that Table 
III has operated to restrict the use of plastic tubing for 
brake hoses, the agency believed that this amendment 
would facilitate the use of such tubing. 

Background 

Standard 106 defines a "brake hose" as "a flexible 
conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, 
manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or 
contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply 
force to a vehicle's brakes." (S4) The definition does 
not distinguish between traditional rubber hose and 
plastic tubing. In practice, it appears that there is no 
misunderstanding on the part of manufacturers that 



brake tubing must comply with all applicable require- 
ments of Standard 106. The agency's compliance test 
experience with plastic tubing shows a high rate of 
compliance with the performance requirements of the 
standard. 

However, with regard to the dimensional require- 
ments for brake hose that is intended to be used with 
reusable end fittings, the status of plastic tubing has 
been less certain. 

On the one hand, paragraph S7.1 of the standard re- 
quires "[e]ach air brake hose" intended for use with 
a reusable end fitting to "conform to the dimensional 
requirements specified in Table III." Table III sets 
forth dimensions for the inside diameters (I.D.) and out- 
side diameters (O.D.) for eight sizes of air brake hose. 
No other sizes are permitted for hoses intended for use 
with reusable end fittings. Hose with O.D.'s within a 
specified range are considered "Type 1" hose and 
marked "AI" (S7.2.1(e)). Hose with generally slightly 
larger O.D.'s are considered "Type 11" hose and 
marked "AH." The Type I and Type II hose dimen- 
sions describe two types of rubber hose that were 
prevalent in the marketplace during the development 
of Standard 106. NHTSA has stated that "Table 
HI. . . is intended to be a first step toward standardi- 
zation of reusable fittings and hose. . ." (39 FR 24012, 
24014., June 28, 1974). Further, there is nothing in 
S7.1 itself that suggests that Table HI does not apply 
to plastic tubing used with reusable fittings as well as 
to rubber hose. 

On the other hand, other provisions in S7 refer to 
"plastic tubing" in a manner that has led some brake 
hose manufacturers to ask whether tubing was in- 
tended to be covered by Table HI. S7.2.1(d), for exam- 
ple, refers to "the nominal inside diameter of hose... 
or the nominal outside diameter of plastic tubing...," 
as if the terms "hose" and "tubing" refer to two 
entirely different entities for purposes of labeling. 

The purpose of standardizing hose for use with 
reusable end fittings is to reduce the likelihood of mis- 
match problems between hoses and end fittings. In is- 
suing "Table HI, NHTSA noted that reusable fittings 
and hose are typically assembled by repair businesses 
in the field, where the agency thought mismatch was 



PART 571; S 106-PRE 63 



more likely to occur than in high volume operations. 
(Id.) The AI and All marking on the hose are intended 
to help in distinguishing between two types of hoses 
that may be labeled the same size, yet have slightly 
different dimensions. Identifying the hose is important 
for purposes of selecting the appropriate end fitting 
for them. Reusable end fittings are marked AI or All 
indicating their suitability for use with Type I or Type 
II hose (S7.2.2(c)). 

The proposal 

This action was commenced by the agency in 
response to a petition for rulemaking from the Volvo 
White Truck Corporation which had developed a reus- 
able end fitting for use with plastic tubing. Since plastic 
tubing generally does not conform to the dimensional 
requirements of Table III, Volvo believed that S7.1 
would preclude the manufacture of the plastic tubing 
for which the end fitting is designed, and would there- 
fore impede the marketing of the new end fitting. 

Volvo originally sought to remove possible impedi- 
ments against the manufacture of the end fitting by 
requesting in its petition that NHTSA amend Standard 
106's definition of a "permanently attached end fit- 
ting" to include Volvo's end fitting. The agency did not 
agree that the definition should be amended as Volvo 
requested, for the reasons discussed in the proposal 
preceding this rule. However, the agency believed that 
Volvo's petition indicated that Table III might be 
unnecessarily impeding the development of plastic 
tubing and end fittings. 

In its proposal, NHTSA tentatively concluded that 
Table III need not apply to plastic tubing intended for 
use with reusable end fittings because the purpose of 
the dimensional restrictions is to reduce the likelihood 
of mismatch problems between hoses and fittings. 
These potential problems arise in cases in which hoses 
appear identical (and are labeled the same size) yet have 
different O.D.'s. NHTSA noted in the proposal that the 
only hoses exhibiting this variation are those made 
from rubber. NHTSA believed there did not seem to 
be a comparable risk of mismatch for plastic tubing 
since the tubing manufacturers have voluntarily stand- 
ardized size designations. NHTSA stated, "An assem- 
bler would readily know the O.D. of brake tubing from 
the labeling on the tubing, and would also know which 
fitting would be appropriate for the tubing." 

The agency stated in its proposal that the agency's 
compliance tests of assemblies using plastic tubing with 
permanently attached end fittings indicate that such 
tubing is capable of meeting the performance require- 
ments of the standard. The agency also believed that 
brake tubing in sizes not specified in Table III was 
already being used with reusable end fittings in brak- 
ing applications. NHTSA believed that dimensional 
variations have not negatively affected the safety of 
such tubing. The agency therefore proposed to amend 
87. 1 so that Table III would expressly apply to brake 



hose "constructed of synthetic or natural elastomeric 
rubber" only. 

Comments on the proposal. 

The agency received comments on the proposal from \i 
the following five commenters: Volvo GM Heavy Truck 
Corporation, Robert Crail (a private citizen with ex- 
perience in trailer and hose assembly manufacturing), 
Freightliner Corporation, Bendix Heavy Vehicle Sys- 
tems Group (BHVSG), and Parker Hannifin Corpora- 
tion. All but Parker Hannifin supported the 
amendment. Freightliner believed that the proposed 
amendment would facilitate the production of plastic 
tubing that is manufactured to industry specifications, 
and would therefore "increase design flexibility" 
without affecting safety. Mr. Crail stated that plastic 
tubing in sizes other than those set forth in Table III 
is being used in the industry, and that such tubing con- 
forms to industry standards established by the Society 
of Automotive Engineers (SAE). 

Parker Hannifin believed that removing plastic tub- 
ing from coverage of Table III would degrade safety. 
The commenter appeared to beheve that tubing I.D. 
and O.D. sizes should be standardized because if they 
are not, tubing of slightly different sizes could lead to 
mismatch problems between a reusable fitting and the 
wrong tubing. 

The agency disagrees that plastic tubing should be 
included in Table III. Commenters have indicated that 
tubing in sizes other than those listed in Table III has i 
been used with reusable fittings for many years. " 
NHTSA is not aware of consumer complaints or any 
other information indicating that mismatch problems 
have been experienced for tubing. 

Parker Hannifin also expressed a concern about 
Standard 106's requirement for labeling 3/8 inch and 
1/2 inch special air brake hose. Parker Hannifin said 
that manufacturers do not know how to label the hose 
imder S7.2.1(e) of Standard 106 because the hose meets 
the dimensional requirements in Table III for both Type 
I and Type II hose. 

The agency has answered the question about label- 
ing hose for which the Type I and Type II dimensions 
listed in the standard are identical, in interpretations 
of the standard dating back to 1974. (E.g., see Novem- 
ber 22, 1974 letter to Gates Rubber Company, and Sep- 
tember 22, 1975 letter to Bendix:- Westinghouse.) The 
agency stated in the letters that such hose may be 
labeled with the designation "AI-AII" or "AI & AH." 
Copies of all of the agency's interpretation letters are 
available in NHTSA's docket. Manufacturers have not 
informed NHTSA of any problems with labeling hose 
that conform to both the Type I and Type II 
dimensions. 

Volvo GM and Bendix suggested that minor conform- ^ 
ing changes to the labeling requirements in S7.2.1(e) ^ 
and S7.2.2(c) of Standard 106 would be appropriate if 
the proposed amendment concerning Table III is 



PART 571; S 106-PRE 64 



adopted. The agency agrees with the suggestions and 
has made the conforming changes. 

In consideration of the foregoing NHTSA amends 49 
CFR Part 571 as set forth below. The introductory text 
of paragraph S7.1 of Standard No. 106 is revised to 
read as follows: 

S7.1 Construction. Each air brake hose assem- 
bly shall be equipped with permanently attached brake 
hose end fittings or reusable brake hose end fittings. 
Each air brake hose constructed of synthetic or natur- 
al elastomeric rubber intended for use with reusable 
end fittings shall conform to the dimensional require- 
ments specified in Table III. 



(e) The letter "A" shall indicate intended use in air 
brake systems. In the case of a hose constructed of syn- 
thetic or natural elastomeric rubber intended for use 
in a reusable assembly, "AI" or "AH" shall indicate 
Type I or Type II dimensional characteristics of the 
hose as described in Table III. 

S7.2.2 * * * 



(c) The letter "A" shall indicate intended use in air 
brake systems. In the case of an end fitting intended 
for use in a reusable assembly with brake hose subject 
to Table III, "AI" or "All" shall indicate use with Type 
I or Type II hose, respectively. 



3. Section S7.2 of Standard 106 is amended by revis- 
ing paragraphs S7.2.1(e) and S7.2.2(c) to read as 
follows: 

S7.2 Labeling. 
S7.2.1 * * * 



Issued on February 19, 1991 



Ralph Curry 
Administrator 

56 F.R. 7589 
February 25, 1991 



I 



I 



PART 571; S 106-PRE 65-66 



(d) Maintain a compressed air supply to the 
nozzle or nozzles free of oil and dirt and between 10 
to 25 psi. 

S6.9.3 Operation. Subject the brake hose 
assembly to the salt spray continuously for 24 hours. 

(a) Regulate the mixture so that each collector will 
collect from 1 to 2 ml of solution per hour for each 80 
square centimeters of horizontal collecting area. 

(b) Maintain exposure zone temperature at 95° F. 

(c) Upon completion, remove the salt deposit 
from the surface of the hoses by washing gently 
or dipping in clean running water not warmer 
than 100° F and then drying immediately. 

S7. Requirements— Air brake hose, bralce hose 
assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. 

57.1 Construction. Each air brake hose 
assembly shall be equipped with permanently 
attached brake hose end fittings or reusable brake 
hose end fittings. [Each air brake hose constructed 
of synthetic or natural elastomeric rubber intended 
for use with reusable end fittings shall conform to 
the dimensional requirements specified in Table 
III. (56 F.R. 7589— February 25, 1991. Effective 
March 21, 1991)1 

57.2 Labelling. 

S7.2.1 Hose. Each air brake hose shall be 
labeled, or cut from bulk hose that is labeled, 
at intervals of not more than 6 inches, measured 



from the end of one legend to the beginning of the 
next, in block capital letters and numerals at least 
one-eighth of an inch high, with the information 
listed in paragraphs (a) through (e). The informa- 
tion need not be present on hose after it has 
become part of a brake hose assembly or after it 
has been installed in a motor vehicle. 

(a) The symbol DOT, constituting a certification 
by the hose manufacturer that the hose conforms 
to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. 

(b) A designation that identifies the manufac- 
turer of the hose, which shall be filed in writing 
with: Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash 
Avoidance Division, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20590. The designation may 
consist of block capital letters, numerals, or a 
symbol. 

(c) The month, day, and year, or the month and 
year, of manufacture, expressed in numerals. For 
example, 10/1/74 means October 1, 1974. 

(d) The nominal inside diameter of the hose 
expressed in inches or fractions of inches or in 
millimeters, or the nominal outside diameter of 
plastic tubing expressed in inches or fractions of 
inches or in millimeters followed by the letters OD. 
The abbreviation "mm" shall follow hose sizes that 
are expressed in millimeters. (Examples of inside 
diameter: Yg, ^ (i/^ SP in the case of V2 inch special 
air brake hose), 4 mm, 6 mm. Examples of outside 
diameter: V4 OD, 12 mm OD.). 



Table III— Air Brake Hose Dimensions for Reusable Assemblies 



Size, 
inches 


Inside Diameter 


TYPE I 
O.D., inches 
Min Max 


TYPE II 
O.D., inches 
Min Max 


?le 


+ 0.026 
-0.000 


0.472 


0.510 


0.500 


0.539 


V4 


+ 0.031 
-0.000 


0.535 


0.573 


0.562 


0.602 


%6 


+ 0.031 
-0.000 


0.598 


0.636 


0.656 


0.695 


% 


±0.023 


0.719 


0.781 


0.719 


0.781 


'%Z 


+ 0.031 
-0.000 


0.714 


0.760 


0.742 


0,789 


¥2 


+ 0.039 
-0.000 


0.808 


0.854 


0.898 


0.945 


% 


+ 0.042 
-0.000 


0.933 


0.979 


1.054 


1.101 


1/2 special 


±0.031 


0.844 


0.906 


0.844 


0.906 



PART 571; S 106-7 



(e)) The letter "A" shall indicate intended use in 
air brake systems. [In the case of a hose con- 
structed of synthetic or natural elastomeric rubber 
intended for use in a reusable assembly, "AI" or 
"AH" shall indicate Type I or Type II dimensional 
characteristics of the hose as described in Table 
III. (56 F.R. 7589— February 25. 1991. Effective 
March 21, 1991)1 

57.2.2 End fittings. Except for an end fitting 
that is attached by deformation of the fitting about 
a hose by crimping or swaging, at least one compo- 
nent of each air brake hose fittings shall be etched, 
embossed, or stamped in block capital letters and 
numerals at least one-sixteenth of an inch high 
with the following information: 

(a) The symbol DOT, constituting a certification 
by the manufacturer of that component that the 
component conforms to all applicable motor vehi- 
cle safety standards. 

(b) A designation that identifies the manufac- 
turer of that component of the fitting, which shall 
be filed in writing with: Office of Vehicle Safety 
Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. 
The designation may consist of block capital let- 
ters, numerals, or a symbol. 

(c) [The letter "A" shall indicate intended use in 
air brake systems. In the case of an end fitting in- 
tended for use in a reusable assembly with brake 
hose subject to Table HI, "AI" or "AH" shall in- 
dicate use with Type I or Type II hose, respective- 
ly. (56 F.R. 7589— February 25, 1991. Effective 
March 21, 1991)1 

(d) The nominal inside diameter of the hose to 
which the fitting is properly attached expressed in 
inches or fractions of inches or in millimeters, or 
the outside diameter of the plastic tubing to which 
the fitting is properly attached expressed in inches 
or fractions of inches or in millimeters followed by 
the letters OD (See examples in S7.2.1(d)). The ab- 
breviations "mm" shall follow hose sizes that are 
expressed in millimeters. 

57.2.3 Assemblies. Each air brake hose 
assembly made with end fittings that are attached 
by crimping or swaging, except those assembled 
and installed by a vehicle manufacturer in vehicles 
manufactured by him, shall be labeled by means of 
a band around the brake hose assembly as specified 
in this paragraph or, at the option of the manufac- 
turer, by means of labeling as specified in S7.2.3.1. 



The band may at the manufacturer's option be at- 
tached so as to move freely along the length of the 
assembly, as long as it is retained by the end fit- 
tings. The band shall be etched, embossed, or 
stamped in block capital letters, numerals, or sym- 
bols at least one-eighth of an inch high, with the 
following information: 

(a) The symbol DOT, constituting certification 
by the hose assembler that the hose assembly 
conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety 
standards. 

(b) A designation that identifies the manufac- 
turer of the hose assembly, which shall be filed in 
writing with: Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, 
Crash Avoidance Division, National Highway Traf- 
fic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. The designation 
may consist of block capital letters, numerals, or a 
symbol. 

S7.2.3.1 At least one end fitting of an air brake 
hose assembly made with end fittings that are at- 
tached by crimping or swaging shall be etched, 
stamped, or embossed with a designation at least 
one-sixteenth of an inch high that identifies the 
manufacturer of the hose assembly and is filed in 
accordance with S7.2.3(b). 

S7.3 Test requirements. Each air brake hose 
assembly or appropriate part thereof shall be 
capable of meeting any of the requirements set 
forth under this heading, when tested under the 
conditions of Sll and the applicable procedures of 
S8. However, a particular hose assembly or ap- 
propriate part thereof need not meet further 
requirements after having met the constriction re- 
quirement (S7.3.1) and then having been subjected 
to any one of the requirements specified in S7.3.2 
through S7.3.13. 

57.3.1 Constriction. Except for that part of an 
end fitting which does not contain hose, every in- 
side diameter of any section of an air brake hose 
assembly shall be not less than 66 percent of the 
nominal inside diameter of the brake hose. 

57.3.2 High temperature resistance. An air 

brake hose shall not show external or internal 
cracks, charring, or disintegration visible without 
magnification when straightened after being bent 
for 70 hours at 212° F over a cylinder having the 
radius specified in Table IV for the size of hose 
tested (S8.1). 



(Rev. 2/25/91) 



PART 571; S 106-8 



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

Tire Selection and Rims for Passenger Cars and New Non-Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars 

(Doclcet No. 87-12; Notice 4) 

RIN 2127-AD86 



ACTION-Final rule. 

SUIVIIVIARY: In July 1990, this agency published a final 
rule permitting new passenger cars, multipurpose ve- 
hicles, and light trucks equipped with passenger car 
tires to be equipped with a non-pneumatic spare tire. 
The final rule also established Standard No. 129, New 
Non-Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars, which in- 
cludes definitions relating to non-pneumatic tires and 
specifies performance, testing, and additional labeling 
requirements for these tires. 

In response to three petitions for reconsideration of 
this rule, the agency has decided to amend several 
requirements in the July 1990 final rule. This notice 
allows some of the required information to be placed 
on labels that are permanently affixed to the tire or 
tire assembly instead of being required to be marked 
into or onto the tire or tire assembly itself. The notice 
also provides that instead of placing certain informa- 
tion in the owner's manual, vehicle manufacturers may 
instead place the information on the vehicle placard 
(required by Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and 
Rims) if the owner's manual includes a reference to this 
information. The notice also amends the dimensions of 
the tire strength test cleat. These amendments will 
enable manufacturers to comply more easily with the 
requirements without adversely affecting safety. 



EFFECTIVE DATE: 

May 28, 1991. 



The amendments are effective 



SUPPLEIVIENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 7, 1989, NHTSA published a notice of 

proposed nilemaking (NPRM) proposing to amend 

Standard No. 110 to permit the use of non-pneumatic 

tires on passenger cars, but only as a temporary spare 



and to establish Standard No. 129, a new standard for 
non-pneumatic tires. (54 FR 14109). The notice pro- 
posed the following amendments to Standard No. 110: 
1) passenger cars would be allowed to be equipped with 
a non-pneumatic spare tire; 2) additional labeling and 
vehicle placarding information would be required 
explaining that such tires should be used only as a spare 
tire on a temporary basis at speeds not to exceed 50 
mph., and 3) the vehicle's owner's manual would 
include safety information about the use of a non- 
pneumatic tire. The NPRM also proposed labeling 
requirements in Standard No. 129 similar to those set 
forth in section S4.3 of Standard No. 109, New Pneu- 
matic Tires, for size designation, load rating, rim size 
and type designation, manufacturer or brand name, 
certification, and the tire identification number. 

NHTSA received 13 comments in response to the 
NPRM. While all commenters generally supported the 
proposal to permit a vehicle to be equipped with a non- 
pneumatic spare tire, certain commenters suggested 
alternative approaches to particular aspects of the 
proposal. 

On July 20, 1990. NHTSA published a final rule 
permitting new passenger cars and other vehicles 
equipped with passenger car tires to be equipped with 
a non-pneumatic spare tire. (55 FR 29581). The final 
nile modified certain informational requirements in 
Standard Nos. 110 and 120, Tire Selection and Rims 
for Motor Vehicles other Than Passenger Cars and 
established Standard No. 129, the new standard for 
non-pneumatic tires. 

The agency received petitions for reconsideration of 
this rule from the Rubber Manufacturers Association 
(RMA), Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company (Uniroyal), 
and General Motors Corporation (GM). This notice 
responds to those petitions. For the convenience of the 
reader, this notice uses the same organization and 
format as the July 1990 final rule used. When a sec- 
tion heading used in the final rule is not set forth in 



PART 571; SllO-PRE 27 



this preamble, it means that no petition for reconsider- 
ation requested changes to the rule's provisions dis- 
cussed in that section. 



Issues Under Reconsideration 
Labeling Requirements 

The NPRM proposed requiring that certain informa- 
tion about the non-pneumatic tire be "permanently 
molded, stamped, or otherwise permanently marked 
into or onto both sides" and be expressed in figures 
not smaller than a given size. Because the agency 
thought that molding the required information into or 
onto some non-pneumatic tire and assembly designs 
might be impracticable, it proposed allowing different 
methods of permanent marking in addition to 
molding— the labeling method required in Standard No. 
109 for pneumatic tires. 

After analyzing its proposal in response to comments 
received on this subject, the agency concluded in the 
final rule that permanently affixed labels should not 
be allowed as a means for placing the required infor- 
mation on non-pneumatic tires. In the preamble to that 
notice, the agency explained that the message must be 
useful and understandable for the lifetime of the tire, 
i.e., it must be permanent, legible, and conspicuous. 
Based on these considerations, the agency concluded 
that affixing a permanent label on a non-pneumatic tire 
might not meet these ends. 

All three petitions for reconsideration requested that 
permanent stick-on labels, typically made of vinyl or 
polyester, be allowed for at least some of the informa- 
tion that must be placed on the non-pneumatic tire or 
tire assembly. The petitioners stated that it would be 
impracticable to stamp or mold the required informa- 
tion directly onto some non-pneumatic tires or tire 
assemblies. For instance, Uniroyal reported that there 
is no room to mold the required information into its 
non-pneumatic tire because there is no "sidewall" to 
that tire design. While the petitioners acknowledged 
that the requirements permit information to be placed 
on the rim or wheel center member, they believed that 
stamping or etching the information into the assem- 
bly could compromise the wheel's structural integrity. 
They also believed that information placed on the 
assembly might be difficult to read. 

Uniroyal suggested that while certain required infor- 
mation (e.g., the symbol DOT, the non-pneumatic tire 
identification code (NPTIC) number, and the load 
rating) could be required to be stamped or molded into 
the non-pneumatic tire, other information (e.g., infor- 
mation about the tire's temporary use at limited speeds 
and the manufacturer's name or brand name) should 
be allowed to be placed on a label permanently affixed 
to the tire or tire assembly. In support of its recom- 
mendation. Uniroyal explained that the primary pur- 



pose of some of the required information is to alert con- 
sumers that the tire is for temporary use at limited ^ 
speeds. Because such information is of primary impor- ^| 
tance before the non-pneumatic tire is placed on the 
vehicle, the petitioner believed that consumers would 
be better served if this information were readily legi- 
ble. It stated that a permanent label with contrasting 
colors would provide the greatest legibility. The other 
two petitioners generally supported Uniroyal 's recom- 
mendations but did not provide specific suggestions. 

Upon reconsideration, NHTSA agrees with the 
petitioners that stamping or etching the information 
into the assembly could compromise a wheel's struc- 
tural integrity and that certain information can be 
permitted to be placed on permanently affixed labels 
without compromising the effectiveness of the 
message. The labels in fact may afford increased 
legibility and conspicuity given that labels typically 
contain contrasting colors. In comparison, other 
methods of permanent marking such as etching or 
painting may be less legible and conspicuous because, 
for some non-pneumatic tire designs, this information 
can only be placed in locations that are difficult to see. 
The agency further notes that this amendment is 
consistent with the agency's goal throughout the 
rulemaking of promulgating regulations that provide 
manufacturers flexibility to comply with the require- 
ments. ^ 

To increase the information's effectiveness for con- 
sumers, the agency believes that the "For Temporary 
Use Only" and "Maximum 50 M.P.H" information 
should be as legible as possible, especially before the 
spare tire is placed on the vehicle. The agency further 
notes that considering the greater volume of informa- 
tion required to be on non-pneumatic tires, certain 
information should be permitted to be on a permanently 
affixed label. Such an option reduces the potential for 
adversely affecting the structural integrity of some 
non-pneumatic tires and makes it more feasible for 
manufacturers to comply with the requirements. 
Accordingly, the agency has decided to modify the 
requirements in S6 of Standard No. 110 and S8 of 
Standard No. 120 (which are referenced in S4.3(g) of 
Standard No. 129) to permit this information to be on 
a label that is permanently affixed to the non- 
pneumatic tire or tire assembly. Along with the 
temporary use information, the agency has decided to 
grant Uniroyal's request to permit the manufacturer's 
name to be placed on a permanent label. However, the 
agency has decided to require the tire to be per- 
manently molded, stamped, or otherwise permanently 
marked with the rest of the information required in 
S4.3 of Standard No. 129. M 

By "permanent," the agency means that the label 
should remain in place and be legible for the life of the 
tire. To ensure the permanency of the label's informa- 



PART 571; SllO-PRE 28 



tion, the agency is requiring that it must be subsurface 
printed. An example of this is a label made from a piece 
of clear mylar or other plastic where the printing is on 
the underside; as a result, fluids or abrasion to which 
it is normally exposed does not contact the printing 
itself. It must also be made of a material that is fade 
resistant, heat resistant, and abrasion resistant, and 
be attached in such a manner that it cannot be removed 
without destroying or defacing the label. The agency 
believes that these specifications are necessary to 
ensure the use of durable, non-detachable labels and 
prevent the use of labels of doubtful permanency such 
as paper ones. In summary, NHTSA believes that the 
improved legibility and conspicuity of labels and the 
potential impracticability of stamping or molding 
certain required information outweigh the agency's 
previous concerns about the permanency of such labels. 
This has lead the agency to conclude that the use of 
such labels for this portion of the information is 
warranted. 

If labels on non-pneumatic tires are found not to 
remain affixed and legible for the life of the tire, the 
agency might initiate additional rulemaking to explore 
other requirements to ensure the label's permanency. 
However, such a rulemaking would be premature at 
this time. 



SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 

Section S7.2 of Standard No. 110 and section S9.2 
of Standard No. 120 require the owner's manual of a 
vehicle equipped vdth a non-pneumatic spare tire to 
contain information explaining the tire's proper use. 
Along with this explanation, the owner's manual for 
such vehicles must include the NPTIC number that is 
labeled on the non-pneumatic tire assembly pursuant 
to the requirements of S4.3(a) of Standard No. 129. The 
purpose of this requirement is to help identify the non- 
pneumatic tire with regard to its size and application 
to a specific non-pneumatic rim, wheel center member, 
or vehicle. 

In its petition for reconsideration, GM requested that 
the vehicle manufacturer be allowed to include in the 
owner's manual a simple reference to the vehicle 
placard, where information about the proper selection 
of the non-pneumatic tire assembly appears as required 
by the final rule in Standard No. 110 or Standard No. 
120, instead of being required to place the information 
in the manual itself. GM explained that this change 
would still allow manufacturers to convey information 
about the NPTIC but avoid unnecessary complications. 
GM stated that under the current requirements, vehicle 
manufacturers have to state in the owner's manual the 
NPTIC for the non-pneimiatic tire used on each specific 
version of the vehicle model. GM believed that this 
would necessitate having more than one version of 



the owner's manual for the same vehicle model, thus 
increasing the potential for placing an incorrect manual 
in a vehicle which could result in selecting an incorrect 
replacement non-pneumatic tire assembly. The peti- 
tioner stated that while the owner's manual could 
contain a table with all potential non-pneumatic tire 
sizes, such a table could be difficult to understand, thus 
resulting in an incorrect replacement of a non- 
pneumatic tire assembly. GM further stated that 
owner's manuals are not required to contain informa- 
tion about the size, speed or load restriction, or 
Uniform Tire Quality Grades (UTQG) of the road tire 
fitted to a specific model. Instead, the owners are 
referred to the vehicle placard and UTQG brochure for 
that information. This prompted GM to request that 
the requirements for providing information regarding 
non-pneumatic tire assemblies be consistent with those 
for road tires. 

Upon reconsideration, NHTSA has decided to grant 
GM's request permitting the owner's manual to include 
a reference to the information about the NPTIC set 
forth in S4.3(e) of Standard No. 110 and S5.3.6 of 
Standard No. 120 that is located on the vehicle placard. 
This information will still be required on the tire itself. 
After reviewing GM's petition, the agency believes that 
including a reference in the owner's manual that the 
NPTIC can be found on the vehicle placard will ade- 
quately convey this information to the owner because 
the information will continue to be readily available to 
the vehicle owner. 



Test Procedure for Vertical Strength 
Along with performance requirements and test 
procedures for a non-pneumatic tire's lateral strength, 
tire endurance, and high speed performance, the final 
rule included requirements for a tire's strength in 
vertical loading. The agency determined that these 
requirements will assure a non-pneumatic tire's struc- 
tural integrity and durability. 

In S5.3.2, the final rule specifies that a test "cleat" 
must be forced into the non-pneumatic tire's tread at 
five test points equally spaced around the tire's circum- 
ference. The final rule also specifies the test cleat's 
dimensions, as follows: a length of one inch greater 
than the maximum tire width of the tire, a width of 
one-half inch with the surface which contacts the tire's 
tread having one-quarter inch radius, and a height of 
one inch greater than the difference between the 
unloaded radius on 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. 

In its petition for reconsideration, RMA requested 
that the dimensions of the test cleat be modified by 
adding the word "minimum" before the word "length" 



PART 571; SllO-PRE 29 



and "height" in S5.3.2.2. It claimed that, at present, 
this provision requires a unique cleat for each size non- 
pneumatic spare tire. RMA's requested amendment 
would allow the same test fixture to be used for several 
sizes of non-pneumatic spare tires. 

Upon reconsideration, NHTSA agrees with RMA's 
request to include the word "minimum" in the provi- 
sion describing the test cleat's length and height. The 
agency believes that this modification will reduce the 
testing burden on manufacturers by permitting a more 
versatile test device, without adversely affecting the 
test's ability to measure a non-pneumatic tire's 
strength in vertical loading. 

Upon further review of this provision, the agency has 
decided to change the phrase in S5.3.2.2(c) which reads 
". . .the mmimwrn radius of the non-pneumatic rim. . ." 
to ". . .the maximum radius of the non-pneumatic 
rim. . ." The agency notes that the language as initial- 
ly adopted in the final rule was based on the NPRM's 
proposal to use a plunger test device. The agency now 
believes that the newly adopted phrase is more ap- 
propriate given that instead of the plunger test, a cleat 
test is used to determine a non-pneumatic tire's 
strength in vertical loading. 

Conforming Amendmsnts 

Upon further review, the agency has decided to 
modify the definition for "wheel center member" to 
add at the end of the existing definition the following 
language: "or in the case of a non-pneumatic tire not 
incorporating a wheel, a mechanical device which 
attaches, either integrally or separably, to the non- 
pneumatic tire and provides the connection between 
the tire and the vehicle." The agency believes that this 
conforming amendment is necessary to make the 
definition for wheel center member consistent with the 
types of non-pneumatic tire designs possible under the 
definition for non-pneumatic tire assembly. While the 
agency does not anticipate that this modification will 
affect the current non-pneumatic tire designs now 
being produced or developed, the modification may 
permit unforeseen non-pneumatic tire designs that may 
be developed in the future. The agency believes that 
by modifying the definition to allow greater flexibility, 
the agency is better fulfilling its goal to promulgate a 
generic standard. 

Upon further review, the agency is also modifying 
S4.3(c) by replacing the phrase ". . .wheel tire assem- 
bly that is contained. . ." with ". . .wheel center mem- 
ber that is contained. . ." The agency has determined 
that this conforming amendment is necessary to make 
this provision consistent with the listing requirements 
in S4.4. 



Effective Date 
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. As with the final 
rule, NHTSA believes that there is "good cause" not 
to require the full 180 day lead-in period given that it 
is already permissible to equip vehicles with these tires. 
In addition, these amendments will provide greater 
design flexibility in the production and testing of non- 
pneumatic tires without imposing any mandatory 
requirement on manufacturers. Because the amend- 
ments provide manufacturers with additional ways to 
comply with the requirements adopted in the final rule, 
they result in no additional burden to any manufac- 
turer. In addition, the public interest will be served by 
not delaying the introduction of these alternative 
methods of compliance. Therefore, the agency has 
determined that there is good cause to set an effective 
date 30 days after publication of this notice. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the agency is 
amending Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, 
Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor 
Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and Standard No. 
129, New Non-Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars, in 
Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations at Part 571 
as follows: 1. In § 571.110, S6 is revised to read as £ 
follows: 



S6 Labeling Requirements for Non-Pneumatic Spare 
Tires or Tire Assembies. 

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 include, in letters or 
numerals not less than 0.156 inches high, the informa- 
tion specified in paragraphs S6(a) and (b). The infor- 
mation shall be permanently molded, stamped, or 
otherwise permanently marked into or onto the non- 
pneumatic tire or non-pneumatic tire assembly, or shall 
appear on a label that is permanently attached to the 
tire or tire assembly. If a label is used, it shall be sub- 
surface printed, made of material that is resistant to 
fade, heat, moisture and abrasion, and attached in such 
a manner that it cannot be removed without destroy- 
ing or defacing the label on the non-pneumatic tire or 
tire assembly. The information specified in paragraphs 
S6(a) and (b) shall appear on both sides of the non- 
pneumatic tire or tire assembly, 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, in which case the information specified in i 
paragraphs S6(a) and (b) shall only be required on the 
outward facing side. The information shall be posi- 
tioned on the tire or tire assembly such that it is not 



PART 571; SllO-PRE 30 



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. 

2. In § 571.110, S7 is revised to read as follows: 

S7 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 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 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 information related 
to appropriate use for the non-pneumatic spare tire in- 
cluding at a minimum the information set forth in S6(a) 
and (b) and either the information set forth in S4.3(e) 
or a statement that the information set forth in S4.3(e) 
is located on the vehicle placard and on the non- 
pneumatic tire; 

(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- 
timity; 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. 

3. In § 571.120, S8 is revised to read as follows: 

S8 Labeling Requirements for Non-Pneumatic Spare 
Tires or Tire Assemhlies. 

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 include, in letters or 
numerals not less than 0.156 inches high, the informa- 
tion specified in paragraphs S8(a) and (b). The infor- 
mation shall be permanently molded, stamped, or 
otherwise permanently marked into or onto the non- 
pneumatic tire or non-pneumatic tire assembly, or shall 
appear on a label that is permanently attached to the 
tire or tire assembly. If a label is used, it shall be sub- 



surface printed, made of material that is resistant to 
fade, heat, moisture and abrasion, and attached in such 
a manner that it cannot be removed without destroy- 
ing or defacing the label on the non-pneumatic tire or 
tire assembly. The information specified in paragraphs 
SB(a) and (b) shall appear on both sides of the non- 
pneumatic tire or tire assembly, 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, in which case the information specified in 
paragraphs S8(a) and (b) shall only be required on the 
outward facing side. The information shall be posi- 
tioned 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. 

4. In § 571.120, S9 is revised to read as follows: 

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 information related 
to appropriate use for the non-pneumatic spare tire in- 
cluding at a minimum the information set forth in S8(a) 
and (b) and either the information set forth in S5.3.6 
or a statement that the information set forth in S5.3.6 
is located on the vehicle placard and on the non- 
pneumatic tire. 

(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. 

5. In § 571.129, S3 is revised so that the definition for 
"wheel center member" reads as follows: 



PART 571; SllO-PRE 31 



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; or in the case of a non-pneumatic tire assem- 
bly not incorporating a wheel, a mechanical device 
which attaches, either integrally or separably, to the 
non-pneumatic tire and provides the connection be- 
tween the tire and the vehicle. 

6. In § 571.129, S4.3 is revised to read as follows: 
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 assem- 
bly, each non-pneumatic tire assembly shall include, in 
letters or numerals not less than 0.078 inches high, the 
information specified in paragraphs S4.3(a) through (f). 
The information shall be permanently molded, stamped 
or otherwise permanently marked into or onto the non- 
pneumatic tire or non-pneumatic tire assembly, except 
that the information specified in S4.3(d) and S4.3(g) 
may appear on a label that is permanently attached to 
the tire or tire assembly. If a label is used, it shall be 
subsurface printed, made of a material that is resistant 
to fade, heat, moisture, and abrasion, and attached in 
such a manner that it cannot be removed without des- 
troying or defacing the label on the non-pneumatic tire 
or tire assembly. The information shall appear on both 
sides of the non-pneumatic tire or non-pneumatic tire 
assembly, 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, in which case 
the information shown in paragraphs S4.3(a) through 
(g) 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 mem- 
ber designated for use with that tire in S4.4 of this stan- 
dard or in 49 CFR § 571.110 or 49 CFR § 571.120. 

(a) The non-pneumatic tire identification code 
("NPTIC"); 

(b) Load rating, which, if expressed in kilograms, 
shall be followed in parenthesis 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 center 
member 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 certifica- 
tion that the tire conforms to applicable Federal mo- 
tor vehicle safety standards; 

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

(g) The labeling requirements set forth in S6 of Stan- 
dard No. 110 (§ 571.110), or S8 of Standard No. 120 
(§ 571.120). 

7. In § 571.129, S5.3.2.2 is revised to read as follows: 

S5.3.2.2 The test cleat is made of steel and has the 
following dimensions: 

(a) Minimum 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, 
and 

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



Issued on April 22, 1991. 



Jerry Ralph Curry 
Administrator 



56 F.R. 19308 
April 26, 1991 



PART 571; SllO-PRE 



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 condi- 
tioning 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-pneumxitic 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 - 
bly 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 distributing 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 

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

S4. Requirements. 

54.1 General. [Passenger cars shall be equipped 
wath 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 110-1 



TABLE I 

Occupant Loading and Distribution for Vehicle Normal Load 

for Various Designated Seating Capacities 

Occupant 
Designated Seating Vehicle Normal Distribution in a 

Capacity, Number Load, Number of Normally-Loaded 
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. 

S4.3 Placard. A placard, permanently affixed to 
the glove compartment door or an equally accessible 
location, shall display the— 

(a) Vehicle capacity weight; 

(b) Designated seating capacity expressed in terms 
of total number of occupants and in terms of occupants 
for each seat location); 

(c) Vehicle manufacturer's recommended cold tire in- 
flation 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 §571.129, New Non- 
Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars. 

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. 



S4.4 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 M 
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. 

55. 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 include, in letters or 
numerals not less than 0.156 inches high, the informa- 
tion specified in paragraphs S6.(a) and (b). The infor- 
mation shall be permanently molded, stamped, or 
otherwise permanently marked into or onto the non- 
pneumatic tire or non-pneumatic tire assembly, or shall 
appear on a label that is permanently attached to the 
tire assembly. If a label is used, it shall be subsurface 
printed, made of material that is resistant to fade, heat, 
moisture and abrasion, and attached in such a manner ^ 
that it cannot be removed without destroying or defac- |fl 
ing the label on the non-pneumatic tire or tire assem- 
bly. The information specified in paragraphs S6(a) and 
(b) shall appear on both sides of the non-pneumatic tire 
or tire assembly, except, in the case of a non-pneumatic 
tire assembly which has a particular side that must al- 
ways face outward when mounted on a vehicle, in which 
case the informatio specified in paragraphs S6(a) and 
(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 obstructed by any 
portion of any non-pneumatic rim or wheel center mem- 
ber 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. (56 F.R. 19308— April 26, 
1991. Effective: May 28, 1991)1 

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

S7.1 Vehicle placarding requirements. A placard, 
permanently affixed to the inside of the vehicle trunk 
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 M 
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. 



(Rev. 4/26/91) 



PART 110-2 



S7.2 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 information related 
to appropriate use for the non-pneumatic spare tire in- 
cluding at a minimum the information set forth in S6(a) 
and (b) and either the information set forth in S4.3(e) 
or a statement that the information set forth in S4.3(e) 
is located on the vehicle placard and on the nonpneu- 
matic tire; (56 F.R. 19308— April 26, 1991. Effective: May 
28, 1991. Effecive: May 28, 1991)1 

(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- 
timity; 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. 



S8.1 



Non-pneumatic rims and wheel center members. 
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. 



33 F.R. 14969 
October 5, 1968 



(Rev. 4/26/91) 



PART 110-3 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE 
SAFETY STANDARD NO. 116 

Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids— Color Coding 

(Docket No. 90-06; Notice 2) 
RN 2127-AD05 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In response to a petition from Bendix 
France, this notice amends Standard No. 116's color 
coding requirements to require that a newly developed 
type of brake fluid, which is of a non-silicone base that 
meets the characteristics of DOT 5 fluids, be colorless 
to amber. All brake fluids that have these characteris- 
tics and that are manufactured before the effective date 
of these amendments are required by the standard to 
be purple. NHTSA has determined that requiring the 
newly developed DOT 5 non-silicone base brake fluids 
(non-SBBFs) to be colorless to amber will help distin- 
guish them from traditional silicone base brake fluids 
(SBBFs), which continue to be required to be purple 
in color. To further distinguish the new fluids, they will 
henceforth have to be labeled "DOT 5.1 non-silicone 
base." In addition, the amendments require DOT 5.1 
non-SBBFs to comply with the test procedures for pH 
value, chemical stability, and compatibility. DOT 5 
SBBFs continue to be excluded from these require- 
ments, since silicone base fluids are inherently stable 
in terms of pH and chemical stability. This notice also 
amends certain test procedures to ensure the repeata- 
bility of test results and deletes extraneous language 
that is no longer in effect. 



EFFECTIVE DATE: 

ember 11, 1991. 



The rule is effective on Sept- 



SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake 
Fluids, (49 CFR 571.116) sets forth requirements for 
the fluids used in hydraulic brake systems of motor 
vehicles, the containers for these fluids, and the labels 
for these containers. This standard is intended 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. 
Section S5.1 specifies three grades of motor vehicle 
brake fluids (DOT 3, DOT 4, and DOT 5) and sets forth 
performance requirements for, among other things, the 
equilibrium reflux boiling point (ERBP), the wet 



ERBP, and the kinematic viscosities. DOT 5 brake 
fluids are required to have higher boiling points and 
superior low temperature kinematic viscosities than 
DOT 3 and DOT 4 brake fluids. As a result, DOT 5 
brake fluids are associated with higher performance 
levels than the DOT 3 and DOT 4 brake fluids. DOT 
5 brake fluids have traditionally been of a silicone base, 
while DOT 3 and DOT 4 brake fluids have been of a 
non-silicone base. A silicone base brake fluid (SBBF) 
is immiscible (i.e., incapable of mixing or attaining 
homogeneity) with a non-silicone base brake fluide 
(non-SBBF). 

In recent years, manufacturers have developed DOT 
5 non-SBBFs which are fully miscible with DOT 3 and 
DOT 4 fluids, but immiscible with traditional DOT 5 
SBBFs. The DOT 5 non-SBBFs may provide a low cost 
alternative to the traditional high performance DOT 
5 SBBFs. 

Unlike the non-SBBFs, SBBFs (i.e., these traditional 
DOT 5 fluids) have corrosion inhibiting properties 
resulting from their "low moisture avidity," i.e., they 
do not absorb water. While some consumers purchase 
the DOT 5 SBBFs for this characteristic. Standard No. 
116's performance requirements do not address the 
corrosion inhibiting characteristics directly related to 
a brake fluid's field performance. 

Section S5.1.14 of Standard No. 116 has for some- 
time required DOT 3 and DOT 4 brake fluid to be color- 
less to amber, DOT 5 to be purple, and hydraulic system 
mineral oil to be green. In establishing color code 
requirements, the agency explained their purpose "is 
to permit easy identification of fluids before they are 
placed in the vehicle, in order to prevent the mixing 
of an incompatible fluid in a braking system" and "to 
enable users to distinguish among various unused brake 
fluids, rather than to match fluid in a master cylinder 
with additional fluid." (41 FR 54942, December 16, 
1976). 

Petition for Rulemaking 

On January 18, 1989, Bendix France, a division of 
Allied Signal (Bendix), petitioned the agency to amend 
Standard No. 116's color coding requirements, claiming 



PART 571; S116-PRE 43 



that the DOT 5 non-SBBFs would provide a cost 
effective means of improving consumer safety. The 
petitioner stated that requiring DOT 5 non-SBBFs to 
be purple would mislead consumers, since they are 
immiscible with traditional DOT 5 SBBFs but miscible 
with traditional DOT 3 and DOT 4 fluids. Accordingly, 
Bendix requested the agency to require the new DOT 
5 non-SBBFs to be colorless to amber to distinguish 
them from the traditional purple DOT 5 SBBFs. In 
addition, the petitioner requested the new DOT 5 
non-SBBFs be required to comply with certain re- 
quirements from which DOT 5 SBBFs are currently 
excluded (i.e., the pH requirements in S5.1.4, the 
chemical stability requirements in S5. 1.5.2, and the 
compatibility requirements for stratification in 
S5.1.10). The DOT 5 fluids have been excluded from 
pH and chemical stability requirements because DOT 
5 SBBFs are inherently stable. Thus, such testing is 
unnecessary. The petitioner did not request that DOT 
5 SBBFs be required to comply with any different 
performance requirements. 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRIVI) 

On March 2, 1990, NHTSA proposed amending 
Standard No. 116 to require DOT 5 non-SBBFs to be 
colorless to amber, reasoning that such color coding 
would help consumers distinguish among brake fluids 
with differing characteristics. (55 FR 7510) In partic- 
ular, the agency tentatively determined that the newly 
developed DOT 5 non-SBBFs, with their differing mis- 
cibility and corrosion inhibiting properties, should be 
distinguished from traditional DOT 5 SBBFs. To 
further distinguish the new fluids, the notice proposed 
that DOT 5 fluids be labeled either "DOT 5 non-silicone 
base" or "DOT 5 silicone base," as appropriate. The 
notice also proposed requiring DOT 5 non-SBBFs to 
comply with the performance requirements for pH 
value, chemical stability, and compatibility. 

The Agency Response to the Comments 

NHTSA received nine comments in response to the 
NPRM. The agency has considered the points raised 
in the comments in developing this final rule. The 
significant points raised by the commenters are 
addressed below, along with the agency's response to 
them. For the convenience of the reader, this notice 
follows the NPRM's order. 

A. Color Coding Requirements 

At the time that Bendix petitioned the agency, 
section S5.1.14 required that DOT 3 and DOT 4 fluids 
be colorless to amber, DOT 5 be purple, and hydraulic 
system mineral oil be green. These requirements, along 
with section S5.2.2.1's requirement that the label 



include the DOT grade, are intended to assist users in fk 
distinguishing among brake fluids. In the interest of ' 
promoting the proper use of its newly developed non- 
SBBF DOT 5 fluid, the petitioner requested the agency 
use color coding to distinguish further between those 
fluids and DOT 5 SBBFs. The petitioner recommended 
the distinction be based on whether the fluid showed 
stratification during compatibility tests. 

The notice proposed that DOT 5 non-SBBFs be color- 
less to amber and traditional DOT 5 SBBFs remain 
purple. The agency based its original color coding 
proposal on existing requirements of independent 
standardization organizations including the Society of 
Automotive Engineers (SAE); FAKRA. the German 
equivalent to the SAE., and the International Stand- 
ardization Organisation (ISO). The agency s goal was 
to develop a system for distinguishing among brake 
fluids that would not be overly complex or misleading. 

Chrysler, GM, and Wagner agreed that the DOT 5 
non-SBBFs should be colorless to amber, stating that 
color coding of fluids alerts consumers against mixing 
incompatible fluids. No commenters addressing this 
issue opposed the color coding proposal. 

Based on the reasons set forth in the NPRM and the 
agreement of those manufacturers commenting on the 
issue, the agency has decided to adopt the color coding f^ 
requirements in S5.1.14, as proposed. 

B. DOT Grade Category 

As mentioned above, section S5. 2.2.1 requires brake 
fluid labels to include the DOT grade. In response to 
the petition, NHTSA proposed that labels on DOT 5 
fluids would have to indicate whether the fluid is a 
"silicone base" or "non-silicone base." The agency 
tentatively concluded that this additional information 
was necessary to facilitate consumer comprehension 
about the immiscibility of the Bendix fluid with tradi- 
tional DOT 5 SBBFs. The proposal discussed other 
designations, e.g., "high temperature DOT 4" and DOT 
6, but rejected these because they had the potential to 
be confusing and were inconsistent with the actions of 
the standardization organizations. 

Commenters offered differing views about the best 
way to designate the new non-silicone base DOT 5 
brake fluid. Dow favored the labeling designation as 
proposed, claiming that the other designations would 
be misleading. Mico and Wagner, manufacturers of 
brake components, and GM believed that designating 
both silicone base and non-silicone base fluids as "DOT 
5" was not sufficient to prevent misapplications 
because some consumers might rely solely on the ^ 
marking "DOT 5" and would not know the difference 
between SBBFs and non-SBBFs. These commenters 
were concerned that manuals instructing consumers 



PART 571; S116-PRE 44 



to "use DOT 5 fluids" in their vehicles would contribute 
to the damaging of the braking systems of aftermarket 
vehicles if those systems were exposed to DOT 5 non- 
SBBFs. FAKRA recommended that the non-SBBFs be 
designated DOT 5 "conventional" fluids because of 
their similarities to DOT 3 and 4 fluids. Stating that 
further differentiation could be attained without violat- 
ing the concerns in the NPRM, Chrysler recommended 
that DOT 5 non-SBBFs be designated "DOT 5.1 non- 
sUicone base brake fluid." Chrysler continued that such 
a designation would indicate that the new fluid had 
DOT 5 performance characteristics and yet implied 
something different. 

After reviewing the proposal in light of the com- 
ments, the agency has decided to require non-SBBFs 
with DOT 5 performance characteristics to be labeled 
"DOT 5.1 non-silicone base" and traditional SBBFs 
with DOT 5 performance characteristics will be labeled 
"DOT 5 siHcone base." The agency has decided that 
such labeling requirements are necessary to help 
further distinguish the newly developed fluid, thus 
reducing the risk of mixing incompatible fluids. The 
agency believes that this designation will avoid an 
overly complex labeling system, be consistent with 
labeling specifications in other countries (International 
Harmonization), and adequately alert consumers not 
to use the new non-SBBF fluid in systems marked "Use 
with DOT 5 only." 



C. Chemical Composition 

In proposing requirements distinguishing between 
SBBFs and non-SBBFS, the agency recognized that 
Standard No. 116 traditionally has focused broadly on 
performance rather than chemical composition and has 
never required the label to state the fluid's composi- 
tion. However, the NPRM explained that the basis for 
the proposal is the immiscibility of SBBFs and non- 
SBBFs, a factor relevant to the standard's test proce- 
dure for compatibility. As for differentiating DOT 5 
fluids, the petitioner suggested that it be based on 
stratification (i.e., the separation into definite layers 
of different non-homogenous materials in a mixture) 
when tested according to the standard's compatibility 
test. The NPRM rejected this method of differentia- 
tion because stratification would be difficult to deter- 
mine in practice and thus difficult to enforce. The 
agency tentatively concluded that the best way to 
differentiate DOT 5 fluids would be through using an 
existing definition specifying that a fluid is either a 
SBBF or a non-SBBF. The notice stated that this would 
enable SBBFs to be differentiated from other DOT 5 
fluids, while avoiding potential ambiguities caused by 
incomplete stratification during testing. The notice 
thus proposed adopting the definition for silicone base 



brake fluid in the military specification, "Brake Fluid, 
Silicone, Automotive, All Weather, Operational and 
Preservative, Metric," MIL-B-46176A, (29 April 1986, 
amended 5 August 1988). That provision states that 
"The material covered by this specification shall con- 
tain not less than 70 percent by weight of a diorgano 
polysiloxane. . ." The agency did not anticipate that 
this proposal would pose a significant problem for cur- 
rent users because the principal users of silicone base 
brake fluid, the military and the Postal Service, cur- 
rently use this definition. 

Union Carbide opposed this distinction stating that 
it is difficult to justify distinguishing between one fluid 
containing 69 percent diorgano polysiloxane and one 
with 71 percent. Wagner was concerned that such a 
designation would delay future product development 
because then other rulemakings to amend the the DOT 
5 category might be required. Union Carbide was also 
concerned that differences in miscibility properties by 
fluid composition may limit the selection of other types 
of raw materials. 

In response to Union Carbide's first concern, the 
agency notes that as with all Federal safety standards 
issued under the Vehicle Safety Act, Standard No. 116 
must use definitions that are clear and objective. As 
such, there will always be situations at which a line 
must be drawn. As for delaying future development, 
the agency disagrees with the commenter's belief that 
distinguishing between silicone base and non-silicone 
base fluids will restrict the development of additional 
fluids, because the two categories— silicone base fluids 
and non-silicone base fluids (i.e., fluids with any com- 
position other than of a silicone base)— are all inclusive. 

D. Test Procedures 

Bendix requested that any DOT 5 non-SBBF be re- 
quired to comply with all performance requirements 
in Standard No. 116, even requirements from which 
DOT 5 fluids have previously been excluded. As initially 
promulgated. Standard No. 116 excluded the DOT 5 
fluids from the pH value requirements in S5.1.4 and 
the chemical stability requirements in S5.1.5.2. These 
requirements were deemed unnecessary for DOT 5 
fluids which, at the time, were typically SBBFs. The 
agency agreed with the petitioner and proposed that, 
except for DOT 5 SBBFs, all fluids, including DOT 5 
non-SBBFs, must comply vrith the requirements for pH 
value, chemical stability, and compatibility in relation 
to compatibility. In addition, the notice proposed that 
to test DOT 5 non-SBBFs more accurately, those fluids 
should be subject to the procedure evaluating water 
tolerance in S6.9. The notice also proposed requiring 
DOT 5 non-SBBFs to be mixed with 3.5 percent water 
rather than be humidified, and be tested for its pH 



PART 571; S116-PRE 45 



value. As for the humidification test procedure, the 
notice proposed increasing the test's duration through 
the use of larger samples and requiring the test fluid 
and the TEGME sample to be placed in the same desic- 
cator. The agency tentatively concluded that these 
modifications w^oiild better ensure test result repeata- 
bility and thus the standard's enforceability. The notice 
also proposed deleting outdated provisions, such as 
references to tests with RM-1 fluid, which were in 
effect until November 3, 1986. 

GM agreed with the proposal that the non-SBBFs 
with DOT 5 performance characteristics should com- 
ply with the pH value, chemical stability, and stratifi- 
cation portion of the compatibility requirements. 
Wagner believed that both the non-SBBF and SBBF 
should be tested identically. No commenters opposed 
this proposal to require full compliance of non-SBBFs. 

Based on the discussion in the proposal and the 
comments about it, the agency has decided to test the 
new DOT 5.1 non-SBBF, as proposed. However, it 
disagrees with Wagner's recommendation to subject 
SBBFs to the pH, chemical stability, and no-stratif- 
ication requirements of the water tolerance test. Given 
the inherent stability of SBBFs, such testing would 
only add extra cost and time to the tests, without 
producing any corresponding safety benefits. 

E. Miscellaneous Issues 

Several commenters raised other issues in their 
comments. Wagner was concerned about DOT 5 per- 
formance characteristics not currently addressed in 
Standard No. 116, including vapor lock, lubricity, the 
effect on rubber, mixed fluid corrosion, and air solu- 
bility. Wagner also recommended additional require- 
ments to address fluid compressibility and related 
brake pedal travel. Union Carbide suggested that the 
agency establish two separate safety standards for 
brake fluids: one for low water tolerant, e.g. silicone 
base, brake fluids, and one for water tolerant brake 
fluids. Union Carbide also recommended using differ- 
ent referee materials for the different grade fluids. 

The agency notes that the issues addressed in these 
comments are beyond the scope of the proposal. The 
agency may consider proposing such amendments in 
the future if it determines that there is a need for them. 

In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that 
49 CFR 571.116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, be 
amended as follows: 

In § 571.116, S4 is amended by adding the following 
definition "silicone base brake fluid" (SBBF) in alpha- 
betical order to read as follows: 

A "silicone base brake fluid" (SBBF) is a brake fluid 
which consists of not less than 70 percent by weight 
of a diorgano polysiloxane. 



3. In § 571.116, S5 is revised to read as follows: 
S5. Requirements: This section specifies perfor- 
mance requirements for DOT 3, DOT 4, and DOT 5 
brake fluids; requirements for brake fluid certification; 
and requirements for container sealing, labeling, and 
color coding for brake fluids and hydraulic system 
mineral oils. Where a range of tolerances is specified, 
the brake fluid shall meet the requirements at all points 
within the range. 

4. In § 571.116, S5.1.4 is revised to read as follows: 
S5.1.4 pH value. When brake fluid, except DOT 5 

SBBF, is tested according to S6.4, the pH value shall 
not be less than 7.0 nor more than than 11.5. 5. 
In § 571.116, S5. 1.5.2 is revised to read as follows: 
S51.5.2 Chemical stability. When brake fluid, 
except DOT 5 SBBF, is tested according to S6.5.4, the 
change in temperature of the refluxing fluid mixture 
shall not exceed 3.0° C. (5.4° F.) plus 0.05° for each 
degree that the ERBP of the fluid exceeds 225° C. 
(437°. F.). 

6. In § 571.116, S5.1.6(f) is revised to read as follows: 
(f) The pH value of water-wet brake fluid, except 

DOT 5 SBBF, at the end of the test shall not be less 
than 7.0 nor more than 11.5.; 

7. In 571.116, S5.5.1.10 is revised to read as follows: 
S.5.1.10 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 addi- 
tion, fluids, except DOT 5 SBBF, shall show no stratifi- 
cation. 

(b) At 60° C. (140° F.). When brake fluid is tested 
according to S6. 10.3(b)- 

(1) Sedimentation shall not exceed 0.05 percent by 
volume after centrifuging; and 

(2) Fluids, except DOT 5 SBBF, shall show no 
stratification. 

8. In § 571.116, S5.1.14 is revised to read as follows: 
S5.1.14 Fluid color. Brake fluid and hydraulic sys- 
tem mineral oil shall be of the color indicated: 

DOT 3, DOT 4, and DOT 5.1 non-SBBF-colorless 
to amber. 
DOT 5 SBBF-purple. 
Hydraulic system mineral oil— green. 

9. In § 571.116, S5.2.2.1(b) is revised to read as 
follows: 

(b) The grade (DOT 3, DOT 4, DOT 5) of the brake 
fluid. If DOT 5 grade brake fluid, it shall be further 
distinguished as "DOT 5 SILICONE BASE" or "DOT 
5.1 NON-SILICONE BASE." 



PART 571; S116-PRE 46 



A 10. In § 571.116, S5.2.2.2(e) is revised to read as 

W follows: 

(e) Designation of the contents as "DOT MOTOR 
VEHICLE BRAKE FLUID" (Fill in DOT 3, DOT 4, 
DOT 5 SILICONE BASE, or DOT 5.1 NON- 
SILICONE BASE, as applicable). 

11. In § 571.116, S5.2.2.2(g)3 is revised to read as 
follows: 



3. STORE BRAKE FLUID ONLY IN ITS ORIGI- 
NAL CONTAINER. KEEP CONTAINER CLEAN 
AND TIGHTLY CLOSED TO PREVENT ABSORP- 
TION OF MOISTURE. 

12. In § 571.116, the sentence following the head- 
ing of S6. Test Procedures, is deleted. 

13. In § 571.116, S6.2.1 is revised to read as follows: 
S6.2.1. Summary of procedure. A 350 ml. sample 

of the brake fluid is humidified under controlled con- 
ditions; 350 ml. of SAE triethylene glycol monomethyl 
ether, brake fluid grade, referee material (TEGME) as 
described in Appendix E of SAE Standard J1703 Nov. 
83, "Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid," November 1983, is 
used to establish the end point for humidification. After 
humidification, the water content and ERBP of the 
brake fluid are determined. 

14. In § 571.116, S6.2.2 is revised to read as follows: 

56.2.2 Apparatus for humidification. (See Figure 3) 
Test apparatus shall consist of— 

(a) Glass jars. Four SAE RM-49 corrosion test jars 
or equivalent screwtop, straight-sided, round glass jars 
each having a capacity of about 475 ml. and approxi- 
mate inner dimensions of 100 mm. in height by 75 mm. 
in diameter, with matching lids having new, clean 
inserts providing water-vapor-proof seals; 

(b) Desiccator and cover. Two bowl-form glass desic- 
cators, 250-mm. inside diameter, having matching 
tubulated covers fitted with No. 8 rubber stoppers; and 

(c) Desiccator plate. Two 230-mm. diameter, per- 
forated porcelain desiccator plates, without feet, glazed 
on one side. 

15. Paragraph S6.2.3 is revised to read as follows: 

56.2.3 Reagents and materials. 

(a) Distilled water, see S7.1. 

(b) SAE TEGME referee material. 

16. In § 571.116, S6.2.4 is revised to read as follows: 

56.2.4 Preparation of apparatus. 

Lubricate the ground-glass joint of the desiccator. 
Pour 450 + 10 ml of distilled water into each desic- 
cator and insert perforated porcelain desiccator plates. 



Place the desiccators in an oven with temperature con- 
trolled at 50 ± 1° C. (122 ± 1.8° F.) throughout the 
humidification procedure. 

17. In § 571.116, S6.2.5 is revised to read as follows: 
S6.2.5 Procedure. 

Pour 350 ± 5 ml of brake fluid into an open corro- 
sion test jar. Prepare in the same manner a duplicate 
test fluid sample and two duplicate specimens of the 
SAE TEGME referee material (350 ± 5 ml of TEGME 
in each jar). The water content of the SAE TEGME 
fluid is adjusted to 0.50 ± 0.05 percent by weight at 
the start of the test in accordance with S7.2. Place one 
sample each of the test brake fluid and the prepared 
TEGME sample into the same desiccator. Repeat for 
the second sample of test brake fluid and TEGME in 
a second desiccator. Place the desiccators in the 50° C. 
(122° F.) controlled oven and replace desiccator covers. 
At intervals, during oven humidification, remove the 
rubber stoppers in the tops of desiccators. Using a long 
needled hypodermic syringe, take a sample of not more 
than 2 ml from each TEGME sample and determine 
its water content. Remove no more than 10 ml of fluid 
from each SAE TEGME sample during the humidifi- 
cation procedure. When the water content of the SAE 
fluid reaches 3.70 ± 0.05 percent by weight (average 
of the duplicates), remove the two test fluid specimens 
from their desiccators and promptly cap each jar 
tightly. Allow the sealed jars to cool for 60 to 90 
minutes at 23° ± 5° C. (73.4° ± 9° F.). Measure the 
water contents of the test fluid specimens in accor- 
dance with S7.2 and determine their ERBP's in accor- 
dance with S6.1. If the two ERBPs agree within 4° C. 
(8° F.), average them to determine the wet ERBP; 
otherwise repeat-and average the four individual 
ERBPs as the wet ERBP of the brake fluid. 

18. In § 571.116. Figure 3, "Humidification Appara- 
tus" is revised by substituting the term "distilled 
water" in place of "salt slurry." In addition, it is re- 
vised by deleting "45 ± 7 mm." 

19. In § 571.116, S6.5.4.1 is revised to read as 
follows: 

56.5.4.1 Materials. 

SAE RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid as described in 
Appendix A of SAE Standard J1703 Nov83, "Motor 
Vehicle Brake Fluid," November 1983. 

20. In § 571.116, S6.5.4.2 is revised to read as 
follows: 

56.5.4.2 Procedure. 

(a) Mix 30 ± 1 ml of the brake fluid with 30 ± 1 ml 
of SAE RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid in a boOing point 
flask (S6.1.2(a)). Determine the initial ERBP of the 



PART 571; S116-PRE 47 



mixture by applying heat to the flask so that the fluid 
is refluxing in 10 ± 2 minutes at a rate in excess of 
1 drop per second, but not more than 5 drops per se- 
cond. Note the maximum fluid temperature observed 
during the first minute after the fluid begins reflux- 
ing at a rate in excess of 1 drop per second. Over the 
next 15 ± 1 minutes, adjust and maintain the reflux 
rate at 1 to 2 drops per second. Maintain this rate for 
an additional 2 minutes, recording the average value 
of four temperature readings taken at 30 second inter- 
vals as the final ERBP. 

(b) Thermometer and barometric corrections are not 
required. 

21. In § 571.116. S6.6.4 is revised by replacing the 
reference to "DOT 5 fluids" with "DOT 5 SBBF 
fluids." 

22. In § 571.116, S6.6.5 is revised by replacing the 
first sentence with the following sentence: 

S6.6.5 Procedure. Rinse the cups in ethanol 
(isopropanol when testing DOT 5 SBBF fluids) for not 
more than 30 seconds and wipe dry with a clean lint- 
free cloth. 

23. In § 571.116. S6.6.5 is further revised by replac- 
ing the fifth sentence, which begins "When testing 
DOT 3 and DOT 4 brake fluids. . ." with the following 
sentence: 

When testing brake fluids, except DOT 5 SBBF, mix 
760 ml. of brake fluid with 40 ml. of distilled water. 
When testing DOT 5 SBBFs, humidify 800 ml. of brake 
fluid in accordance with S6.2, eliminating determina- 
tion of the ERBP. Using this water-wet mixture, cover 
each strip assembly to a minimum depth of 10 mm. 
above the tops of the strips. 

24. In § 571.116, S6.6.5 is further revised to have 
the second to last and last sentences to read as follows: 

Measure the pH value of the corrosion test fluid ac- 
cording to S6.4.6. Measure the pH value of the test mix- 
ture according to S6.4.6. 

25. In § 571.116, S6.9.1 is revised to read as follows: 
S6.9.1 Summary of the procedure. 

Brake fluid, except DOT 5 SBBF, is diluted with 3.5 
percent water (DOT 5 SBBF is humidified), then stored 
at minus 40° C. (minus 40° F.) for 120 hours. The cold, 
water-wet fluid is first examined for clarity, stratifi- 
cation, and sedimentation, then placed in an oven at 
60° C. (140° F.) for 24 hours. On removal, it is again 
examined for stratification, and the volume percent of 
sediment determined by centrifuging. 



26. In § 571.116, 6.9.3(a) is revised by adding / 
"SBBF" after "DOT 5" in the first sentence. In the ' 
second sentence, the words "DOT 3 and DOT 4" before 
the words "brake fluids" are deleted and "except DOT 

5 SBBF" is added after the words "brake fluids." 

27. In § 571.116, S6.10.1 is revised to read as 
follows: 

S6.10.1 Summary of the procedure. 

Brake fluid is mixed with an equal volume of SAE 
RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid, then tested in the same 
way as for water tolerance (S6.9) except that the bub- 
ble flow time is not measured. This test is an indica- 
tion of the compatibility of the test fluid with other 
motor vehicle brake fluids at both high and low tem- 
peratures. 

28. In § 571.116, S6.10.2(e) is revised to read as fol- 
lows: SAE RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid. As described 
in Appendix A of SAE Standard J1703 Nov83, "Mo- 
tor Vehicle Brake Fluid," November 1983. 

29. In § 571.116, S6. 10.2(f) is deleted. 

30. In § 571.116, 86.10.3 is revised to read as 
follows: 

S6.10.3 Procedure. 

(a) At low temperature. Mix 50 ± 0.5 ml. of brake / 
fluid with 50 ± 0.5 ml. of SAE RM-66-03 Compatibil- ^ 
ity Fluid. Pour this mixture into a centrifuge tube and 
stopper with a clean dry cork. Place tube in the cold 
chamber maintained at minus 40° ± 2° C. (minus 40° 

± 3.6° F.) After 24 ± 2 hours, remove tube, quickly 
wipe with a clean lint-free cloth saturated with ethanol 
(isopropanol when testing DOT 5 fluids) or acetone. Ex- 
amine the test specimen for evidence of sludging, 
sedimentation, or crystallization. Test fluids, except 
DOT 5 SBBF, shall be examined for stratification. 

(b) At 60.C. (140° F.) 

Place tube and test fluid from S6. 10.3(a) for 24 ± 
2 hours in an oven maintained at 60° ± 2° C. (140° ± 
3.6° F.). Remove the tube and immediately examine 
the contents of the test mixtures, except DOT 5 
SBBFs, for evidence of stratification. Determine per- 
cent sediment by centrifuging as described in S7.5. 

31. In § 571.116, S6.11.1 is revised to read as 
follows: 

S6.11.1 Summary of procedure. 

Brake fluids, except DOT 5 SBBF, are activated with 
a mixture of ately 0.2 percent benzoyl peroxide and 5 
percent water. DOT 5 SBBF is humidified in accor- 
dance with S6.2 eliminating determination of the / 
ERBP, and then approximately 0.2 percent benzoyl 
peroxide is added. A corrosion test strip assembly con- 
sisting of cast iron and an aluminum strip separated 



PART 571; S116-PRE 48 



by tinfoil squares at each end is then rested on a piece Issued on February 1, 1991. 

of SBR WC cup positioned so that the test strip is half 

immersed in the fluid and oven-aged at 70° C. (158° F.) 

for 168 hours. At the end of this period, the metal strips Jerry Ralph Curry 

are examined for pitting, etching, and of Standard No. Administrator 

208 does not have to meet the elongation requirements 

of S4.2(c), S4.4(aX2), S4.4(bX4), and S4.4(bX5) of this 56 F.R. 11107 

standard. March 15, 1991 



> 



PART 571; S116-PRE 49-50 



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 man- 
ufacture or use of improper or contaminated fluid. 

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

54. Definitions. 

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

Brake fluid means a liquid designed for use in a 

I 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. 

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

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. 

Packager means any person who fills containers 
with brake fluid that are subsequently distributed 
for retail sale. 

Packaged lot is that quantity of brake fluid ship- 
ped 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. 

^ {Silicone base brake fluid (SBBF) is a brake fluid 

'' which consists of not less than 70 percent by 

weight of a diorgano polysiloxane. (56 F.R. 11107 

—March 15, 1991. Effective: September 11, 1991)1 



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 requirements 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 shall meet the 
requirements at all points within the range. 

S5.1 Bralce fluid. When tested in accordance 
with S6, brake fluids shall meet the followdng 
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 

(b) DOT 4 

(c) DOT 5: 



140°C (284°F) 
155°C (311°F) 
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: 1500 cSt at minus 40°C (minus 40° F) 

(b) DOT 4: 1800 cSt at minus 40°C (minus 40° F) 

(c) DOT 5: 900 cSt at minus 40°C (minus 40° F) 

55.1 .4 pH value. [When brake fluid, except DOT 
5 SBBF, is tested according to S6.5.4, the pH value 



(Rev. 3/1S/91) 



PART 571; S 116-1 



shall not be less than 7.0 nor more than 11.5. (56 
F.R. 11107— March 15, 1991. Effective: September 11, 
1991)1 

55.1.5 Brake fluid stability. 

55.1.5.1 High-temperature stability. When 
brake fluid is tested according to S.6.5.3 the ERBP 
shall not change by more than 3.0°C (5.4°F) plus 
0.05 degree for each degree that the ERBP of the 
fluid exceeds 225°C (437°F). 

55.1.5.2 Cliemical stability. IWhen brake fluid, 
except DOT 5 SBBF, is tested according to S6.5.4, 
the change in temperature of the refluxing fluid 
mixture shall not exceed 3.0°C (5.4°F) plus 0.05° 
for each degree that the ERBP of the fluid exceeds 
225°C (437°F). (56 F.R. 11107-March 15, 1991. 
Effective: September 11, 1991)1 

55.1.6 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±1^2 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 brake fluid, ex- 
cept DOT 5 SBBF, at the end of the test shall not 
be less than 7.0 nor more than 11.5; (56 F.R. 
11107— March 15, 1991. Effective: September 11, 1991)1 

(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, mg/ 

sq 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 Max. bubble 

time flaw tiine 

(hours) (seconds) 



minus 40±2°C (minus 

40±3.6°F) 144±4.0 10 

minus 50±2°C (minus 

58±3.6°F) 6 ±0.2 35 

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

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

(b) The residue from the brake fluid after evapora- 
tion 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(-h23°F). 

55.1.9 Water tolerance. 

(a) At low temperature. When brake fluid is 
tested according to [S6.9.3(a)-1 

(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 IS6.9.3(b)-l 

(1) The fluid shall show no stratification; and 

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



(Rev. 3/15/91) 



PART 571; S 116-2 



^ S5.1.10 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, fluids, except DOT 5 
SBBF, 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) Fluids, except DOT 5 SBBF, shall show no 
stratification. (56 F.R. 11107-March 15, 1991. 
Effective: September 11, 1991)] 

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

(a) The metal test strips outside the areas in con- 
tact with the tinfoil shall not show pitting or etch- 
ing to an extent discernible without magnification; 

(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 

i (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 S6.12— 

(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 
W 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 wet- 
ted with ethanol. 

S5.1.14 Fluid color. [Brake fluid and hydraulic 
system mineral oil shall be of the color indicated: 

DOT 3, DOT 4 and DOT 5.1 non-SBBF-color- 
less to amber. 

DOT 5 SBBF-purple. 

Hydraulic system mineral oil— green. (56 F.R. 
11107— March 15, 1991. Effective: September 11, 
1991)1 

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. 



PART 571; S 116-3 



(b) The grade (DOT 3, DOT 4, or DOT 5) of the 
brake fluid. Ilf DOT 5 grade brake fluid, it shall be 
further distinguished as "DOT 5 SILICONE 
BASE" or "DOT 5.1 NON-SILICONE BASE." (56 
F.R. 11107— March 15, 1991. Effective: September 11, 
1991)1 

(c) The minimum wet boiling 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 S5.2.2.2 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 f 
LIQUIDS. (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 S5.2.2.3 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 
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 a 
at least Yz 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.) 

55.2.2.4 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 A 
rather than the inner container shall meet the \ 
labeling requirements of S5.2.2.2 or S5.2.2.3, as 
appropriate. 



(Rev. 3/15/91) 



PART 571; S 116-4 



S5.3 Motor vehicle requirement. Each pas- 
senger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, 
bus, trailer, and motorcycle that has a hydraulic 
brake system shall be equipped with fluid that has 
been manufactured and packaged in conformity 
with the requirements of this standard. 

S6. Test procedures. 

[Text deleted. (56 F.R. 11107-March 15. 1991)] 



S6.1 Equilibrium reflux boiling point. Deter- 
mine the ERBP of a brake fluid by running 
duplicate samples according to the following 
procedure and averaging the results. 

S6.1.1 Summary of procedure. Sixty milliliters 
(ml) of brake fluid are boiled under specified 
equilibrium conditions (reflux) at atmospheric 
pressure in a 100-ml flask. The average 
temperature of the boiling fluid at the end of the 
reflux period, corrected for variations in baro- 
metric pressure if necessary, is the ERBP. 



S6.1.2 Apparatus. (See Figure 1) The test ap- 
paratus shall consist of— 

(a) Flask. (See Figure 2) A 100-ml roundbot- 
tom, short-neck heat-resistant glass flask having a 
neck with a 19/38 standard taper, female ground- 
glass joint and a side-entering tube, with an out- 
side diameter of 10 millimeters (mm), which 
centers the thermometer bulb in the flask 6.5 mm 
from the bottom; 



FIRE POLISHED 




i^60±2mm O.D. SPHERE --J 



FIG. I 
BOILING POINT TEST APPARATUS 



FIG. 2 
DETAIL OF lOOml SHORT-NECK FLASK 



(Rev. 3/15f91) 



PART 571; S 116-5 



(b) Condenser. A water-cooled, reflux, glass- 
tube-type condenser having a jacket 200 mm in 
length, the bottom end of which has a 19/38 
standard-taper, drip-tip, male ground-glass joint; 

(c) Boiling stones. Three clean, unused silicon 
carbide grains (approximately 2 mm (0.08 inch) in 
diameter, grit No. 8); 

(d) Thermometer. Standardized calibrated par- 
tial immersion (76 mm), solid stem, thermometers 
conforming to the requirements for an ASTM 2C 
or 2F, and an ASTM 3C or 3F thermometer; and 

(e) Heat source. Variable autotransformer- 
con trolled heating mantle designed to fit the flask, 
or an electric heater with rheostat heat control. 



S6.1.3 Preparation of apparatus. 

(a) Thoroughly clean and dry all glassware. 

(b) Insert thermometer through the side tube 
until the tip of the bulb is 6.5 mm (V4 inch) from the 
bottom center of the flask. Seal with a short piece 
of natural rubber, EPDM, SBR or butyl tubing. 

(c) Place 60 ± 1 ml of brake fluid and the silicon 
carbide grains into the flask. 

(d) Attach the flask to the condenser. When 
using a heating mantle, place the mantle under the 
flask and support it with a ring-clamp and 
laboratory-type stand, holding the entire assembly 
in place by a clamp. When using a rheostat- 
controlled heater, center a standard porcelain or 
hard asbestos refractory, having a diameter open- 
ing 32 to 38 mm, over the heating element and 
mount the flask so that direct heat is applied only 
through the opening in the refractory. Place the 
assembly in an area free from drafts or other types 
of sudden temperature changes. Connect the cool- 
ing water inlet and outlet tubes to the condenser. 
Tiu*n on the cooling water. The water supply 
temperature shall not exceed 28°C (82.4°F) and 
the temperature rise through the condenser shall 
not exceed 2°C (3.6°F). 



S6.1.4 Procedure for preparation of apparatus. 

Apply heat to the flask so that within 10 ±2 
minutes the fluid is refluxing in excess of 1 drop 
per second. The reflux rate shall not exceed 5 
drops per second at any time. Immediately adjust 
the heating rate to obtain an equilibrium reflux 
rate of 1 to 2 drops per second over the next 5 ± 2 



minutes. Maintain this rate for an additional 2 
minutes, taking four temperature readings at 
30-second intervals. Record the average of these as 
the observed ERBP. If no reflux is evident when 
the fluid temperature reaches 260°C (500°F), 
discontinue heating and report ERBP as in excess 
of 260°C (500°F). 

S6.1.5 Calculation. 

(a) Thermometer inaccuracy. Correct the 
observed ERBP by applying any correction factor 
obtained in standardizing the thermometer. 

(b) Variation from standard barometric 
pressure. Apply the factor shown in Table III to 
calculate the barometric pressure correction to the 
ERBP. 

(c) If the two corrected observed ERBP's agree 
within 2.0°C (4.0°C for brake fluids having an 
ERBP over 230°C/446°F) average the duplicate 
runs as the ERBP; otherwise, repeat the entire 
test, averaging the four corrected observed values 
to determine the original ERBP. 

Table hi.— Correction for Barometric Pressure 



Observed ERBP corrected 
for thermometer inaccuracy 



Correction per 2 mm 

difference in -pressure^ 

"C. CF.) 



100°C (212°F) to 
190°C (374°F) 
Over 190°C (374°F) 



0.039 



(0.07) 



(0.08) 



=" To be added in case barometric pressure is below 760 mm; to 
be subtracted in case barometric pressure is above 760 mm. 



S6.2 Wet ERBP. Determine the wet ERBP of 

a brake fluid by running duplicate samples 
according to the following procedure. 

S6.2.1 Summary of procedure. [A 350 ml sam- 
ple of the brake fluid is humidified under controlled 
conditions; 350 ml of SAE triethylene glycol 
monomethyl ether, brake fluid grade, referee 
material (TEGME) as described in Appendix E of 
SAE Standard J1703 November 1983, Motor Vehi- 
cle Brake Fluid, November 1983, is used to 
establish the end point for humidification. After / 
humidification, the water content and ERBP of the y 
brake fluid are determined. (56 F.R. 11107— March 
15, 1991. Effective: September 11, 1991)1 



(Rev. 3/15/91) 



PART 571; S 116- 



S6.2.2 Apparatus for humidification. (See Figure 
3.) 
Test apparatus shall consist of— 

(a) Glass jars. Four SAE RM-49 corrosion test 
jars or equivalent screw-top, straight-sided, round 
glass jars each having a capacity of about 475 ml 
and approximate inner dimensions of 100 mm in 
height by 75 mm in diameter, with matching lids 
having new, clean inserts providing water-vapor- 
proof seals; 

(b) Desiccator and cover. Two bowl-form glass 
desiccators, 250 mm inside diameter, having mat- 
ching tubulated covers fitted with No. 8 rubber 
stoppers; and 



(c) Desiccator plate. Four 230-mm diameter, per- 
forated porcelain desiccator plates, without feet, 
glazed on one side. 

56.2.3 Reagents and Materials. 

(a) Distilled water, see S7.1. 

(b) SAE TEGME referee material. 

56.2.4 Preparation of Apparatus. 

[Lubricate the ground-glass joint of the desic- 
cator. Pour 450 ± 10 ml of distilled water into each 
desiccator and insert perforated porcelain desic- 
cator plates. Place the desiccators in an oven with 
temperature controlled at 50 ± 1° C (122± 1.8° F) 
throughout the humidification procedvtre. (56 F.R. 
11107— March 15, 1991. Effective: September 11, 1991)1 



250:^,^0' 




No.8 RUBBER STOPPER 



GLASS DESICCATOR WITH 
TUBULATED COVER 



^—LUBRICATED 
GROUND JOINT 



GLASS JAR 



PORCELAIN 

DESICCATOR 

PLATE 



2IO±iommi.O. 



FIG. 3 
HUMIDIFICATION APPARATUS 



PART 571; S 116-7 



S6.2.5 Procedure. 

[Pour 3.50 ± 0.05ml of brake fluid into an open 
corrosion test jar. Prepare in the same manner a 
duplicate test fluid sample and two duplicate 
specimens of the SAE TEGME referee material 
(350 ± 5 ml of TEGME in each jar). The water con- 
tent of the SAE TEGME fluid is adjusted to 0.50 ± 
0.05 percent by weight at the start of the test in ac- 
cordance with S7.2. Place one sample each of the 
test brake fluid and the prepared TEGME sample 
into the same desiccator. Repeat for the second 
sample of test brake fluid and TEGME in a second 
desiccator. Place the desiccators in the 50°C (122 
°F) controlled oven and replace desiccator covers. 
At intervals, during oven humidification, remove 
the rubber stoppers in the tops of desiccators. 
Using a long needled hypodermic syringe, take a 
sample of not more than 2 ml from each TEGME 
sample and determine its water content. Remove 
no more than 10 ml of fluid from each SAE 
TEGME sample during the humidification pro- 
cedure. When the water content of the SAE fluid 
reaches 3.70 ± 0.05 percent by weight (average of 
the duplicates), remove the two test fluid 
specimens from their desiccators and promptly cap 
each jar tightly. Allow the sealed jars to cool for 60 
to 90 minutes at 23° ± 5° C (73.4° ± 9° F). 
Measure the water contents of the test fluid 
specimens in accordance with S7.2 and determine 
their ERBP's in accordance with S6.1. If the two 
ERBPs agree within 4° C (8° F), average them to 
determine the wet ERBP; otherwise repeat and 
average the four individual ERBPs as the wet 
ERBP of the brake fluid. (56 F.R. 11107-March 
15, 1991. Effective: September 11, 1991)1 



S6.3 Kinematic viscosity. Determine the 
kinematic viscosity of a brake fluid in centistokes 
(cSt) by the following procedure. Run duplicate 
samples at each of the specified temperatures, 
making two timed runs on each sample. 

S6.3.1 Summary of the procedure. The time is 
measured for a fixed volume of the brake fluid to 
flow through a calibrated glass capillary 
viscometer under an accurately reproducible head 
and at a closely controlled temperature. The 
kinematic viscosity is then calculated from the 
measured flow time and the calibration constant of 
the viscometer. 



56.3.2 Apparatus. ^ 

(a) Viscometers. Calibrated glass capillary- 
type viscometers, ASTM D2515-66, Standard 
Specification for Kinematic Glass Viscometers, 
measuring viscosity within the precision limits of 
S6.4.7. Use suspended level viscometers for 
viscosity measurements at low temperatures. Use 
Cannon-Fenske Routine or other modified Ostwald 
viscometers at ambient temperatures and above. 

(b) Viscometer holders and frames. Mount a 
viscometer in the constant-temperature bath so 
that the mounting tube is held within 1 degree of 
the vertical. 

(c) Viscometer bath. A transparent liquid bath of 
sufficient depth such that at no time during the 
measurement will any portion of the sample in the 
viscometer be less than 2 cm below the surface or 
less than 2 cm above the bottom. The bath shall be 
cylindrical in shape, with turbulent agitation suffi- 
cient to meet the temperature control re- 
quirements. For measurements within 15 to 100° 
C (60 to 212°F) the temperature of the bath 
medium shall not vary by more than 0.01 °C / 
(0.02°F) over the length of the viscometers, or be- | 
tween the positions of the viscometers, or at the 
locations of the thermometers. Outside this range, 

the variation shall not exceed 0.03°C (0.05°F). 

(d) Thermometers. Liquid-in-glass Kinematic 
Viscosity Test Thermometers, covering the range 
of test temperatures indicated in Table IV and 
conforming to ASTM El-68, Specifications for 
ASTM Thermometers, and in the IP requirements 
for IP Standard Thermometers. Standardize 
before use (see S6.3.3(b)). Use two standardized 
thermometers in the bath. 

(e) Timing device. Stop watch or other timing 
device graduated in divisions representing not 
more than 0.2 second, with an accuracy of at least 
±0.05 percent when tested over intervals of 15 
minutes. Electrical timing devices may be used 
when the current frequency is controlled to an 
accuracy of 0.01 percent or better. 

56.3.3 Standardization. 

(a) Viscometers. Use viscometers calibrated in 
accordance with Appendix 1 of ASTM D445-65, | 
Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids ' 
(Kinematic and Dynamic Viscosities.) The calibra- 
tion constant, C, is dependent upon the gravita- 



(Rev. 3/15/91) 



PART 571; S 116-8 



TABLE IV 
Kinematic Viscosity Thermometers 



Temperature range 


For tests at 


Subdivisions 


Thermometer number 


degC. 


degF. 


degC. 


degF. 


degC. 


degF. 


ASTM 


IP 


minus 55.3 to 
minus 52.5 


minus 67.5 to 
minus 62.5 


minus 55 


minus 67 


0.05 


0.1 


74 F. 


69 F. or C. 


minus 41.4 to 
minus 38.6 


minus 42.5 to 
minus 37.5 


minus 40 


minus 40 


0.05 


0.1 


73 F. 


68 F. or C. 


98.6 to 
101.4 


207.5 to 
212.5 


100 


212 


0.05 


0.1 


30 F. 


32 F. or C. 



tional acceleration at the place of calibration. This 
must, therefore, be supplied by the standardization 
laboratory together with the instrument 
constant. Where the acceleration of gravity, g, in 
the two locations differs by more than 0.1 percent, 
correct the calibration constant as follows: 



Cz'- 



:Ci 



where the subscripts 1 and 2 indicate respectively 
the standardization laboratory and the testing 
laboratory. 

(b) Thermometers. Check liquid-in-glass ther- 
mometers to the nearest 0.01 °C (0.02°F) by direct 
comparison with a standardized thermometer. 
Kinematic Viscosity Test Thermometers shall be 
standardized at "total immersion." The ice point of 
standardized thermometers shall be determined 
before use and the official corrections shall be ad- 
justed to conform to the changes in ice 
points. (See ASTM E 77-66, Verification and 
Calibration of Liquid-in-Glass Thermometers.) 

(c) Timers. Time signals are broadcast by the 
National Bureau of Standards, Station WWV, 
Washington, D.C., at 2.5, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 
35 Mc/sec (MH ^ ). Time signals are also broadcast 
by Station CHU from Ottawa, Canada, at 3.330, 
7.335 and 14.670 Mc/sec, and Station MSF at 
Rugby, United Kingdom, at 2.5, 5 and 10 Mc/sec. 

S6.3.4 Procedure. 

(a) Set and maintain the bath at the appropriate 
test temperature (see S5.1.3) within the limits 
specified in S6.3.2(c). (Apply the necessary cor- 
rections, if any, to all thermometer readings. 

(b) Select a clean, dry, calibrated viscometer giv- 
ing a flow time not less than its specified minimum, 
or 200 seconds, whichever is the greater. 



(c) Charge the viscometer in the manner used 
when the instrument was calibrated. Do not filter 
or dry the brake fluid, but protect it from con- 
tamination by dirt and moisture during filling and 
measurements. 

(1) Charge the suspended level viscometers 
by tilting about 30 degrees from the vertical and 
pouring sufficient brake fluid through the fill 
tube into the lower reservoir so that when the 
viscometer is returned to vertical position the 
meniscus is between the fill marks. For 
measurements below 0°C (32°F), before placing 
the filled viscometer into the constant 
temperature bath, draw the sample into the 
working capillary and timing bulb and insert 
small rubber stoppers to suspend the fluid in this 
position, to prevent accumulation of water con- 
densate on the walls of the critical portions of the 
viscometer. Alternatively, fit loosely packed 
drying tubes onto the open ends of the 
viscometer to prevent water condensation, but 
do not restrict the flow of the sample under test 
by the pressures created in the instrument. 

(2) If a Cannon-Fenske Routine viscometer is 
used, charge by inverting and immersing the 
smaller arm into the brake fluid and applying 
vacuum to the larger arm. Fill the tube to the 
upper timing mark, and return the viscometer to 
an upright position. 

(d) Mount the viscometer in the bath in a true 
vertical position (See S6.3.2(b)). 

(e) The viscometer shall remain in the bath until 
it reaches the test temperature. 

(f) At temperature below 0°C (32°F) conduct an 
untimed preliminary run by allowing the brake 
fluid to drain through the capillary into the lower 
reservoir after the test temperature has been 
established. 



PART 571; S 116-9 



(g) Adjust the head level of the brake fluid to a 
position in the capillary arm about 5 mm above the 
first timing mark. 

(h) With brake fluid flowing freely measure to 
within 0.2 second the time required for the 
meniscus to pass from the first timing mark to the 
second. If this flow time is less than the minimum 
specified for the viscometer, or 200 seconds, 
whichever is greater, repeat using a viscometer 
with a capillary of smaller diameter. 

(i) Repeat S6.3.4(g) and (h). If the two timed 
runs do not agree within 0.2 percent, reject and 
repeat using a fresh sample of brake fluid. 

56.3.5 Cleaning of viscometers. 

(a) Periodically clean the instrument with 
chromic acid to remove organic deposits. Rinse 
thoroughly with distilled water and acetone, and 
dry with clean dry air. 

(b) Between successive samples rinse the 
viscometer with ethanol (isopropanol when testing 
DOT 5 fluids) followed by an acetone or ether 
rinse. Pass a slow stream of filtered dry air 
through the viscometer until the last trace of 
solvent is removed. 

56.3.6 Calcuiation. 

(a) The following viscometers have a fixed 
volume charged at ambient temperature, and as a 
consequence C varies with test temperature: 
Cannon-Fenske Routine, Pinkevitch, Cannon 
Manning Semi-Micro, and Cannon Fenske Opaque. 
To calculate C at test temperatures other than the 
calibration temperature for these viscometers, see 
ASTM D2515-66, Kinematic Glass Viscometers, or 
follow instructions given on the manufacturer's 
certificate of calibration. 

(b) Average the four timed runs on the duplicate 
samples to determine the kinematic viscosities. 

56.3.7 Precision (at 95 percent confidence ievei). 

(a) Repeatability. If results on duplicate 
samples by the same operator differ by more than 
1.0 percent of their mean, repeat the tests. 

S6.4 pH vaiue. Determine the pH value of a 
brake fluid by running one sample according to the 
following procedure. 

S6.4.1 Summary of the procedure. Brake fluid 
is diluted with an equal volume of an ethanolwater 
solution. The pH of the resultant mixture is 



measured with a prescribed pH meter assembly at 
23°C (73.4°F). 

56.4.2 Apparatus. The pH assembly consists of 
the pH meter, glass electrode, and calomel elec- 
trode, as specified in Appendices Al.l, A1.2 and 
A1.3 of ASTM D1121-67, Standard Method of Test 
for Reserve Alkalinity of Engine Antifreezes and 
Antirusts. The glass electrode is a full range type 
(pH 0-14), with low sodium error. 

56.4.3 Reagents. Reagent grade chemicals 
conforming to the specifications of the Committee 
on Analytical Reagents of the American Chemical 
Society. 

(a) Distilled water. Distilled water (S7.1) shall 
be boiled for about 15 minutes to remove carbon 
dioxide, and protected with a soda-lime tube or its 
equivalent while cooling and in storage. (Take 
precautions to prevent contamination by the 
materials used for protection against carbon 
dioxide.) The pH of the boiled distilled water shall 
be between 6.2 and 7.2 at 25°C (77°F). 

(b) Standard buffer soution^. Prepare buffer ^ 
solutions for calibrating the pH meter and elec- * 
trode pair from salts sold specifically for use, 
either singly or in combination, as pH standards. 

Dry salts for 1 hour at 110°C (230°F) before use 
except for borax which shall be used as the 
decahydrate. Store solutions with pH less than 9.5 
in bottles of chemically resistant glass or 
polyethylene. Store the alkaline phosphate solution 
in a glass bottle coated inside with paraffin. Do not 
use a standard with an age exceeding three 
months. 

(1) Potassium hydrogen phthalate buffer solu- 
tion (0.05 M, pH = 4.01 at 25°C (77°F)). Dissolve 
10.21g of potassium hydrogen phthalate 
(KHC8H4O4) in distilled water. Dilute to 1 liter. 

(2) Neutral phosphate buffer solution (0.025 M 
with respect to each phosphate salt, pH = 6.86 at 
25°C (77°F)). Dissolve 3.40g of potassium 
dihydrogen phosphate (KH2PO4) and 3.55g of 
anhydrous disodium hydrogen phosphate 
(NA2 HPO4 ) in distilled water. 

(3) Borax buffer solution (0.01 M, pH = 9.18 at 
25°C (77°F)). Dissolve 3.81g of disodium 
tetraborate decahydrate (Na2B4 07 10 H2O) in 
distilled water, and dilute to 1 liter. Stopper the 
bottle except when actually in use. V 

(4) Alkaline phosphate buffer solution (0.01 M 
trisodium phosphate, pH = 11.72 at 25°C 



PART 571; S 116-10 



(77°F)). Dissolve 1.42g of anhydrous disodium 
hydrogen phosphate (NaaHPO^) in 100 ml of a 
0.1 M carbonate-free solution of sodium hydrox- 
ide. Dilute to 1 liter with distilled water. 

(5) Potassium chloride electrolyte. Prepare a 
saturated solution of potassium chloride (KCl) in 
distilled water. 

(c) Ethanol-water mixture. To 80 parts by 
volume of ethanol (S7.3) add 20 parts by volume of 
distilled water. Adjust the pH of the mixture to 
7.0 ±0.1 using 0.1 N sodium hydroxide (NaOH) 
solution. If more than 4.0 ml of NaOH solution 
per liter of mixture is required for neutralization, 
discard the mixture. 

56.4.4 Preparation of electrode system. 

(a) Maintenance of electrodes. Clean the glass 
electrode before using by immersing in cold 
chromic-acid cleaning solution. Drain the calomel 
electrode and fill with KCl electrolyte, keeping 
level above that of the mixture at all times. When 
not in use, immerse the lower halves of the elec- 
trodes in distilled water, and do not immerse in the 
mixture for any appreciable period of time between 

f determinations. 

(b) Preparation of electrodes. Condition new 
glass electrodes and those that have been stored 
dry as recommended by the manufacturer. Before 
and after using, wipe the glass electrode 
thoroughly with a clean cloth, or a soft absorbent 
tissue, and rinse with distilled water. Before each 
pH determination, soak the prepared electrode in 
distilled water for at least 2 minutes. Immediately 
before use, remove any excess water from the tips 
of the electrode. 

56.4.5 Standardization of the pH assembly and 
testing of the electrodes. 

(a) Immediately before use, standardize the pH 
assembly with a standard buffer solution. Then use 
a second standard buffer solution to check the 
linearity of the response of the electrodes at 
different pH values, and to detect a faulty glass 
electrode or incorrect temperature compensation. 
The two buffer solutions bracket the anticipated 
pH value of the test brake fluid. 

(b) Allow instrument to warm up, and adjust 
according to the manufacturer's instructions. 

^ Immerse the tips of the electrodes in a standard 

W buffer solution and allow the temperature of the 

buffer solution and the electrodes to equalize. Set 

the temperature knob at the temperature of the 



buffer solution. Adjust the standardization or 
asymmetry potential control until the meter 
registers a scale reading, in pH units, equal to the 
known pH of the standardizing buffer solution. 

(c) Rinse the electrodes with distilled water and 
remove excess water from the tips. Immerse the 
electrodes in a second standard buffer solution. The 
reading of the meter shall agree with the known pH 
of the second standard buffer solution within ±0.05 
unit without changing the setting of the standardiza- 
tion of asymmetry potential control. 

(d) A faulty electrode is indicated by failure to 
obtain a correct value for the pH of the second 
standard buffer solution after the meter has been 
standardized with the first. 

S6.4.6 Procedure. To 50 ±1 ml of the test 
brake fluid add 50 ±1 ml of the ethanol-water 
(S6.4.3(c)) and mix thoroughly. Immerse the elec- 
trodes in the mixture. Allow the system to come to 
equilibrium, readjust the temperature compensa- 
tion if necessary, and take the pH reading. 

S6.5 Fluid stability. Evaluate the heat and 
chemical stability of a brake fluid by the following 
procedure, running duplicate samples for each test 
and averaging the results. 

56.5.1 Summary of the procedure. The degradation 
of the brake fluid at elevated temperature, alone or in 
a mixture with a reference fluid, is evaluated by 
determining the change in boiling point after a period 
of heating under reflux conditions. 

56.5.2 Apparatus. Use the apparatus and 
preparation specified in S6.1.2 and S6.1.3. 

56.5.3 High temperature stability. 
S6.5.3.1 Procedure. 

(a) Heat a new 60 ±1 ml sample of the brake 
fluid to 185±2°C (365±3.6°F). Hold at this 
temperature for 120 ±5 minutes. Bring to a reflux 
rate in excess of 1 drop per second within 5 
minutes. The reflux rate should not exceed 5 drops 
per second at any time. Over the next 5 ± 2 minutes 
adjust the heating rate to obtain an equilibrium 
reflux rate of 1 to 2 drops per second. Maintain this 
rate for an additional 2 minutes, taking 4 
temperature readings at 30-second intervals. 
Average these as the observed ERBP. If no reflux 
is evident when the fluid temperature reaches 
260° C (500°F), discontinue heating and report 
ERBP as in excess of 260°C (500°F). 



PART 571; S 116-11 



S6.5.3.2 Calculation. Correct the observed 
ERBP for thermometer and barometric pressure 
factors according to S6. 1.5(a) and (b). Average the 
corrected ERBP's of the dupHcate samples. The 
difference between this average and the original 
ERBP obtained in S6.1 is the change in ERBP of 
the fluid. 



S6.5.4 Chemical stability. 

56.5.4.1 Materials. 

SAE RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid, as de- 
scribed in Appendix A of SAE Standard J 1703 
Nov83, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid, November 
1983. (56 F.R. 11107-March 15, 1991. Effective: 
September 11, 1991)] 

56.5.4.2 Procedure. 

1(a) Mix 30 ± 1 ml of the brake fluid with 30 ± 1 
ml of SAE RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid in a boil- 
ing point flask (S6.1.2(a)). Determine the initial 
ERBP of the mixture by applying heat to the flask 
so that the fluid is refluxing in 10 ± 2 minutes at a 
rate in excess of 1 drop per second, but not more 
than 5 drops per second. Note the maximum fluid 
temperature observed during the first minute after 
the fluid begins refluxing at a rate in excess of 1 
drop per second. Over the next 15 ±1 minutes, 
adjust and maintain the reflux rate at 1 to 2 drops 
per second. Maintain this rate for an additional 2 
minutes, recording the average value of four 
temperature readings taken at 30-second intervals 
as the final ERBP. 

(b) Thermometer and barometric corrections 
are not required. (56 F.R. 11107— March 15, 1991. 
Effective: September 11, 1991)] 

56.5.4.3 Calculation. The difference between 
the initial ERBP and the final average 
temperature is the change in temperature of the 
refluxing mixture. Average the results of the 
duplicates to the nearest 0.5°C (1°F). 



S6.6 Corrosion. Evaluate the corrosiveness of a 
brake fluid by running duplicate samples according 
to the following procedure. 



S6.6.1 Summary of the procedure. Six specified 
metal corrosion test strips are polished, cleaned, 
and weighed, then assembled as described. 
Assembly is placed on a standard wheel cylinder 
cup in a corrosion test jar, immersed in the water- 
wet brake fluid, capped and placed in an oven at 
100°C (212°F) for 120 hours. Upon removal and 
cooling, the strips, fluid, and cups are examined 
and tested. 



S6.6.2 Equipment. 

(a) Balance. An analytical balance having a 
minimum capacity of 50 grams and capable of 
weighing to the nearest 0.1 mg. 

(b) Desiccators. Desiccators containing silica 
gel or other suitable desiccant. 

(c) Oven. Gravity convection oven capable of 
maintaining the desired set point within 2°C 
(3.6°F). 

(d) Micrometer. A machinist's micrometer 25 

to 50 mm (1 to 2 inches) capacity, or an optical com- L 
parator, capable of measuring the diameter of the 
SBR wheel cylinder (WC) cups to the nearest 0.02 
mm (0.001 inch). 

S6.6.3 lUlaterials. 

(a) Corrosion test strips. Two sets of strips 
from each of the metals listed in Appendix C of 
SAE Standard J1703b. Each strip shall be ap- 
proximately 8 cm long, 1.3 cm wide, not more than 
0.6 cm thick, and have a surface area of 25 ±5 sq 
cm and a hole 4 to 5 mm (0.16 to 0.20 inch) in 
diameter on the centerline about 6 mm from one 
end. The hole shall be clean and free from 
burrs. Tinned iron strips shall be unused. Other 
strips, if used, shall not be employed if they cannot 
be polished to a high finish. 

(b) SBR cups. Two unused standard SAE SBR 
wheel cylinder (WC) cups, as specified in S7.6. 

(c) Corrosion test jars and lids. Two screw-top 
straight-sided round glass jars, each having a 
capacity of approximately 475 ml and inner dimen- 
sions of approximately 100 mm in height and 75 
mm in diameter, and a tinned steel lid (no insert or ^ 
organic coating) vented with a hole 0.8 ±0.1 mm 
(0.031 ±0.004 inch) in diameter (No. 68 drill). 



(Rev. 3/15/91) 



PART 571; S 116-12 



(d) Machine screws and nuts. Clean, rust and oil- 
free, uncoated mild steel round or fillister head 
machine screws, size 6 or 8-32 UNC-Class 2A, % or 
% inch long (or equivalent metric sizes), and 
matching uncoated nuts. 

(e) Supplies for polishing strips. Waterproof 
silicon carbide paper, grit No. 320 A; grade 00 steel 
wool, lint-free polishing cloth. 

(f) Distilled water as specified in S7.1. 

(g) Ethanol as specified in S7.3. 

(h) Isopropanol as specified in S7.7. 

S6.6.4 Preparation. 

(a) Corrosion test strips. Except for the tinned 
iron strips, abrade corrosion test strips on all sur- 
face areas with silicon carbide paper wet with 
ethanol (isopropanol when testing |DOT 5 SBBFJ 
fluids) until all surface scratches, cuts and pits are 
removed. Use a new piece of paper for each dif- 
ferent type of metal. Polish the strips with the 00 
grade steel wool. Wash all strips, including the 
tinned iron and the assembly hardware, with 
ethanol; dry the strips and assembly hardware 
with a clean lint-free cloth or use filtered com- 
pressed air and place the strips and hardware in a 
desiccator containing silica gel or other suitable 
desiccant and maintained at 23±5°C (73.4 ±9°F), 
for at least one hour. Handle the strips with 
forceps after polishing. Weigh and record the 
weight of each strip to the nearest 0.1 mg. Assem- 
ble the strips on a clean dry machine screw, with 
matching plain nut, in the order of tinned iron, 
steel, aluminum, cast iron, brass, and copper. Bend 
the strips, other than the cast iron, so that there is 
a separation of 3 ± ^ mm (Vg ± ^4 inch) between ad- 
jacent strips for a distance of about 5 cm (2 inches) 
from the free end of the strips. (See Figure 4.) 
Tighten the screw on each test strip assembly so 
that the strips are in electrolytic contact, and can 
be lifted by either of the outer strips (tinned iron or 
copper) without any of the strips moving relative 
to the others when held horizontally. Immerse the 
strip assemblies in 90 percent ethyl alcohol. Dry 
with dried filtered compressed air, then desiccate 
at least one hour before use. 

(b) SBR WC cups. Measure the base diameters of 
the 2 standard SBR cups, using an optical com- 
parator or micrometer, to the nearest 0.02 mm 
(0.001 inch) along the centerline of the SAE and 
rubber-type identifications and at right angles to 
this centerline. Take the measurements at least 0.4 
mm (0.015 inch) above the bottom edge and 
parallel to the base of the cup. Discard any cup if 



t— 3 mm (TYPICAL SPACING 
CAST BETWEEN STRIPS) 




6o(i 8-32x5/8 UNCOATED^ 
MILD STEEL RD HD 
MACH SCREW i NUT 



FIG. 4 
CORROSION STRIP ASSEMBLY 

the two measured diameters differ by more than 
0.08 mm (0.003 inch). Average the two readings on 
each cup. Determine the hardness of the cups 
according to S7.4. 

S6.6.5 Procedure. Rinse the cups in ethanol 
(isopropanol when testing [DOT 5 SBBFI fluids) 
for not more than 30 seconds and wipe dry with a 
clean lint-free cloth. Place one cup with lip edge 
facing up in each jar. Insert a metal strip assembly 
inside each cup with the fastened end down and the 
free end extending upward. (See Figure 5.) [When 
testing brake fluids, except DOT 5 SBBF, mix 760 
ml of brake fluid with 40 ml of distilled water. 
When testing DOT 5 SBBFs, humidify 800 ml of 
brake fluid in accordance with S6.2, eliminating 
determination of the ERBP. Using this water-wet 
mixture, cover each strip assembly to a minimum 
depth of 10 mm above the tops of the strips. (56 
F.R. 11107— March 15, 1991. Effective: September 11, 
1991)1 Tighten the lids and place the jars for 
120 ±2 hours in an oven maintained at 100±2°C 
(212±3.6°F). Allow the jars to cool at 23±5°C 
(73.4 ±9°F) for 60 to 90 minutes. Immediately 
remove the strips from the jars using forceps, 
agitating the strip assembly in the fluid to remove 
adhering sediment. Examine the test strips and 
jars for adhering crystalline deposits. Disassemble 
the metal strips, and remove adhering fluid by 
flushing with water; clean each strip by wiping 
with a clean cloth wetted with ethanol. Examine 
the strips for evidence of corrosion and pitting. 
Disregard staining or discoloration. Place the 



(Rev. 3/1S/91) 



PART 571; S 116-13 



0.8±0lmm DIA VENT 



F= 




' — TINNED 

_coj^_j__n£io_iim _;^ ^^f^"- LID 




— ~475ml 

GLASS JAR 



75mm MIN DIA 



FIG. 5 

CORROSION TEST 

APPARATUS 



strips in a desiccator containing silica gel or other 
suitable desiccant, maintained at 23±5°C 
(73.4 ± 9°F), for at least 1 hour. Weigh each strip to 
the nearest 0.1 mg. Determine the change in 
weight of each metal strip. Average the results for 
the two strips of each type of metal. Immediately 
following the cooling period, remove the cups from 
the jars with forceps. Remove loose adhering sedi- 
ment by agitation of the cups in the mixture. Rinse 
the cups in ethanol and air-dry. Examine the cups 
for evidence of sloughing, blisters, and other forms 
of disintegration. Measure the base diameter and 
hardness of each cup within 15 minutes after 
removal from the mixture. Examine the mixture 
for gelling. Agitate the mixture to suspend and 
uniformly disperse sediment. From each jar, 
transfer a 100 ml portion of the mixture to an 
ASTM cone-shaped centrifuge tube. [Measure the 
pH value of the corrosion test fluid according to 
S6.4.6. Measure the pH value of the test mixture 
according to S6.4.6. (56 F.R. 11107— March 15. 
1991. Effective: September 11, 1991)1 

S6.6.6 Calculation. 

(a) Measure the area of each type of test strip to 
the nearest square centimeter. Divide the average 
change in weight for each type by the area of that 
type. 



(b) Note other data and evaluations indicating 
compliance with S5.1.6. In the event of a marginal 
pass on inspection by attributes, or of a failure in 
one of the duplicates, run another set of duplicate 
samples. Both repeat samples shall meet all 
requirements of S5.1.6. 

S6.7 Fluidity and appearance at low temperatures. 

Determine the fluidity and appearance of a sample 
of brake fluid at each of two selected temperatures 
by the following procedure. 

56.7.1 Summary of procedure. Brake fluid is 
chilled to expected minimum exposure 
temperatures and observed for clarity, gellation, 
sediment, separation of components, excessive 
viscosity or thixotropy. 

56.7.2 Apparatus. 

(a) Oil sample bottle. Two clear flint glass 
4-ounce bottles made especially for sampling oil 
and other liquids, with a capacity of approximately 
125 ml, an outside diameter of 37.0 ± 0.05 mm and 

an overall height of 165 ±2.5 mm. . 

(b) Cold chamber. An air bath cold chamber 1 
capable of maintaining storage temperatures down 

to minus 55°C (minus 67°F) with an accuracy 
of±2°C(3.6°F). 

(c) Timing device. A timing device in accordance 
with S6.3.2(e). 

56.7.3 Procedure. 

(a) Place 100 ±1 ml of brake fluid at room 
temperature in an oil sample bottle. Stopper the 
bottle with an unused cork and place in the cold 
chamber at the higher storage temperature 
specified in Table II (S5.1.7(c)). After 144±4 hours 
remove the bottle from the chamber, quickly wipe 
it with a clean, lint-free cloth, saturated with 
ethanol (isopropanol when testing DOT 5 fluids) or 
acetone. Examine the fluid for evidence of sludg- 
ing, sedimentation, crystallization, or stratifica- 
tion. Invert the bottle and determine the number 
of seconds required for the air bubble to travel to 
the top of the fluid. Let sample warm to room 
temperature and examine. 

(b) Repeat S6.7.3(a), substituting the lower cold 
chamber temperature specified in Table II, and a ^ 
storage period of 6 hours ±12 minutes. Note: Test ► 
specimens from either storage temperature may 

be used for the other only after warming up to 
room temperature. 



(Rev. 3/15/91) 



PART 571; S 116-14 



S6.8 Evaporation. The evaporation residue, and 
pour point of the evaporation residue of brake 
fluid, are determined by the following procedure. 
Four replicate samples are run. 

56.8.1 Summary of the procedure. The volatile 
diluent portion of a brake fluid is evaporated in an 
oven at 100°C (212°F). The non-volatile lubricant 
portion (evaporation residue) is measured and 
examined for grittiness; the residues are then com- 
bined and checked to assure fluidity at minus 5°C 
(23°F). 

56.8.2 Apparatus. 

(a) Petri dishes. Four covered glass petri dishes 
approximately 100 mm in diameter and 15 mm in 
height. 

(b) Oven. A top-vented gravity-convection oven 
capable of maintaining a temperature of 100±2°C 
(212±3.6°F). 

(c) Balance. A balance having a capacity of at 
least 100 grams, capable of weighing to the nearest 
0.01 gram, and suitable for weighing the petri 
dishes. 

(d) Oil sample bottle. A glass sample bottle as 
described in S6.7.2(a). 

(e) Cold chamber. Air bath cold chamber capable 
of maintaining an oil sample bottle at minus 5 ± 1° 
C(23±2°F). 

(f ) Timing device. A timing device as described 
in S6.3.2(e). 

56.8.3 Procedure. Obtain the tare weight of 
each of the four covered petri dishes to the nearest 
0.01 gram. Place 25 ± 1 ml of brake fluid in each 
dish, replace proper covers and reweigh. Deter- 
mine the weight of each brake fluid test specimen 
by the difference. Place the four dishes, each inside 
its inverted cover, in the oven at 100±2°C 
(212±3.6°F) for 46 ±2 hours. (Note: Do not 
simultaneously heat more than one fluid in the 
same oven.) Remove the dishes from the oven, 
allow to cool to 23±5°C (73.4 ±9°F), and weigh. 
Return to the oven for an additional 24 ± 2 hours. If 
at the end of 72 ±4 hours the average loss by 
evaporation is less than 60 percent, discontinue the 
evaporation procedure and proceed with examina- 
tion of the residue. Otherwise, continue this pro- 
cedure either until equilibrium is reached as 
evidenced by an incremental weight loss of less 
than 0.25 gram in 24 hours on all individual dishes 
or for a maximum of 7 days. During the heating 



and weighing operation, if it is necessary to 
remove the dishes from the oven for a period of 
longer than 1 hour, the dishes shall be stored in a 
desiccator as soon as cooled to room temperature. 
Calculate the percentage of fluid evaporated from 
each dish. Examine the residue in the dishes at the 
end of 1 hour at 23 ± 5°C (73.4 ± 9°F). Rub any sedi- 
ment with the fingertip to determine grittiness or 
abrasiveness. Combine the residues from all four 
dishes in a 4-ounce oil sample bottle and store ver- 
tically in a cold chamber at minus 5 ± 1 °C (23 ± 2°F) 
for 60± 10 minutes. Quickly remove the bottle and 
place in the horizontal position. The residue must 
flow at least 5 mm (0.2 inch) along the tube within 
5 seconds. 

S6.8.4 Calculation. The average of the percen- 
tage evaporated from all four dishes is the loss by 
evaporation. 

S6.9 Water tolerance. Evaluate the water 
tolerance characteristics of a brake fluid by run- 
ning one test specimen according to the following 
procedure. 

56.9.1 Summary of the procedure. 

IBrake fluid, except DOT 5 SBBF, is diluted with 
3.5 percent water (DOT 5 SBBF is humidified), 
then stored at minus 40°C (minus 40°F) for 120 
hours. The cold, water-wet fluid is first examined 
for clarity, stratification, and sedimentation, then 
placed in an oven at 60°C (140°F) for 24 hours. On 
removal, it is again examined for stratification, 
and the volume percent of sediment determined by 
centrifuging. (56 F.R. 11107— March 15, 1991. Ef- 
fective: September 11, 1991)1 

56.9.2 Apparatus. 

(a) Centrifuge tube. See S7.5.1(a). 

(b) Centrifuge. See S7.5.1(b). 

(c) Cold chamber. See S6. 7.2(b). 

(d) Oven. Gravity or forced convection oven. 

(e) Timing device. See S6.3.2(e). 

56.9.3 Procedure. 

(a) At low temperature. Humidify 100 ±1 ml of 
DOT 5 ISBBFl brake fluid in accordance with S6.2 
eliminating determination of the ERBP. When 
testing brake fluids lexcept DOT 5 SBBFJ, mix 
3.5 ±0.1 ml. of distilled water with 100 ± 1 ml of the 
brake fluid; pour into a centrifuge tube. Stopper 
the tube with a clean cork and place in the cold 
chamber maintained at minus 40±2°C (minus 
40±3.6°F). After 120 ±2 hours remove the tube 



PART 571; S 116-15 



quickly wipe with clean lint-free cloth saturated 
with ethanol or acetone and examine the fluid, for 
evidence of sludging, sedimentation, crystalliza- 
tion, or stratification. Invert the tube and deter- 
mine the number of seconds required for the air 
bubble to travel to the top of the fluid. (The air bub- 
ble is considered to have reached the top of the 
fluid when the top of the bubble reaches the 2 ml 
graduation of the centrifuge tube.) If the wet fluid 
has become cloudy, warm to 23±5°C (73.4 ±9°F) 
and note appearance and fluidity. 

(b) At 60°C (UO°F). Place tube and brake fluid 
from S6.9.3(a) in an oven maintained at 60±2°C 
(140 ± 2.6°F) for 24 ± 2 hours. Remove the tube and 
immediately examine the contents for evidence of 
stratification. Determine the percent sediment by 
centrifuging as described in S7.5. 

S6.10 Compatibility. The compatibility of a 
brake fluid with other brake fluids shall be 
evaluated by running one test sample according to 
the following procedure. 

56.10.1 Summary of the procedure. 

IBrake fluid is mixed with an equal volume of 
SAE RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid, then tested in 
the same way as for water tolerance (S6.9) except 
that the bubble flow time is not measured. This test 
is an indication of the compatibility of the test fluid 
with other motor vehicle brake fluids at both high 
and low temperatures. (56 F.R. 11107— March 15, 
1991. Effective: September 11, 1991)1 

56.10.2 Apparatus and materials. 

(a) Centrifuge tube. See S7.5.1(a). 

(b) Centrifuge. See S7.5.1(b). 

(c) Cold chamber. See S6.7.2(b). 

(d) Oven. See S6.9.2(d). 

(e) SAE RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid. [As 
described in Appendix A of SAE Standard J1703 
Nov83, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid, November 
1983. (56 F.R. 11107— March 15, 1991. Effective: 
September 11. 1991)1 

56.10.3 Procedure. 

(a) At low temperature. 

IMix 50 ± 0.5 ml of brake fluid with 50 ± 0.5 ml of 
SAE RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid. Pour this 
mixture into a centrifuge tube and stopper with a 



clean dry cork. Place tube in the cold chamber 
maintained at minus 40±2°C (minus 40±3.6°F). 
After 24 ±2 hours, remove tube, quickly wipe with 
a clean lint-free cloth saturated with ethanol 
(isopropanol when testing DOT 5 fluids) or 
acetone. Examine the test specimen for evidence 
of sludging, sedimentation, or crystallization. Test 
fluids, except DOT 5 SBBF, shall be examined for 
stratification. 

(b) At 60°C (UO°F). 
Place tube and test fluid from S6.10.3(a) for 24 ±2 
hours in an oven maintained at 60±2°C 
(140±3.6°F). Remove the tube and immediately 
examine the contents of the test mixtures, except 
DOT 5 SBBFs, for evidence of stratification. 
Determine percent sediment by centrifuging as 
described in S7.5. (56 F.R. 11107-March 15, 1991. 
Effective: September 11, 1991)1 



S6.11 Resistance to oxidation. The stability of a 
brake fluid under oxidative conditions shall be 
evaluated by running duplicate samples according 
to the following procedure. 

56.11.1 Summary of the procedure. 

[Brake fluids, except DOT 5 SBBF, are activated 
with a mixture of approximately 0.2 percent ben- 
zoyl peroxide and 5 percent water. DOT 5 SBBF is 
humidified in accordance with S6.2 eliminating 
determination of the ERBP, and then approx- 
imately 0.2 percent benzoyl peroxide is added. A 
corrosion test strip assembly consisting of cast 
iron and an aluminum strip separated by tinfoil 
squares at each end is then rested on a piece of 
SBR WC cup positioned so that the test strip is half 
immersed in the fluid and oven-aged at 70 °C 
(158°F) for 168 hours. At the end of this period, the 
metal strips are examined for pitting, etching, and 
weight loss. (56 F.R. 11107— March 15, 1991. Effec- 
tive: September 11, 1991)1 

56.11.2 Equipment. 

(a) Balance. See S6.6.2(a). 

(b) Desiccators. See S6.6.2(b). 

(c) Oven. See S6.6.2(c). 

(d) Three glass test tubes approximately 22 
mm outside diameter by 175 mm in length. 



(Rev. 3/15/91) 



PART 571; S 116-16 



mj S6.11.3 Reagents and materials. 

(a) Benzoyl peroxide, reagent grade, 96 percent. 
(Benzoyl peroxide that is brownish, or dusty, or 
has less than 90 percent purity, must be discarded.) 
Reagent strength may be evaluated by ASTM 
E298-68, Standard Methods for Assay of Organic 
Peroxides. 

(b) Corrosion test strips. Two sets of cast iron 
and aluminum metal test strips as described in 
Appendix C of SAE Standard J1703b. 

(c) Tinfoil. Four unused pieces of tinfoil ap- 
proximately 12 mm (Vz inch) square and between 
0.02 and 0.06 mm (0.0008 and 0.0024 inch) in 
thickness. The foil shall be at least 99.9 percent tin 
and contain not more than 0.024 percent lead. 

(d) SBR cups. Two unused, approximately one- 
eight sections of a standard SAE SBR WC cup (as 
described in S7.6). 

(e) Machine screw and nut. Two clean oilfree, 
No. 6 or 8-32 x % or V2 inch long (or equivalent 
metric size), round or fillister head, uncoated mild 
steel machine screws, with matching plain nuts. 

56.11.4 Preparation. 

P (a) Corrosion test strips. Prepare two sets of 

aluminum and cast iron tests strips according to 
S6.6.4(a) except for assembly. Weigh each strip to 
the nearest 0.1 mg and assemble a strip of each 
metal on a machine screw, separating the strips at 
each end with a piece of tinfoil. Tighten the nut 
enough to hold both pieces of foil firmly in place, 
(b) Test mixture. IPlace 30 ± 1 ml of the brake 
fluid under test in a 22 by 175 mm test tube. For all 
fluids except DOT 5 SBBF, add 0.060 ± .002 grams 
of benzoyl peroxide, and 1.50 ±0.05 ml of distilled 
water. For DOT 5 SBBF, use test fluid humidified 
in accordance with S6.2, and add only the benzoyl 
peroxide. Stopper the tube loosely with a clean dry 
cork, shake, and place in an oven for 2 hours at 
70±2°C (158±3.6°F). Shake every 15 minutes to 
effect solution of the peroxide, but do not wet cork. 
Remove the tube from the oven and allow to cool to 
23±5°C (73.4 ±9°F). Begin testing according to 
paragraph S6.11.5 not later than 24 hours after 
removal of tube from oven. (56 F.R. 11107— March 
15, 1991. Effective: September 11, 1991)1 

56.11.5 Procedure. Place a one-eighth SBR 
cup section in the bottom of each tube. Add 10 ml 

^ of prepared test mixture to each test tube. Place a 
metal-strip assembly in each, the end of the strip 
without the screw resting on the rubber, and the 



solution covering about one-half the length of the 
strips. Stopper the tubes with clean dry corks and 
store upright for 70 ±2 hours at 23±5°C 
(73.4 ±9°F). Loosen the corks and place the tubes 
for 168 ± 2 hours in an oven maintained at 70 ± 2°C 
(158±3.6°F). Afterwards remove and disassemble 
strips. Examine the strips and note any gum 
deposits. Wipe the strips with a clean cloth wet 
with ethanol (isopropanol when testing DOT 5 
fluids) and note any pitting, etching or roughening 
of surface, disregarding stain or discoloration. 
Place the strips in a desiccator over silica gel or 
other suitable desiccant, at 23 ± 5°C (73.4 ± 9°F) for 
at least 1 hour. Again weigh each strip to the 
nearest 0.1 mg. 

S6.11.6 Calculation. Determine corrosion loss 
by dividing the change in weight of each metal 
strip by the total surface area of each strip 
measured in square centimeters, to the nearest 
square centimeter. Average the results for the two 
strips of each type of metal, rounding to the 
nearest 0.05 mg per square centimeter. If only one 
of the duplicates fails for any reason, run a second 
set of duplicate samples. Both repeat samples shall 
meet all requirements of S5. 1.11. 

S6.12 Effect on SBR cups. The effects of a 
brake fluid in swelling, softening, and otherwise af- 
fecting standard SBR WC cups shall be evaluated 
by the following procedure. 

56.12.1 Summary of the procedure. Four stand- 
ard SAE SBR WC cups are measured and their 
hardnesses determined. The cups, two to a jar, are 
immersed in the test brake fluid. One jar is heated 
for 70 hours at 70°C (158°F), and the other for 70 
hours at 120°C (248°F). Afterwards, the cups are 
washed, examined for disintegration, remeasured, 
and their hardnesses redetermined. 

56.12.2 Equipment and supplies. 

(a) Oven. See S6.6.2(c). 

(b) Glass jars and lids. Two screw-top, 
straight-sided round glass jars, each having a 
capacity of approximately 250 ml and inner dimen- 
sions of approximately 125 mm in height and 50 
mm in diameter, and a tinned steel lid (no insert or 
organic coating). 

(c) SBR cups. See S7.6. 

56.12.3 Preparation. Measure the base diam- 
eters of the SBR cups as described in S6. 6.4(b), and 
the hardness of each as described in S7.4. 



PART 571; S 116-17 



56.12.4 Procedure. Wash the cups in 90 percent 
ethanol (isopropanol when testing DOT 5 fluids) 
(see S7.3), for not longer than 30 seconds and 
quickly dry with a clean, lint-free cloth. Using 
forceps, place two cups into each of the two jars; 
add 75 ml of brake fluid to each jar and cap tightly. 
Place one jar in an oven held at 70°±2°C 
(158±3.6°F) for 70 ±2 hours. Place the other jar in 
an oven held at 120±2°C (248±3.6°F) for 70 ±2 
hours. Allow each jar to cool for 60 to 90 minutes at 
23±5°C (73.4 ±9°F). Remove cups, wash with 
ethanol for not longer than 30 seconds, and quickly 
dry. Examine the cups for disintegration as 
evidenced by stickiness, blisters, or sloughing. 
Measure the base diameter and hardness of each 
cup within 15 minutes after removal from the 
fluid. 

56.12.5 Calculation. 

(a) Calculate the change in base diameter for 
each cup. If the two values, at each temperature, 
do not differ by more than 0.10 mm (0.004 inch) 
average them to the nearest 0.02 mm (0.001 inch). 
If the two values differ by more than 0.10 mm, 
repeat the test at the appropriate temperature and 
average the four values as the change in base 
diameter. 

(b) Calculate the change in hardness for each 
cup. The average of the two values for each pair is 
the change in hardness. 

(c) Note disintegration as evidenced by 
stickiness, blisters, or sloughing. 

S6.13 Stroking properties. Evaluate the 
lubricating properties, component compatibility, 
resistance to leakage, and related qualities of a 
brake fluid by running one sample according to the 
following procedures. 

IS6.13.1 Summary of the procedure. Brake fluid is 
stroked under controlled conditions at an elevated 
temperature in a simulated motor vehicle hydraulic 
braking system consisting of three slave wheel 
cylinders and an actuating master cylinder con- 
nected by steel tubing. Referee standard parts are 
used. All parts are carefully cleaned, examined, 
and certain measurements made immediately prior 
to assembly for test. During the test, temperature, 
rate of pressure rise, maximum pressure, and rate 
of stroking are specified and controlled. The 
system is examined periodically during stroking to 



assure that excessive leakage of fluid is not occur- 
ring. Afterwards, the system is torn down. Metal 
parts and SBR cups are examined and remeasured. 
The brake fluid and any resultant sludge and debris 
are collected, examined, and tested. 

S6.13.2 Apparatus and equipment. 

Either the drum and shoe type of stroking 
apparatus (see Figure 1 of SAE Standard J1703b) 
except using only three sets of drum and shoe 
assemblies, or the stroking fixture type apparatus 
as shown in Figure 2 of SAE J1703, November 
1983, with the components arranged as shown in 
Figure 1 of SAE J1703, November 1983. The 
following components are required. 

(a) Brake assemblies. With the drum and shoe 
apparatus: three drum and shoe assembly units 
(SAE RM-29a) consisting of three forward brake 
shoes and three reverse brake shoes with linings 
and three front wheel brake drum assemblies with 
assembly component parts. With stroking fixture 
type apparatus: three fixture units including 
appropriate adapter mounting plates to hold brake 
wheel cylinder assemblies. (51 F.R. 16699— May 6, 
1986. Effective: May 6, 1986)1 

(b) Braking pressure actuation mechanism. An 
actuating mechanism for applying a force to the 
master cylinder pushrod without side thrust. The 
amount of force applied by the actuating 
mechanism shall be adjustable and capable of 
applying sufficient thrust to the master cylinder to 
create a pressure of at least 70 kg/sq cm (1,000 psi) 
in the simulated brake system. A hydraulic gauge 
or pressure recorder, having a range of at least 
to 70 kg/sq cm (0 to 1,000 psi), shall be installed 
between the master cylinder and the brake 
assemblies and shall be provided with a shut-off 
valve and with a bleeding valve for removing air 
from the connecting tubing. The actuating 
mechanism shall be designed to permit adjustable 
stroking rates of approximately 1,000 strokes per 
hour. Use a mechanical or electrical counter to 
record the total number of strokes. 

((c) Heated air bath cabinet. An insulated 
cabinet or oven having sufficient capacity to house 
the three mounted brake assemblies or stroking 
fixture assemblies, master cylinder, and necessary 
connections. A thermostatically controlled heating 
system is required to maintain a temperature of 
70±5°C (158±9°F) or 120±5°C (248±9°F). 
Heaters shall be shielded to prevent direct radia- 
tion to wheel or master cylinder. (51 F.R. 
16699— May 6. 1986. Effective: May 6, 



PART 571; S 116-18 



(d) Master cylinder (MC) assembly (SAE 
RM-15a). One cast iron housing hydraulic brake 
system cylinder having a diameter of approximately 
28 mm {lYs inch) and fitted for a filler cap and 
standpipe (see S6. 13.2(e)). The MC piston shall be 
made from SAE CA360 copperbase alloy (half 
hard). A new MC assembly is required for each 
test. 

(e) Filler cap and standpipe. MC filler cap 
provided with a glass or uncoated steel standpipe. 
Standpipe must provide adequate volume for 
thermal expansion, yet permit measurement and 
adjustment of the fluid level in the system to ± 3 ml 
Cap and standpipe may be cleaned and reused. 

1(f) Wheel cylinder (WC) assemblies (SAE 
RM-Ua). Three unused cast iron housing straight 
bore hydraulic brake WC assemblies having 
diameters of approximately 28 mm (IJ^ inch) for 
each test. Pistons shall be made from unanodized 
SAE AA2024 aluminum alloy. (51 F.R. 16699— May 
6. 1986. Effective: May 6, 1986)1 

(g) Micrometer. Same as S6. 6.2(d). 

56.13.3 Materials. 

[(a) Standard SBR brake cups. Six standard SAE 
SBR wheel cylinder test cups, one primary test cup, 
and one secondary MC test cup, all as described in 
S7.6, for each test. (51 F.R. 16699— May 6, 1986. 
Effective: May 6, 1986)1 

(b) Steel tubing. Double wall steel tubing 
meeting SAE specification J527. A complete 
replacement of tubing is essential when visual 
inspection indicates any corrosion or deposits on 
inner surface of tubing. Tubing from master 
cylinder to one wheel cylinder shall be replaced for 
each test (minimum length 3 feet). Uniformity in 
tubing size is required between master cylinder 
and wheel cylinder. The standard master cylinder 
has two outlets for tubing, both of which must be 
used. 

56.13.4 Preparation of test apparatus. 

(a) Wheel cylinder assemblies. Use unused wheel 
cylinder assemblies. Disassemble cylinders and 
discard cups. Clean all metal parts with ethanol 
(ispropanol when testing DOT 5 fluids). Inspect 
the working surfaces of all metal parts for 
scoring, galling, or pitting and cylinder bore 
roughness, and discard all defective parts. Remove 
any stains on cylinder walls with crocus cloth and 
ethanol. If stains cannot be removed, discard the 
cylinder. Measure the internal diameter of each 



cylinder at a location approximately 19mm (0.75 
inch) from each end of the cylinder bore, taking 
measurements in line with the hydraulic inlet open- 
ing and at right angles to this centerline. Discard 
the cylinder if any of these four readings exceeds 
the maximum or minimum limits of 28.66 to 28.60 
mm (1.128 to 1.126 inches). Measure the outside 
diameter of each piston at two points approximately 
90 degrees apart. Discard any piston if either 
reading exceeds the maximum or minimum limits 
of 28.55 to 28.52 mm (1.124 to 1.123 inches). Select 
parts to insure that the clearance between each 
piston and matching cylinder is within 0.08 to 0.13 
mm (0.003 to 0.005 inch). Use unused SBR cups. 
To remove dirt and debris, rinse the cups in 90 per- 
cent ethyl alcohol for not more than 30 seconds and 
wipe dry with a clean lint-free cloth. Discard any 
cups showing defects such as cuts, molding flaws, 
or blisters. Measure the lip and base diameters of 
all cups with an optical comparator or micrometer 
to the nearest 0.02 mm (0.001 inch) along the 
centerline of the SAE and rubber-type indentifica- 
tions and at right angles to this centerline. Deter- 
mine base diameter measurements at least 0.4 mm 
(0.015 inch) above the bottom edge and parallel to 
the base of the cup. Discard any cup if the two 
measured lip or base diameters differ by more than 
0.08 mm (0.003 inch). Average the lip and base 
diameters of each cup. Determine the hardness of 
all cups according to S7.4. Dip the rubber and 
metal parts of wheel cylinders, except housing and 
rubber boots, in the fluid to be tested and install 
them in accordance with the manufacturer's in- 
structions. Manually stroke the cylinders to insure 
that they operate easily. Install cylinders in the 
simulated brake system. 

(b) Master cylinder assembly. Use an unused 
master cylinder and unused standard SBR primary 
and secondary MC cups which have been in- 
spected, measured and cleaned in the manner 
specified in S6. 13.4(a), omitting hardness of the 
secondary MC cup. However, prior to determining 
the lip and base diameters of the secondary cup, 
dip the cup in test brake fluid, assemble on the MC 
piston, and maintain the assembly in a vertical 
position at 23±5°C (73.4 ±9°F) for at least 12 
hours. Inspect the relief and supply ports of the 
master cylinder; discard the cylinder if ports have 
burrs or wire edges. Measure the internal diameter 
of the cylinder at two locations (approximately 
midway between the relief and supply ports and 
approximately 19 mm (0.75 inch) beyond the relief 
port toward the bottom or discharge end of the 



PART 571; S 116-19 



bore), taking measurements at each location on the 
vertical and horizontal centerline of the bore. 
Discard the cylinder if any reading exceeds the 
maximum or minimum limits of 28.65 to 28.57 mm 
(1.128 to 1.125 inches). Measure the outside 
diameter of each end of the master cylinder piston 
at two points approximately 90 degrees apart. 
Discard the piston if any of these four readings ex- 
ceeds the maximum or minimum limits of 28.55 to 
28.52 mm (1.124 to 1.123 inches). Dip the rubber 
and metal parts of the master cylinder, except the 
housing and push rod-boot assembly, in the brake 
fluid and install in accordance with manufacturer's 
instructions. Manually stroke the master cylinder 
to insure that it operates easily. Install the master 
cylinder in the simulated brake system. 

1(c) Assembly and adjv^tment of test apparattis. 

When using a shoe and drum type apparatus, 
adjust the brake shoe toe clearances to 1.0 ±0.1 
mm (0.040 ±0.004 inch). Fill the system with brake 
fluid, bleeding all wheel cylinders and the pressure 
gage to remove entrapped air. Operate the ac- 
tuator manually to apply a pressure greater than 
the required operating pressure and inspect the 
system for leaks. Adjust the actuator and/ or 
pressure relief valve to obtain a pressure of 70 ± 
3.5 kg/sq cm (1,000 ±50 psi). A smooth pressure- 
stroke pattern is required when using a shoe and 
drum type apparatus. The pressure is relatively 
low during the first part of the stroke and then 
builds up smoothly to the maximum stroking 
pressure at the end of the stroke, to permit the 
primary cup to pass the compensating hole at a 
relatively low pressure. Using stroking fixtures, 
sdjust the actuator and /or pressure relief valve to 
obtain a pressure of 70 ±3.5 kg/sq cm (1,000 ±50 
psi). 

Adjust the stroking rate to 1,000 ±100 strokes 
per hour. Record the fluid level in the master 
cylinder standpipe. (51 F.R. 16699— May 6, 1986. 
Effective: May 6, 1986)1 

S6.13.5 Procedure. Operate the system for 
16,000 ±1,000 cycles at 23±5°C (73.4 ±9°F). 
Repair any leakage, readjust the brake shoe 
clearances, and add fluid to the master cylinder 
standpipe to bring to the level originally recorded, 
if necessary. Start the test again and raise the 
temperature of the cabinet within 6±2 hours to 
120±5°C (248±9°F). During the test observe 
operation of wheel cylinders for improper function- 



ing and record the amount of fluid required to 
replenish any loss, at intervals of 24,000 strokes. 
Stop the test at the end of 85,000 total recorded 
strokes. These totals shall include the number of 
strokes during operation at 23±5°C (73.4 ±9°F) 
and the number of strokes required to bring the 
system to the operating temperature. Allow equip- 
ment to cool to room temperature. Examine the 
wheel cylinders for leakage. Stroke the assembly 
an additional 100 strokes, examine wheel cylinders 
for leakage and record volume loss of fluid. Within 
16 hours after stopping the test, remove the 
master and wheel cylinders from the system, re- 
taining the fluid in the cylinders by immediately 
capping or plugging the ports. Disassemble the 
cylinders, collecting the fluid from the master 
cylinder and wheel cylinders in a glass jar. When 
collecting the stroked fluid, remove all residue 
which has deposited on rubber and metal internal 
parts by rinsing and agitating such parts in the 
stroked fluid and using a soft brush to assure that 
all loose adhering sediment is collected. Clean SBR 
cups in ethanol (isopropanol when testing DOT 5 
fluids) and dry. Inspect the cups for stickiness, 
scuffing, blistering, cracking, chipping, and 
change in shape from original appearance. 
Within 1 hour after disassembly, measure the lip 
and base diameters of each cylinder cup by the pro- 
cedures specified in S6. 13.4(a) and (b) with the 
exception that lip or base diameters of cups may 
now differ by more than 0.08 mm (0.003 inch). 
Determine the hardness of each cup according to 
S7.4. Note any sludge or gel present in the test 
fluid. Within 1 hour after draining the cylinders, 
agitate the fluid in a glass jar to suspend and 
uniformly disperse sediment and transfer a 100 ml 
portion of this fluid to a centrifuge tube and deter- 
mine percent sediment as described in S7.5. Allow 
the tube and fluid to stand for 24 hours, recen- 
trifuge and record any additional sediment 
recovered. Inspect cylinder parts, note any gum- 
ming or any pitting on pistons and cylinder walls. 
Disregard staining or discoloration. Rub any 
deposits adhering to cylinder walls with a clean 
soft cloth wetted with ethanol to determine 
abrasiveness and removability. Clean cylinder 
parts in ethanol and dry. Measure and record 
diameters of pistons and cylinders according to 
S6. 13.4(a) and (b). Repeat the test if mechanical 
failure occurs that may affect the evaluation of the 
brake fluid. 



(Rev. 5/6/86) 



PART 571; S 116-20 



S6.13.6 Calculation. 

(a) Calculate the changes in diameters of 
cylinders and pistons (see S5.1.13 (b)). 

(b) Calculate the average decrease in hardness 
of the seven cups tested, as well as the individual 
values (see S5. 1.13(c)). 

(c) Calculate the increases in base diameters of 
the eight cups (see S5.1. 13(e)). 

(d) Calculate the lip diameter interference set 
for each of the eight cups by the following formula 
and average the eight values (see S5. 1.13(f)). 

D1-D2 X 100 = percentage Lip Diameter 
^i"^3 Interference Set 

Where: 

Di = Original lip diameter 

D2 = Final lip diameter 

D3 = Original cylinder bore diameter 

S6.14 Container Information. Each container 
with information marked directly on the container 
surface or on a label (labels) affixed to the con- 
tainer persuant to S5.2.2.2 or S5.2.2.3 is subjected 
to the following procedure: 

(a) If the container has a label affixed to it, make 
a single vertical cut all the way through the label 
with the container in the vertical position. 

(b) Immerse the container in the same brake 
fluid or hydraulic system mineral oil contained 
therin for 15 minutes at room temperature (23 ± 
5°C; 73.4 ± 9°F). 

(c) Within 5 minutes after removing the con- 
tainer from the fluid or oil, remove excess liquid 
from the surface of the container by wiping with a 
clean dry cloth. 



S7. Auxiliary test methods and reagent standards. 

57.1 Distilled water. Non-referee reagent water 
as specified in ASTM Dl 193-70, "Standard 
Specifications for Reagent Water," or water of 
equal purity. 

57.2 Water content of motor vefilcle brake fluids. 

Use analytical methods based on ASTM Dl 123-59, 
Standard Method of Test for Water in Concentrated 
^ Engine Antifreezes by the Iodine Reagent Method, 
m for determining the water content of brake fluids, 
or other methods of analysis yielding comparable 
results. To be acceptable for use, such other 



method must measure the weight of water added 
to samples of the SAE RM-66-03 and TEGME 
Compatibility Fluids within ±5 percent of the 
water added for additions up to 0.8 percent by 
weight, and within ± 5 percent of the water added 
for additions greater than 0.8 percent by weight. 
The SAE RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid used to 
prepare the samples must have an original ERBP 
of not less than 205°C (401°F) when tested in 
accordance with S6.1. The SAE TEGME fluid used 
to prepare the samples must have an original 
ERBP of not less than 240°C (464°F) when tested 
in accordance with S6.1. 

57.3 Ethanol. 95 percent (190 proof) ethyl 
alcohol, USP or ACS, or Formula 3-A Specially 
Denatured Alcohol of the same concentration (as 
specified at 27 CFR §21.35). For pre-test 
washings of equipment use approximately 90 per- 
cent ethyl alcohol, obtained by adding 5 parts of 
distilled water to 95 parts of ethanol. 

57.4 Measuring the hardness of SBR braise cups. 

Hardness measurements of SBR wheel cylinder 
cups and master cylinder primary cups shall be 
made by using the following apparatus and the 
following procedure. 

57.4.1 Apparatus. 

(a) Anvil. A rubber anvil having a flat circular 
top 20 ±1 mm (^lYie inch) in diameter, a 
thickness of at least 9 mm (Vg inch) and a hardness 
within 5 IRHD,s of the SBR test cup. 

(b) Hardness tester. A hardness tester meeting 
the requirements for the standard instrument as 
described in ASTM D1415-68, Standard Method of 
Test for International Hardness of Vulcanized 
Natural and Synthetic Rubbers, and graduated 
directly in IRHD units. 

57.4.2 Procedure. Make hardness measure- 
ments at 23±2°C (73.4±3.6°F). Equilibrate the 
tester and anvils at this temperature prior to use. 
Center brake cups lip side down on an anvil of ap- 
propriate hardness. Following the manufacturer's 
operating instructions for the hardness tester, 
make one measurement at each of four points one- 
fourth inch from the center of the cup and spaced 
90 degrees apart. Average the four values, and 
round off to the nearest IRHD. 



PART 571; S 116-21 



S7.5 Sediment by centrifuging. The amount of 
sediment in the test fluid shall be determined by 
the following procedure. 

S7.5.1 Apparatus. 

(a) Centrifuge tube. Cone-shaped centrifuge 
tubes conforming to the dimensions given in 
Figure 6, and made of thoroughly annealed glass. 
The graduations shall be numbered as shown in 
Figure 6, and shall be clear and distinct. Scale- 
error tolerances and smallest graduations between 
various calibrations made with air-free water at 
20°C (68°F). 



■36.00-37.75mm 0.0. 
I7±mm I.D. 




FIG. 6 
ASTM 8-in CENTRIFUGE TUBE 



Table 

forf 



Range, ml 



/—Calibration Tolerances 
■inch Centrifuge Tube 



to 0.1 

Above 0.1 to 0.3 
Above 0.3 to 0.5 
Above 0.5 to 1.0 



Subdivision, 
ml 

0.05 
0.05 
0.05 
0.10 



Volume 
Tolerance, 
ml 
±0.02 
±0.03 
±0.05 
±0.05 



Above 1.0 to 2.0 


0.10 


±0.10 


Above 2.0 to 3.0 


0.20 


+ 0.10 


Above 3.0 to 5.0 


0.5 


±0.20 


Above 5.0 to 10.0 


1.0 


±0.50 


Above 10. to 25. 


5.0 


+ 1.00 


Above 25. to 100. 


25. 


±1.00 



(b) Centrifuge. A centrifuge capable of whirling 
two or more filled centrifuge tubes at a speed 
which can be controlled to give a relative cen- 
trifugal force (rcf) between 600 and 700 at the tip 
of the tubes. The revolving head, trunnion rings, 
and trunnion cups, including the rubber cushion, 
shall withstand the maximum centrifugal force 
capable of being delivered by the power source. 
The trunnion cups and cushions shall firmly sup- 
port the tubes when the centrifuge is in motion. 
Calculate the speed of the rotating head using this 
equation: 



rpm = 265 yj~^ 



where: rcf = relative centrifugal force, and 
d = diameter of swing, in inches, 
measured between tips of opposite 
tubes when in rotating position. 
Table VI shows the relationship between diameter, 
swing, relative centrifugal force (rcf), and revolu- 
tions per minute. 

S7.5.2 Procedure. Balance the corked centri- 
fuge tubes with their respective trunnion caps in 
pairs by eight on a scale, according to the cen- 
trifuge manufacturer's instructions, and place 
them on opposite sides of the centrifuge head. Use 
a dummy assembly when one sample is tested. 
Then whirl them for 10 minutes, at a rate sufficient 
to produce a rcf between 600 and 700 at the tips of 
the whirling tubes. Repeat until the volume of sedi- 
ment in each tube remains constant for three 
consecutive 



TABLE VI 

Rotation Speeds for Centrifuges 

of Various Diameters 



Diameter of swing, 
inches » 



Rpm at 600 rcf 



Rpm at 700 rcf 



1490 
1450 
1420 
1390 



1610 
1570 
1530 
1500 



5 Measured in inches between tips of opposite tubes when in 
rotating position. 



PART 571; S 116-22 



S7.5.3 Calculation. Read the volume of the solid 
sediment at the bottom of the centrifuge tube and 
report the percent sediment by volume. Where 
replicate determinations are specified, report the 
average value. 



NOTE: The ingredients labeled CNBS ) must have pro- 
perties identical with those supplied by the National 
Bureau of Standards 
* Philprene 1503 has been found suitable, 
b Use only within 90 days of manufacture and 
store at temperature below 27°C (80°F). 



S7.6 Standard styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) 
brake cups. SBR brake cups for testing motor 
vehicle brake fluids shall be manufactured using 
the following formulation: 

Formulation of Rubber Compound 



Ingredient 


Parts by 




Weight 


SBR type ISOS* 


100 


Oil furnace black (NBS 378) 


40 


Zinc oxide (NBS 370) 


5 


Sulfur (NBS 371) 


0.25 


Stearic Acid (NBS 372) 


1 


n-tertiary butyl-2-benzothiazole 




sulfanamide (NBS 384) 


1 


Symmetrical-dibetanaphthyl - p - 




phenylenediamine 


1.5 


Dicumyl peroxide (40 percent on 




precipitated CaCOst 


4.5 



TOTAL 



153.25 



Compounding, vulcanization, physical properties, 
size of the finished cups, and other details shall be 
as specified in Appendix B of SAE J1703b. The 
cups shall be used in testing brake fluids either 
within 6 months from date of manufacture when 
stored at room temperature below 30° (86 °F) or 
within 36 months from date of manufacture when 
stored at temperatures below minus 15°C 
( + 5 °F). After removal of cups from refrigeration 
they shall be conditioned base down on a flat 
surface for at least 12 hours at room temperature 
in order to allow cups to reach their true configura- 
tion before measurement. 

S7.7 Isopropanol. ACS or reagent grade. 



36 F.R. 11987 
June 24, 1971 



PART 571; S 116-23 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 118 

Power-operated Windows 

(Docket No. 87-10) 
RIN 2127-AC25 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This notice amends Standard No. 118, 
Power-operated Window Systems in several respects. 
It extends the Standard to encompass power-operated 
roof panels. It also establishes requirements for power 
window control systems located on the vehicle exterior 
and for remote control devices. 

DATES: The changes made in this rule are effective 
September 1, 1992. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule 
makes several changes to Standard No. 118, Power- 
operated Window Systems (49 CFR 571.118). The pur- 
pose of the Standard is to minimize the risk of personal 
injury that may result if someone is caught between 
a closing power-operated window and the window 
frame. The agency's experience is that children are the 
group of people most likely at risk from inadvertent 
or unsupervised operation of power windows. 

On October 16, 1987, NHTSA published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing several 
changes to Standard No. 118 (52 FR 38488). These pro- 
posed amendments included extending the Standard 
to light trucks, eliminating the limitations on the cir- 
cumstances in which power windows may be opened, 
and eliminating the requirement that power windows 
operable outside of a vehicle be operable only with a 
key-locking system located on the vehicle. 

On June 24, 1988, NHTSA issued a final rule amend- 
ing certain provisions of the Standard (53 FR 23766). 
In particular, it extended the Standard's applicability 
to light trucks and restricted the applicability of the 
Standard to the closing of power windows; in other 
words, the Standard no longer regulated the opening 
of power windows. That final rule also noted that 
several remaining issues raised in the NPRM would be 
addressed in a subsequent rulemaking. 

On April 6, 1990, the agency published a second 
NPRM to address these issues. Specifically, the agency 
proposed to (1) amend the Standard to apply to power- 
operated roof panels, (2) revise the requirements relat- 
ing to key-locking systems in S3(c) of the Standard to 



include minimum force levels for operating those sys- 
tems, (3) include provisions that would permit the use 
of external locking systems that do not rely on the use 
of conventional keys (hereinafter referred to as "non- 
key locking systems"), and (4) add new requirements 
to permit remote control systems for power-operated 
windows and roof panels. 

As discussed below, this final rule extends the Stand- 
ard to cover power-operated roof panels, and includes 
provisions which allow the use of non-key locking and 
remote control systems. In the development of this 
rule, NHTSA has sought to maximize the safety bene- 
fits of the new requirements while seeking to avoid re- 
quirements that would unnecessarily affect the design 
choices of manufacturers. 

NHTSA received nine comments on the proposed 
rule, all of which were from vehicle manufacturers. The 
commenters included Ford, BMW of North America 
(BMW), Chrysler Fiat, Mercedes Benz of North 
America (Mercedes), General Motors (GM), Volkswa- 
gen of North America (VW), Toyota, and Jaguar. The 
agency has considered the points raised in the com- 
ments in developing the final rule. The agency's dis- 
cussion of the significant comments and other relevant 
information is set forth below. For the convenience of 
the reader, this notice follows the NPRM's order. 

A. Roof Panels 

The purpose and scope section (Si) and operating re- 
quirements (S3) of Standard No. 118 currently apply 
to power-operated window and partition systems. 
Although the 1987 NPRM proposed to extend the re- 
quirements to include power-operated roof panels, and 
most comments received by the agency at that time 
supported the proposal, NHTSA decided in the 1988 
final rule to defer a decision on this proposal until the 
agency addressed the issue of non-key locking systems. 
The agency explained at that time that non-key sys- 
tems had already been developed for power roof sys- 
tems, but that power-operated roof panels were not 
subject to the Standard. Thus, the locking systems of 
some roof panels might have had to be redesigned if 
the 1988 final rule had extended Standard No. 118 to 
power roof panels without resolving the issue of non- 
key locking systems. 



PART 571; S 118-PRE 15 



The 1990 NPRM noted that since it contained pro- 
posed requirements for non-key systems, it would be 
beneficial to reconsider extending the Standard to 
power-operated roof panels. That notice explained that 
since roof panels pose the same potential dangers as 
power-operated windows and partition systems, it 
would be appropriate to include power roof panels in 
sections SI and S3 to ensure that these devices were 
treated the same as power-operated windows and were 
required to provide equivalent levels of safety. 

All manufacturers commenting on this issue sup- 
ported the proposal to include power-operated roof 
panels in Standard No. 118. Mercedes requested that 
only sliding roof panels be subject to the Standard, and 
that pop-up type roof panels not be included. The com- 
menter stated that the maximum height of the open- 
ing on a pop-up roof panel is four inches, and that this 
is not a large enough opening for a child's head to pass 
through, VW recommended that a definition of roof 
panel should be included in the final nile in order to 
clarify that power-operated convertible tops are not 
covered by the standard. 

NHTSA does not agree that pop-up roof panels 
should be excluded from the requirements of the Stand- 
ard. The opening created by such a panel, while not 
large enough to endanger a child's head, is certainly 
large enough to put fingers and hands at risk. Thus, 
the final rule does not provide an exclusion for pop-up 
roof panels that are power-operated. 

The agency agrees with VW's comment, and the final 
rule includes a definition of "power-operated roof 
panel" that specifically excludes convertible top 
systems. 

B. Force Requirements for Key-Activated 
Systems 

Standard No. 118 currently contains no force require- 
ment for operating key-activated systems located on 
the exterior of a vehicle. The April 1990 NPRM pro- 
posed that a minimum continuous level of torque be 
required for the operation of such systems. The intent 
of this proposal was to set a torque level high enough 
to prevent young children from operating it. The 
proposal would have required that a minimum of 4.5 
in-oz of torque be applied to the key in order to oper- 
ate the system. 

Overall, the comments received did not support the 
establishment of minimum force requirements for key- 
activated systems. Generally, GM, Chrysler and VW 
were concerned that a force requirement could impede 
the ability of some adults, especially the elderly, per- 
sons suffering from arthritis, and the handicapped, 
from operating the system. 

Chrysler questioned the information on which the 
proposed level was based, stating that there were no 
data on the proper torque level sufficient to prevent 
actuation of the mechanism by a small child, but which 



would not impede use by the elderly or infirm. That 
commenter indicated that the proposed level might be 
too low to serve as a deterrent to young children. VW 
likewise expressed concern about the lack of data avail- g 
able to support the requirement, and also suggested f 
that there is no demonstrated safety need for the 
requirement. 

Ford supported the introduction of a force level for 
key-activated systems, but offered no data on the pro- 
posed force requirement. Mercedes did not object to 
the force requirement, but indicated that the regula- 
tion should be worded to clarify that the torque is to 
be applied continuously. 

Based upon its analysis of the comments received, 
NHTSA believes it is inappropriate to establish mini- 
mum force requirements for key-activated systems. 
There appear to be no available data that would address 
the specific question of the appropriate torque level 
that would preclude use by small children, but allow 
ease of operation for others. Since it is not clear that 
such a torque level exists, this final rule does not specify 
a force value for key-activated systems. 

In lieu of a force value, this final rule requires that 
a key-activated system operate only while a force is ap- 
plied, if the force is removed, window movement must 
stop immediately. The agency believes that this re- 
quirement will meet the need for safety without un- 
duly burdening those vehicle operators who could 
experience difficulty operating a key-activated system a 
subject to a minimum torque requirement. f 

C. Requirements for Non-l(ey Locldng Systems 

Section S3(c) currently allows power-operated win- 
dows to be closed "upon activation of a key-locking sys- 
tem on the exterior of the vehicle." In comments to 
the 1987 NPRM, manufacturers stated that they were 
concerned that S3(c) needlessly prohibited innovative 
exterior systems for operating power-operated window 
and roof panel systems. These manufacturers inter- 
preted the word "key" to mean that a conventional key- 
based system is the only allowable way to comply vdth 
S3(c), and that the phrase "on the exterior of the vehi- 
cle" means the device must be physically attached to 
the vehicle. Because the agency agrees with these 
manufacturers that this interpretation of the existing 
Standard is correct, it proposed in the April 1990 
NPRM to expand the permissible external systems for 
closing power-operated windows to include non-key 
locking systems located on the vehicle exterior and re- 
mote control systems. 

As explained below, this final rule adopts an amend- 
ment permitting these additional types of systems for 
externally operating power-operated wdndows. 

1. External Non-key Locking Systems 
As noted in the April 1990 NPRM, NHTSA has con- 
sidered different types of external non-key locking 



PART 571; S 118-PRE 16 



systems. The agency is aware that manufacturers are 
developing several types of non-key locking devices, in- 
cluding touch pads on the vehicle, infrared actuators, 
and credit card systems. The agency realizes that this 
■ list is not exhaustive, and intends to permit any type 
^ of non-key locking system that complies with this final 
rule. 

The NPRM proposed a minimum activation level for 
non-key locking systems of at least 9 pounds as a safety 
mechanism to prevent young children from activating 
the system. Under the proposal, this force would have 
to be applied continuously. These criteria sought to pro- 
hibit the use of a single-touch control and to make it 
necessary for persons seeking to close the windows 
and/or roof to do so through a sustained effort. 

The NPRM also requested comment on an alterna- 
tive approach for non-key locking systems, under which 
the system would be equipped with an automatic rever- 
sal feature such that if a window or roof panel encoun- 
tered resistance when closing, it would automatically 
reverse direction. This feature was proposed for remote 
control systems in the NPRM, as explained below. 

A number of comments were received on the 
proposal for non-key locking systems. GM recom- 
mended that there be no restrictions on external non- 
key systems, since requirements such as those pro- 
posed could impede adult users as well as children. GM 
stated that an alpha-numeric keypad system is the only 
alternative that would be operable by adult users, but 
H not by young children. GM had concerns about the pro- 
" posed force requirement for non-key systems for the 



same reasons it expressed in its comments on the force 
requirement for key systems. 

Ford suggested that a requirement for an automatic 
reversal mechanism would be better than a minimum 
force requirement. Ford, like GM, had concerns about 
the proposed force level, and noted that it was substan- 
tially greater than the force level for keyless entry sys- 
tems now used by Ford. The commenter also indicated 
that force levels are not needed for alpha-numeric sys- 
tems, since the required code makes it sufficiently 
difficult for children to operate the system. 

BMW suggested that the words "key" and "non- 
key" be removed from the proposed regulatory text, 
since the manufacturer believes use of these terms 
could restrict future technologies. BMW also requested 
that the proposal be revised to allow systems with child- 
proof coding, such as electronic alpha-numeric touch 
pad systems, without specifying minimum force re- 
quirements, since these devices are more child-proof 
than the window reversal feature discussed below. 

Chrysler supported allowing non-key systems, but in- 
dicated that it had no near term plans to adopt such 
a system. The manufacturer stated that a nine pound 
force requirement is inappropriate for on-vehicle touch 
pads. 

Based upon its consideration of the comments 
received, NHTSA believes there are insufficient data 



to support the establishment of the proposed force re- 
quirement, given the difficulties that elderly adults or 
those with arthritic or other handicaps may encounter. 
In order to ensure design flexibility consistent with the 
need for safety, the final rule requires instead that any 
automatic closing system located on the exterior of a 
vehicle comply with one of two alternative provisions. 
The first specifies that, in order to make the window 
move, the operating control must be continuously ac- 
tivated by the user (such as pressure on a key or but- 
ton) so that the instant pressure is removed from the 
control, window movement stops. Alternatively, the 
vehicle can be equipped with an automatic reversal 
mechanism that will reverse the window direction upon 
its meeting an obstruction. (For further details con- 
cerning the automatic reversal feature, see the discus- 
sion below about remote control devices.) If the system 
incorporates the automatic reversal feature, it is ac- 
ceptable that the system closes upon a single force 
application instead of continuous operation. 

The final rule imposes these requirements on all sys- 
tems that are attached to the exterior of the vehicle, 
without regard to whether they are key-operated, or 
operated by other means. While a distinction between 
key and non-key systems is useful for discussion pur- 
poses, the agency has determined that both closing sys- 
tems should be subject to the same regulatory 
requirements, i.e., either continuous activation or 
automatic reversal, because the risk of having a per- 
son caught between a closing power-operated window 
and the window frame is the same for key and non-key 
systems. 

2. Remote control svstems 

As discussed in the NPRM, section S3(c) of the ex- 
isting standard requires that an external closing device 
be attached to the vehicle exterior. However, NHTSA 
is aware of systems under development that would ena- 
ble the power windows or roof panel of a vehicle to be 
closed by a remote control device sending a signal to 
the vehicle, in a manner similar to the operation of a 
remote control television. Remote systems are distin- 
guished from the external systems discussed above by 
the fact that, unlike an external system, a remote sys- 
tem has a control unit that is not attached to the ex- 
terior of the vehicle. The April 1990 NPRM requested 
comments on the technical or safety problems that 
could be encountered with remote systems, and pro- 
posed requirements for these systems. 

The proposal would have allowed remote window 
closing systems only if the manufacturer provided a 
feature that would stop the power window from clos- 
ing and then reverse its direction whenever the win- 
dow encountered resistance of a specified magnitude. 
The proposal would have required activation of this 
reversal feature if the closing window encountered a 
resistive force of 22 pounds or more. This force level 
was based on guidelines in Germany's Road Traffic Act 



PART 571; S 118-PRE 17 



(No. 60 paragraph 30, section 3 StVZO, 1984) which 
established a level of not more than 100 Newtons ("N," 
1 Newton = 0.2248 pounds) for window reversal. The 
proposal also specified a zone of potential harm within 
the window opening area in which the window would 
have to reverse automatically upon contact with an ob- 
ject. The purpose of the zone was to protect children 
from having a power window close on their head or 
arms. This zone was proposed to begin at 200 mm (ap- 
proximately 8 inches) from the top of the window open- 
ing; however, the proposal would not have required 
operation of the reversal feature once the window was 
4 mm (approximately .16 inch) from being completely 
closed. The proposal explained that the zone need not 
extend completely to closure because there is a point 
after which injury from window closure is no longer 
possible, but at which unnecessary automatic reversal 
could result from the window's misalignment or ob- 
struction by ice. 

The comments received on this portion of the 
proposal focused on three issues: the proposed require- 
ments for the automatic reversal function, concerns 
about the effect the proposal would have on the proper 
closure and sealing of windows, and limitations on the 
range of the remote control unit. 

All of the manufacturers commenting on the ques- 
tion of remote devices supported allowing their use. 
BMW and Mercedes argued that the existing Standard 
already allows remote devices. BMW indicated that it 
and other manufacturers had already incorporated this 
feature on cars for the U.S. market. The manufacturer 
disagreed with NHTSA's interpretation that "key- 
locking" as used in the Standard is limited to mechan- 
ical keys. BMW stated that with the rapid advance- 
ments being made in electronic technology, such a 
narrow interpretation is inappropriate, as an infrared 
remote control is as safe, secure, and vehicle specific 
as a mechanical key. This commenter also stated that 
the device is being used on the exterior of the vehicle, 
and that it should therefore be considered consistent 
with existing requirements. BMW claimed that in the 
NPRM. NHTSA for the first time uses the phrase 
"attached to the exterior of the vehicle" (emphasis 
added) in interpreting the term "on the exterior of the 
vehicle." 

Mercedes likewise stated that existing S3(c) does not 
prohibit remote devices. Mercedes argued that since 
the Standard refers to a key-locking system, rather 
than merely a key, and considering the broad list of 
definitions for "on" in the dictionary, one must con- 
clude that the Standard does not specifically prohibit 
remote devices that are part of the "key-locking sys- 
tem" and do not function far away from, or inside the 
vehicle. 

NHTSA disagrees with these commenters. The 
Standard is very specific. It states "on the exterior of 
the vehicle", meaning the vehicle's "outside surface." 
It does not state "exterior to the vehicle" or words to 



that effect. The agency reconfirms its position that the 
existing Standard prohibits the use of external systems 
not physically attached to the vehicle. This is why the 
agency believes it is important for this final rule to 
amend the Standard to allow the use of remote con- 
trol systems. 

Chrysler, Ford and GM believed that the automatic 
reversal feature is needed for remote control devices, 
although all three expressed concern about the ade- 
quacy of the data supporting the 22 pound force re- 
quirement. Toyota also expressed concern about the 
lack of data supporting this number. On the other hand, 
Jaguar and BMW provided suggested regulatory lan- 
guage which adopted the 22 pound force, and Mercedes 
did not object to the requirement in its suggested lan- 
guage. Based on the German guideline on window 
reversal, the agency has concluded that the 22 pound 
value is a reasonable resistive force, and it has been 
retained in the final rule. 

Toyota, VW, and BMW expressed concern about the 
effect of the automatic reversal requirement on design 
flexibility, BMW thought the requirement was reason- 
able, but that, in order to provide maximum flexibil- 
ity, it should be permitted as an alternative to other 
means of safeguarding window activation. 

Toyota suggested that requiring the reversal feature 
to be activated only upon the application of force or 
resistance to the window is not the only alternative. 
That manufacturer suggested that a system using op- 
tical sensors to detect an obstruction need not be sen- 
sitive to resistive force. Toyota also recommended that 
if resistive force sensors are used, manufacturers 
should be allowed to place them in the top track of the 
window, rather than on the moveable portion of the 
window, as this would allow the use of trigger mechan- 
isms in the track similar to those used in elevator doors. 

VW also recommended that the automatic reversal 
feature be an alternative available to manufacturers 
who wish to produce a system that can be closed in a 
manner other than those specified in S4. 

The agency agrees with the concerns expressed by 
BMW, VW and Toyota regarding design flexibihty and 
the use of alternative approaches. In accordance with 
the agency's intention to ensure maximum design flex- 
ibility in complying with the new rule, it does not pro- 
hibit the use of devices such as optical sensors. 

Three manufacturers, Toyota, GM and Mercedes 
provided comments on the zone of potential harm in 
which the window would have to reverse upon encoun- 
tering an obstruction. 

Toyota suggested a compliance procedure which 
would require that when a cylinder 4 mm to 200 mm 
in diameter obstructs the opening, the window or roof 
panel must reverse before a resistive force of 22 pounds 
is exceeded. 

The agency agrees with Toyota's suggestion, given 
problems with incomplete closure resulting from 



PART 571; S 118-PRE 18 



obstruction of the window seal. The agency further be- 
lieves the procedure suggested by Toyota is a practica- 
ble and effective means of determining whether the 
^ vehicle complies with the final rule's requirement for 
H remote control systems equipped with the automatic 
^ reversal feature. The final rule includes this compliance 
procedure. 

GM and Mercedes expressed concern that the pro- 
posed requirements may make it difficult to ensure that 
windows seal properly. GM suggested that the 4 mm 
"top" of the zone be measured perpendicularly between 
the top edge of the window glass and the window day- 
light opening. Mercedes recommended changing the 
words "total closure in proposed S3(e) to "aperture" 
in order to exclude that portion of a window or panel 
that fits into a sealing channel from the 4 mm 
measurement. 

NHTSA agrees that these concerns are valid and be- 
lieves that both of the suggested approaches will ade- 
quately address this concern. The agency nevertheless 
has determined that GM's recommended wording is 
superior because it is self-explanatory while Mercedes 
approach would require additional explanation to de- 
fine "aperture." Therefore, the final rule adopts GM's 
suggestion that the window opening zone be measured 
between the top edge of the glass and the daylight 
opening. 

Concerning the range of operation for remote con- 
trol systems. BMW stated that no additional restric- 
m tions for remote systems are needed, BMW took this 
^ view because the infrared control only functions within 
15 feet of the vehicle, and only when in a line of sight 
with the vehicle, so the operator can clearly see 
whether there are children near the windows or 
sunroof. 

Mercedes also stated that infrared remote controls 
should not be subject to the automatic reversal require- 
ment because the devices only operate at close prox- 
imity, within line-of-sight of the vehicle. Based on this 
concern, Mercedes provided revised regulatory lan- 
guage that would exclude remote devices that required 
a line of sight to the vehicle from less than 25 feet from 
the requirement to have the automatic reversal feature. 
Jaguar provided suggested regulatory text that ap- 
peared to be intended to allow remote control devices 
to operate without being subject to the automatic rever- 
sal feature as long as the range of the control device 
is less than 10 meters (approximately 33 feet). 

VW commented that the automatic reversal feature 
should be required only for remote systems capable of 
operation beyond the distance from which the the in- 
terior of the car is visible, suggesting 20 feet as an 
appropriate distance. 

P NHTSA agrees with those recommendations that 
vehicles using a line-of-sight remote control not be 
required to have the automatic reversal feature. 
However, as discussed above, the operating control for 



such systems must be continuously activated by the 
user. "The agency believes that a line-of-sight system 
with limited range will provide adequate safeguards 
against injury, because under the final rule, the per- 
son operating the remote control must be in close 
enough proximity to the vehicle that he or she would 
be able to see whether there are children in the vicinity 
of a closing window or roof panel. NHTSA has deter- 
mined that a maximum remote control range of 20 feet 
from the vehicle provides adequate convenience while 
still ensuring that the operator of the remote control 
remains close to the vehicle while using this feature. 
As discussed above, since this final rule does not draw 
a distinction between non-key and remote systems for 
purposes of control operation, the agency has deleted 
the proposed minimum force requirement that was con- 
tained in the NPRM for remote control systems. 

D. Leadtime 

The NPRM inadvertently omitted a proposed effec- 
tive date and discussion of leadtime considerations. 
Mercedes and BMW requested an effective date of at 
least one year from publication of this final rule for any 
new requirements. VW requested that to the extent 
its suggested provisions were not adopted, sufficient 
leadtime should be provided. Jaguar commented that 
if its suggested text was not adopted, the effective date 
for this rule should be delayed until MY 1995 to allow 
sufficient time for system modification and 
development. 

NHTSA believes the changes in Standard No. 118 
made by this rule provide manufacturers with increased 
flexibility. Based upon the comments received however, 
it appears that the amendments may affect the on- 
going efforts of some manufacturers to develop designs 
for these systems. The agency believes that one full 
model year of leadtime is adequate for manufacturers 
to comply with this rule. Accordingly, as stated above, 
the effective date is September 1, 1992. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR S571.118 
is amended to read as follows: 

S571.118 is revised to read as follows: 

S571.118 Standard No. 118; Power-operated window 
systems. 

51. Purpose and scope. This standard specifies re- 
quirements for power operated window, partition, and 
roof panel systems to minimize the likelihood of death 
or injury from their accidental operation. 

52. Application. This standard applies to passenger 
cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks with 
a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. 

53. Definition. "Power operated roof panel sys- 
tems" mean moveable panels in the vehicle roof which 
close by vehicle supplied power either by a sliding or 
hinged motion, and do not include convertible top 
systems. 



PART 571; S 118-PRE 



S4. Operating requirements. Except as provided in 
S5, power operated window, partition, or roof panel 
systems may be closed only in the following circum- 
stances: 

(a) When the key that controls activation of the ve- 
hicle's engine is in the "ON", "START", or "ACCES- 
SORY" position; 

(b) By muscular force unassisted by vehicle supplied 
power; 

(c) Upon continuous activation by a locking system 
on the exterior of the vehicle; 

(d) Upon continuous activation of any remote actu- 
ation device, provided that the remote actuation device 
shall be incapable of closing the power window, parti- 
tion or roof panel from a distance of more than 20 feet 
from the vehicle. 

(e) During the interval between the time the lock- 
ing device which controls the activation of the vehicle's 
engine is turned off and the opening of either of a two- 
door vehicle's doors or, in the case of a vehicle with 
more than two doors, the opening of either of its front 
doors. 



S5. (a) Notwithstanding S4. power window, 
partition or roof panel systems which, while closing, 
reverse direction when they meet, a resistive force 
of 22 pounds or more from a solid cylinder of 4 to 
200 mm in diameter and open to at least 200 mm, may 
close— 

(1) Upon the one-time activation of a locking sys- 
tem on the exterior of the vehicle, 

(2) Upon the one-time activation of any remote ac- 
tuation device, or 

(3) Upon continuous activation of any remote ac- 
tuation device capable of closing the power window, 
partition or roof panel from a distance of more than 
20 feet from the vehicle. 

(b) The 4 to 200 mm dimension cited in S5(a) is meas- 
ured from the window or panel's leading edge to the 
daylight opening. 

Issued on April 10, 1991 

Jerry Ralph Curry 
Administrator 

56 F.R. 15290 
April 16, 1991 



PART 571; S 118-PRE 20 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 118 



Power-Operated Window Systems 
(Docket No. 69-1 la) 



IS1. Purpose and scope. This standard 
specifies requirements for power-operated win- 
dow, partition and roof panel systems to minimize 
the hkelihood of death or injury from their acciden- 
tal operation. 

|S2. Application. This standard applies to 
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
and trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 
10,000 pounds or less. 

[S3. Definition. Power operated roof panel 
systems mean moveable panels in the vehicle roof 
which close by vehicle supplied power either by a 
sliding or hanged motion, and do not include con- 
vertible top systems. 

IS4. Operating Requirements. Except as pro- 
vided in S5, power operated window, partition, or 
roof panel systems may be closed only in the 
following circumstances: 

(a) When the key that controls activation of the 
vehicle's engine is in the "ON," "START," or 
"ACCESSORY" position; 

(b) By muscular force unassisted by vehicle sup- 
plied power; 

(c) Upon continuous activation by a locking 
system on the exterior of the vehicle; 

(d) Upon continuous activation of any remote ac- 
tuation device, provided that the remote actuation 
device shall be incapable of closing the power 



window, partition or roof panel from a distance of 
more than 20 feet from the vehicle; 

(e) During the interval between the time the 
locking device which controls the activation of the 
vehicle's engine is turned off and the opening of 
either of a two-door vehicle's doors or, in the case 
of a vehicle with more than two doors, the opening 
of either of its front doors. 

IS5. (a) Notwithstanding S4, power window, 
partition or roof panel systems which, while clos- 
ing, reverse direction when they meet a resistive 
force of 22 pounds or more from a solid cylinder of 
4 to 200mm in diameter and open to at least 
200mm, may close— 

(1) Upon the one-time activation of a locking 
system on the exterior of the vehicle, 

(2) Upon the one-time activiation of any 
remote actuation device, or 

(3) Upon continuous activation of any remote 
actuation device capable of closing the power 
window, partition or roof panel from a distance 
of more than 200 feet from the vehicle. 

(b) The 4 to 200mm dimension cited in S5(a) is 
measured from the window or panel's leading edge 
to the daylight opening. (56 F.R. 15290— April 16, 
1991. Effective: September 1, 1992)1 



35 F.R. 11797 
July 23, 1970 



PART 571; S 118-1 



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 4) 

RIN 2127-AD86 



ACTION-Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In July 1990, this agency published a final 
rule permitting new passenger cars, multipurpose ve- 
hicles, and light trucks equipped with passenger car 
tires to be equipped with a non-pneumatic spare tire. 
The final rule also established Standard No. 129, New 
Non-Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars, which in- 
cludes definitions relating to non-pneumatic tires and 
specifies performance, testing, and additional labeling 
requirements for these tires. 

In response to three petitions for reconsideration of 
this rule, the agency has decided to amend several 
requirements in the July 1990 final rule. This notice 
allows some of the required information to be placed 
on labels that are permanently affixed to the tire or 
tire assembly instead of being required to be marked 
into or onto the tire or tire assembly itself. The notice 
also provides that instead of placing certain informa- 
tion in the owner's manual, vehicle manufacturers may 
instead place the information on the vehicle placard 
(required by Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and 
Rims) if the owner's manual includes a reference to this 
information. The notice also amends the dimensions of 
the tire strength test cleat. These amendments will 
enable manufacturers to comply more easily with the 
requirements without adversely affecting safety. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: The amendments are effective 

May 28, 1991. 



SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 7, 1989, NHTSA pubHshed a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to amend 

Standard No. 110 to permit the use of non-pneumatic 

tires on passenger cars, but only as a temporary spare 



and to establish Standard No. 129, a new standard for 
non-pneumatic tires. (54 FR 14109). The notice pro- 
posed the following amendments to Standard No. 110: 
1) passenger cars would be allowed to be equipped with 
a non-pneumatic spare tire; 2) additional labeling and 
vehicle placarding information would be required 
explaining that such tires should be used only as a spare 
tire on a temporary basis at speeds not to exceed 50 
mph., and 3) the vehicle's owner's manual would 
include safety information about the use of a non- 
pneumatic tire. The NPRM also proposed labeling 
requirements in Standard No. 129 similar to those set 
forth in section S4.3 of Standard No. 109, New Pneu- 
matic Tires, for size designation, load rating, rim size 
and type designation, manufacturer or brand name, 
certification, and the tire identification number. 
NHTSA received 13 comments in response to the 
NPRM. While all commenters generally supported the 
proposal to permit a vehicle to be equipped with a non- 
pneumatic spare tire, certain commenters suggested 
alternative approaches to particular aspects of the 
proposal. 

On July 20, 1990. NHTSA published a final rule 
permitting new passenger cars and other vehicles 
equipped with passenger car tires to be equipped with 
a non-pneumatic spare tire. (55 FR 29581). The final 
rule modified certain informational requirements in 
Standard Nos. 110 and 120, Tire Selection and Rims 
for Motor Vehicles other Than Passenger Cars and 
established Standard No. 129, the new standard for 
non-pneumatic tires. 

The agency received petitions for reconsideration of 
this rule from the Rubber Manufacturers Association 
(RMA), Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company (Uniroyal), 
and General Motors Corporation (GM). This notice 
responds to those petitions. For the convenience of the 
reader, this notice uses the same organization and 
format as the July 1990 final rule used. When a sec- 
tion heading used in the final rule is not set forth in 



PART 571; S120-PRE 39 



this preamble, it means that no petition for reconsider- 
ation requested changes to the rule's provisions dis- 
cussed in that section. 



Issues Under Reconsideration 
Labeling Requirements 

The NPRM proposed requiring that certain informa- 
tion about the non-pneumatic tire be "permanently 
molded, stamped, or otherwise permanently marked 
into or onto both sides" and be expressed in figures 
not smaller than a given size. Because the agency 
thought that molding the required information into or 
onto some non-pneumatic tire and assembly designs 
might be impracticable, it proposed allowing different 
methods of permanent marking in addition to 
molding— the labeling method required in Standard No. 
109 for pneumatic tires. 

After analyzing its proposal in response to comments 
received on this subject, the agency concluded in the 
final rule that permanently affixed labels should not 
be allowed as a means for placing the required infor- 
mation on non-pneumatic tires. In the preamble to that 
notice, the agency explained that the message must be 
useful and understandable for the lifetime of the tire, 
i.e., it must be permanent, legible, and conspicuous. 
Based on these considerations, the agency concluded 
that affixing a permanent label on a non-pneumatic tire 
might not meet these ends. 

All three petitions for reconsideration requested that 
permanent stick-on labels, typically made of vinyl or 
polyester, be allowed for at least some of the informa- 
tion that must be placed on the non-pneumatic tire or 
tire assembly. The petitioners stated that it would be 
impracticable to stamp or mold the required informa- 
tion directly onto some non-pneumatic tires or tire 
assemblies. For instance, Uniroyal reported that there 
is no room to mold the required information into its 
non-pneumatic tire because there is no "sidewall" to 
that tire design. While the petitioners acknowledged 
that the requirements permit information to be placed 
on the rim or wheel center member, they believed that 
stamping or etching the information into the assem- 
bly could compromise the wheel's structural integrity. 
They also believed that information placed on the 
assembly might be difficult to read. 

Uniroyal suggested that while certain required infor- 
mation (e.g., the symbol DOT, the non-pneumatic tire 
identification code (NPTIC) number, and the load 
rating) could be required to be stamped or molded into 
the non-pneumatic tire, other information (e.g., infor- 
mation about the tire's temporary use at limited speeds 
and the manufacturer's name or brand name) should 
be allowed to be placed on a label permanently affixed 
to the tire or tire assembly. In support of its recom- 
mendation. Uniroyal explained that the primary pur- 



pose of some of the required information is to alert con- 
sumers that the tire is for temporary use at limited 
speeds. Because such information is of primary impor- 
tance before the non-pneumatic tire is placed on the 
vehicle, the petitioner believed that consumers would 
be better served if this information were readily legi- 
ble. It stated that a permanent label with contrasting 
colors would provide the greatest legibility. The other 
two petitioners generally supported Uniroyal 's recom- 
mendations but did not provide specific suggestions. 

Upon reconsideration, NHTSA agrees with the 
petitioners that stamping or etching the information 
into the assembly could compromise a wheel's struc- 
tural integrity and that certain information can be 
permitted to be placed on permanently affixed labels 
without compromising the effectiveness of the 
message. The labels in fact may afford increased 
legibility and conspicuity given that labels typically 
contain contrasting colors. In comparison, other 
methods of permanent marking such as etching or 
painting may be less legible and conspicuous because, 
for some non-pneumatic tire designs, this information 
can only be placed in locations that are difficult to see. 
The agency further notes that this amendment is 
consistent with the agency's goal throughout the 
rulemaking of promulgating regulations that provide 
manufacturers flexibility to comply with the require- 
ments. / 

To increase the information's effectiveness for con- I 
sumers, the agency believes that the "For Temporary 
Use Only" and "Maximum 50 M.P.H" information 
should be as legible as possible, especially before the 
spare tire is placed on the vehicle. The agency further 
notes that considering the greater volume of informa- 
tion required to be on non-pneumatic tires, certain 
information should be permitted to be on a permanently 
affixed label. Such an option reduces the potential for 
adversely affecting the structural integrity of some 
non-pneumatic tires and makes it more feasible for 
manufacturers to comply with the requirements. 
Accordingly, the agency has decided to modify the 
requirements in S6 of Standard No. 110 and S8 of 
Standard No. 120 (which are referenced in S4.3(g) of 
Standard No. 129) to permit this information to be on 
a label that is permanently affixed to the non- 
pneumatic tire or tire assembly. Along with the 
temporary use information, the agency has decided to 
grant Uniroyal's request to permit the manufacturer's 
name to be placed on a permanent label. However, the 
agency has decided to require the tire to be per- 
manently molded, stamped, or otherwise permanently 
marked with the rest of the information required in 
S4.3 of Standard No. 129. 

By "permanent," the agency means that the label 
should remain in place and be legible for the life of the 
tire. To ensure the permanency of the label's informa- 



PART 571; S120-PRE 40 



tion, the agency is requiring that it must be subsurface 
printed. An example of this is a label made from a piece 
of clear mylar or other plastic where the printing is on 
the underside; as a result, fluids or abrasion to which 
it is normally exposed does not contact the printing 
itself. It must also be made of a material that is fade 
resistant, heat resistant, and abrasion resistant, and 
be attached in such a manner that it cannot be removed 
without destroying or defacing the label. The agency 
believes that these specifications are necessary to 
ensure the use of durable, non-detachable labels and 
prevent the use of labels of doubtful permanency such 
as paper ones. In summary, NHTSA believes that the 
improved legibility and conspicuity of labels and the 
potential impracticability of stamping or molding 
certain required information outweigh the agency's 
previous concerns about the permanency of such labels. 
This has lead the agency to conclude that the use of 
such labels for this portion of the information is 
warranted. 

If labels on non-pneumatic tires are found not to 
remain affixed and legible for the life of the tire, the 
agency might initiate additional rulemaking to explore 
other requirements to ensure the label's permanency. 
However, such a rulemaking would be premature at 
this time. 



P SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 

Section S7.2 of Standard No. 110 and section S9.2 
of Standard No. 120 require the owner's manual of a 
vehicle equipped with a non-pneumatic spare tire to 
contain information explaining the tire's proper use. 
Along with this explanation, the owner's manual for 
such vehicles must include the NPTIC number that is 
labeled on the non-pneumatic tire assembly pursuant 
to the requirements of S4.3(a) of Standard No. 129. The 
purpose of this requirement is to help identify the non- 
pneumatic tire with regard to its size and application 
to a specific non-pneumatic rim, wheel center member, 
or vehicle. 

In its petition for reconsideration, GM requested that 
the vehicle manufacturer be allowed to include in the 
owner's manual a simple reference to the vehicle 
placard, where information about the proper selection 
of the non-pneumatic tire assembly appears as required 
by the final rule in Standard No. 110 or Standard No. 
120, instead of being required to place the information 
in the manual itself. GM explained that this change 
would still allow manufacturers to convey information 
about the NPTIC but avoid unnecessary complications. 
GM stated that under the current requirements, vehicle 
^k manufacturers have to state in the owner's manual the 
^^ NPTIC for the non-pneumatic tire used on each specific 
version of the vehicle model. GM believed that this 
would necessitate having more than one version of 



the owner's manual for the same vehicle model, thus 
increasing the potential for placing an incorrect manual 
in a vehicle which could result in selecting an incorrect 
replacement non-pneumatic tire assembly. The peti- 
tioner stated that while the owner's manual could 
contain a table with all potential non-pneumatic tire 
sizes, such a table could be difficult to understand, thus 
resulting in an incorrect replacement of a non- 
pneumatic tire assembly. GM further stated that 
owner's manuals are not required to contain informa- 
tion about the size, speed or load restriction, or 
Uniform Tire Quality Grades (UTQG) of the road tire 
fitted to a specific model. Instead, the owners are 
referred to the vehicle placard and UTQG brochure for 
that information. This prompted GM to request that 
the requirements for providing information regarding 
non-pneumatic tire assemblies be consistent with those 
for road tires. 

Upon reconsideration, NHTSA has decided to grant 
GM's request permitting the owner's manual to include 
a reference to the information about the NPTIC set 
forth in S4.3(e) of Standard No. 110 and S5.3.6 of 
Standard No. 120 that is located on the vehicle placard. 
This information will still be required on the tire itself. 
After reviewing GM's petition, the agency believes that 
including a reference in the owner's manual that the 
NPTIC can be found on the vehicle placard will ade- 
quately convey this information to the owner because 
the information will continue to be readily available to 
the vehicle owner. 



Test Procedure for Vertical Strength 
Along with performance requirements and test 
procedures for a non-pneumatic tire's lateral strength, 
tire endurance, and high speed performance, the final 
rule included requirements for a tire's strength in 
vertical loading. The agency determined that these 
requirements will assure a non-pneumatic tire's struc- 
tural integrity and durability. 

In S5.3.2, the final rule specifies that a test "cleat" 
must be forced into the non-pneumatic tire's tread at 
five test points equally spaced around the tire's circum- 
ference. The final rule also specifies the test cleat's 
dimensions, as follows: a length of one inch greater 
than the maximum tire width of the tire, a width of 
one-half inch with the surface which contacts the tire's 
tread having one-quarter inch radius, and a height of 
one inch greater than the difference between the 
unloaded radius on 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. 

In its petition for reconsideration, RMA requested 
that the dimensions of the test cleat be modified by 
adding the word "minimum" before the word "length" 



PART 571; S120-PRE 41 



and "height" in S5.3.2.2. It claimed that, at present, 
this provision requires a unique cleat for each size non- 
pneumatic spare tire. RMA's requested amendment 
would allow the same test fixture to be used for several 
sizes of non-pneumatic spare tires. 

Upon reconsideration, NHTSA agrees with RMA's 
request to include the word "minimum" in the provi- 
sion describing the test cleat's length and height. The 
agency believes that this modification will reduce the 
testing burden on manufacturers by permitting a more 
versatile test device, without adversely affecting the 
test's ability to measure a non-pneumatic tire's 
strength in vertical loading. 

Upon further review of this provision, the agency has 
decided to change the phrase in S5.3.2.2(c) which reads 
". . .the minimwm radius of the non-pneumatic rim. . ." 
to ". . .the maximum radius of the non-pneumatic 
rim. . ." The agency notes that the language as initial- 
ly adopted in the final rule was based on the NPRM's 
proposal to use a plunger test device. The agency now 
believes that the newly adopted phrase is more ap- 
propriate given that instead of the plunger test, a cleat 
test is used to determine a non-pneumatic tire's 
strength in vertical loading. 

Conforming Amendvfients 

Upon further review, the agency has decided to 
modify the definition for "wheel center member" to 
add at the end of the existing definition the following 
language: "or in the case of a non-pneumatic tire not 
incorporating a wheel, a mechanical device which 
attaches, either integrally or separably, to the non- 
pneumatic tire and provides the connection between 
the tire and the vehicle." The agency believes that this 
conforming amendment is necessary to make the 
definition for wheel center member consistent with the 
types of non-pneumatic tire designs possible under the 
definition for non-pneumatic tire assembly. While the 
agency does not anticipate that this modification will 
affect the current non-pneumatic tire designs now 
being produced or developed, the modification may 
permit unforeseen non-pneumatic tire designs that may 
be developed in the future. The agency believes that 
by modifying the definition to allow greater flexibility, 
the agency is better fulfilling its goal to promulgate a 
generic standard. 

Upon further review, the agency is also modifying 
S4.3(c) by replacing the phrase ". . .wheel tire assem- 
bly that is contained. . ." with ". . .wheel center mem- 
ber that is contained. . ." The agency has determined 
that this conforming amendment is necessary to make 
this provision consistent with the listing requirements 
in S4.4. 



Effective Date 
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. As with the final 
rule, NHTSA believes that there is "good cause" not 
to require the full 180 day lead-in period given that it 
is already permissible to equip vehicles with these tires. 
In addition, these amendments will provide greater 
design flexibility in the production and testing of non- 
pneumatic tires without imposing any mandatory 
requirement on manufacturers. Because the amend- 
ments provide manufacturers with additional ways to 
comply with the requirements adopted in the final rule, 
they result in no additional burden to any manufac- 
turer. In addition, the public interest will be served by 
not delaying the introduction of these alternative 
methods of compliance. Therefore, the agency has 
determined that there is good cause to set an effective 
date 30 days after publication of this notice. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the agency is 
amending Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, 
Standard No. 120, Tire Sekction and Rims for Motor 
Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and Standard No. 
129, New Non-Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars, in 
Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations at Part 571 
as follows: 1. In § 571.110, S6 is revised to read as ( [ 
follows: 

S6 Labeling Requirements for Non-Pneumatic Spare 
Tires or Tire Assembies. 

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 include, in letters or 
numerals not less than 0.156 inches high, the informa- 
tion specified in paragraphs S6(a) and (b). The infor- 
mation shall be permanently molded, stamped, or 
otherwise permanently marked into or onto the non- 
pneumatic tire or non-pneumatic tire assembly, or shall 
appear on a label that is permanently attached to the 
tire or tire assembly. If a label is used, it shall be sub- 
surface printed, made of material that is resistant to 
fade, heat, moisture and abrasion, and attached in such 
a manner that it cannot be removed without destroy- 
ing or defacing the label on the non-pneumatic tire or 
tire assembly. The information specified in paragraphs 
S6(a) and (b) shall appear on both sides of the non- 
pneumatic tire or tire assembly, 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, in which case the information specified in 
paragraphs S6(a) and (b) shall only be required on the \[^ 
outward facing side. The information shall be posi- 
tioned on the tire or tire assembly such that it is not 



PART 571; S120-PRE 42 



placed on the tread or the outermost edge of the tire 

and is not obstructed by any portion of any non- 

k pneumatic rim or wheel center member designated for 

I use with that tire in this standard or in Standard No. 

129. 

(a) FOR TEMPORARY USE ONLY; and 

(b) MAXIMUM 50 M.P.H. 

2. In § 571.110, S7 is revised to read as follows: 

S7 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 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 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 information related 
^ to appropriate use for the non-pneumatic spare tire in- 
P eluding at a minimum the information set forth in S6(a) 

and (b) and either the information set forth in S4.3(e) 
or a statement that the information set forth in S4.3(e) 
is located on the vehicle placard and on the non- 
pneumatic tire; 

(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. 

3. In § 571.120, S8 is revised to read as follows: 

S8 L abeling 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 include, in letters or 
numerals not less than 0.156 inches high, the informa- 
tion specified in paragraphs S8(a) and (b). The infor- 
mation shall be permanently molded, stamped, or 
^^ otherwise permanently marked into or onto the non- 
^^ pneumatic tire or non-pneumatic tire assembly, or shall 
appear on a label that is permanently attached to the 
tire or tire assembly. If a label is used, it shall be sub- 



surface printed, made of material that is resistant to 
fade, heat, moisture and abrasion, and attached in such 
a manner that it cannot be removed without destroy- 
ing or defacing the label on the non-pneumatic tire or 
tire assembly. The information specified in paragraphs 
SB(a) and (b) shall appear on both sides of the non- 
pneumatic tire or tire assembly, 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, in which case the information specified in 
paragraphs S8(a) and (b) shall only be required on the 
outward facing side. The information shall be posi- 
tioned 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. 

4. In § 571.120, S9 is revised to read as follows: 

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 SB 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 information related 
to appropriate use for the non-pneumatic spare tire in- 
cluding at a minimum the information set forth in S8(a) 
and (b) and either the information set forth in S5.3.6 
or a statement that the information set forth in S5.3.6 
is located on the vehicle placard and on the non- 
pneumatic tire. 

(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. 

5. In § 571.129, S3 is revised so that the definition for 
"wheel center member" reads as follows: 



PART 571; S120-PRE 43 



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; or in the case of a non-pneumatic tire assem- 
bly not incorporating a wheel, a mechanical device 
which attaches, either integrally or separably, to the 
non-pneumatic tire and provides the connection be- 
tween the tire and the vehicle. 

6. In § 571.129, S4.3 is revised to read as follows: 
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 assem- 
bly, each non-pneumatic tire assembly shall include, in 
letters or numerals not less than 0.078 inches high, the 
information specified in paragraphs S4.3(a) through (f). 
The information shall be permanently molded, stamped 
or otherwise permanently marked into or onto the non- 
pneumatic tire or non-pneumatic tire assembly, except 
that the information specified in S4.3(d) and S4.3(g) 
may appear on a label that is permanently attached to 
the tire or tire assembly. If a label is used, it shall be 
subsurface printed, made of a material that is resistant 
to fade, heat, moisture, and abrasion, and attached in 
such a manner that it cannot be removed without des- 
troying or defacing the label on the non-pneumatic tire 
or tire assembly. The information shall appear on both 
sides of the non-pneumatic tire or non-pneumatic tire 
assembly, 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, in which case 
the information shown in paragraphs S4.3(a) through 
(g) 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 mem- 
ber designated for use with that tire in S4.4 of this stan- 
dard or in 49 CFR § 571.110 or 49 CFR § 571.120. 

(a) The non-pneumatic tire identification code 
("NPTIC"); 

(b) Load rating, which, if expressed in kilograms, 
shall be followed in parenthesis 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 center 
member 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 certifica- 
tion that the tire conforms to applicable Federal mo- 
tor vehicle safety standards; 

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

(g) The labeling requirements set forth in S6 of Stan- 
dard No. 110 (§ 571.110), or S8 of Standard No. 120 
(§ 571.120). 

7. In § 571.129, S5.3.2.2 is re\ased to read as follows: 

S5.3.2.2 The test cleat is made of steel and has the 
following dimensions: 

(a) Minimum 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, 
and 

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



Issued on April 22, 1991. 



Jerry Ralph Curry 
Administrator 



56 F.R. 19308 
April 26, 1991 



PART 571; S120-PRE 44 



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. 

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 af- 
ter 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 manufac- 
turer's designation for a rim by style or code. 

Weather side means the surface area of the rim not 
covered by the inflated tire. 

55. Requirements. 

S5.1 Tire and rim selection. 

S5.1.1 Except as specified in S5.1.3, each vehicle 
equipped 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 
§571.1 19, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than 
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 as- 
sembly shall meet the requirements of S5.3.6, S7, and 
S9 of this standard. 

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. 4/26/91) 



PART 571; S120-1 



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: 

c^^AHc 904 76 

90476, ^g or ^^^ 

"September 1976" may be expressed as: 
9 76 

76 ^^ 9 



i 



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. 



S5.3.1 Vehicies 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 Vehicies 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 Enghsh 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 ^B 
required by §567.4 or §567.5 of this chapter; or, at the H| 
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,fl 

20 X 5.50 rims, at 90 psi cold single. ^B 
GAWR: Rear- 11040 with 7.00-20(E) tires, 

20 X 5.50 rims, at 80 psi cold dual. 



(Rbv. 7/20/90) 



PART 571; S120-2 



[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, 1 977. 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 
(§571.119), 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. 

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 integral part of the assem- 
bly, each non-pneumatic tire assembly shall include, in 
letters or numerals not less than 0.156 inches high, the 
information specified in paragraphs S8.(a) and (b). The 
information shall be permanently molded, stamped, or 
otherwise permanently marked into or onto the non- 
pneumatic tire or non-pneumatic tire assembly, or shall 
appear on a label that is permanently attached to the 
tire or tire assembly. If a label is used, it shall be sub- 
surface printed, made of material that is resistant to 
fade, heat, moisture and abrasion, and attached in such 
a manner that it cannot be removed without destroy- 
ing or defacing the label on the non-pneumatic tire or 
tire assembly. The information specified in paragraphs 
S8(a) and (b) shall appear on both sides of the non- 
pneumatic tire or tire assembly, except, in the case of 
a non-pneumatic tire assembly which has a particular 
side that must always face outward when moimted on 
a vehicle, in which case the informatio specified in para- 
graphs S8(a) and (b) shall only be required on the out- 
ward 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.P.H. (56 F.R. 19308-April 26, 
1991. Effective: May 28, 1991)J 



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 stow- 
age area or equally accessible location adjacent to the 
non-pneumatic spare tire assembly, shall display the in- 
formation set forth in S8 in block capitals and numer- 
als not less than 0.25 inches high preceded by the words 
"IMP0RTA2^-USE OF SPARE TIRE" in letters not 
less than 0.375 inches high. 

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

(a) A statement indicating the information related to 
appropriate use for the non-pneumatic spare tire includ- 
ing at a minimum the information set forth in S8(a) and 
(b) [and either the information set forth in S5.3.6 or a 
statement that the information set forth in S5.3.6 is 
located on the vehicle placard and on the non-pneumatic 
tire; (56 F.R. 19308— April 26, 1991. Effective: May 28, 
1991. Effecive: May 28, 1991)1 

(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 opportu- 
nity; 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. 

S1 0. Non-pneumatic rims and wheel center members. 

510.1 Non-pneumatic rim requirements. Each non- 
pneumatic rim that is part of a separable non-pneumatic 
spare tire assembly shall be constructed to the dimen- 
sions 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. 

510.2 Wheel center member requirements. Each 
wheel center member that is part of a separable non- 
pneimiatic 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 



41 F.R. 3478 
January 23, 1976 



PART 571; S120-3-4 



G' 



{ the • 



(-■♦ 



I 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE 
SAFETY STANDARD NO. 129 

New Non-Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars 

(Doclcet No. 87-12; Notice 4) 

RIN 2127-AD86 



ACTION-Final rule. 

SUMIVIARY: In July 1990, this agency published a final 
rule permitting new passenger cars, multipurpose ve- 
hicles, and light trucks equipped with passenger car 
tires to be equipped with a non-pneumatic spare tire. 
The final rule also established Standard No. 129, New 
Non-Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars, which in- 
cludes definitions relating to non-pneumatic tires and 
specifies performance, testing, and additional labeling 
requirements for these tires. 

In response to three petitions for reconsideration of 
this rule, the agency has decided to amend several 
requirements in the July 1990 final rule. This notice 
allows some of the required information to be placed 
on labels that are permanently affixed to the tire or 
tire assembly instead of being required to be marked 
into or onto the tire or tire assembly itself. The notice 
also provides that instead of placing certain informa- 
tion in the ovraer's manual, vehicle manufacturers may 
instead place the information on the vehicle placard 
(required by Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and 
Rims) if the owmer's manual includes a reference to this 
information. The notice also amends the dimensions of 
the tire strength test cleat. These amendments will 
enable manufacturers to comply more easily with the 
requirements without adversely affecting safety. 



EFFECTIVE DATE: 

May 28, 1991. 



The amendments are effective 



SUPPLEIVIENTARY INFORIVIATION: 

Background 
I On April 7, 1989, NHTSA published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to amend 
Standard No. 110 to permit the use of non-pneumatic 
tires on passenger cars, but only as a temporary spare 



and to establish Standard No. 129, a new standard for 
non-pneumatic tires. (54 FR 14109). The notice pro- 
posed the following amendments to Standard No. 110: 
1) passenger cars would be allowed to be equipped with 
a non-pneumatic spare tire; 2) additional labeling and 
vehicle placarding information would be required 
explaining that such tires should be used only as a spare 
tire on a temporary basis at speeds not to exceed 50 
mph., and 3) the vehicle's owner's manual would 
include safety information about the use of a non- 
pneumatic tire. The NPRM also proposed labeling 
requirements in Standard No. 129 similar to those set 
forth in section S4.3 of Standard No. 109, New Pneu- 
matic Tires, for size designation, load rating, rim size 
and type designation, manufacturer or brand name, 
certification, and the tire identification number. 

NHTSA received 13 comments in response to the 
NPRM. While all commenters generally supported the 
proposal to permit a vehicle to be equipped with a non- 
pneumatic spare tire, certain commenters suggested 
alternative approaches to particular aspects of the 
proposal. 

On July 20, 1990. NHTSA published a final rule 
permitting new passenger cars and other vehicles 
equipped with passenger car tires to be equipped with 
a non-pneumatic spare tire. (55 FR 29581). The final 
rule modified certain informational requirements in 
Standard Nos. 110 and 120, Tire Selection and Rims 
for Motor Vehicles other Than Passenger Cars and 
established Standard No. 129, the new standard for 
non-pneumatic tires. 

The agency received petitions for reconsideration of 
this rule from the Rubber Manufacturers Association 
(RMA), Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company (Uniroyal), 
and General Motors Corporation (GM). This notice 
responds to those petitions. For the convenience of the 
reader, this notice uses the same organization and 
format as the July 1990 final rule used. When a sec- 
tion heading used in the final rule is not set forth in 



PART 571; S129-PRE 21 



this preamble, it means that no petition for reconsider- 
ation requested changes to the rule's provisions dis- 
cussed in that section. 



Issues Under Reconsideration 
Labeling Requirements 

The NPRM proposed requiring that certain informa- 
tion about the non-pneumatic tire be "permanently 
molded, stamped, or otherwise permanently marked 
into or onto both sides" and be expressed in figures 
not smaller than a given size. Because the agency 
thought that molding the required information into or 
onto some non-pneumatic tire and assembly designs 
might be impracticable, it proposed allowing different 
methods of permanent marking in addition to 
molding— the labeling method required in Standard No. 
109 for pneumatic tires. 

After analyzing its proposal in response to comments 
received on this subject, the agency concluded in the 
final rule that permanently affixed labels should not 
be allowed as a means for placing the required infor- 
mation on non-pneumatic tires. In the preamble to that 
notice, the agency explained that the message must be 
useful and understandable for the lifetime of the tire, 
i.e., it must be permanent, legible, and conspicuous. 
Based on these considerations, the agency concluded 
that affixing a permanent label on a non-pneimiatic tire 
might not meet these ends. 

All three petitions for reconsideration requested that 
permanent stick-on labels, typically made of vinyl or 
polyester, be allowed for at least some of the informa- 
tion that must be placed on the non-pneumatic tire or 
tire assembly. The petitioners stated that it would be 
impracticable to stamp or mold the required informa- 
tion directly onto some non-pneumatic tires or tire 
assemblies. For instance, Uniroyal reported that there 
is no room to mold the required information into its 
non-pneumatic tire because there is no "sidewall" to 
that tire design. While the petitioners acknowledged 
that the requirements permit information to be placed 
on the rim or wheel center member, they believed that 
stamping or etching the information into the assem- 
bly could compromise the wheel's structural integrity. 
They also believed that information placed on the 
assembly might be difficult to read. 

Uniroyal suggested that while certain required infor- 
mation (e.g., the symbol DOT, the non-pneumatic tire 
identification code (NPTIC) number, and the load 
rating) could be required to be stamped or molded into 
the non-pneumatic tire, other information (e.g., infor- 
mation about the tire's temporary use at limited speeds 
and the manufacturer's name or brand name) should 
be allowed to be placed on a label permanently affixed 
to the tire or tire assembly. In support of its recom- 
mendation. Uniroyal explained that the primary pur- 



pose of some of the required information is to alert con- 
sumers that the tire is for temporary use at limited 
speeds. Because such information is of primary impor- 
tance before the non-pneumatic tire is placed on the 
vehicle, the petitioner believed that consumers would 
be better served if this information were readily legi- 
ble. It stated that a permanent label with contrasting 
colors would provide the greatest legibility. The other 
two petitioners generally supported Uniroyal 's recom- 
mendations but did not provide specific suggestions. 

Upon reconsideration, NHTSA agrees with the 
petitioners that stamping or etching the information 
into the assembly could compromise a wheel's struc- 
tural integrity and that certain information can be 
permitted to be placed on permanently affixed labels 
without compromising the effectiveness of the 
message. The labels in fact may afford increased 
legibility and conspicuity given that labels typically 
contain contrasting colors. In comparison, other 
methods of permanent marking such as etching or 
painting may be less legible and conspicuous because, 
for some non-pneumatic tire designs, this information 
can only be placed in locations that are difficult to see. 
The agency further notes that this amendment is 
consistent with the agency's goal throughout the 
rulemaking of promulgating regulations that provide 
manufacturers flexibility to comply with the require- 
ments. 

To increase the information's effectiveness for con- 
sumers, the agency believes that the "For Temporary 
Use Only" and "Maximum 50 M.P.H" information 
should be as legible as possible, especially before the 
spare tire is placed on the vehicle. 'The agency further 
notes that considering the greater volume of informa- 
tion required to be on non-pneumatic tires, certain 
information should be permitted to be on a permanently 
affixed label. Such an option reduces the potential for 
adversely affecting the structural integrity of some 
non-pneumatic tires and makes it more feasible for 
manufacturers to comply with the requirements. 
Accordingly, the agency has decided to modify the 
requirements in S6 of Standard No. 110 and S8 of 
Standard No. 120 (which are referenced in S4.3(g) of 
Standard No. 129) to permit this information to be on 
a label that is permanently affixed to the non- 
pneumatic tire or tire assembly. Along with the 
temporary use information, the agency has decided to 
grant Uniroyal's request to permit the manufacturer's 
name to be placed on a permanent label. However, the 
agency has decided to require the tire to be per- 
manently molded, stamped, or otherwise permanently 
marked with the rest of the information required in 
S4.3 of Standard No. 129. 

By "permanent," the agency means that the label 
should remain in place and be legible for the life of the 
tire. To ensure the permanency of the label's informa- 



(he 



(r-S 



PART 571; S129-PRE 22 



tion, the agency is requiring that it must be subsurface 
printed. An example of this is a label made from a piece 
of clear mylar or other plastic where the printing is on 
the underside; as a result, fluids or abrasion to which 
it is normally exposed does not contact the printing 
itself. It must also be made of a material that is fade 
resistant, heat resistant, and abrasion resistant, and 
be attached in such a manner that it cannot be removed 
without destroying or defacing the label. The agency 
believes that these specifications are necessary to 
ensure the use of durable, non-detachable labels and 
prevent the use of labels of doubtful permanency such 
as paper ones. In summary, NHTSA believes that the 
improved legibility and conspicuity of labels and the 
potential impracticability of stamping or molding 
certain required information outweigh the agency's 
previous concerns about the permanency of such labels. 
This has lead the agency to conclude that the use of 
such labels for this portion of the information is 
warranted. 

If labels on non-pneumatic tires are found not to 
remain affixed and legible for the life of the tire, the 
agency might initiate additional rulemaking to explore 
other requirements to ensure the label's permanency. 
However, such a rulemaking would be premature at 
this time. 



SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 

Section S7.2 of Standard No. 110 and section S9.2 
of Standard No. 120 require the owner's manual of a 
vehicle equipped with a non-pneumatic spare tire to 
contain information explaining the tire's proper use. 
Along with this explanation, the owner's manual for 
such vehicles must include the NPTIC number that is 
labeled on the non-pneumatic tire assembly pursuant 
to the requirements of S4.3(a) of Standard No. 129. The 
purpose of this requirement is to help identify the non- 
pneumatic tire with regard to its size and application 
to a specific non-pneumatic rim, wheel center member, 
or vehicle. 

In its petition for reconsideration, GM requested that 
the vehicle manufacturer be allowed to include in the 
owner's manual a simple reference to the vehicle 
placard, where information about the proper selection 
of the non-pneumatic tire assembly appears as required 
by the final rule in Standard No. 110 or Standard No. 
120, instead of being required to place the information 
in the manual itself. GM explained that this change 
would still allow manufacturers to convey information 
about the NPTIC but avoid unnecessary complications. 
GM stated that under the current requirements, vehicle 
manufacturers have to state in the owner's manual the 
NPTIC for the non-pneumatic tire used on each specific 
version of the vehicle model. GM believed that this 
would necessitate having more than one version of 



the owner's manual for the same vehicle model, thus 
increasing the potential for placing an incorrect manual 
in a vehicle which could result in selecting an incorrect 
replacement non-pneumatic tire assembly. The peti- 
tioner stated that while the owner's manual could 
contain a table with all potential non-pneumatic tire 
sizes, such a table could be difficult to understand, thus 
resulting in an incorrect replacement of a non- 
pneumatic tire assembly. GM further stated that 
owner's manuals are not required to contain informa- 
tion about the size, speed or load restriction, or 
Uniform Tire Quality Grades (UTQG) of the road tire 
fitted to a specific model. Instead, the owners are 
referred to the vehicle placard and UTQG brochure for 
that information. This prompted GM to request that 
the requirements for providing information regarding 
non-pneumatic tire assemblies be consistent with those 
for road tires. 

Upon reconsideration, NHTSA has decided to grant 
GM's request permitting the owner's manual to include 
a reference to the information about the NPTIC set 
forth in S4.3(e) of Standard No. 110 and S5.3.6 of 
Standard No. 120 that is located on the vehicle placard. 
This information will still be required on the tire itself. 
After reviewing GM's petition, the agency believes that 
including a reference in the owner's manual that the 
NPTIC can be found on the vehicle placard will ade- 
quately convey this information to the owner because 
the information will continue to be readily available to 
the vehicle owner. 



Test Procedure for Vertical Strength 
Along with performance requirements and test 
procedures for a non-pneumatic tire's lateral strength, 
tire endurance, and high speed performance, the final 
rule included requirements for a tire's strength in 
vertical loading. The agency determined that these 
requirements will assure a non-pneumatic tire's struc- 
tural integrity and durability. 

In S5.3.2, the final rule specifies that a test "cleat" 
must be forced into the non-pneumatic tire's tread at 
five test points equally spaced around the tire's circum- 
ference. The final rule also specifies the test cleat's 
dimensions, as follows: a length of one inch greater 
than the maximum tire width of the tire, a width of 
one-half inch with the surface which contacts the tire's 
tread having one-quarter inch radius, and a height of 
one inch greater than the difference between the 
unloaded radius on 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. 

In its petition for reconsideration, RMA requested 
that the dimensions of the test cleat be modified by 
adding the word "minimum" before the word "length" 



PART 571; S129-PRE 23 



and "height" in S5.3.2.2. It claimed that, at present, 
this provision requires a unique cleat for each size non- 
pneumatic spare tire. RMA's requested amendment 
would allow the same test fixture to be used for several 
sizes of non-pneumatic spare tires. 

Upon reconsideration, NHTSA agrees with RMA's 
request to include the word "minimum" in the provi- 
sion describing the test cleat's length and height. The 
agency believes that this modification will reduce the 
testing burden on manufacturers by permitting a more 
versatile test device, without adversely affecting the 
test's ability to measure a non-pneumatic tire's 
strength in vertical loading. 

Upon further review of this provision, the agency has 
decided to change the phrase in S5. 3. 2. 2(c) which reads 
". . .the mimmitm radius of the non-pneumatic rim. . ." 
to ". . .the maxim.um radius of the non-pneumatic 
rim. . ." The agency notes that the language as initial- 
ly adopted in the final rule was based on the NPRM's 
proposal to use a plunger test device. The agency now 
believes that the newly adopted phrase is more ap- 
propriate given that instead of the plunger test, a cleat 
test is used to determine a non-pneumatic tire's 
strength in vertical loading. 

ConforTuing Amendments 

Upon further review, the agency has decided to 
modify the definition for "wheel center member" to 
add at the end of the existing definition the following 
language: "or in the case of a non-pneumatic tire not 
incorporating a wheel, a mechanical device which 
attaches, either integrally or separably, to the non- 
pneumatic tire and provides the connection between 
the tire and the vehicle." The agency believes that this 
conforming amendment is necessary to make the 
definition for wheel center member consistent with the 
types of non-pneumatic tire designs possible under the 
definition for non pneumatic tire assembly. While the 
agency does not anticipate that this modification will 
affect the current non-pneumatic tire designs now 
being produced or developed, the modification may 
permit unforeseen non-pneumatic tire designs that may 
be developed in the future. The agency believes that 
by modifying the definition to allow greater flexibility, 
the agency is better fulfilling its goal to promulgate a 
generic standard. 

Upon further review, the agency is also modifying 
S4.3(c) by replacing the phrase ". . .wheel tire assem- 
bly that is contained. . ." with ". . .wheel center mem- 
ber that is contained. . ." The agency has determined 
that this conforming amendment is necessary to make 
this provision consistent with the listing requirements 
in S4.4. 



Effective Date 
NHTSA notes that section 103(c) of the Vehicle j' 
Safety Act requires that each order shall take effect r®' 
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. As with the final 
rule, NHTSA believes that there is "good cause" not 
to require the full 180 day lead-in period given that it 
is already permissible to equip vehicles with these tires. 
In addition, these amendments will provide greater 
design flexibility in the production and testing of non- 
pneumatic tires without imposing any mandatory 
requirement on manufacturers. Because the amend- 
ments provide manufacturers with additional ways to 
comply with the requirements adopted in the final rule, 
they result in no additional burden to any manufac- 
turer. In addition, the public interest will be served by 
not delaying the introduction of these alternative 
methods of compliance. Therefore, the agency has 
determined that there is good cause to set an effective 
date 30 days after publication of this notice. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the agency is 
amending Standard No. 110, Tire Selection andRirris, 
Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor 
Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and Standard No. 
129, NewNon-PneuTnatic Tiresfor Passenger Cars, in 
Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations at Part 571 . 
as follows: 1. In § 571.110, S6 is revised to read as L .. 
follows: 

S6 Labeling Requirements for Non-Pneumatic Spare 
Tires or Tire Assembies. 

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 include, in letters or 
numerals not less than 0.156 inches high, the informa- 
tion specified in paragraphs S6(a) and (b). The infor- 
mation shall be permanently molded, stamped, or 
otherwise permanently marked into or onto the non- 
pneumatic tire or non-pneumatic tire assembly, or shall 
appear on a label that is permanently attached to the 
tire or tire assembly. If a label is used, it shall be sub- 
surface printed, made of material that is resistant to 
fade, heat, moisture and abrasion, and attached in such 
a manner that it cannot be removed without destroy- 
ing or defacing the label on the non-pneumatic tire or 
tire assembly. The information specified in paragraphs 
S6(a) and (b) shall appear on both sides of the non- 
pneumatic tire or tire assembly, 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, in which case the information specified in Ps,l 
paragraphs S6(a) and (b) shall only be required on the ^ 
outward facing side. The information shall be posi- 
tioned on the tire or tire assembly such that it is not 



PART 571; S129-PRE 24 



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 

P use with that tire in this standard or in Standard No. 

129. 

(a) FOR TEMPORARY USE ONLY; and 

(b) MAXIMUM 50 M.P.H. 

2. In § 571.110, S7 is revised to read as follows: 



S7 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 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 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 information related 

>to appropriate use for the non-pneumatic spare tire in- 
cluding at a minimum the information set forth in S6(a) 
and (b) and either the information set forth in S4.3(e) 
or a statement that the information set forth in S4.3(e) 
is located on the vehicle placard and on the non- 
pneumatic tire; 

(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. 

3. In § 571.120, S8 is revised to read as follows: 

S8 L abeling 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 include, in letters or 
numerals not less than 0.156 inches high, the informa- 
tion specified in paragraphs S8(a) and (b). The infor- 
mation shall be permanently molded, stamped, or 
. otherwise permanently marked into or onto the non- 
I pneumatic tire or non-pneumatic tire assembly, or shall 
appear on a label that is permanently attached to the 
tire or tire assembly. If a label is used, it shall be sub- 



surface printed, made of material that is resistant to 
fade, heat, moisture and abrasion, and attached in such 
a manner that it cannot be removed without destroy- 
ing or defacing the label on the non-pneumatic tire or 
tire assembly. The information specified in paragraphs 
SB(a) and (b) shall appear on both sides of the non- 
pneumatic tire or tire assembly, 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, in which case the information specified in 
paragraphs S8(a) and (b) shall only be required on the 
outward facing side. The information shall be posi- 
tioned 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. 

4. In § 571.120, S9 is revised to read as follows: 

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 d,isplay 
the information set forth in SB 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 information related 
to appropriate use for the non-pneumatic spare tire in- 
cluding at a minimum the information set forth in S8(a) 
and (b) and either the information set forth in S5.3.6 
or a statement that the information set forth in S5.3.6 
is located on the vehicle placard and on the non- 
pneumatic tire. 

(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. 

5. In § 571.129, S3 is revised so that the definition for 
"wheel center member" reads as follows: 



PART 571; S129-PRE 25 



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; or in the case of a non-pneumatic tire assem- 
bly not incorporating a wheel, a mechanical device 
which attaches, either integrally or separably, to the 
non-pneumatic tire and provides the connection be- 
tween the tire and the vehicle. 

6. In § 571.129, S4.3 is revised to read as follows: 
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 assem- 
bly, each non-pneumatic tire assembly shall include, in 
letters or numerals not less than 0.078 inches high, the 
information specified in paragraphs S4.3(a) through (f). 
The information shall be permanently molded, stamped 
or otherwise permanently marked into or onto the non- 
pneumatic tire or non-pneumatic tire assembly, except 
that the information specified in S4.3(d) and S4.3(g) 
may appear on a label that is permanently attached to 
the tire or tire assembly. If a label is used, it shall be 
subsurface printed, made of a material that is resistant 
to fade, heat, moisture, and abrasion, and attached in 
such a manner that it cannot be removed without des- 
troying or defacing the label on the non-pneumatic tire 
or tire assembly. The information shall appear on both 
sides of the non-pneumatic tire or non-pneumatic tire 
assembly, 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, in which case 
the information shown in paragraphs S4.3(a) through 
(g) 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 mem- 
ber designated for use with that tire in S4.4 of this stan- 
dard or in 49 CFR § 571.110 or 49 CFR § 571.120. 

(a) The non-pneumatic tire identification code 
("NPTIC"); 

(b) Load rating, which, if expressed in kilograms, 
shall be followed in parenthesis 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 center 
member 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 certifica- 
tion that the tire conforms to applicable Federal mo- 
tor vehicle safety standards; 

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

(g) The labeling requirements set forth in S6 of Stan- 
dard No. 110 (S 571.110), or S8 of Standard No. 120 
(§ 571.120). 

7. In § 571.129, S5.3.2.2 is revised to read as follows: 

S5.3.2.2 The test cleat is made of steel and has the 
following dimensions: 

(a) Minimum 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, 
and 

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



Issued on April 22, 1991. 



Jerry Ralph Curry 
Administrator 



56 F.R. 19308 
April 26, 1991 



PART 571; S129-PRE 26 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 129 

New Non-Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars 

(Doclcet 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 capabili- 
ty to deflect in response to the vertical loads and trac- 
tive 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 at- 
taches, 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 car- 
cass or the linear distance between the exterior edges 
of the tread, both being measured parallel to the roll- 
ing 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 trac- 
tive 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 al- 
phanumeric code that is assigned by the manufacturer 
to identify the tire with regard to its size, application 
to a specific non-pneiunatic rim or wheel center mem- 
ber, 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!; or in the case of a non- 
pneumatic tire assembly not incorporating a wheel, a 
mechanical device which attaches, either integrally or 
separably, to the non-pneumatic tire and provides the 
connection between the tire and the vehicle. (56 F.R. 
19308— April 26, 1991. Effective: May 28, 1991.)! 
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. 



(Rev. 4/26/91) 



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-pneumatic 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 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 
include, in letters or numerals not less than 0.078 
inches high, the information specified in paragraphs 
S4.3(a) through (f). The information shall be perma- 
nently molded, stamped or otherwise permanently 
marked into or onto the non-pneumatic tire or non- 
pneumatic tire assembly, except that the information 
specified in S4.3(d) and S4.3(g) may appear on a label 
that is permanently attached to the tire or tire assem- 
bly. If a label is used, it shall be subsurface printed, 
made of a material that is resistant to fade, heat, 
moisture, and abrasion, and attached in such a manner 
that it cannot be removed without destroying or defac- 
ing the label on the non-pneumatic tire or tire assem- 
bly. The information shall appear on both sides of the 
non-pneumatic tire or non-pneumatic tire assembly, 
except, in the case of a non-pneumatic tire assembly 
which has a particular side that must always face 



(Rev. 4/26/91) 



PART 571; S 129-2 



k outward when mounted on a vehicle, in which case the 
P information shown in paragraphs S4.3(a) through (g) 
shall only be required on the outward facing side. The 
information shall be positioned on the tire or tire as- 
sembly such that it is not placed on the thread or the 
outermost edge of the tire and is not obstructed by any 
portion of any non-pneumatic rim or wheel center mem- 
ber designated for use with that tire in S4.4 of this stan- 
dard or in 49 CFR § 571.110 or 49 CFR § 571.120. 

(a) The non-pneumatic tire identification code 
(NPTIC) 

(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 center 
member 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 certifica- 

. tion that the tire conforms to applicable Federal motor 
i 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). (56 F.R. 19308-April 26, 1991. Effec- 
tive: May 28, 1991.)] 

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 
P 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 follovring organizations: 

The Tire and Rim Association 

The European Tire and Rim Technical Organization 

Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association, 

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 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. 



(Rev. 4/26/91) 



PART 571; S 129-3 



Pivot on Centerline 
V" of Beam 



I [ 



(Beam Horizontal) 




Non-Pneumatic 
Tire Assembly 



Rotational Axis of 
Non-Pneumatic Tire Assembly 



Figure 1 . - Lateral Force Test Fixture (Dimension in Inches) 




Centerline 



End View 



Front View 



Figure 2. - Lateral Force Test Block (Dimension in Inches) 
Dimensional Tolerance is ±0.050 in 



PART 571; S 129-4 



^ S5.2 Lateral strength. 

W S5.^.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. 

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 
i 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. 

S5.3.2.1 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 
w height axis (see S5. 3. 2. 2(c)), coinciding with a radius 
m 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) Minimum 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, 
and 

(c) Minimum 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. (56 
F.R. 19308— April 26, 1991. Effective: May 28, 1991.)! 

55.3.2.3 The energy level is calculated by the fol- 
lowing formula: 

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 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 following schedule 
without interruption (the loads for the following 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 



(Rev. 4/26/91) 



PART 571; S129-5 



S5.4.2.4 Immediately after nmning 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. 

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 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. 

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 con- 
ditions 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 deli- 
vered for introduction into interstate commerce, or im- 
ported into the United States, for any purpose. 

55 F.R. 29581 
July 20, 1990 



c. 



< 



(Rev. 4/26/91) 



PART 571; S 129- 



PREAMBLE TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 131 

School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices 

(Docket No. 90-01; Notice 2) 

RIN: 2127-AD16 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This notice establishes a new safety stan- 
dard requiring new school buses to be equipped with 
a stop signal arm. The standard requires that the stop 
signal arm be octagonal, meet minimum specified 
dimensions, and have the word "STOP" in white letters 
on a background which is red with a white border. To 
increase the arm's conspicuity, the new standard also 
requires that the arm be either reflectorized or have 
at least two red flashing lamps. The standard requires 
that the device be located on the left side of the bus. 
The standard further requires that it be automatically 
deployed, at a minimum, during the entire time that 
the red signal lamps required by Standard No. 108 are 
activated. In addition, the standard allows a means by 
which the driver could manually override the automatic 
mechanism, provided that the override is equipped with 
an audible signal to prevent permanent engagement 
of the override. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: This standard becomes effective 
September 1, 1992. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 
Although statistics about school bus operation 
demonstrate that school buses provide an extremely 
safe form of transportation, the agency is committed 
to improving school bus safety. At the request of 
Congress, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 
studied school bus safety to determine which safety 
measures would be "most effective" in protecting 
school children while boarding, leaving, and riding in 
school buses. (See "Surface Transportation and 
Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987," P.L. 
100-17. 204(a) 101 Stat. 219, April 2, 1987.) In May 
1989, the National Research Council (NRC), an agency 
of the NAS, issued a report entitled "Improving School 
Bus Safety," Special Report No. 222. Among other 



things, the study reviewed relevant crash data and 
potential safety measures to prevent injuries suffered 
by pedestrians, especially students, struck by a school 
bus or a vehicle passing the bus. 



on data from the Fatal Accident Reporting 
System (FARS) for the years 1982 through 1986 about 
student-aged children killed in school bus related 
crashes, the NAS report concluded that in an average 
year, 12 of those killed were student-aged passengers 
in school buses or vehicles operated as school buses, 
eight were passengers of other vehicles, and 38 were 
pedestrians killed after being struck by the school bus 
or other vehicle. Of the 38 pedestrian fatalities, approx- 
imately 26 were killed by school buses or vehicles oper- 
ating as school buses. The other 12 pedestrian fatalities 
resulted from pedestrians being struck by other vehi- 
cles passing a school bus that stopped to load or unload 
passengers. An independent study by the Kansas 
Department of Education concluded that for the years 
1982 through 1988, there were an average of 11 
children killed each year by vehicles passing school 
buses in loading zones. NHTSA's subsequent analysis 
of FARS data for the years 1982 through 1988 indi- 
cated that about half of the bus-caused pedestrian 
fatalities (12 annually) occurred as the children were 
boarding or leaving the bus. 

The NAS study also estimated that each year 950 
pedestrians are injured in school bus loading zones, of 
which it assumed, based on extrapolating from State 
data, 800 involve student-aged pedestrians. Approxi- 
mately 525 of these pedestrians are injured by being 
struck by vehicles other than the school bus; the 
remainder are struck by the school bus. Twenty percent 
of these injuries are categorized as being "incapacitat- 
ing injuries." These injuries are defined by the Ameri- 
can National Standards Institute (ANSI) as including 
any injury that prevents the injured person from 
walking, driving or normally continuing activities he 
or she was capable of performing before the injury 
occurred. These include severe lacerations, broken or 



PART 571; S131-PRE 1 



distorted limbs, skull and chest injuries. The majority 
of non-fatal injuries are caused by vehicles other than 
the school bus striking the student pedestrian. 

These data about pedestrians indicate that despite 
an apparent downward trend, deaths and injuries 
caused by vehicles passing school buses remain a 
significant safety problem. The data also indicate that 
children are at a much greater risk of being killed while 
boarding or leaving a school bus than they are while 
on board a bus. 

The 1987 Act directed the agency to review the NAS 
report to determine safety measures that were poten- 
tially "most effective" in improving school bus safety. 
The agency issued a notice endorsing some of the 
recommendations in the NAS report, finding that they 
had the potential for reducing fatalities and injuries to 
school bus users (54 FR 29629, July 13, 1989). As for 
equipment intended to increase pedestrian safety in 
school bus loading zones, the agency concluded that 
programs to require the installation of stop signal arms 
and crossview mirrors on school buses were potentially 
among the "most effective" in improving school bus 
safety. 

A stop signal arm is a device patterned after conven- 
tional "STOP" signs and attached to the left side of 
a school bus. When the school bus stops, the stop signal 
arm extends outward from the bus. Its purpose is to 
alert motorists that a school bus has stopped or is stop- 
ping. In considering the effectiveness of stop signal 
arms, the NAS report emphasized the difficulty in 
conclusively determining the effectiveness of school bus 
safety measures. Nevertheless, the NAS report cited 
studies demonstrating that stop signal arms are 
effective in reducing illegal passing of stopped school 
buses, thus reducing the risk to pedestrians struck by 
other vehicles in school bus loading zones. For instance, 
a 1983 study by Hale et al. indicated that school buses 
equipped with 8-light systems and stop signal arms 
recorded almost 40 percent fewer passing violations 
than buses equipped with light systems but not the stop 
signal arm. (Hale, A.R. et al. "Development and Test 
Rural Pedestrian Countermeasures," NHTSA Report 
DTNH22-80-C07568.). Similarly, a study by Brackett 
et al., comparing passing violations before and after 
school buses were equipped with a stop signal arm, 
estimated that passing violations could be reduced 
about 30 percent through the use of stop signal arms. 
(Brackett, R.Q. et al. "School Bus Safety Equipment 
Evaluation," Texas Transportation Institute, The 
Texas A&M University System, College Station, TX, 
1984.) 

Based on these considerations. NHTSA initiated a 
series of efforts to assess methods to improve school 
bus safety, including pedestrian safety in school bus 
loading zones. In taking these steps, NHTSA empha- 
sized that the safety record of school buses has been 



excellent. Although school buses transport many more 
passengers per trip than other vehicles, the occupant 
fatality rate per vehicle mile driven is only one-fourth jjjj 
that of passenger cars. Similarly, the number of fatal- \^^ 
ities and injuries related to pedestrians in school bus 
loading zones is comparatively small. 

Nevertheless, because of the special concern for the 
well-being of school children and because each fatality 
and injury involving them is particularly tragic, 
NHTSA issued two notices about measures intended 
to reduce the risk to pedestrians near stopped school 
buses. One notice was an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking (ANPRM) to obtain information about 
outside cross-view mirror systems and other equipment 
(e.g., crossing control arm barriers, audible back-up 
warnings, video monitors, and proximity detectors) 
intended to help school bus drivers detect pedestrians, 
thus preventing pedestrians from being struck by 
school buses (54 F.R. 53127, December 27, 1989). The 
agency is reviewing comments to that notice and 
expects to issue a subsequent notice soon. A second 
notice proposed a new safety standard to require school 
buses to be equipped with a stop signal arm (55 FR 
3619, February 2, 1990). That notice provides the 
starting point for this final rule. 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Stop Signal Arms 

In its February 1990 notice, the agency proposed that ^ 
the stop signal arm meet minimum size requirements, ft 1 
be octagonal, have a specified color scheme (i.e., a red 
background with a white border and the word "STOP" 
in white letters), be reflectorized, and be installed on 
the left side of the bus. The notice also proposed that 
the stop signal arm be automatically deployed 
whenever the red signal lamps required by Standard 
No. 108 were activated. Finally, the notice proposed 
to allow a means by which the driver could manually 
override the automatic deployment mechanism. 

The NPRM addressed several issues and invited 
comments about stop signal arms and pedestrians 
struck by vehicles passing stopped school buses. The 
notice referred to the previously mentioned studies 
evaluating the effectiveness of stop signal arms and the 
endorsement of their use by the NAS report and by 
the Tenth National Conference on School Transporta- 
tion. The latter was a meeting of official representa- 
tives of State Departments of Education, local school 
district personnel, contract school bus operators, 
manufacturers, and others interested in school bus 
safety. 

The notice also explained that although no Federal 
provision requires the installation of a stop signal arm 
on school buses, some Federal provisions are designed ^^ 
to protect student pedestrians in the vicinity of stopped ^ 
school buses. First, section S5.1.4 of Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, 



PART 571; S131-PRE 2 



Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, (49 
CFR 571.108), which sets forth the minimum standard 
of performance, requires school buses to be equipped 
with either four red lamps (two in front of the bus and 
two in back of the bus) or an 8-lamp system with four 
amber lamps and four red lamps. The red lamps are 
automatically activated when the bus entrance door is 
opened. Second, Highway Safety Program Guideline 
No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (23 CFR 1204.4, 
Guideline 17), states that "(w)hen vehicles are equipped 
with stop signal arms, such devices should be operated 
only in conjunction with red signal lamps." (Section 
IV.B.3.(6)c.) The Highway Safety Program Guidelines 
are designed to provide a uniform national pupil trans- 
portation safety program and to assist the States in 
achieving the highest level of safety in the transporta- 
tion of children on school buses. 

The NPRM also described the Society of Automotive 
Engineer's recommended practice, SAE J1133 APR 
84, School Bus Stop Arms, which is not binding on any 
manufacturer or school bus user. That practice sets 
forth test procedures, "requirements," and guidelines 
for school bus stop signal arms. The recommended 
practice also specifies the sign's color scheme, the 
minimum size, and the inclusion of at least two flash- 
ing lamps. It incorporates vibration, moisture, dust, 
corrosion, warpage, durability, and flash rate tests for 
the lamps and sets forth requirements for luminous in- 
tensity, color, and materials. SAE J1133 also sets forth 
"guidelines," for photometric design, certain design 
aspects, installation, and activation. 

The NPRM also explained the potential Federalism 
implications of the rulemaking. As of December 1989, 
36 States required stop signal arms. The agency 
estimated that at least 71 percent of new school buses 
were being equipped with stop signal arms. The notice 
explained that because FMVSSs set forth minimum 
standards of performance, any purchaser of school 
buses may order from a school bus manufacturer a 
school bus that not only meets but exceeds the require- 
ments in the FMVSSs. In addition, under section 103(d) 
of the Vehicle Safety Act, which provides for the 
preemption of nonidentical State requirements cover- 
ing the same aspect of performance of a FMVSS, a 
State may require school buses "procured for its own 
use" to meet a performance standard higher than the 
Federal one. After noting that many States have based 
their stop signal arm requirements on SAE Jl 133, the 
notice described the stop signal arm requirements of 
certain States. 

Comments to the NPRM and the Agency's Response 
NHTSA received 25 comments in response to the 
NPRM. These were from State organizations, school 
bus and school bus equipment manufacturers, associa- 
tions, school bus contractors, and individuals. All but 



two commenters agreed with the general proposal to 
require a stop signal arm on school buses. Neverthe- 
less, commenters had many different opinions on 
specific requirements about the design and operation 
of stop signal arms. The agency has considered the 
points raised in the comments in developing the final 
rule. The agency's discussion of the significant com- 
ments and other relevant information is set forth 
below. For the convenience of the reader, this notice 
follows the NPRM's order. 



General Considerations 
Safety Need 

The proposal first asked whether there was a safety 
need for requiring the installation of the stop signal 
arm. Although commenters noted the difficulty in 
obtaining comparative data to establish a safety need 
for the requirement, the consensus was that such a 
safety need exists. For instance, the Washington 
Superintendent of Public Instruction (Washington) 
commented that there was "no question" about the 
safety need for stop signal arms. The Ohio Department 
of Education stated that stop signal arms are directly 
related to better student safety. Only the California 
Department of Education (California DOE) and the 
California Highway Patrol (CHP) believed that there 
was no safety need. 

Given the data and recommendations in the NAS 
report, the Hale and Brackett studies on illegal school 
bus passes, and general support in the docket com- 
ments for stop signal arms, the agency has concluded 
that a safety need exists for better controlling the 
movement of vehicles passing stopped school buses 
during the loading and unloading of passengers. The 
agency notes that the opposition from the California 
entities may stem from that State's mandatory student 
escort program that requires school bus drivers to 
escort elementary school children across the street. 
Despite California's opposition, the agency notes that 
the purpose of traffic control devices is to "help insure 
highway safety by providing for the orderly and 
predictable movement of traffic, both motorized and 
non-motorized, throughout the national highway trans- 
portation system, and to provide such guidance and 
warnings as are needed to insure the safe and informed 
operation of individual elements of the traffic stream." 
{Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets 
and Highways, Federal Highway Administration, 1988, 
lA-1) (emphasis added). The Manual's section on 
"Traffic Controls for School Areas" further explained 
that "(n)on-uniform procedures and devices cause 
confusion among pedestrians and vehicle operators, 
prompt wrong decisions, and can contribute to acci- 
dents. In order to achieve uniformity of traffic control 
in school areas, comparable traffic situations must be 



PART 571; S131-PRE 3 



treated in the same manner." This goal for nationwide 
uniformity among the States to reduce confusion neces- 
sitates requiring all school buses to be equipped with 
a stop signal arm. Even CHP agreed about the need 
for nationwide uniformity, stating that a "nationally 
consistent equipment requirement [is needed so] that 
every school bus in the nation should send the same 
signals to other motorists to stop traffic." 

Effectiveness of Stop Signal Arms 
Based on the previously mentioned studies on the 
effectiveness of school buses equipped with a stop 
signal arm in reducing illegal passing of stopped school 
buses, the agency tentatively concluded in its proposal 
that such a requirement would reduce the number of 
student pedestrians struck by vehicles passing stopped 
school buses. The NPRM requested comments about 
the reasonableness of its tentative conclusion. 

In response to that request, several commenters 
provided information about the effectiveness of stop 
signal arms. The Connecticut Department of Motor 
Vehicles (Connecticut), the Insurance Institute for 
Highway Safety (IIHS), Mayflower Contract Services, 
the Colorado Department of Education (Colorado), the 
Florida Department of Education (Florida), Kickert 
School Bus Lines (Kickert), and the Hawaii Depart- 
ment of Transportation (Hawaii) indicated either that 
they believed stop signal arms are effective in protect- 
ing pedestrians near stopped buses or provided infor- 
mation that alluded to the effectiveness of these 
devices. Several commenters agreed with statements 
in the NAS report and the NPRM about the difficulty 
in empirically determining the effectiveness of stop 
signal arms. Only CHP and the California DOE ques- 
tioned whether school bus stop signal arms would be 
effective. 

Since issuing the NPRM, the agency has analyzed 
further information indicating that stop signal arms are 
effective in reducing illegal passing of stopped school 
buses. A 1986-1987 study conducted in Henrico 
County, Virginia, a jurisdiction requiring school buses 
to be equipped with a stop signal arm, concluded that 
each school bus was illegally passed an average of 1.25 
times per day. In contrast, the 1984 study conducted 
by Brackett in Texas, a jurisdiction in which school 
buses were not equipped with stop signal arms, con- 
cluded that each school bus was illegally passed an 
average of 2.8 times per day. Aggregating the number 
of illegal passes over the course of a school year for 
those school buses not now required to be equipped 
with a stop signal arm indicates that adoption of such 
a requirement will result in millions of fewer instances 
of illegal passing. This reduced risk of illegal passing 
of stopped school buses, in turn, should reduce the 
potential for injuries and fatalities sustained by student 
pedestrians in such illegal passing situations. Because 



the docket comments and the agency's subsequent 
analysis appear to confirm the agency's initial deter- 
mination that stop signal arms are effective in reduc- 
ing the risk to pedestrians around stopped school buses, 
the agency has decided to require school buses to be 
equipped with a stop signal arm. 

WhOe the number of illegal passes of a stopped school 
bus can be reduced by the installation of stop signal 
arms, the agency encourages the States to educate 
motorists more fully about their laws on the stopping 
for school buses that are loading and unloading 
students. The agency also encourages State and local 
authorities to increase their enforcement efforts in this 
area. 

The Effect of a Federal Standard on the States 
After discussing current levels of stop signal arm 
usage and the proposal's anticipated effect on the 
States and State laws, the notice invited comments 
about the potential impact of a Federal safety standard 
on existing State laws. In particular, the notice asked 
whether States would have to amend their laws to 
comply with the proposed Federal standard in light of 
section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act. 

Of the 12 State organizations that commented on the 
proposal, all but the two California entities favored the 
proposal. In addition. Blue Bird stated that a Federal 
standard was necessary to promote uniformity. As for 
specific amendments to existing laws, CHP stated that 
the California Code of Regulations would have to be 
amended if a stop signal arm is to be installed on 
California school buses. CHP also stated that the 
California Vehicle Code would have to be amended to 
permit flashing lights if such lights on the stop signal 
arm were required. Two States favoring the proposal 
stated that a Federal requirement would affect their 
laws. Florida commiented that the proposal's perfor- 
mance and locational requirements might affect their 
current requirements. The Illinois Department of 
Transportation (Illinois) explained that it would have 
to amend its regulation, which currently requires a hex- 
agonal semaphore. 

After reviewing the comments, the agency concludes 
that a Federal standard requiring a stop signal arm on 
school buses will not impose significant burdens on the 
States. The agency has determined that this final rule 
is necessary to ensure uniform school bus stopping and 
signalling procedures to give passing motorists a con- 
sistent message, even though this action will require 
several States to equip their school buses with a stop 
signal arm and a few others to modify their laws. It 
appears that those States having to modify their laws 
will have little difficulty in enacting the necessary legis- 
lation to comply with the new safety standard and sec- 
tion 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act. 



PART 571; S131-PRE 4 



Stop Signal Arm Characteristics 
The NPRM proposed that the stop signal arm be a 

»regTalar octagon in shape, be on a red background with 
the word "STOP" in white lettering on both sides and 
a white border, be at least a specified size, and be reflec- 
torized. The proposal also requested comments on the 
desirability of adopting other requirements, including 
those in the SAE recommended practice about flash- 
ing lights. 

As for the stop signal arm's shape, the NPRM pro- 
posed that it be patterned after conventional octagonal 
highway stop signs with a red background with white 
lettering. The agency reasoned that drivers recognize 
the meaning of octagonal signs and have been condi- 
tioned to stop when they see them. The notice further 
explained that standardization of shape, color scheme, 
and the word "STOP" would ensure that a driver 
traveling out-of-state would encounter the same 
familiar stop sign design throughout the country. In 
addition, the proposal noted that FE.W A' s Manual on 
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (1988) requires stop 
signs to have these characteristics and that the Tenth 
National Conference expressly recommended that the 
stop signal arm have these characteristics. 

In response to the proposal's request for comments. 
Blue Bird, Colorado, CHP, the National Student Trans- 
portation Association (NSTA), 3M, Superior Coach, 
I and a school teacher supported the proposal to stand- 
' ardize the stop signal arm's shape and color scheme. 
Even Illinois, a State now requiring a hexagonal shaped 
sign, did not object to standardizing the stop signal 
arm's shape. Based on the foregoing, the agency is 
adopting the requirements that the stop signal arm be 
octagonal in shape with white letters and a white 
border on a red background, as set forth in Figure 1 
of the final rule. 

Minimum Size Requirements 
The NPRM also proposed to specify the minimum 
size of the sign and its lettering. Based on the FHWA's 
"Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs," a reference 
guide specifying the size and appearance of letters and 
numerals used on highway signs, and SAE J1133's 
recommended practice, the agency proposed to require 
that the octagonal stop signal arm be a regular octagon 
at least 450 mm x 450 mm in diameter (approximately 
17.7 inches x 17.7 inches), that the white border be 
at least 12 mm wide (approximately 0.47 inches), and 
that the white lettering be at least 150 mm (approxi- 
mately 5.9 inches) in height and have a stroke width 
of at least 20 mm (approximately 0.79 inches). The 
proposal asked whether the proposed size specifications 
I adopted from the FHWA practice and SAE J1133 
W should be incorporated in the standard and whether 
stop arms and lettering meeting these proposed size 
requirements would be large enough to be seen and 



understood by drivers of other vehicles approaching a 
stopped bus. 

In response to these proposals. Blue Bird, Florida, 
and NSTA expressly supported specifying the sign's 
size. In addition, the agency assumes that other com- 
menters who generally endorsed the proposal implicitly 
agreed to the proposed size. 3M believed that the 
proposed size might be inadequate to make the stop 
signal arm conspicuous, especially when other vehicles 
were traveling at 55 miles per hour. 

After reviewing the proposal on minimum size 
requirements in light of the comments, the agency has 
decided to adopt the size requirements, as proposed. 
Despite reservations by 3M, the agency concludes that 
the FHWA guidelines on highway signs, specifications 
in SAE J1133, and real-world experiences of States 
using stop signal arms indicate that the proposed mini- 
mum size requirements will ensure that the stop signal 
arm will be conspicuous to drivers of vehicles approach- 
ing a stopped school bus. Given that States may speci- 
fy requirements more stringent than the minimum 
requirements adopted in this notice, those States who 
agree with 3M's concerns may equip school buses with 
a larger stop signal arm. 



Conspicuity of Stop Signal Arms 
This final rule discusses reflectorization and flashing 
lights together because both measures are designed to 
improve the conspicuity of stop signal arms in poor 
lighting conditions. NHTSA proposed requiring stop 
signal arms be reflectorized, believing that reflectori- 
zation would increase the stop signal arm's conspicuity, 
especially when ambient lighting conditions are poor. 
The proposal requested comments about the need for, 
costs of, and requirements related to reflectorization. 
The agency also requested comments on requiring 
flashing lights on stop signal arms based on provisions 
in SAE J1133. 

Several commenters addressed reflectorization and 
illumination of stop signal arms. Colorado, Florida, 
Superior Coach, and a teacher stated that reflectori- 
zation together with illumination were effective in 
increasing the conspicuity of stop signal arms in poor 
lighting conditions. As for requiring reflectorization 
alone, the NSTA opposed such a requirement, stating 
that the benefits of such a requirement had not been 
established. Carpenter Body Works also opposed 
requiring reflectorization in any situation. Hawaii and 
Washington stated they do not require their stop signal 
arms to be reflectorized. The Virginia Department of 
Education (Virginia) preferred that reflectorization be 
at the State's option due to its additional costs. Illiilois 
and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Min- 
nesota) also stated that a stop signal arm with lights 
should be allowed as an option to reflectorization. IIHS 



PART 571; S131-PRE 5 



believed that flashing lights were more effective than 
reflectorization because reflectorization helps con- 
spicuity primarily in low light conditions such as when 
headlights on other vehicles render it visible. This led 
IIHS to conclude that reflectorization is not an ade- 
quate substitution for flashing lights in daylight hours. 
In contrast, 3M advocated requiring the use of reflec- 
torization as a "fail safe" system that would provide 
high visibility during darkness. 3M criticized the use 
of flashing lights which might fail, which could "com- 
pete and veil the sign shape and message," and which 
mean different things under different conditions. 
Similarly, CHP opposed flashing lights, stating that 
motorists might become jaded to the importance of 
their message in their uses on other types of vehicles 
such as emergency vehicles. 

Based on the data and the comments, the agency has 
determined that it is necessary to increase the con- 
spicuity of stop signal arms during poor lighting con- 
ditions. While the K-DOT school bus data indicate that 
most children are killed during "daylight" conditions, 
at least 10 percent are killed during limited light 
conditions (e.g., dawn, dusk, dark). In addition, 10 to 
20 percent of the fatalities occur during cloudy, rainy, 
snowy, and foggy conditions, which affect light condi- 
tions. Finally, the majority of fatalities occur from 
November to March, the months when daylight hours 
are shorter and weather conditions poorer. For the 
above reasons, the agency has decided to require 
measures to increase the conspicuity of stop signal 
arms. 

Despite the agency's conclusion that increased con- 
spicuity of stop signal arms is necessary, neither the 
comments nor independent studies conclusively indi- 
cate that one approach is superior to the other. After 
reviewing the merits of reflectorization and flashing 
lights to increase the conspicuity of stop signal arms, 
particularly during poor ambient lighting conditions, 
the agency has determined that school bus manufac- 
turers and purchasers should have the option of using 
either a reflectorized stop signal arm or one that is 
equipped with at least two red flashing lamps. This 
would enable the State or local school districts to follow 
their own particular preference to improve stop sig- 
nal arm conspicuity during limited or non-existing light 
conditions. They could decide to order buses with stop 
signal arms that are both reflectorized and equipped 
with flashing lamps. This decision is consistent with the 
statement in the FHWA's Manual on Uniform Traffic 
Control Devices that "signs used for school traffic 
control shall be reflectorized or illuminated when 
regularly scheduled classes begin or end during hours 
of darkness, and should be reflectorized or illuminated 
when there is considerable use of school buildings by 
children during hours of darkness." (7B-5) (emphasis 
added.) 



If reflectorized, both sides of the stop signal arm 
must use Type III retroreflectorized material that 
meets Standard Specifications for Construction of g^ 
Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects, \^ , 
FP-85, FHWA section 718 "Reflective Sheeting" 
(1985), as set forth in 86. 1 and Table 1 of the final rule. 

If flashing lamps are used, they must meet the 
requirements for color, flash rate, and vibration, 
moisture, dust, corrosion, photometry, and warpage, 
as set forth in S6.2 of the final rule. These tests are 
patterned after the tests in certain SAE Recommended 
Practices: for color in SAE J578, Color Specification 
for electrical signal lighting devices; for flash rate in 
SAE J1054, Warning Lamp Alternating Flashers; and 
for vibration, moisture, dust, corrosion, photometry, 
and warpage in SAE J575, Tests for Motor Vehicle 
Lighting Devices and Components and SAE J133, 
School Bus Stop Arm. 

The NPRM also requested comments about strobe 
lights on stop signal arms. The proposal noted that 
while strobe lights might prove beneficial in school 
districts operating in areas prone to poor visibility, re- 
quiring all school buses to be equipped with them would 
be expensive without providing significant additional 
safety benefits to most school districts. 

Florida, Illinois, NSTA, and CHP opposed requiring 
strobe lights on stop signal arms, stating that they were 
expensive and without any demonstrated safety /^^ 
benefit. CHP and IIHS stated that strobe lights had V 
the potential to make the stop signal arm less readable 
in certain situations. Because the comments confirm 
the agency's initial concerns about strobe lights, the 
agency continues to believe that strobe lights should 
not be required on stop signal arms. 

Location of Stop Signal Arm 
The NPRM proposed that the stop signal arm be in- 
stalled on the left side of the bus. The agency decided 
to propose this general requirement about stop signal 
arm location, while seeking comments on more specific, 
objective locational requirements. The proposal ex- 
plained the agency's preference for more precise loca- 
tional requirements, which could be important in 
increasing the conspicuity of stop signal arms. 

The commenters consistently favored locating the 
stop signal arm near the driver. Colorado stated that 
it requires a stop signal arm to be mounted outside the 
bus on the left side opposite the driver and immediately 
below the window. Minnesota commented that the arm 
should be approximately even with the driver's posi- 
tion. IIHS stated that stop signal arms typically are 
located near the driver at or just below the window line. |gg^ 
While IIHS was not aware of evidence that this is the \^ ' 
only effective position for stop signal arms, it believed ^ 
that standardizing the location would reduce motorist 



PART 571; S131-PRE 



confusion. Florida, NSTA, and CHP similarly believed 
that stop signal arms should be located near where they 

^ are most typically located today, i.e., outside the 

I driver's window. CHP also stated that stop signal arms 
should be located in a "transverse vertical plane that 
passes through the driver's seat," but out of the reach 
of the passengers who might play with it. Florida sug- 
gested that the top of the sign be immediately below 
the window line. 

At a July 1990 school bus transportation conference, 
State school bus transportation personnel expressed 
divergent opinions about the stop signal arm's location 
relative to the length of the school bus. While several 
States said they install the device near the driver's 
window, other States explained that they have been 
installing the device further rearward than the driver's 
window because the device may be more visible at these 
locations if the school bus is stopped at an angle to the 
road. California stated that given their escort program 
in which the bus driver holds a stop sign at the front 
of the school bus, placing the stop signal arm near the 
bus's rear would be more effective. 

Based on the goal for standardization, views of State 
school transportation personnel about effective loca- 
tions for stop signal arms, typical location of these 
devices now in use, and the Vehicle Safety Act's direc- 
tive that safety standards specify objective require- 
ments, S5.4.1 of the final rule requires that school 

I buses be equipped with one stop signal arm installed 
on the left side of the bus so that when extended it shall 
(1) be perpendicular to the side of the bus, plus or 
minus five degrees; (2) have the top edge of the octa- 
gon parallel to and within 6 inches of a horizontal plane 
passing through the lower edge of the driver's window 
frame; and (3) have the vertical centerline of the stop 
sign be at least 9 inches away from the school bus body 
when the sign is extended. The agency believes that 
these requirements provide uniform locational specifi- 
cations while providing users flexibility to install stop 
signal arms consistent with their experiences with 
these devices. 

Florida and CHP raised the issue of "dual" stop 
signal arms on longer school buses. Florida stated that 
it will require dual stop arms on its new school buses 
over 23 feet in length. CHP stated that the agency 
should require only one stop signal arm, but if a bus 
is equipped with a second stop signal arm, then "the 
forward stop arm should be blank on the rearward side, 
and the rearward stop arm should be blank on the 
forward side." 

In response to these comments, the agency has 
decided to permit school buses to be equipped with a 
second stop signal arm. Motorists following the school 

■ bus wall see two stop signs, thus reinforcing the 
message that they are to stop behind a stopped bus and 
not pass it. The optional second (rear) stop signal arm 



must comply with all the requirements for the manda- 
tory stop signal arm, except that its front must be 
blank. The purpose of this latter requirement is to avoid 
confusion for drivers approaching a stopped bus from 
the front. 

Activation and Override of Stop Signal Arms 

As for the operation of a bus's stop signal arm, the 
NPRM proposed that it be automatically deployed 
whenever the bus's red signal lamps required by S5.1.4 
of Standard No. 108 are activated, i.e., when the bus 
is in service and the entrance door is opened. The notice 
also proposed to allow, but not to require, a manual 
override, reasoning that while it would be worthwhile 
to permit a manual override, it should not be required 
given cost and engineering considerations associated 
with an override. The proposal explained that, at times, 
a manual override might be necessary to allow the stop 
signal arm to act independently from its automatic ac- 
tivation. For instance, when the weather is cold, the 
bus driver may wish to keep the school bus door closed 
but have the stop signal arm activated while a child 
crossed the street to board the bus. Similarly, when 
a bus has stopped at a railroad crossing and the driver 
opens a door to check for approaching trains, the stop 
signal arm need not or should not be activated while 
the door needs to be opened. 

The NPRM sought comments on the activation and 
override of stop signal arms. The agency was concerned 
about the possibility that an override device could 
permit a driver to override "permanently" the mecha- 
nism for automatically deploying the stop signal arm 
as long as the override device was activated. This would 
negate the safety benefits obtained from the stop signal 
arm. 

In commenting about permitting a manual override, 
several States commented on the proposal about tying 
the deployment of the stop signal arm to the activa- 
tion of the red stop signal lamps required by Standard 
108, i.e., the stop signal arm would be automatically 
deployed when the bus entrance door is opened and 
those lamps are activated. Washington, Illinois, and 
Florida each opposed tying the stop signal arm deploy- 
ment to the red signal lamp activation and suggested 
methods of stop signal arm activation other than open- 
ing the door. These States believed that their systems 
increased safety by preventing school children from 
leaving the bus before the driver had adequately con- 
trolled traffic. 

Washington recommended a procedure in which the 
bus driver would activate the flashing red lamps by 
extending the stop signal arm while the service door 
remained closed to keep the students ^thin the bus. 
The driver would only open the door after checking for 
stopped traffic. To accomplish its suggestion, Wash- 
ington recommended eliminating the door switch in 



PART 571; S131-PRE 7 



FMVSS No. 108, requiring a separate control for the 
stop signal arm independent of the switch that opens 
the door, and requiring that whenever the stop signal 
arm is extended, the flashing red lamps must operate. 
Illinois recommended that stop signal arm operation 
be patterned after its four-step procedure: (1) activate 
the amber lights by hand or foot control; (2) upon a 
complete stop, desecure but do not open the service 
door, which turns off the flashing amber lights and 
turns on the flashing red lamps and extends the stop 
signal arm; (3) when traffic is clear, open the service 
door with the red signal still activated and the stop 
signal arm still extended; and (4) close and secure the 
service door with the red lamps going off and the stop 
arm retracting. Florida recommended having drivers 
activate the stop signal arm before opening the serv- 
ice door and opposed activation by the door switch 
alone. Florida advocated its current procedure, requir- 
ing a three-position switch that controls the warning 
lights and the stop signal arm and stops traffic before 
the door is opened. 

After reviewing the proposal in light of these com- 
ments, the agency has decided to adopt the require- 
ment, as proposed. Accordingly, a stop signal arm must 
automatically extend, at a minimum, whenever the red 
signal lamps required by S5.1.4 of Standard 108 are 
activated. The agency emphasizes any system of acti- 
vation is permissible provided the stop signal arm is 
extended during, at least, the entire time that the red 
warning lamps are activated. Accordingly, the systems 
described by Washington, Illinois, and Florida are 
permissible under the final rule and appear to serve 
the interests of safety. The agency nevertheless has 
decided not to set forth specific requirements regard- 
ing these systems, because such specific requirements 
would be beyond the scope of the proposal and may 
overburden or otherwise adversely affect States using 
other means of stop signal arm deployment. For in- 
stance, adopting Illinois 's system would mandate the 
now optional 8-lamp system. Nevertheless, given the 
potential advantages of these systems in better con- 
trolling traffic, the agency encourages States to con- 
sider such a means for activating stop signal arms. 

As for manual override devices, Connecticut stated 
that it allows an override that can extend or withdraw 
the stop signal arm regardless of its normal operation, 
claiming that this eliminates damage to vehicles. Ohio 
requires an emergency system for extending stop 
signal arms and operating the red light. Minnesota 
commented that a manual override of the stop signal 
arm should also override the 8-lamp warning system. 
Illinois opposed allowing a manual override because it 
might be inadvertently left activated, preventing the 
stop arm from being extended when the bus was 
stopped to load or discharge passengers. NSTA 
opposed such an override, claiming that there was no 
need for it and that the driver could easily forget that 
the override was deployed, thus creating a permanent 



override. IIHS commented that an override should be 
permitted only if there was a provision reminding the 
bus operator of the override's activation. IIHS recom- m^, 
mended that a manual override system include audi- ^ ^ 
ble and visible reminders that would activate whenever 
the override is on and the bus is in use. 



on the agency's tentative conclusions in the 
NPRM and comments about the benefits from permit- 
ting a manual override device, the agency has con- 
cluded that there is adequate reason to permit an 
override device. This is especially true when school 
buses are used in non-school charter service where the 
use of the stop signal arm is prohibited by State law. 
However, to prevent permanent override, the mecha- 
nism for operating the override must be located within 
the driver's reach. Further, the bus must be equipped 
with a continuous or intermittent signal, which is 
audible to the driver and which operates whenever the 
engine is running and the override is activated. 

When school buses are used for non-school purposes, 
the agency is concerned that an audible signal, without 
any time limit, could become annoying to the driver and 
passengers during long boarding and unloading oper- 
ations and could be the cause of permanent disablement 
of the audible signal. As stated earlier, the purpose of 
the audible signal is to ensure that the stop signal arm 
is not permanently overriden. As a result, the agency 
has determined that it would be beneficial to allow 
audible override signals on buses to be equipped with tC 
a timer that requires the signal for at least 60 seconds. \ 
The 60-second time limit was chosen since it represents 
an adequate time for the bus driver to recognize the 
audible signal over any roadside noises and to realize 
that the stop signal arm's manual override is engaged. 
If a time limit device is used with the audible signal, 
it must automatically recycle every time the service 
entry door is opened while the engine is running and 
the manual override is engaged. 

Miscellaneous Issues: 
The NPRM also sought comments on issues related 
to but outside the scope of this rulemaking. These 
issues include the merits of equipping a school bus with 
an external loud speaker and increasing the conspicuity 
of school bus bumpers with a fluorescent paint. Those 
interested in these issues should review this rulemak- 
ing's docket, especially for comments by Washington, 
NSTA, Virginia, 3M, Superior Coach, Florida, and Ram 
Guard. As mentioned in the NPRM, the agency plans 
to use this information when considering future school 
bus safety measures. 

Effective Date 
The effective date of this final rule is September 1, ^g 
1992. Even though stop signal arms are now available, \^ 
some leadtime is necessary because a few States need 
to amend their legislative or administrative codes. 



PART 571; S131-PRE 



In addition, bus manufacturers need time to order the 

» devices from equipment manufacturers. Accordingly, 
the agency has decided to make this rule effective on 
September 1, 1992. 

Economic and Other Impacts 
NHTSA has considered the costs and other impacts 
of this rulemaking, and has prepared and placed a Final 
Regulatory Evaluation (FRE) in the Docket. Based on 
this evaluation, the agency has determined that the 
rulemaking is not "major" within the meaning of 
Executive Order 12291. Given general public and 
Congressional interest, the agency has determined that 
it is "significant" within the meaning of the Depart- 
ment of Transportation's regulatory policies and 
procedures. 

The NPRM calculated the annual additional con- 
sumer cost of buying school buses equipped with a stop 
signal arm by multiplying the unit price of equipping 
new school buses with this device by the number of 
school buses affected by the requirement. Based on 
several studies, the proposal estimated the unit cost 
for a reflectorized stop signal arm to be approximately 
$300. The agency calculated that approximately 10,900 
school buses would be affected by the requirement, i.e., 
of approximately 38,700 new school buses manufac- 
tured each year, 28.7 percent of currently operating 
i school buses were not equipped with a stop signal arm. 
Therefore, the proposal concluded that the approxi- 
mate aggregate annual cost of this requirement would 
be $300 per reflectorized stop signal arm without flash- 
ing lights X 10,900 school buses presently sold without 
stop signal arms for a total of $3,270,000. 

Two school bus manufacturers and several States 
responded to the proposal's request for information 
about the costs of requiring school buses to be equipped 
with a stop signal arm. Blue Bird and Thomas Built 
provided unit cost estimates ranging from $200 to $300 
for stop signal arms with different characteristics, e.g., 
reflectorized, with flashing lights, etc. and different 
means of activation. Blue Bird further explained that, 
based on its sales records for the 1989 model year, 67 
percent of all its new school buses were equipped with 
a stop signal arm. Florida commented that it requires 
two stop signal arms for buses exceeding 23 feet and 
that the second arm costs between $125 and $200. 
Illinois, Hawaii, and Washington commented that the 
cost of installing the proposed stop signal arm com- 
pared to the sign they now require would not be sig- 
nificant. California stated the total cost of retrofitting 
its 21,400 buses would exceed $8 milHon. 
^ The agency has revised its initial cost estimate based 
W on the comments and additional information. It now 
estimates that the unit cost for requiring school buses 
to be equipped with a stop signal arm will be between 
$200 and $300. The agency also has modified its esti- 



mates about the number of school buses affected by this 
final rule. Based on the data supplied by Blue Bird, the 
agency believes that 33 percent of the 38,700 new 
school buses manufactured each year are not equipped 
with stop signal arms. Therefore, the agency now 
estimates that 12,800 new school buses will be affected 
by this final rule. Stop signal arms can be vacuum, air, 
or electrically operated. Bluebird provided installation 
rates for the three types of systems for the 1989 model 
year as follows: vacuum —18 percent; air —46 percent; 
and electric —36 percent. Estimating installed prices 
of $200, $250, and $300 for vacuum, air, and 
electrically-operated systems, respectively, and apply- 
ing Bluebird's installation rates for the three types of 
systems, produces an estimated annual cost of 
$3,315,000 for this rulemaking. 

In response to California's concern about the costs 
for retrofitting school buses currently in use, NHTSA 
emphasizes that its safety standards apply to the 
manufacture and sale of new school buses. Therefore, 
this rulemaking does not require any State or local 
jurisdiction to install this device on school buses now 
in use. 

As explained in the earlier discussion about the ef- 
fectiveness of stop signal arms, the agency estimates 
that the effectiveness of these devices ranges between 
30 to 55 percent. Although no conclusive relationship 
can be demonstrated between illegal passes and injuries 
and fatalities, each illegal pass of a stopped school bus 
has the potential of striking a student in a loading zone. 
As elaborated in the FRE, requiring the installation 
of stop signal arms should reduce the number of illegal 
passes by millions of incidents each year. 

NHTSA has considered the effects of this action 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify 
that it will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. School bus 
manufacturers are generally not small businesses 
within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 
Small governmental units and small organizations are 
generally affected by amendments to the Federal 
motor vehicle safety standards as purchasers of new 
school buses. However, any impact on small entities 
from this action will be minimal since the price increase 
resulting from this rule is approximately $200 to $300, 
a small fraction of the purchase price of a bus, which 
can range from $20,000 to more than $60,000. Accord- 
ingly, the agency has determined that preparation of 
a regulatory flexibility analysis is unnecessary. 

NHTSA has also analyzed this rulemaking action for 
purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. 
The agency has determined that implementation of this 
action would not have any significant impact on the 
quality of the human environment. 

This rulemaking has been analyzed in accordance 
with the principles and criteria contained in Executive 
Order 12612, and NHTSA has determined that it does 



PART 571; S131-PRE 9 



not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant 
preparation of a Federalism Assessment. 

In its analysis, the agency considered the rule- 
making's likely effect on the States and possible alter- 
natives to the rulemaking. The agency has determined 
that States increasingly are requiring school buses to 
be equipped with a stop signal arm, with 36 States now 
requiring them. Though the rule will result in school 
buses being equipped with this device in 14 States not 
now requiring them, the agency has determined that 
the rule is necessary to promote nationwide uniform- 
ity in sending the same signal to motorists traveling 
near stopped school buses. Of the 12 State organiza- 
tions commenting on the proposal, all but the Califor- 
nia DOE favored the rulemaking. In addition, the 
Tenth and Eleventh National Conferences on School 
Transportation, meetings attended by State represen- 
tatives interested in pupil transportation, recom- 
mended that school buses be equipped with a stop 
signal arm. As this preamble explained earlier, the new 
Federal standard provides a minimum requirement 
that the States may exceed. In addition, few State 
commenters indicated the rule would pose a significant 
burden on them. Even the California Highway Patrol, 
which doubted the effectiveness of stop signal arms, 
acknowledged the importance of uniformity of highway 
controls, especially around school buses. Illinois, one 
of the few States that will have to modify its stop signal 
arm design, "strongly supported" the Federal Stand- 
ard and stated the costs of modifying its devices would 
be minimal. NHTSA accordingly does not expect any 
significant adverse impact on the States from this 
rulemaking. 

Alternatively, NHTSA could have discontinued this 
rulemaking and not required school buses to be 
equipped with a stop signal arm. Based on the agency's 
review of the rulemaking, including the commenters' 
general support for the rule and the national confer- 
ence's endorsement of this device, the agency has 
decided that the Federalism implications are not 
significant enough to require the preparation of a 
Federalism Assessment or prevent the final rule's 
adoption. 



List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles. Rub- 
ber and rubber products, Tires 

PART 571- 
Federal IVIotor Vehicle Safety Standards 

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

1. The authority citation for Part 571 of Title 49 con- 
tinues to read as follows: 



PART 571 -[AM ENDED] 

Authority: 15 U.S.C 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407; dele- Jf \ 
gation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. %.^ 

2. In Part 571, section 131-Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 131 is added to read as follows: 
§ 571.131 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
131; School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices. 

51. Scope. This standard establishes requirements 
for devices that can be installed on school buses to im- 
prove the safety of pedestrians in the vicinity of 
stopped school buses. 

52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to reduce 
deaths and injuries by minimizing the likelihood of ve- 
hicles passing a stopped school bus and striking pedes- 
trians in the vicinity of the bus. 

53. Application. This standard applies to school buses. 

54. Definitions. "Stop signal arm" means a device 
that can be extended outward from the side of a school 
bus to provide a signal to other motorists not to pass 
the bus because it has stopped to load or discharge 
passengers. 

55. Requirements. Each school bus shall be equipped 
with a stop signal arm meeting the requirements of 
S5.1 through S5.5 as depicted in Figure 1. ^. 

55.1 The stop signal arm shall be a regular octagon " 
which is at least 450 mm x 450 mm (17.72 inches x 
17.72 inches) in diameter. 

55.2 The stop signal arm shall be red on both sides, 
except as provided in S5.2.1 and S5.2.2, and S5.2.3. 

55.2.1 The stop signal arm shall have a white border 
at least 12 mm (0.47 inches) wide on both sides, except 
as provided in S5.2.3. 

55.2.2 The stop signal arm shall have the word 
"STOP" displayed in white upper-case letters on both 
sides, except as provided in S5.2.3. The letters shall 
be at least 150 mm (5.9 inches) in height and have a 
stroke width of at least 20 mm (0.79 inches). 

55.2.3 When two stop signal arms are installed on a 
school bus, the rearmost stop signal arm shall not con- 
tain any lettering, symbols, or markings on the forward 
side. 

55.3 Conspicuity. The stop signal arm shall comply 
with either S5.3.1 or S5.3.2. or both. 

S5.3.1 The entire surface of both sides of the stop sig- 
nal arm shall be reflectorized with Type III retroreflec- 
torized material that meets the minimum specific ^ 
intensity requirements of S6. 1 and Table 1 . Whfen two l 
stop signal arms are installed on a school bus, the for- 
ward side of the rearmost stop signal arm shall not be 
reflectorized. 



PART 571; S131-PRE 10 



450 mm (17.72 in. 



White 




STOP 



Red 



12 mm (0.47 in.) 




150 mm (5.9 in. 



Stroke width of letters - 20 mm (0.79 in. 



Figure 1. Characteristics of Stop Signal Device 



S5.3.2 Each side of the stop signal arm shall have at 
least two red lamps that meet the requirements of S6.2. 
The lamps shall be centered on the vertical centerline 
of the stop arm. One of the lamps shall be located at 
the extreme top of the stop arm and the other at its 
extreme bottom. 

S5.4 The stop signal arm shall be installed on the left 
side of the bus. 

55.4.1 The stop signal arm shall be located such that, 
when in the extended position: 

(a) The stop arm is perpendicular to the side of the 
bus, plus or minus five degrees; 

(b) The top edge of the sign is parallel to and within 
6 inches of a horizontal plane tangent to the lower edge 
of the driver's window frame; and 

(c) The vertical centerline of the stop sign is at least 
9 inches away from the side of the school bus. 

55.4.2 A second stop signal arm may be installed on 
a school bus. That stop signal arm shall comply with 
S5.4 and S5.4.1. 



S5.5 The stop signal arm shall be automatically ex- 
tended in such a manner that it complies with S5.4.1, 
at a minimum whenever the red signal lamps required 
by S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 are activated; except 
that a device may be installed that prevents the auto- 
matic extension of a stop signal arm. The mechanism 
for activating the device shall be within the reach of 
the driver. While the device is activated, a continuous 
or intermittent signal audible to the driver shall sound. 
The audible signal may be equipped with a timing 
device requiring the signal to sound for at least 60 
seconds. If a timing device is used, it shall automati- 
cally recycle every time the service entry door is 
opened while the engine is running and the manual 
override is engaged. 

S6 Test Procedures 

S6.1 Reflectivity Test. When tested under the condi- 
tions specified in S6.2(b), (c), and (d) of Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices, (49 
CFR 571.125), the retroreflective materials shall meet 
the criteria specified in Table 1. 



PART 571; S131-PRE 11 



Table 1 
Minimum Specific Intensity Per Unit Area (SIA) 

(Candelas Per Footcandle Per Square Foot) 

Type III Retroreflective Material 

A-Glass Bead Retroreflective Element Material 

Observation Entrance 

') Angle (°) White Red 



0.2 


-4 


250 


45 


0.2 


+ 30 


150 


25 


0.5 


-4 


95 


15 


0.5 


+ 30 


65 


10 



aries [y = 0.33 (yellow boundary) and y = 0.98 - x (purple 
boundary)], the color of light emitted from the test 
object shall not be less saturated (paler), yellower, or 
purpler. The test object shall be placed perpendicular 
to the light source to simulate lamps on stop signal 
arms. In making visual comparisons, the light from the 
test object shall light one portion of a comparison field 
and the light from the filter/source standard shall light 
an adjacent area. To make a valid visual comparison, 
the two fields to be viewed shall be of near equal 
luminance. 

S6.2.2 Flash Rate. The lamps on each side of the stop 
signal arm, when operated at the manufacturer's de- 
sign load, shall flash at a rate of 60-120 flashes per 
minute with a current "on" time of 50 percent. 



B-Prismatic Retroreflective Element Material 



Observation Entrance 
Angle(°) Angle (°) White 



0.2 
0.2 

0.5 
0.5 



Red 



250 45 

95 13.3 

200 28 

65 10 



S6.2.3 Vibration, Moisture, Dust, Corrosion, Photome- 
try, and Warpage Test. Lamps and lighting components 
shall meet the criteria for vibration, moisture, dust, cor- 
rosion, photometry, and warpage in SAE J575. Tests 
for Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices and Components, 
(July 1983) and SAE J1133, School Bus Stop Arm, 
(April 1984) under the test conditions specified therein. 

Issued on: August 25, 1991. 



S6.2 Lighting Tests 

S6.2.1 Color. When visually compared to the light 
emitted from a filter/source with a combination of 
chromaticity coordinates as explained in SAE J578, 
Color Specification (May 1988), within specific bound- 



Jerry Ralph Curry 
Administrator 



56 F.R. 20363 
May 3, 1991 



PART 571; S131-PRE 12 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 131 

School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices 

(Docket No. 90-01; Notice 2) 

RIN 2127-AD 16 



51. Scope. This standard establishes require- 
ments for devices that can be installed on school buses 
to improve the safety of pedestrians in the vicinity of 
stopped school buses. 

52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to 
reduce deaths and injuries by minimizing the likelihood 
of vehicles passing a stopped school bus and striking 
pedestrians in the vicinity of the bus. 

53. Application. This standard applies to school 



54. Definitions. "Stop signal arm" means a device 
that can be extended outward from the side of a school 
bus to provide a signal to other motorists not to pass 
the bus because it has stopped to load or discharge pas- 
sengers. 

55. Requirements. Each school bus shall be 
equipped with a stop signal arm meeting the require- 
ments of S5.1 through S5.5 as depicted in Figure 1. 



55.1 The stop signal arm shall be a regular octagon 
which is at least 450 mm x 450 mm (17.72 inches x 
17.72 inches) in diameter. 

55.2 The stop signal arm shall be red on both sides, 
except as provided in S5.2.1 and S5.2.2, and S5.2.3. 

55.2.1 The stop signal arm shall have a white border 
at least 12 mm (0.47 inches) wide on both sides, except 
as provided in S5.2.3. 

55.2.2 The stop signal arm shall have the word 
"STOP" displayed in white upper-case letters on both 
sides, except as provided in S5.2.3. The letters shall 
be at least 150 mm (5.9 inches) in height and have a 
stroke width of at least 20 mm (0.79 inches). 

55.2.3 When two stop signal arms are installed on 
a school bus, the rearmost stop signal arm shall not con- 
tain any lettering, symbols, or markings on the forward 
side. 



S5.3 Conspicuity The stop signal arm shall com- 
ply with either S5.3.1 or S5.3.2, or both. 



450 mm (17.72 In.) 




STOP 




I 



Siroke width ol leller; 



55.3.1 The entire surface of both sides of the stop 
signal arm shall be reflectorized with Type III 
retroreflectorized material that meets the minimum 
specific intensity requirements of S6.1 and Table 1. 
When two stop signal arms are installed on a school 
bus, the forward side of the rearmost stop signal arm 
shall not be reflectorized. 

55.3.2 Each side of the stop signal arm shall have 
at least two red lamps that meet the requirements of 
S6.2. The lamps shall be centered on the vertical cen- 
terline of the stop arm. One of the lamps shall be lo- 
cated at the extreme top of the stop arm and the other 
at its extreme bottom. 



Figure 1. Characteristics of Stop Signal Device 



S5.4 The stop signal arm shall be installed on the 
left side of the bus. 



PART 131-1 



55.4.1 The stop signal arm shall be located such 
that, when in the extended position: 

(a) The stop arm is perpendicular to the side of the 
bus, plus or minus five degrees; 

(b) The top edge of the sign is parallel to and within 
6 inches of a horizontal plane tangent to the lower edge 
of the driver's window frame; and 

(c) The vertical centerline of the stop sign is at least 
9 inches away from the side of the school bus. 

55.4.2 A second stop signal arm may be installed 
on a school bus. That stop signal arm shall comply with 
S5.4 and S5.4.1. 

S5.5 The stop signal arm shall be automatically 
extended in such a manner that it complies with S5.4.1, 
at a minimum whenever the red signal lamps required 
by S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 are activated; except 
that a device may be installed that prevents the auto- 
matic extension of a stop signal arm. The mechanism 



Table 1 
Minimum Specific Intensity Per Unit Area (SIA) 

(Candelas Per Footcandle Per Square Foot) 
Type in Retroreflective Material 

A-Glass Bead Retroreflective Element Material 



Observation 


Entrance 






Anglen 


Angle (°) 


White 


Red 


0.2 


-4 


250 


45 


0.2 


+ 30 


150 


25 


0.5 


-4 


95 


15 


0.5 


+ 30 


65 


10 


B-Prismatic Retroreflective Element Material 


Observation 


Entrance 






Anglen 


Angle (°) 


White 


Red 


0.2 


-4 


250 


45 


0.2 


+ 30 


95 


13.3 


0.5 


-4 


200 


28 


0.5 


+ 30 


65 


10 



for activating the device shall be within the reach of 
the driver. While the device is activated, a continuous 
or intermittent signal audible to the driver shall sound. 
The audible signal may be equipped with a timing 
device requiring the signal to sound for at least 60 se- 
conds. If a timing device is used, it shall automatically 
recycle every time the service entry door is opened 
while the engine is running and the manual override 
is engaged. 

S6. Test Procedures 

56.1 Reflectivity Test. When tested under the con- 
ditions specified in S6.2(b), (c), and (d) of Federal mo- 
tor vehicle safety standard No. 125, Warning Devices, 
(49 CFR 571.125), the retroreflective materials shall 
meet the criteria specified in Table 1. 

56.2 Lighting Tests. 

S6.2.1. When visually compared to the light emit- 
ted from a filter/source with a combination of chroma- 
ticity coordinates as explained in SAE J578, Color 
Specification (May 1988), within specific boundaries 
[y = 0.33 (yellow boundary) and y = 0.98-x (purple 
boundary)], the color of light emitted from the test ob- 
ject shall not be less saturated (paler), yellower, or pur- 
pler. The test object shall be placed perpendicular to 
the light source to simulate lamps on stop signal arms. 
In making visual comparisons, the light from the test 
object shall light one portion of a comparison field and 
the light from the filter/source standard shall light an 
adjacent area. To make a valid visual comparison, the 
two fields to be viewed shall be of near equal luminance. 

56.2.2 Flash Rate. The lamps on each side of the 
stop signal arm, when operated at the manufacturer's 
design load, shall flash at a rate of 60-120 flashes per 
minute with a current "on" time of 50 percent. 

56.2.3 Vibration, Moisture, Dust, Corrosion, Photom- 
etry, and Warpage Test. Lamps and lighting compo- 
nents shall meet the criteria for vibration, moisture, 
dust, corrosion, photometry, and warpage in SAE 
J575. Tests for Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices and 
Components, (July 1983) and SAE J1133, School Bus 
Stop Arm, (April 1984) under the test conditions speci- 
fied therein. 

56 F.R. 20363 
May 3, 1991 



PART 131-2 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE 

SAFETY STANDARD NO. 208 

Occupant Crash Protection 

(Docket No. 74-14; Notice 67) 
PIN 2127-AD38 



ACTION: Final rule. 



SUMMARY: Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Pro- 
tection, requires vehicles to be equipped with warn- 
ing light systems designed to remind vehicle occu- 
pants to use safety belts. Standard No. 208 has 
required different warning systems for vehicles 
equipped with manual belts and vehicles equipped 
with automatic belts. For vehicles equipped with 
manual safety belts, the Standard has required that 
a warning light come on for 4 to 8 seconds when the 
vehicle's ignition is turned on, regardless of belt use. 
For vehicles equipped with automatic safety belts, 
the Standard has required illumination of a warning 
light for at least 60 seconds when the ignition is 
turned on, if there are indications that the driver's 
safety belt is not in use, and allows the light to 
remain illuminated longer than that. On June 28, 
1990, NHTSA proposed an amendment to give man- 
ufacturers the option of using in passenger cars 
equipped with manual belts the same type of warn- 
ing system currently required in cars equipped with 
automatic safety belts. The proposed amendment 
was requested by General Motors Corporation in a 
December 11, 1989 petition for rulemaking. After 
considering comments on the proposal, NHTSA is 
adopting the amendment without substantive 
change in this final rule. Since the warning system 
for automatic safety belts is more stringent than the 
warning system for manual belts, NHTSA believes 
that the amendment could result in greater safety 
protection. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: The amendments made by this 
final rule to the Code of Federal Regulations are 
effective January 29, 1991. 

Background 
Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 
CFR 571.208), is intended to reduce the likelihood of 
occupant deaths and the likelihood and severity of 
occupant injuries in crashes. The standard requires 
vehicles to be equipped with occupant restraints 
(e.g., safety belts) and with warning systems de- 
signed to remind vehicle occupants to use safety 



belts. Standard No. 208 has required different warn- 
ing systems for vehicles equipped with manual belts 
and vehicles equipped with automatic belts. 

For vehicles equipped with manual safety belts, 
section S7.3 has required that a warning light come 
on for 4 to 8 seconds when the vehicle's ignition is 
turned on, regardless of whether the driver is using 
his belt. However, there is no requirement that a 
warning light remain activated after that time, even 
if the driver's belt is not in use. 

For vehicles equipped with automatic safety belts, 
section S4. 5. 3. 3(h) has required illumination of a 
warning light for at least 60 seconds when the 
ignition is turned on, if there are indications that 
the driver's safety belt is not in use. The warning 
light is permitted to stay on for longer than 60 
seconds. The light must also be activated if the belt 
is nondetachable and the emergency release mecha- 
nism is in the released position. 

On December 11, 1989, General Motors Corpora- 
tion (GM) petitioned NHTSA to amend section S7.3 
of Standard No. 208 to allow manufacturers to use a 
safety belt warning system that meets the require- 
ments for automatic safety belt warning systems as 
an alternative to the warning system that was 
specified for manual belt systems. GM stated that 
increasing the duration of the manual belt warning 
light beyond the 8-second limitation could increase 
the effectiveness of the reminder. 

NHTSA granted the GM petition on January 5, 
1990. On June 28, 1990, NHTSA proposed an 
amendment to give manufacturers the option of 
using in passenger cars equipped with manual belts 
the same type of warning system currently required 
in cars equipped with automatic safety belts. Since 
the automatic safety belt warning system is more 
stringent than the warning system for manual belts, 
NHTSA tentatively concluded that the amendment 
could result in greater safety protection. 

NHTSA received five comments on the proposal, 
four from motor vehicle manufacturers and one from 
an automobile dealers association. All commenters 
supported the proposal without reservation. One 



PART 571; S208-PRE 479 



commenter suggested revised regulatory language 
to provide greater clarity and avoid potential prob- 
lems of interpretation. 

Final Rule 

After reviewing the comments, NHTSA has decided 
to adopt the amendment in this final rule without 
substantive change. NHTSA has revised the regula- 
tory text of the amendment to provide greater clarity. 

The primary purpose of the safety belt warning 
light requirements in Standard No. 208 is to encour- 
age the use of safety belts. If a manufacturer chooses 
the newly permitted option, there would be two 
differences from the warning system requirements 
previously applicable. 

First, the warning light would remain on for at 
least 60 seconds if the driver did not buckle his or 
her safety belt. NHTSA stated in the proposal that 
increasing the duration of the manual belt warning 
light beyond the 8-second limitation could increase 
the effectiveness of the reminder and thus increase 
use of safety belts. No commenters disagreed with 
this point. 

Second, the safety belt warning light would not 
come on if the driver buckled the safety belt before 
inserting the ignition key. NHTSA stated in the pro- 
posal that this would not have a major impact on 
safety belt use at other seating positions. In such a 
case, the driver would already have buckled his or her 
safety belt and thus set an example for any passengers 
in the vehicle. No commenter disagreed with this 
point. 

The requirements in Standard No. 208 for a 4 to 8 
second audible signal when the ignition switch is 
turned on and the safety belt is not in use are not 
changed by this amendment. Since both vehicles 
equipped with automatic safety belts and vehicles 
equipped with manual safety belts are required to 
have the 4- to 8-second audible signal, the amend- 
ment does not change those requirements. 

NHTSA stated in the proposal that the agency does 
not believe that the amendment raises any issues 
under section 125 of the National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1410b). No commenter 
disagreed with NHTSA's position. Section 125 provides 
that no Federal motor vehicle safety standard may 
have the effect of requiring, or provide that a manu- 
facturer is permitted to comply with such standard by 
means of, a buzzer which operates longer than 8 
seconds after the ignition is turned to the "start" or 
"on" position and is designed to indicate that safety 
belts are not in use. However, section 125 does not 
prohibit a Standard permitting a safety belt warning 
light to remain illuminated for more than 8 seconds. 
Further, the legislative history of section 125 of the 
Safety Act does not suggest Congressional disfavor of 
such an approach. 



NHTSA stated in the proposal that the agency 
intended to make the amendment effective immedi- ^ 
ately upon its publication in the Federal Register as a mt 
final rule. No commenter objected to NHTSA's stated 
intention. NHTSA finds that good cause exists to make 
the amendment effective immediately upon its publi- 
cation. The amendment will not result in any addi- 
tional burden to manufacturers since it simply pro- 
vides manufacturers an option for the manual safety 
belt warning system. In addition, the amendment 
could result in greater safety protection since the 
automatic belt warning system requirements are more 
stringent than the manual belt requirements. 

In consideration for the foregoing: 

Section 571.208 is amended by revising S7.3 to 
read as follows: 

S7.3 A seat belt assembly provided at the driver's 
seating position shall be equipped with a warning 
system that, at the option of the manufacturer, either 

(1) activates a continuous or intermittent audible 
signal for a period of not less than 4 seconds and not 
more than 8 seconds and that activates a continuous 
or flashing warning light visible to the driver dis- 
playing the identifying symbol for the seat belt 
telltale shown in Tkble 2 of FMVSS 101 or, at the 
option of the manufacturer if permitted by FMVSS 
101, displaying the words "Fasten Seat Belts" or 
"Fasten Belts," for not less than 60 seconds (begin- J^ 
ning when the vehicle ignition switch is moved to T 
the "on" or the "start" position) when condition (a) 
exists simultaneously with condition (b), or that 

(2) activates, for a period of not less than 4 seconds 
and not more than 8 seconds (beginning when the 
vehicle ignition switch is moved to the "on" or the 
"start" position), a continuous or flashing warning 
light visible to the driver, displaying the identifying 
symbol for the seat belt telltale shown in Tkble 2 of 
FMVSS 101 or, at the option of the manufacturer if 
permitted by FMVSS 101, displaying the words "Fas- 
ten Seat Belts" or "Fasten Belts," when condition (a) 
exists, and a continuous or intermittent audible signal 
when condition (a) exists simultaneously with condi- 
tion (b). 

(a) The vehicle's ignition switch is moved to the 
"on" position or to the "start" position. 

(b) The driver's lap belt is not in use, as determined, 
at the option of the manufacturer, either by the belt 
latch mechanism not being fastened, or by the belt not 
being extended at least 4 inches from its stowed 
position. 

Issued on January 23, 1991. 

Jerry Ralph Curry f 
Administrator 

56 F.R. 3222 
January 29, 1991 



PART 571; S208-PRE 480 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE 

SAFETY STANDARD NO. 208 

Occupant Crash Protection 

(Docket No. 74-14; Notice 69) 
ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment. 



SUMMARY: This agency has discovered some errors 
in the most recent edition of Title 49 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, with respect to NHTSA's occu- 
pant crash protection standard. This notice corrects 
those errors, so that the replacement for this edition 
of the Code of Federal Regulations will be accurate. 
No new obligations or duties are imposed on any 
party as a result of these corrections, since the 
corrections merely remove obsolete provisions from 
the Standard. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 28, 1991. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 5, 1989 
(54 FR 23986), NHTSA published a final rule amend- 
ing Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection 
(49 CFR § 571.208). Sll.6 of Standard No. 208 sets 
forth the positioning procedures for the feet of Hy- 
brid III test dummies positioned at the driver's or 
right front passenger's position. 

Before the effective date of the June 5, 1989 final 
rule (December 4, 1989), the feet of Hybrid III test 
dummies could be positioned either in accordance 
with the procedures for positioning the feet of Hy- 
brid II test dummies or in accordance with some less 
specific positioning procedures set forth in Sll.6. 1 
through Sll.6.3. However, the June 5, 1989 rule 
took away the option of using the less specific 
positioning procedure. Instead, that rule required 
that the feet of Hybrid III test dummies be posi- 
tioned according to the procedures for positioning 
the feet of Hybrid II test dummies. The agency 
expressed this by revising Sll.6 in the June 5, 1989 
final rule. NHTSA believed that this amendatory 
language would remove all of Sll.6, including the 
subordinate sections SI 1.6.1 through Sll.6.3, from 
the version of Standard No. 208 printed in the Code 
of Federal Regulations, and replace it with the 
revised Sll.6. 

However, the October 1, 1990 version of Title 49 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations shows only the old 



language in Sll.6 removed and the new Sll.6 ap- 
pearing in its place. Each of the subordinate para- 
graphs to the old version of Sll.6 still appear in the 
text of Standard No. 208. The result is that Sll.6 
now specifies that the feet of the Hybrid III test 
dummy shall be positioned using the same proce- 
dures specified for the feet of the Hybrid II test 
dummy, while Si 1.6.1 through Sll.6.3 provide an 
option of either using the positioning procedures for 
the Hybrid II test dummy or some less specific 
procedures. This is confusing to the reader and does 
not effectuate the agency's intention of removing the 
option of using the less specific positioning proce- 
dures. This amendment will remedy this problem by 
ensuring that the next revision of Title 49 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations removes SI 1.6.1 
through Sll.6.3 from Standard No. 208. 

This amendment imposes no duties or responsibil- 
ities on any party, nor does it alter any existing 
obligations. Instead, this amendment will simply 
ensure that the public will have a correct copy of 
Standard No. 208 in Title 49 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations. Accordingly, NHTSA finds for good 
cause that notice and opportunity for comment on 
this amendment are unnecessary, and this amend- 
ment is effective as soon as this notice is published. 

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

Sll.6.1 through Sll.6.3 are removed. 

Issued on February 25, 1991. 



Jerry Ralph Curry 
Administrator 

56 F.R. 8232 
February 28, 1991 



PART 571; S208-PRE 481-482 



f 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE 

SAFETY STANDARD NO. 208 

Occupant Crash Protection 

(Docket No. 74-14; Notice 70) 
RIN 2127-AD10 



ACTION: Final rule. 



SUMMARY: This rule extends the requirements for 
automatic crash protection, which currently apply to 
front outboard seats in passenger cars, to front 
outboard seats in three additional types of light-duty 
vehicles. With automatic crash protection, occu- 
pants of those vehicle types will be protected by 
means that require no action by vehicle occupants. 
The effectiveness of automatic crash protection is 
dynamically tested, that is, a vehicle must comply 
with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test 
dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 miles per 
hour barrier crash test. The three newly covered 
vehicle types are trucks, multipurpose passenger 
vehicles (such as passenger vans and four-wheel 
drive utility vehicles), and buses, all with a gross 
vehicle weight rating of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less. 
These vehicles are collectively termed "light trucks" 
throughout the rest of this preamble. 

The automatic crash protection requirements for 
light trucks will be implemented in a manner that 
closely parallels the manner in which the automatic 
crash protection requirements for cars were imple- 
mented. As was the case with passenger cars, the 
automatic crash protection requirements for light 
trucks will be phased in over a period of several 
years. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: The changes made in this rule 
become effective September 23, 1991. 

Light trucks manufactured before September 1, 
1994 will not be required to comply with the auto- 
matic crash protection requirements set forth in this 
rule. Each manufacturer and each importer will be 
required to install automatic protection in— 

20 percent of its light trucks manufactured from 

September 1, 1994 to August 31, 1995, inclusive; 

50 percent of its light trucks manufactured from 

September 1, 1995 to August 31, 1996, inclusive; 
I 90 percent of its light trucks manufactured from 

September 1, 1996 to August 31, 1997, inclusive; 

and 

100 percent of its light trucks manufactured on 



or after September 1, 1997. 

Alternatively, a manufacturer may choose to com- 
ply with a schedule which postpones by one year the 
date on which its first light truck must have auto- 
matic protection, but accelerates by two years the 
date on which all of its trucks must be so equipped. 
Under this alternative schedule, a manufacturer 
will not be required to equip any light trucks man- 
ufactured on or before August 31, 1995 with auto- 
matic crash protection, but must equip all light 
trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1995 
with automatic crash protection. 

Background 

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 
CFR 571.208) is intended to reduce the likelihood of 
occupant deaths and the likelihood and severity of 
occupant injuries in crashes. As one means of achiev- 
ing these goals, Standard No. 208 has long required 
the installation of safety belts in passenger cars. 
Since September 1, 1989, Standard No. 208 has also 
required each new passenger car to be equipped with 
automatic crash protection for outboard front-seat 
occupants. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash 
protection protect their occupants by means that 
require no action by vehicle occupants. The effective- 
ness of automatic crash protection is dynamically 
tested, that is, a vehicle must comply with specified 
injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when 
tested by this agency in a 30 miles per hour barrier 
crash test. The two types of automatic crash protec- 
tion currently offered on new passenger cars are 
automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) 
and air bags (which supplement safety belts and 
offer some protection even when safety belts are not 
used). Automatic crash protection in cars will save 
thousands of lives and prevent tens of thousands of 
serious injuries each year when all cars are so 
equipped. 

Although Standard No. 208 has long required the 
installation of safety belts at all designated seating 
positions in light trucks, it has not required those 
vehicles to provide automatic crash protection. 



PART 571; S208-PRE 483 



NHTSA decided it was appropriate to consider 
whether light trucks should be required to offer 
automatic crash protection in front outboard seating 
positions, in addition to safety belts at all seating 
positions. This effort led NHTSA to propose to re- 
quire automatic crash protection in light trucks in a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on 
January 9, 1990 (55 FR 747). 

That NPRM proposed to require automatic crash 
protection in trucks, multipurpose passenger vehi- 
cles (such as passenger vans and utility vehicles), 
and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500 
pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 
5,500 pounds or less, and to measure the effective- 
ness of the automatic crash protection using the 
same crash test procedures specified for passenger 
cars. Additionally, the NPRM proposed to phase in 
the automatic crash protection requirements, as was 
done for the passenger car automatic crash protec- 
tion requirements. Finally, to encourage the produc- 
tion of light trucks with air bags, it proposed to allow 
a "one-truck credit" provision for vehicles with air 
bags at the driver's position, along the lines of the 
"one-car credit" provision for passenger cars. 

NHTSA received 34 comments in response to this 
NPRM. Commenters included vehicle manufactur- 
ers, air bag suppliers, trade associations, represent- 
atives of the insurance industry, academia, other 
governmental agencies, and consumers. Several of 
the manufacturers commented that they would have 
difficulty complying with some or all of the elements 
of the proposed implementation schedule. To further 
explore these comments, NHTSA requested addi- 
tional information from five vehicle manufacturers 
(Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Mazda, and Toyota) 
on May 24, 1990. 

NHTSA has considered and analyzed all of the 
comments and other information in developing this 
final rule. For the convenience of the reader, this 
rule uses the same organization and format as the 
NPRM did. 

Requirements of This Rule 

1. Vehicles Covered by This Rule 
The agency proposed to extend the requirements 
for automatic crash protection to trucks, multipur- 
pose passenger vehicles, and buses with a gross 
vehicle weight rating of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less. As 
noted in the NPRM, nearly all trucks and multipur- 
pose passenger vehicles in this weight range will be 
required to comply with the injury criteria in a 30 
mph barrier crash with manual lap/shoulder belts at 
the front outboard seats fastened around test dum- 
mies, or, at the manufacturer's option, with auto- 
matic crash protection for those seating positions, as 



of September 1, 1991. Given that implementation of 
this new crash testing requirement for light trucks 
would precede the implementation of the automatic m^ 
restraint requirement for those vehicles, the agency 
stated in the NPRM that, "NHTSA believes that the 
need for structural changes to accommodate the 
installation of automatic crash protection in light 
trucks beginning in late 1993 would be minimal 
because of the changes already necessary to comply 
with the dynamic testing requirements in Standard 
No. 208 applicable to light trucks manufactured on 
or after September 1, 1991." 55 FR 749; January 9, 
1990. 

The commenters generally concurred with the 
proposal that trucks and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles be equipped with automatic crash protec- 
tion. However, some commenters suggested that the 
installation of automatic crash protection would not 
be as simple as was implied in the NPRM, while 
others asked for additional leadtime to install auto- 
matic crash protection, and still others identified 
particular types of trucks and multipurpose passen- 
ger vehicles that could pose unique problems for 
automatic crash protection. This final rule requires 
trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles to be 
equipped with automatic crash protection. 

The NPRM also set forth a proposal to require 
automatic crash protection in front outboard seats of g 
small buses, even though small buses will not be * 
subject to the dynamic testing requirements that 
become effective September 1, 1991. The agency 
stated its belief that automatic crash protection in 
small buses would be practicable, especially because 
many van-type buses are based on a platform and 
drivetrain that are the same as or similar to the 
platform and drivetrain of van-type multipurpose 
passenger vehicles that will be subject to the dy- 
namic testing requirements. Further, the NPRM set 
forth the agency's belief that the safety need for 
automatic crash protection for the driver and any 
other front outboard seat occupants in a small bus 
did not appear to be any different than it is for 
occupants of front outboard seats of multipurpose 
passenger vehicles and trucks of similar size and 
weight. The agency sought comments on these ten- 
tative conclusions. No commenters suggested that 
the agency was incorrect. Accordingly, this rule 
adopts the proposed requirement for small buses to 
be equipped with automatic crash protection, for the 
reasons set forth in the proposal. 

The agency also sought comment on its proposal to 
include certain types of light trucks in the require- 
ment for automatic crash protection, even though 
those vehicles were excluded from the dynamic test- t 
ing requirements. These vehicles were: 

a. motor homes, 

b. convertibles, 



PART 571; S208-PRE 484 



c. open-body type vehicles, 
^ d. walk-in van-type trucks, 
P e. vehicles designed exclusively to be sold to the 
U.S. Postal Service, and 
f. vehicles with chassis-mounted campers. 
These types of light trucks were excluded from the 
dynamic testing requirements because the vehicles 
are unique in design, often have unique restraint 
systems, and are intended to accommodate a nar- 
rowly defined end use. Additionally, the numbers of 
these vehicles produced annually are limited, so the 
overall impact of these vehicle types on light truck 
safety is proportionally small. 

Notwithstanding this previous decision, NHTSA 
proposed to make these types of light trucks subject 
to the automatic protection requirements. The 
NPRM noted that the agency is unaware of any data 
showing a differing safety need for front-seat occu- 
pants of these types of light trucks than for front- 
seat occupants of other light trucks of comparable 
size and weight. The agency expressly noted that 
designs for automatic crash protection may be more 
complex and the costs for automatic crash protection 
may well be higher in these particular types of light 
trucks than in other light trucks. However, NHTSA 
tentatively concluded that the increased complexity 
and higher costs were not sufficient to justify allow- 
I ing these light trucks to provide a lesser level of 
* occupant safety than other light trucks of compara- 
ble size and weight. The agency sought public com- 
ment on this tentative conclusion in the NPRM. 

The agency received extensive comments. Ford 
commented that a requirement for automatic crash 
protection would pose particular technical difficul- 
ties for manufacturers of motor homes and walk-in 
vans. Chrysler commented that a requirement for 
automatic crash protection would pose particular 
technical difficulties for manufacturers of light 
truck convertibles and open-body type vehicles. In 
addition, Chrysler commented that NHTSA had not 
provided any substantive justification for concluding 
that automatic crash protection would be practicable 
for these types of light trucks. General Motors (GM) 
commented that walk-in van-type vehicles should be 
excluded from the automatic crash protection re- 
quirements because of a lesser safety need for occu- 
pant protection in those vehicles. GM commented 
that these vehicles are typically used to make deliv- 
eries in urban areas, and not generally used for 
highway driving or personal use. GM also com- 
mented that only about 30 percent of its walk-in 
vans are equipped with front passenger seats, and 
^ that, in the 1989 model year, GM sold only 137 
m walk-in vans within the proposed weight ranges. 
Finally, GM asserted that a considerable redesign of 
its walk-in vans would be needed to comply with a 
requirement for automatic crash protection, and 



that this redesign would not be practical for such a 
small number of vehicles. The Recreation Vehicle 
Industry Association (RVIA) commented that the 
final rule should either exclude motor homes from 
the automatic restraint requirements or limit the 
automatic restraint requirements to motor homes 
with a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000 pounds or 
less. According to RVIA, motor homes "are not part 
of the 'safety problem' " and structural changes to 
motor homes would be needed to comply with the 
automatic restraint requirements. Winnebago In- 
dustries, a motor home manufacturer, commented 
that one of its models would have a difficult time 
complying with the automatic restraint require- 
ments and asked that this model of motor home be 
excluded from the automatic crash protection 
requirements. 

In response to these comments, NHTSA has care- 
fully reexamined its proposal to include these light 
truck types in the automatic crash protection re- 
quirements. The agency believes it should apply the 
automatic crash protection requirements to all types 
of light trucks if it would be practicable to install 
automatic protection in these vehicles and if the 
safety benefits of automatic protection would be 
reasonably related to the cost of such installations. 
NHTSA has applied this approach to whether the 
automatic crash protection requirements should be 
applied to each of the six light truck types that were 
excluded from the dynamic testing requirements. 

With respect to convertibles and open-body type 
vehicles, the available evidence indicates that it is 
practicable to install automatic crash protection. 
Convertible passenger cars are required to include 
automatic crash protection. Manufacturers such as 
Chrysler are advertising the merits of air bag tech- 
nology, especially in convertibles. The transfer of 
technology from convertible passenger cars to pro- 
vide automatic crash protection in convertible and 
open-body light trucks will not require any techno- 
logical "breakthroughs." Instead, such a transfer 
will require careful planning and engineering to 
install automatic crash protection in these types of 
light trucks. 

NHTSA concurs with Chrysler's comment to the 
extent that it suggests that installing automatic 
crash protection in convertible and open-body light 
trucks will be more difficult than in convertible 
passenger cars, because these types of light trucks 
are generally designed for off-road or other utility 
use. This greater degree of difficulty is a good reason 
for allowing manufacturers some additional lead- 
time to incorporate automatic crash protection in 
these vehicles. This final rule does that by providing 
an additional year in the phase-in, as discussed later 
in this preamble. 

However, NHTSA does not concur with Chrysler's 



PART 571; S208-PRE 485 



comment to the extent that it suggests that this 
greater degree of difficulty is sufficient to justify 
excluding convertibles and open-body type light 
trucks from the automatic crash protection require- 
ments. As explained above, NHTSA agrees that 
careful planning and engineering will be needed to 
modify the automatic crash protection systems used 
in convertible passenger cars for application to con- 
vertible and open-body light trucks. The agency 
believes that the requirement for automatic crash 
protection in convertible and open-body light trucks 
is "practicable" within the meaning of section 103(a) 
of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 
(15 U.S.C. 1392(a)), because manufacturers can com- 
ply with the requirement by transferring the basic 
technology from similar vehicles (convertible pas- 
senger cars), and making modifications to account 
for the different characteristics of the light trucks. 

The costs for providing automatic crash protection 
in these trucks are estimated to be roughly compa- 
rable to the costs for providing automatic crash 
protection in convertible passenger cars. Similarly, 
the safety benefits of automatic crash protection in 
these trucks should be comparable to the benefits of 
automatic crash protection in convertible passenger 
cars. In 1988 alone, 174 front seat occupants of 
open-body trucks were killed in vehicle crashes. 
NHTSA has previously concluded that the safety 
benefits from automatic crash protection in convert- 
ible passenger cars are more than adequate to justify 
the estimated costs associated with installing auto- 
matic crash protection in convertibles. See 52 FR 
10122; March 30, 1987 and 53 FR 15067; April 27, 
1988. The agency has no reason to alter that conclu- 
sion here. 

Accordingly, NHTSA concludes that it is practica- 
ble to provide automatic crash protection in light 
trucks that are convertibles or open-body vehicles. 
Further, the agency believes that the safety benefits 
of automatic crash protection in these types of light 
trucks will be reasonably related to the costs of 
providing automatic crash protection in these 
trucks. Therefore, this rule does not exclude convert- 
ibles and open-body light trucks from the automatic 
crash protection requirements. 

The next type of light truck examined by the 
agency was walk-in vans. These vehicles pose special 
technical difficulties for automatic crash protection, 
because of their unique design features, including 
nearly vertical steering columns, fold-away driver's 
seats, large open doorway areas, and the absence of 
B-pillars near the driver's seating position. Further, 
there are no passenger cars similar to walk-in vans, 
so it would not be possible to transfer, with some 
modifications, automatic crash protection technol- 
ogy from a similar type of passenger car. Thus, while 
it might be possible, it would present substantially 



greater technical and engineering challenges to in- 
stall automatic crash protection in walk-in vans 
than would be presented to install automatic protec- 
tion in the other types of light trucks that were 
excluded from the dynamic testing requirements for 
manual safety belts. 

In addition, walk-in vans are designed primarily 
for deliveries in urban areas, where the driver will 
frequently enter and exit the vehicle to make the 
deliveries. Hence, these vehicles are less likely than 
others to be involved in high-speed crashes. Addi- 
tionally, most walk-in vans are not within the pro- 
posed weight limits for light trucks to be equipped 
with automatic crash protection. In its comments, 
GM stated that it sold only 137 walk-in vans within 
the proposed weight limits during 1988. NHTSA 
concludes that the costs that would be associated 
with designing a system of automatic crash protec- 
tion for walk-in vans, which would be spread over the 
few walk-in vans that fell within these weight limits, 
would not be reasonably related to the safety bene- 
fits anticipated for such walk-in vans. After consid- 
ering these factors, NHTSA has concluded that the 
requirement for automatic restraints in light trucks 
should not apply to walk-in vans. 

The agency next examined vehicles designed ex- 
clusively to be sold to the U.S. Postal Service. The 
available evidence indicates that these light trucks 
would not present any serious problems for the 
installation of automatic crash protection. Hence, it 
would be practicable to require automatic crash 
protection in these light trucks. However, the safety 
benefits from requiring automatic crash protection 
in these vehicles would be marginal, because the 
U.S. Postal Service requires its employees to wear 
the safety belts in the Postal Service vehicles while 
on the job. This safety belt use policy should ensure 
that persons riding in these light trucks will have 
the safety protection of manual lap/shoulder belts 
every time they ride in these vehicles. Automatic 
crash protection would, therefore, offer marginal, if 
any, additional protection in these vehicles. Given 
the lesser safety benefits for automatic crash protec- 
tion in light trucks designed exclusively for sale to 
the U.S. Postal Service, the agency has decided to 
exclude these light trucks from the automatic crash 
protection requirements. 

Finally, the agency examined motor homes and 
vehicles carrying chassis-mount campers. The com- 
menters that addressed the proposal to cover these 
vehicles did not suggest that there were any partic- 
ular difficulties presented for installing automatic 
crash protection in motor homes and vehicles carry- 
ing chassis-mount campers. Instead, those comment- 
ers focused on the fact that these vehicles are typi- 
cally manufactured in more than one stage and that 
the final-stage manufacturers are small businesses. 



PART 571; S208-PRE 



No commenter identified some characteristic in the 
design of these vehicles that would make it harder to 
install automatic crash protection in them than in 
other types of light trucks, nor is NHTSA aware of 
any such characteristic. Similarly, there are no indi- 
cations of any lesser safety need for automatic crash 
protection in these vehicles. Motor homes and vehi- 
cles carrying chassis-mount campers are not de- 
signed primarily for use in urban areas, nor is there 
any reason to believe that safety belt use in these 
vehicles is substantially greater than in other types 
of light trucks. Further, the cost of installing auto- 
matic crash protection in these vehicles would not 
exceed the costs of installing automatic protection in 
other types of light trucks. After examining these 
factors, there is no apparent basis for excluding 
these vehicles from the automatic crash protection 
requirements. Therefore, this rule requires motor 
homes and vehicles carrying chassis-mount campers 
to comply with the automatic crash protection 
requirements. 

To the extent that commenters were addressing 
the particular attributes of motor home manufactur- 
ers, instead of the particular attributes of vehicles 
that are motor homes, the agency believes it is appro- 
priate under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act (the Safety Act) to have the standard apply 
to all motor homes and vehicles carrying chassis- 
mount campers. If any manufacturer of motor homes 
and/or vehicles caiTying chassis-mount campers would 
experience a substantial economic hardship as a result 
of these requirements, that manufactiu-er may file a 
petition requesting a temporary exemption from the 
automatic crash protection requirements, pursuant to 
49 CFR Part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standards. NHTSA can consider the 
special circumstances of vehicle manufacturers in the 
context of evaluating any such petitions, and take 
appropriate actions to afford any necessary special 
treatment for such manufacturers. 

2. Crash Test Procedural and 
Performance Requirements 
The NPRM proposed that compliance testing for 
light trucks equipped with automatic crash protec- 
tion be conducted according to the same test proce- 
dures and using the same injury criteria that are 
currently specified for use in testing passenger cars 
equipped with automatic crash protection. Ford 
asked in its comments that calculation of the head 
injury criterion (HIC) be limited to a 15 millisecond 
maximum, instead of the currently-specified 36 mil- 
lisecond maximum. Ford previously raised this iden- 
tical comment for HIC calculations for passenger 
cars. NHTSA specifically rejected Ford's earlier com- 
ment in the preamble to the rule that established 
the 36 millisecond maximum for HIC calculations; 



see 51 FR 37028, at 37031; October 17, 1986. In its 
new comment, Ford did not provide any additional 
data or information, nor did Ford explain why it 
believes HIC should be calculated differently for 
passenger cars and light trucks. There is, therefore, 
no reason for NHTSA to modify its previous rejection 
of Ford's 15 millisecond limit. 

Ford also commented that a minor adjustment 
should be made to the test procedures in Standard 
No. 208 to make them consistent with the procedures 
in Standards No. 212, Windshield Mounting, and No. 
219, Windshield Zone Intrusion. Ford correctly 
noted that Standards No. 212 and 219 include a 
provision in the test procedures for trucks, multipur- 
pose passenger vehicles, and buses that "unloaded 
vehicle weight does not include the weight of work- 
performing accessories." The effect of this provision 
is that certain work-performing accessories mounted 
on the front of trucks, such as snow plows and 
winches, are not mounted on the vehicle for the 
crash test. Absent a similar provision in Standard 
No. 208, those portions of the work-performing ac- 
cessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehi- 
cle when they are not in use (such as the snowplow 
blade) would not be mounted on the vehicle for the 
crash test, but any accessories that are mounted on 
the vehicle before delivery and are not ordinarily 
removed (such as the snowplow mounting hardware) 
would remain in place on the vehicle for the crash 
test. 

Ford commented that these differing provisions in 
Standard No. 208 and Standards No. 212 and 219 
would force manufacturers to conduct two different 
crash tests for the purposes of certifying compliance. 
If the test procedures for the standards were the 
same, the manufacturers would only have to conduct 
one crash test, just as a single test can be used to 
measure compliance with the three standards for 
passenger cars. The exclusion of work-performing 
accessories from the calculation of unloaded vehicle 
weight in Standards No. 212 and 219 also places the 
certification burden on the original vehicle manufac- 
turers, instead of the small manufacturers that 
attach work-performing accessories to new vehicles, 
and keeps the certification burden manageable for 
the vehicle manufacturer, because not every differ- 
ent combination of vehicle and work-performing 
accessory is subject to compliance testing. NHTSA is 
persuaded by this comment for the reasons offered by 
Ford. Therefore, this final rule amends S8. 1.1(b) of 
Standard No. 208 to include the same provision in 
the test procedures for light trucks that has long 
been included in the test procedures for light trucks 
subject to Standards No. 212 and 219. 

No other commenters addressed the proposal to 
apply the passenger car test procedures and injury 
criteria to light trucks with automatic crash protec- 



PART 571; S208-PRE 487 



tion. With the exception of the modification made in 
response to the Ford comment discussed above, the 
proposed procedures are adopted in this final rule. 

The NPRM also proposed to establish the same 
due care defense for light trucks with automatic 
crash protection as is currently established for pas- 
senger cars. Both Ford and GM commented in sup- 
port of this proposal. It is adopted in this final rule 
for the reasons stated in the proposal. 

3. Phased-In Implementation of the Automatic 
Crash Protection Requirements 

a. The Phase-In. The NPRM proposed to "phase 
in" the automatic crash protection requirements for 
light trucks in a similar manner as the automatic 
crash protection requirements were phased in for 
passenger cars. The commenters supported the con- 
cept of implementing automatic crash protection 
requirements for light trucks by a "phase-in." This 
rule adopts a "phase-in" for automatic crash protec- 
tion requirements. 

Ta allow sufficient leadtime before the start of the 
phase-in for automatic crash protection in light 
trucks, the agency proposed to begin the phase-in 
with vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 
1993. This schedule was proposed to allow manufac- 
turers two years after implementation of the dy- 
namic testing requirements for light trucks (on 
September 1, 1991) to complete the engineering 
steps and certification testing needed to install au- 
tomatic crash protection in light trucks. The agency 
believed this period of leadtime was sufficient to 
develop automatic crash protection for light trucks 
because, at the time of the NPRM, NHTSA believed 
that passenger car technology could be "readily 
transferred" to light trucks. 

A delay in the beginning of the phase-in was urged 
by all the vehicle manufacturers that commented on 
that aspect of the notice. They emphasized the 
number of new regulations that will take effect 
during this time period, including the extension of 
several passenger car standards to light trucks, the 
expiration (in September 1993) of the "one car 
credit" for passenger cars with an air bag at the 
driver's position, and new side impact standards for 
passenger cars. The commenters asserted that the 
cumulative effect of all these new requirements 
would tax the engineering, design, development, and 
testing staff and resources of the vehicle manufac- 
turers to a gi-eater extent than was acknowledged in 
the NPRM. 

Other vehicle manufacturers commented that the 
timing of the start of the phase-in period would affect 
the type of automatic crash protection that was in- 
stalled in light trucks. Because of the development 
work that will have to be done, especially for the 
sensors, to install air bags on light trucks, the manu- 



factiu^rs said that an early start to the phase-in would 
result in manufacturers installing less innovative 
forms of automatic crash protection, such as non- 
motorized automatic safety belts. The point of these 
comments was that the agency would inadvei-tently 
discourage the installation of more advanced means of 
automatic crash protection, such as air bags, if 
NHTSA required the phase-in to begin too early. 

NHTSA has carefully reexamined the proposed 
September 1, 1993 starting date for the phase-in in 
light of these comments. In the NPRM, the agency 
stated that it did not want to begin the phase-in for 
automatic crash protection too soon after the Sep- 
tember 1, 1991 implementation of the dynamic test- 
ing requirements for manual safety belts in light 
trucks. The comments to the NPRM indicate that 
the transfer of air bag technology from passenger 
cars to light trucks may be more complex than the 
agency believed, especially the sensors to deploy the 
air bag on vehicles that are used off-road. Vehicle 
manufacturers will need time to develop air bag 
systems for light trucks. The less time that is avail- 
able for development and installation of automatic 
crash protection in light trucks, the less likely it is 
that manufacturers will choose the more difficult 
and riskier course of installing more innovative 
types of automatic crash protection, such as air bags. 
Instead, the manufacturers would be more likely to 
install non-motorized automatic safety belts. The 
agency does not want to inadvertently discourage 
efforts to install air bags or other innovative types of 
automatic crash protection in light trucks. After 
further considering this issue, NHTSA has decided 
to delay the start of the phase-in period for an 
additional year. Hence, this rule provides that the 
automatic restraint requirements will apply to light 
trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1994. 

A related question concerns the percentage of each 
manufacturer's light trucks that should be required 
to be equipped with automatic crash protection in 
each year of the phase-in, and the length of the 
phase-in before all subject light trucks should be 
required to be equipped with automatic crash pro- 
tection. The NPRM proposed a 3-year phase-in, with 
20 percent of a manufacturer's light trucks required 
to offer automatic crash protection in the first year of 
the phase-in, 50 percent doing so in the second year 
of the phase-in, and all light trucks manufactured 
two years or more after the start of the phase-in 
equipped with automatic crash protection. Several 
commenters asked that this phase-in be extended. 
For example, GM asked that the agency use the 
same 4-year phase-in that was used for passenger 
cars (10, 25, 40, and 100 percent), while Chrysler 
asked for a 5-year phase-in (10, 25, 50, 75, and 100 
percent) 

NHTSA explained in the NPRM that the phase-in 



PART 571; S208-PRE 488 



proposed for light trucks was more rapid than what 
was specified for passenger cars, because the phase-in 
I for automatic crash protection in passenger cars re- 
f fleeted some considerations that are not present for 
automatic crash protection in Hght trucks. These con- 
siderations were: 

1. the need for public familiarity with and accep- 
tance of the different types of automatic crash 
protection; 

2. the need for vehicle manufacturers to design 
and incorporate automatic crash production in their 
production vehicles for the first time; and 

3. the need to establish a supplier base for auto- 
matic crash protection systems. 

None of these three considerations apply to the 
same extent for light trucks. By the start of this 
phase-in in September of 1994, the public will have 
seen automatic crash protection in all new passen- 
ger cars made in the preceding 5 years. The manu- 
facturers will be able to apply the engineering 
knowledge and experience that they have acquired 
over that period to solve the problems that must be 
overcome to provide automatic crash protection in 
light trucks. Finally, the air bag suppliers that 
commented on this rulemaking stated that they will 
have no trouble developing sufficient capacity to 
meet the anticipated future demand for their prod- 
ucts in light trucks. Hence, NHTSA has concluded 
I that it is appropriate to require a more rapid intro- 
duction of automatic crash protection in light trucks 
than was required in passenger cars. 

Ford commented that it supported NHTSA's pro- 
posal to adopt a more rapid introduction of auto- 
matic crash protection in light trucks than in pas- 
senger cars. However, Ford's comments urged the 
agency to add one additional year to the phase-in, 
and require 90 peixent of light trucks to offer auto- 
matic crash protection in this additional year. Ac- 
cording to Ford, this 90 percent year would effec- 
tively require automatic crash protection on nearly 
all light trucks, while allowing an additional year to 
address any unique problems that may arise with 
particular types of low-volume light trucks, such as 
larger off-road vehicles. 

NHTSA has concluded that this comment has 
merit. There are many more types of light trucks 
than passenger cars. If any unanticipated problems 
should arise in connection with equipping light 
trucks with automatic crash protection, it is most 
likely that those problems would occur for one of the 
unusual (i.e., limited production volume) light truck 
configurations. A third year of a phase-in set at the 
90 percent level would ensure that the public has 
k nearly all the benefits expected from automatic 
" crash protection in light trucks, while also allowing 
the manufacturers flexibility to accommodate some 
of the more difficult engineering problems presented 



by a requirement for automatic crash protection in 
all light trucks. For example, adding a third year to 
the phase-in in which 90 percent of all light trucks 
are required to offer automatic crash protection would 
permit Chrysler an additional year of time to equip its 
convertibles and open-body vehicles with automatic 
crash protection. At the same time, Chrysler would be 
required to install automatic crash protection in the 
vast majority of its other light trucks, including min- 
ivans and pickups. Accordingly, Ford's suggestion is 
adopted in this final rule. 

The agency also asked for comments on whether 
small buses should be excluded from the automatic 
crash protection requirements during the phase-in, 
and be required to be equipped with automatic crash 
protection requirements at the end of the phase-in 
(September 1, 1997). This would have been similar to 
the approach used for convertible passenger cars 
during the phase-in of the automatic crash protec- 
tion requirements for passenger cars. Chrysler and 
Ford commented that there was no need for small 
buses to be excluded from the automatic crash pro- 
tection requirements during the phase-in, and no 
commenter suggested that small buses should be 
excluded during the phase-in. Hence, NHTSA has 
not included any such provision in this final rule. 

Range Rover commented that the proposed phase-in 
schedule would, in effect, require light truck manufac- 
turers that produce only one model to provide auto- 
matic crash protection in 100 percent of their light 
trucks in the first year of the phase-in. This is because 
manufactm-ers that make several models of light 
trucks can select a few models for automatic crash 
protection to comply with the early years of the 
phase-in and leave production of the other models 
unchanged. However, the manufacturer of a single 
light truck model must design, certify and put into 
production automatic crash protection for its entire 
fleet (the single model) beginning with the first year of 
the phase-in. Range Rover commented that this was 
unfair, and that the phase-in provided no flexibility or 
relief for small, single line manufacturers. 

NHTSA believes that the proposed phase-in sched- 
ule can be viewed as being not necessarily any more 
difficult for single line manufacturers than for large 
manufacturers. Since the proposed phase-in sched- 
ule requires at least 20 percent of a manufacturer's 
light trucks to comply with the new automatic crash 
protection requirement in the first year of the phase- 
in, in practice each manufacturer must bring at 
least one model into compliance for that year. 
Viewed in this way, the burden on a manufacturer 
with only one model in the U.S. market to bring one 
model into compliance for the first year may be 
regarded as not being any different than that of a 
manufacturer which sells many models. NHTSA 
further notes that the phase-in for automatic crash 



PART 571; S208-PRE 489 



protection in passenger cars made no special provi- 
sions for single line manufacturers and those man- 
ufacturers were able to comply with that phase-in. 

On the other hand, the agency recognizes that a 
single model represents all of a single line manufac- 
turer's production and only a small portion of a 
multi-line manufacturer's production. It also recog- 
nizes that a greater portion of a single line manu- 
facturer's engineering expertise and other resources 
will be called upon to bring that single line into 
compliance than a multi-line manufacturer will 
have to use to achieve compliance for a single line. 

The agency has identified an alternative compli- 
ance schedule which it believes would help meet the 
concerns of single line manufacturers, while also 
being consistent with the need for motor vehicle 
safety. Under this option, a manufacturer would not 
need to meet the new requirements for any of its 
light trucks during the first year of the phase-in 
(September 1, 1994 to August 31, 1995), but would 
then be required to meet the requirements for all of 
its light trucks beginning with the second year of the 
phase-in (September 1, 1995 to August 31, 1996). A 
manufacturer choosing this option would thus have 
four full model years of leadtime to meet the new 
requirements. While this option would be available 
to all manufacturers, the information currently 
available indicates that the larger manufacturers 
will choose to comply with the 20/50/90 phase-in. 
NHTSA believes that the 0/100/100 phase-in option 
would be consistent with the need for motor vehicle 
safety, since the number of light trucks meeting the 
new automatic crash protection requirements dur- 
ing the 3-year phase-in period would be considerably 
higher under this option than under the other 20/ 
50/90 phase-in schedule. Therefore, this final rule 
adopts an optional phase-in schedule of 0/100/100 to 
address the concerns of single line manufacturers, as 
expressed in Range Rover's comment. 

b. Calculation of Compliance with Phase-In. 
NHTSA proposed to carry over most of the procedures 
used in calculating compliance with the phase-in of 
passenger cars with automatic crash protection so as 
to make the same procedures apply during the 
phase-in of automatic crash protection in light trucks. 
Specifically, NHTSA proposed to use the same means 
for assigning responsibility for vehicles with more 
than one statutory "manufacturer" and the same 
means for specifying how to calculate the appropriate 
percentage of the manufactm-er's total production dur- 
ing the phase-in. No commenters addressed these 
proposals, so they are adopted for the reasons set forth 
in the NPRM. 

c. Phase-In Exclusion for Vehicles Manufactured in 
Two or More Stages and for Altered Vehicles. The 
NPRM proposed that the automatic crash protection 
requirements would not apply during the phase-in 



period to light trucks that were altered or manufac- 
tured in two or more stages, but that all light trucks 
would be subject to those requirements after the #1 
phase-in expires. After considering all comments, ^ 
NHTSA has decided to adopt that proposal. 

The Safety Act requires that every manufacturer 
certify that each of its vehicles complies with all 
applicable safety standards. NHTSA has previously 
recognized that this statutory requirement could 
impose unreasonable burdens on final stage manu- 
facturers if they had to certify not only the work they 
had performed on the finished vehicle, but also the 
work performed on the incomplete vehicle by its 
manufacturer (generally large manufacturers such 
as Chrysler, Ford, and GM). Therefore, the agency 
adopted regulations that prescribe the method by 
which manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in 
more than one stage shall assure conformity with 
the safety standards. 49 CFR 567.5 and Part 568. 

Under 49 CFR 568.4(aK7), the manufacturer of an 
"incomplete vehicle," as defined in 49 CFR 568.3, 
must provide an "incomplete vehicle document" 
that states, for each applicable safety standard, 
either (i) that the vehicle when completed will con- 
form to the standard if no alterations are made in 
specified components of the vehicle; (ii) the specific 
conditions of final manufacture under which the 
completed vehicle will conform to the standard; or 
(iii) that conformity with the standard is not sub- K 
stantially affected by the design of the incomplete 
vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle manufac- 
turer makes no representation as to conformity. 
Thus, for all standards "affected" by the design of 
the incomplete vehicle, if the final stage manufac- 
turer completes the vehicle within the specifications 
set forth by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, it 
can be assured that the completed vehicle will com- 
ply with the applicable standards. 

In addition, pursuant to 49 CFR 567.5(a), the 
manufacturer of a "chassis-cab," the most common 
form of incomplete vehicle, must certify that the 
completed vehicle will conform to all applicable 
standards if it is completed in accordance with the 
incomplete vehicle document furnished pursuant to 
Part 568. (A chassis-cab is defined in 49 CFR 567.3 
as "an incomplete vehicle, with a completed occu- 
pant compartment, that requires only the addition of 
cargo-carrying, work-performing, or load-bearing 
components to perform its intended functions.") Pur- 
suant to 49 CFR 567.5(c), if a final stage manufac- 
turer completes a chassis-cab in accordance with its 
manufacturer's specifications, it need state only that 
fact on the certification label to impute responsibil- 
ity for the completed vehicle's conformity with the 0? 
applicable standards to the manufacturer of the * 
chassis-cab. (Pursuant to section 159(cX2) of the 
Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1419(cX2), the final stage 



PART 571; S208-PRE 490 



manufacturer is normally obligated to conduct any 
recalls that may be necessary to correct noncompli- 
ances with safety standards or safety-related defects. 
However, the manufacturers may assign this respon- 
sibility among themselves by contract. 49 CFR 
567.5(e), 568.7.) 

NHTSA recognizes that manufacturers of incom- 
plete vehicles that ai-e not "chassis-cabs" (such as cowl 
chassis, cutaway chassis, and stripped chassis) are not 
required by section 567.5 to certify the compliance of 
their incomplete vehicles with applicable safety stan- 
dards. They are, however, required by 49 CFR 568.4 to 
provide an "incomplete vehicle document" that de- 
scribes the manner in which the incomplete vehicle 
may be completed and remain in compliance with the 
standards "affected" by the incomplete vehicle. On the 
other hand, the manufacturers of many of these chas- 
sis, such as those that do not have completed occupant 
compartments, will not be making any representa- 
tions with respect to the conformity of their vehicles 
with Standard No. 208, since the design of the chassis 
may not "affect" that standard. Therefore, a final 
stage manufacturer that chooses to use such a chassis 
would have the duty to certify that the completed 
vehicle conformed with Standard No. 208, as would a 
final stage manufacturer that completed any chassis, 
including a chassis-cab, in a manner that was not 
consistent with the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's 
specifications. 

Very few (if any) final stage manufacturers have 
the engineering and financial resources necessary to 
independently determine whether a completed vehi- 
cle complies with a complex safety standard such as 
Standard No. 208. Thus, as a practical matter, 
NHTSA anticipates that most, if not all, final stage 
manufacturers will have to complete their vehicles 
within specifications established by an incomplete 
vehicle manufacturer, and, in most cases, they will 
have to use chassis-cabs. 

Similarly, an alterer must certify that every vehi- 
cle it alters complies with all applicable safety 
standards as altered. Alterers perform their alter- 
ations on vehicles that have already been certified as 
complying with all applicable safety standards. The 
alterer must certify that each of its vehicles contin- 
ues to comply with all applicable safety standards 
after the alterer has performed its operations on the 
vehicle. Alterers must, therefore, have some inde- 
pendent basis for their certifications that the altered 
vehicles continue to comply with all applicable 
safety standards. Certifications of continuing com- 
pliance for altered vehicles may be based on, among 
other things, engineering analyses, computer simu- 
lations, actual testing, or instructions for alteration 
voluntarily provided by the original vehicle manu- 
facturer in a "body builder's guide." 

The National Truck Equipment Association 



(NTE A), an association of final stage manufacturers 
and alterers, suggested that vehicles produced in 
more than one stage should be excluded from the 
automatic crash protection requirements. In its com- 
ment, NTEA acknowledged that its members can 
pass through the certification on chassis-cabs that 
are completed in accordance with the incomplete 
vehicle manufacturer's instructions. NTEA claimed, 
however, that not all vehicles can be completed or 
modified in accordance with those instructions. 
NTEA suggested that the incomplete vehicle manu- 
facturers might impose severe new restrictions that 
would effectively "force" final stage manufacturers 
to complete the vehicle outside the original manu- 
facturer's instructions. 

NHTSA has previously considered assertions that 
incomplete vehicle manufacturers would establish 
unreasonably stringent limitations on their vehi- 
cles. In the rules establishing dynamic testing re- 
quirements for manual safety belts in light trucks 
under Standard No. 208 (53 FR 50221; December 14, 
1988) and extending Standard No. 204's steering 
column rearward displacement limitations to addi- 
tional light trucks (54 FR 24344; June 7, 1989), 
NHTSA noted that it did not believe that any incom- 
plete vehicle manufacturer could, as a practical 
matter, establish unreasonably stringent limita- 
tions for its incomplete vehicles. If any incomplete 
vehicle manufacturer were to do so, final stage 
manufacturers would purchase their incomplete ve- 
hicles from other manufacturers that had estab- 
lished more realistic limitations. 

The agency's belief that market forces will prevent 
incomplete vehicle manufacturers from establishing 
unreasonably stringent limitations seems to have 
been correct. No manufacturer has provided NHTSA 
with any evidence that overly stringent limitations 
have been or will be imposed on incomplete vehicles 
subject to any of the existing crash testing require- 
ments. Thus, NHTSA does not find persuasive 
NTEA's suggestion that unreasonably stringent lim- 
itations will be imposed on the completion of incom- 
plete vehicles as a result of this amendment. 

NHTSA recognizes that the adoption of the auto- 
matic crash protection requirements may lead in- 
complete vehicle manufacturers to impose some new 
limitations on the manner in which their vehicles 
may be completed, in order to assure that the com- 
pleted vehicle will meet the requirements of the 
standard. However, there is no reason to believe that 
final stage manufacturers will be unable to complete 
their vehicles within those limitations. 

NTEA's comments also addressed the fact, dis- 
cussed above, that under 49 CFR 567.5, only manu- 
facturers of incomplete chassis-cabs are required to 
provide a formal certification that can be "passed- 
through" by a final stage manufacturer. When com- 



PART 571; S208-PRE 



pleting an incomplete vehicle that is not a chassis- 
cab, or when completing an incomplete vehicle outside 
of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's instructions, 
the final stage manufacturer would have to indepen- 
dently certify that the completed vehicle complied 
with the automatic crash protection requirements. 
NTEA argued that final stage manufacturers lack the 
financial and engineering expertise needed to make 
such a certification, and contended that this obliges 
NHTSA to permanently exempt those vehicles from 
the automatic crash protection requirements. 

With respect to non-chassis-cabs, NHTSA reiterates 
that, as provided by 49 CFR Part 568, completion of an 
incomplete vehicle in accordance with the specifica- 
tions set forth in an incomplete vehicle document will 
ensure conformity with applicable standards and thus 
provide a basis for a final stage manufacturer to certify 
the completed vehicle. Therefore, with respect to those 
chassis for which the incomplete vehicle manufacturer 
provides specifications with respect to Standard No. 
208, NTEA's concerns regarding the ability of final 
stage manufacturers to independently certify these 
vehicles are not well grounded. However, NHTSA 
acknowledges that most non-chassis-cabs will not in- 
clude specifications for Standard No. 208. Thus, final- 
stage manufacturers that do not have an independent 
basis for certifying compliance with the automatic 
crash protection requirements will not be able to use 
non-chassis-cabs to complete vehicles within the 
weight ranges subject to the automatic crash protec- 
tion requirements. 

As discussed above, NHTSA agrees that as a 
practical matter, most final stage manufacturers 
will not have the resources to develop an indepen- 
dent basis to certify compliance with Standard No. 
208 if they do not complete vehicles within the 
specifications established by incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers or if the incomplete vehicle manufac- 
turer does not provide specifications applicable to 
that standard. That is why the agency has consis- 
tently suggested that the simplest way for final 
stage manufacturers to assure that their vehicles 
will comply with the safety standards is to complete 
the vehicles in accordance with those specifications. 
A final stage manufacturer may have to "shop 
around" among different incomplete vehicles and 
different manufacturers to find an incomplete vehi- 
cle that can be completed in the manner that its 
customer desires, while remaining within the incom- 
plete vehicle manufacturer's limitations. However, 
this is not an unreasonable burden in light of the 
safety benefits of automatic crash protection. 

Moreover, NHTSA is not convinced that it will be 
impossible for final stage manufacturers to establish 
that vehicles that are completed outside of an incom- 
plete vehicle manufacturer's specifications comply 
with the automatic crash protection requirements of 



Standard No. 208. Final stage manufacturers that 
complete vehicles outside the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer's specifications are in the same posi- Jt 
tion as alterers regarding the certification responsi- v 
bility. That is, the final stage manufacturer and the 
alterer must base their certification of compliance 
with the automatic crash protection requirements of 
Standard No. 208 on the evaluations and analyses 
made by the final stage manufacturer or alterer, 
instead of basing their certification on the specifica- 
tions the original vehicle manufacturer provided for 
the vehicle. Although it might be too difficult or 
expensive for an individual final stage manufacturer 
or alterer to independently certify compliance 
through crash tests, it may be feasible for several 
such entities to join together to conduct or sponsor 
crash tests and/or engineering analyses that would 
provide an adequate basis for certification. 

Volkswagen commented that it believed that it 
will not be practicable for modified vehicles to com- 
ply with the automatic crash protection require- 
ments, particularly if the incomplete vehicle is 
equipped with an air bag. According to Volkswagen, 
it is "virtually impossible" for the manufacturer of 
an incomplete vehicle with an air bag system to 
provide guidance and certification information to 
final stage manufacturers, in part because of the 
different types of special equipment and/or bodies 
that might be added to the incomplete vehicle. M 
Further, according to Volkswagen, it would be im- 
possible for final stage manufacturers to indepen- 
dently certify compliance without conducting a 
crash test for each specific configuration. Because of 
this alleged impracticability, Volkswagen concluded 
that any light trucks that are produced in two or 
more stages should be excluded from the automatic 
crash protection requirements. 

NHTSA has previously explained in detail its rejec- 
tion of similar arguments in the rulemakings extend- 
ing dynamic testing of manual safety belts to light 
trucks under Standard No. 208 (53 FR at 50225- 
50228) and extending Standard No. 204's steering 
column rearward displacement limitations to addi- 
tional light trucks (54 FR at 24347-24350). lb briefly 
repeat, manufacturers of all light trucks have been 
required for more than a decade to certify that their 
vehicles comply with three standards (Nos. 212, 219, 
and 301) that use a 30 mph barrier crash test to 
determine compliance. Throughout that period, man- 
ufacturers of incomplete vehicles have been required 
by 49 CFR Part 568 to provide incomplete vehicle 
documents that contain certification information and 
instructions to final stage manufacturers along with 
the incomplete vehicle. In order to have a basis for the 
specifications contained in the incomplete vehicle 
documents— te., to assure that vehicles that are com- 
pleted within those specifications will comply with 



PART 571; S208-PRE 492 



applicable crash test standards— the incomplete ve- 
hicle manufacturer must conduct some analysis of 
I how the chassis would perform in a crash test. While 
' this analysis may be more complex for the dynamic 
testing and automatic crash protection require- 
ments of Standard No. 208 than for the other Stand- 
ards that require crash testing, the process is not 
fundamentally different. Thus, Volkswagen's sug- 
gestion that it is not feasible for incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers to provide guidance to final stage 
manufacturers is not persuasive. 

Ford commented that it believed NHTSA had 
underestimated the difficulty that the automatic 
crash protection requirements would pose for final 
stage manufacturers and alterers. Ford commented 
that it would "find it relatively manageable" to 
provide guidance and appropriate limits for Ford 
vehicles used by final stage manufacturers and al- 
terers if the vehicles incorporated Ford-designed 
seats and occupant protection systems. However, 
Ford also commented that "alterers appear to be- 
lieve" that installing different seats is fundamental 
to their manufacturing and marketing operations 
and stated that it was unlikely that Ford could 
provide much useful guidance for seats and occupant 
protection systems that are not designed and in- 
stalled by Ford. 

Ford's comment is consistent with its reported 
I response to the dynamic testing requirement that 
will apply to manual safety belts in light trucks 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1991. In a 
November 27, 1989 article on page E4 of Automotive 
News, it was reported that, for the purposes of the 
dynamic testing requirement, Ford's instructions to 
final stage manufacturers and alterers would re- 
quire the use of front seats installed by Ford. How- 
ever, that same article reported that Chrysler and 
General Motors plan to develop guidelines that will 
allow final stage manufacturers and alterers to 
replace the original front seats and still be covered 
by the original certification of compliance. Thus, it 
appears that such flexibility is practicable. 

If Ford does specify in its incomplete vehicle 
documents and body builders' guide that final stage 
manufacturers and alterers could only be assured of 
compliance with Standard No. 208 if they used 
Ford's seats, final stage manufacturers and alterers 
would have two options that would enable them to 
avoid having to independently certify compliance. 
They could either use Ford vehicles and complete or 
modify the vehicle in accordance with Ford's instruc- 
tions, or use vehicles produced by a different manu- 
facturer that permit the use of a variety of seats. In 
k either case, no significant compliance burden would 
" be imposed on the final stage manufacturer or 
alterer. 
For the foregoing reasons, NHTSA has concluded 



that there is no need to exclude vehicles produced in 
two or more stages or altered vehicles from the 
automatic crash protection requirements once the 
phase-in has ended. However, somewhat different 
considerations apply to the issue of whether those 
requirements should apply during the phase-in, 
which ends August 31, 1997. 

During the phase-in period, manufacturers of com- 
pleted light trucks will be required to install auto- 
matic crash protection in some but not all of their 
vehicles. If automatic crash protection were not 
available in the particular type of chassis used by a 
final stage manufacturer or alterer (perhaps because 
the chassis manufacturer did not intend to install 
automatic crash protection in its completed vehicles 
that are based on that chassis), it is unlikely that the 
final stage manufacturer or alterer could design, 
install, and certify a system of automatic crash 
protection for the vehicle. In recognition of these 
difficulties, the agency proposed to exclude light 
trucks manufactured in two or more stages and light 
trucks that are altered from the automatic crash 
protection requirements during the 20/50/90 phase- 
in period. 

No commenter opposed this proposal and several 
supported it. NHTSA remains convinced that it 
would be impracticable to require final stage manu- 
facturers and alterers to assure that a specified 
percentage of their vehicles complied with the auto- 
matic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 
208 during the phase-in. Therefore, this final rule 
adopts the proposed exclusion of light trucks manu- 
factured in two or more stages and light trucks that 
are altered from the automatic crash protection 
requirements during the phase-in. Because of this 
exclusion, this rule also adopts the proposal to allow 
original manufacturers the option to either include 
or exclude their light trucks that are sent to second 
stage manufacturers and alterers, when determin- 
ing compliance during the phase-in period for auto- 
matic crash protection in light trucks. However, as 
indicated above, once the phase-in is completed, all 
light trucks must be equipped with automatic crash 
protection. 

d. Phase-In Reporting Requirements. The agency 
proposed to adopt substantially the same reporting 
requirements for light trucks as were previously 
specified for passenger cars during the phase-in of 
the automatic crash protection requirements for 
those vehicles. The agency also proposed to not 
require information about altered light trucks and 
light trucks manufactured in two or more stages to 
be submitted in these reports, because manufactur- 
ers of those light trucks were not required to comply 
with the percentage requirements during the phase- 
in. No commenters addressed this subject. These 
requirements are adopted as proposed, for the rea- 



PART 571; S208-PRE 493 



sons set forth in the NPRM. 

e. Phase-In Certification Requirements. The NPRM 
proposed to require a separate certification to appear 
on light trucks that were produced during the 
phase-in and were intended to be among the percent- 
age of their manufacturer's annual production certi- 
fied as complying with the automatic crash protec- 
tion requirements. During the phase-in of automatic 
crash protection, some of a manufacturer's vehicles 
are equipped with automatic crash protection, while 
the rest are equipped only with manual safety belts. 
However, the information on the certification labels 
on both vehicles equipped with automatic crash 
protection and those equipped with only manual 
safety belts would fail to differentiate between the 
vehicles. 

Additionally, during a phase-in, manufacturers 
are permitted to equip those vehicles with both 
manual safety belts and air bags, for example, but 
not certify the vehicles as complying with the auto- 
matic crash protection requirements. Instead, the 
manufacturers could certify that the vehicles com- 
plied with Standard No. 208 by virtue of the manual 
safety belts and assert the position that the air bags 
were a voluntary additional means of occupant pro- 
tection. In this case, nothing on the certification 
label would alert the agency that these vehicles were 
not certified as complying with the automatic crash 
protection requirements. 

NHTSA proposed to address the practical difficul- 
ties that had arisen in these situations in the pas- 
senger car phase-in by requiring manufacturers to 
affix an additional certification label on their light 
trucks produced during the phase-in period, if the 
light trucks were certified as complying with the 
automatic crash protection requirement. This pro- 
posal reflected the agency's tentative conclusions 
that this additional certification would effectively 
solve those problems, while imposing only minimal 
added burdens on the manufacturers. 

The commenters strongly disagreed with the 
agency's proposal. Ford commented that the addi- 
tional certification label would likely be misleading 
to consumers. Ford also commented that agency 
personnel would have ample additional sources for 
learning whether particular vehicles were certified 
as complying with the automatic crash protection 
requirements, including the proposed reports and 
the proposed requirement to keep records of the 
vehicle identification numbers of the vehicles certi- 
fied as complying with the automatic crash protec- 
tion requirements. Chrysler, Nissan, and Volkswa- 
gen all commented that the proposed additional 
certification label would be an increased burden, 
even if it were only slight, and that the agency had 
not articulated any benefits, great or small, that 
would result from imposing that burden. 



After reviewing these comments, the agency has 
concluded that the proposed additional certification 
label should not be adopted in this final rule. As 
noted in the comments, agency personnel will be ' 
able to obtain the necessary certification informa- 
tion if the proposed reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements are adopted for the phase-in. NHTSA 
can make that information available to the public if 
there is any confusion about particular light trucks 
during the phase-in. Thus, there is no compelling 
reason to require an additional certification label on 
light trucks during the phase-in. 

f. Retention of VINs. For the phase-in of automatic 
crash protection for passenger cars, NHTSA deter- 
mined that it was important for enforcement pur- 
poses that manufacturers maintain records of the 
vehicle identification number (VIN) and the type of 
automatic crash protection installed on each passen- 
ger car produced during the phase-in period that was 
reported to NHTSA as one of the manufacturer's cars 
equipped with automatic crash protection. Again with 
respect to passenger cars, the manufacturers were 
required to retain these records for slightly more than 
two years after the end of the phase-in. The agency 
proposed to adopt the same requirements for light 
trucks. No commenter offered any objections to this 
proposal. Therefore, this final rule adopts the proposed 
VIN recordkeeping requirement. 

4. "One-Truck Credit" Provision 
As the requirements for automatic crash protec- 
tion were being phased-in for passenger cars, 
NHTSA adopted provisions designed to give car 
manufacturers an incentive to use more innovative 
automatic crash protection systems in their vehicles. 
Accordingly, Standard No. 208 includes provisions so 
that each car equipped with a non-belt automatic 
crash protection system for the driver's position, 
such as an air bag or passive interior, and a manual 
safety belt for the right front passenger's position 
will be counted as a vehicle complying with the 
automatic crash protection requirements. These pro- 
visions are referred to as the "one-car credit." NHTSA 
repeatedly stated its belief that the "one-car credit" 
would encourage the introduction of non-belt auto- 
matic crash protection systems into passenger cars 
sooner than would occur if manufacturers were simply 
required to install automatic crash protection systems 
in both front seating positions simultaneously. 

NHTSA tentatively determined it would also be 
appropriate to offer an incentive for light truck 
manufacturers to install more innovative systems of 
automatic crash protection. This tentative determina- 
tion reflected the agency's belief that, as in the case of 
passenger cars, the relative technological ease of wide- 
spread installation in light trucks of passenger-side air 
bags is less than that of passenger-side automatic 



PART 571; S208-PRE 494 



belts Absent some measures to equalize this techno- 
logical disparity, NHTSA believes that light truck 
manufacturers would opt for the installation of auto- 
matic belts at both the driver's and passenger's posi- 
tions, instead of installing an air bag at the driver's 
position and an automatic belt at the passenger's 
position. Thus, the agency proposed to offer the "one- 
truck credit" to allow the passage of sufficient time for 
the relative technological difficulties of passenger- 
side air bags and passenger-side automatic belts to 
become nearly equal. The agency tentatively con- 
cluded that 4 years was the minimum time sufficient 
for that purpose. Therefore, the NPRM proposed that 
the one-truck credit be available for light trucks 
manufactured during the 4-year period after the be- 
ginning of the phase-in of the automatic crash protec- 
tion requirement. 

Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors supported the 
proposed one-truck credit. The only commenter that 
objected to the proposal was Motor Voters. According 
to Motor Voters, market forces may be sufficient to 
encourage light truck manufacturers to choose air 
bags as the means for complying with the automatic 
crash protection requirement. In this case, there 
would be no need for any additional regulatory 
incentives. Because of this. Motor Voters suggested 
in its comments that the one-truck credit be allowed 
during the phase-in period, but that the one-truck 
credit provision be ended when the phase-in expires. 

NHTSA concurs with Motor Voters' belief that the 
one-truck credit provision should not be offered for 
an excessive period of time, because it would then 
serve to delay for too long the safety benefits of 
automatic crash protection for the right front pas- 
senger position in light trucks. In the preamble to 
the NPRM, NHTSA also explained that it believed 
that, if the one-truck credit provision were available 
for a period of less than 4 years, the short credit 
would not provide sufficient time to resolve technical 
issues associated with passenger side air bags in 
light trucks. Hence, if the one-truck credit were 
made available for too short a time, it would do little 
to encourage light truck manufacturers to install 
driver-side air bags in light trucks. Motor Voters' 
comments did not set forth any new facts or infor- 
mation not previously considered by the agency in 
reaching its tentative decision on the appropriate 
length of time for the one-truck credit provision. A 
review of the available information reinforces 
NHTSA's technical judgment that there are special 
technical problems presented by the installation of 
air bags in light trucks that can be alleviated by 
allowing the one-truck credit. After this review, 
NHTSA has decided to adopt the proposed 4-year 
duration for the one-truck credit in this final rule. 



Other "Credit" Issues During the Phase-In 

The agency proposed to adopt the same 1.5 vehicle 
credit for light trucks that was available for passen- 
ger cars during the phase-in. Pursuant to this provi- 
sion, cars equipped with an air bag or other non-belt 
means of automatic crash protection at the driver's 
position, and any type of automatic crash protection 
at the right front passenger's position, were counted 
as 1.5 cars equipped with automatic crash protection 
during the phase-in of the automatic crash protec- 
tion requirements for passenger cars. 

In its comments. Ford stated that the 1.5 credit 
provides some incentive for truck manufacturers to 
introduce passenger-side air bags, but that a two- 
truck credit would be more effective as an incentive. 
Ford acknowledged that Porsche had sought a two- 
car credit for passenger cars, and that this request 
was denied by NHTSA. 51 FR 42598; November 25, 
1986. However, Ford commented that most of the 
agency's reasons for denying the two-car credit for 
cars would not be applicable for light trucks. Hence, 
Ford asked NHTSA to reexamine this issue. 

In its denial of a two-vehicle credit provision for 
cars, NHTSA explained that the 1.5 vehicle credit 
already provided an extra incentive for manufactur- 
ers to install air bags for both the driver and right 
front passenger and that no manufacturer had pro- 
vided detailed data specifically explaining how a 
two-car credit would serve as an additional incentive 
to any manufacturer to change its production plans 
during the phase-in. Absent such a quantification, 
NHTSA's judgment was that a two-vehicle credit 
provision could actually serve as a disincentive to 
installing air bags in the greatest number of vehi- 
cles during the phase-in. 

The agency believes this reasoning is equally appli- 
cable to light trucks. Neither Ford nor any other 
manufacturer has provided any details about how a 
two-truck credit would affect their plans to install air 
bags in their trucks. Absent such information, it is 
NHTSA's technical judgment that an additional 0.5 
vehicle credit over and above the existing 1.5 vehicle 
credit for trucks with both driver and passenger air 
bags would not ensure more air bags in light trucks 
during the phase-in. Hence, this final rule does not 
include a two-truck credit provision. 

During the phase-in of automatic crash protection 
in passenger cars, NHTSA decided to permit the 
"carry-forward" of credits for vehicles equipped with 
automatic crash protection. The carry-forward provi- 
sions allow manufacturers that exceed the minimum 
percentage of vehicles equipped with automatic 
crash protection in one year of the phase-in to count 
those excess vehicles as credits toward the specified 
percentage during any subsequent model years of 
the phase-in. Additionally, for passenger cars, man- 



PART 571; S208-PRE 495 



ufacturers were allowed to count cars produced dur- 
ing the year before the start of the phase-in as 
credits toward the specified percentage in any year 
of the phase-in. NHTSA explained that these carry- 
forward credits would encourage the early introduc- 
tion of more vehicles with automatic crash protection, 
provide increased flexibility for vehicle manufacturers, 
and assure an orderly build-up of production capa- 
bility for automatic crash protection. The agency 
proposed to allow the same carry-forward of credits 
during the phase-in of automatic crash protection for 
light trucks. 

Ford commented that it supported the proposed 
carry-forward of credits. However, Ford requested 
that manufacturers be permitted to carry-forward 
credits for light trucks equipped with automatic 
crash protection that are produced in the 2 years 
before the start of the phase-in (i.e., September 1, 
1992 to August 31, 1994), instead of the proposed 
carry-forward of credits for automatic crash protec- 
tion in light trucks produced in the year before the 
start of the phase-in (i.e., September 1, 1993 to 
August 31, 1994). Ford commented that this exten- 
sion of the carry-forward credit provision would 
encourage manufacturers to introduce automatic 
crash protection in light trucks as soon as possible. 

NHTSA is persuaded by this comment. To the 
extent that light truck manufacturers are not per- 
mitted to receive credit for trucks equipped with 
automatic crash protection produced before the start 
of the phase-in, those manufacturers would have an 
incentive to hold off the installation of automatic 
crash protection in their light trucks until they 
would receive such credit. Otherwise, a manufac- 
turer that installed automatic crash protection as 
soon as it could in its light trucks would end up 
installing automatic crash protection in a higher 
percentage of its vehicles than manufacturers who 
make lesser efforts to install automatic crash protec- 
tion, while both received the same credits for pur- 
poses of complying with the phase-in. For example, a 
manufacturer that installs automatic crash protec- 
tion in 10 percent of its vehicles the model year 
before the phase-in starts and then in an additional 
ten percent of its vehicles during the first year of the 
phase-in (for a total of 20 percent of its vehicles) 
would not be credited any differently than a manu- 
facturer that equipped 20 percent of its vehicles with 
automatic crash protection during the first year of 
the phase-in, if there were no provision allowing 
carry-forward of credits. Hence, an extension of the 
period for carry-forward credits serves the interests 
of safety by encouraging the earliest possible intro- 
duction of automatic crash protection. Accordingly, 
this rule adopts Ford's suggestion to permit the 
carry-forward of credits for light trucks equipped 
with automatic crash protection produced in the 2 



years before the start of the phase-in. 

Obviously, light trucks that are not certified as 
complying with the automatic crash protection re- 
quirements cannot be carried forward as credits 
toward complying with the automatic protection 
requirements. The agency has slightly revised the 
provision for calculating credits in S4.2.5.5 of Stand- 
ard No. 208 and the reporting requirements in 
§ 585.5(bX2), to ensure that all parties understand 
that carry-forward credits are only available for 
light trucks certified as providing automatic crash 
protection. 

Finally, Mazda asked the agency to permit the 
"carry-back" of credits, a procedure that was explic- 
itly rejected for the passenger car phase-in. "Carry- 
back" provisions allow manufacturers that fall short 
of the minimum percentage of vehicles equipped 
with automatic crash protection in one year of the 
phase-in to make up the shortfall in future model 
years of the phase-in. Carry-back provisions were 
rejected for the passenger car phase-in, because 
these provisions would allow vehicle manufacturers 
to delay the installation of automatic crash protec- 
tion and result in lesser safety benefits for the 
public. 

Mazda did not question the agency's previous 
conclusions that carry-back credits delay the avail- 
ability of automatic crash protection. Absent any 
additional information, NHTSA has no basis for 
changing its previously stated rejection of the con- 
cept of carry-back credits during the phase-in period. 

5. Compatibility with Child Safety Seats 
In the NPRM, the agency proposed to include 
special requirements for the passenger seating posi- 
tion in two-seater vehicles. The agency proposed that 
the automatic crash protection system installed at 
the right front seating position must be capable of 
being adjusted to secure a child safety seat or the 
seating position must be equipped with an original 
equipment manual lap or lap/shoulder belt to secure 
a child seat. Many vehicle manufacturers that com- 
mented on the NPRM objected to this proposal. 
Motor Voters and the Automotive Occupant Re- 
straints Council both supported the proposal. 

After the publication of this NPRM on automatic 
crash protection in light trucks, the agency pub- 
lished an NPRM devoted to the subject of the com- 
patibility of safety belt systems with child safety 
seats; 55 FR 30937; July 30, 1990. Instead of ad- 
dressing this issue in a piecemeal fashion in several 
different rulemakings, NHTSA believes it is more 
appropriate to use the child seat compatibility rule- 
making as the forum for addressing all concerns 
about the compatibility of child safety seats and the 
various occupant protection systems, including au- 
tomatic crash protection systems. Hence, the subject 



PART 571; S208-PRE 496 



will not be addressed further in this rulemaking 
action. 

} Technical Amendments of Regulatory 
Language 

Ford concluded its comments with a request that 
NHTSA clarify the interrelationship of three rule- 
making actions under Standard No. 208 addressing 
occupant protection requirements for light trucks. 
The first of these was the rule requiring dynamic 
testing of manual safety belts installed in front 
outboard seating positions in light trucks (52 FR 
44898; November 23, 1987), codified at S4.2.2 and 
S4.2.3 of Standard No. 208. The second rulemaking 
was the requirement for rear seat lap/shoulder 
safety belts in light trucks (54 FR 46257; November 
2, 1989), codified at S4.2.4 of Standard No. 208. The 
third rulemaking is this rulemaking requiring au- 
tomatic crash protection in light trucks, codified at 
S4.2.5 and S4.2.6 of Standard No. 208. 

Ford commented that S4.2.4 appears to require 
lap/shoulder belts in rear outboard seating positions 
of most light trucks. However, Ford correctly noted 
that the dynamic testing requirements for manual 
safety belts in light trucks and the automatic crash 
protection requirements for light trucks refer to the 
older passenger car options for occupant protection, 
which permit the installation of lap-only safety belts 
ft in rear outboard seats of vehicles. Ford suggested 
that this be clarified. This rule makes the requested 
clarification, so that no unintended confusion will 
arise about whether light trucks must be equipped 
with lap/shoulder belts in rear seating positions. 

Ford also commented that it was unclear if the 
dynamic testing requirements for light trucks 
equipped with manual safety belts applied to light 
trucks equipped with manual safety belts that are 
produced during the phase-in period for automatic 
crash protection. The answer is that dynamic testing 
will apply to all subject light trucks manufactured 
on or after September 1, 1991, including the years 
during which automatic crash protection will be 
phased in, that meet the requirements of Standard 
No. 208 by providing manual lap/shoulder belts at 
front outboard seating positions. Language has been 
added to the dynamic testing requirements to make 
this requirement more explicit. 

Finally, Ford commented that it assumed light 
trucks not subject to the dynamic testing require- 



ments but that would be subject to the automatic 
crash protection requirement (motor homes, convert- 
ibles, open-body vehicles, etc.) would be excluded 
from a manufacturer's production total when deter- 
mining compliance with the phase-in. This assump- 
tion is incorrect. NHTSA explicitly proposed to in- 
clude these vehicles and did not propose to exclude 
such vehicles during the phase-in. This rule does not 
have any such exclusion. 

Regulatory Impacts 

NHTSA has examined the impacts of this rule- 
making action and determined that it is both "ma- 
jor" within the meaning of Executive Order 12291 
and "significant" within the meaning of the Depart- 
ment of Transportation's regulatory policies and 
procedures, because of both the costs and the public 
interest associated with this proposed rulemaking 
action. Accordingly, a Final Regulatory Impact 
Analysis (FRIA) has been prepared for this proposal, 
and a copy of the FRIA has been placed in the public 
docket for this rulemaking action. A copy of the 
FRIA may be obtained by writing to: Docket Section, 
NHTSA, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Wash- 
ington, D.C. 20590. 

Tkble 1 presents the incremental benefits of auto- 
matic crash protection assuming all light trucks 
with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less 
would have automatic belts, or assuming all light 
trucks would have driver side air bags, or assuming 
all light trucks would have air bags for the driver 
and right front seat passenger. These benefits can be 
considered to accrue over the lifetime of one model 
year's production when all light trucks in that model 
year have automatic crash protection or these bene- 
fits can be considered annual benefits at some future 
date when all light trucks in the fleet incorporate 
automatic crash protection. These incremental ben- 
efits are compared to manual safety belt use rates of 
26.6 to 40 percent (26.6 percent was derived from the 
Fatal Accident Reporting System, and represents 
belt use in potentially fatal accidents by light truck 
occupants for 1989; 40 percent is an estimate of 
potential safety belt use levels in 1995 based on a 
continuing trend of increased use due to State safety 
belt use laws, consumer safety awareness, and safety 
belt education programs). 



PART 571; S208-PRE 497 



TABLE 1 

Incremental Benefits for Automatic Crash Protection 

Assuming Light Trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 Pounds GVWR or Less 

And Unloaded Vehicle Weight of 5,500 Pounds or Less 

Were Equipped with that Type of Automatic Protection 



Fatalities 



Driver 
Air Bags 


1,573 to 1,855 


Driver and 
Right Front 
Air Bags 


2,016 to 2,378 


Automatic 

Belts 

Usage 

50 Percent 


370 to 1,216 


60 Percent 


949 to 1,796 


70 Percent 


1,529 to 2,375 


The estimated costs of automatic crash pro 



AIS 2-5 
Injuries 



18,688 to 22,178 



23,960 to 28,434 



4,353 to 13,829 
10,881 to 20,357 
17,409 to 26,883 



AISl 
Injuries 



32,837 to 40,423 



42,098 to 51,824 



7,258 to 16,984 
14,517 to 24,243 
21,775 to 31,501 



TABLE 2 
Estimated Consumer Costs of Automatic Crash Protection 



Restraint System 

Driver air bag 
Driver and RF air bag 
Automatic belts Motorized 
Automatic belts Non-motorized 



Consumer 
Cost (1989 $) 

$277.86 

404.16 

185.66 

44.21 



The estimated lifetime fuel costs for the added weight of these various types of automatic protection are 
shown in Table 3. 



TABLE 3 

Lifetime Fuel Cost 

(Present Value, 10% Annual Discount Rate) 



Restraint System 

Driver air bag 
Driver and RF air bag 
Automatic belts Motorized 
Automatic belts Non-motorized 



Incremental 

Weight per 

Vehicle 

9.0 lbs. 
21.0 
10.0 

5.0 



Total Vehicle 
Lifetime Fuel 
Cost (1989 $) 

$12.38 

28.80 

13.75 

6.89 



PART 571; S208-PRE 498 



TABLE 4 

Tbtal Vehicle Costs Including 

Lifetime Fuel Costs 

(Present Value, 10% Annual Discount Rate) 

(Without Secondary Weight) 



Restraint System 

Driver air bag 
Driver and RF air bag 
Automatic belts Motorized 
Automatic belts Non-motorized 



Incremental 

Weight per 

Vehicle 



9.0 lbs. 
21.0 
10.0 

5.0 



Total Per Vehicle Cost 
Including Lifetime 
Fuel Cost (1989 $) 

$290.24 

432.96 

199.41 

51.10 



Restraint System 

Driver air bag 
Driver and RF air bag 
Automatic belts Motorized 
Automatic belts Non-motorized 

Additionally, the agency has analyzed the effects 
of this proposal on small entities, in accordance with 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This analysis ap- 
pears at Section IV of the FRIA. Based on the 
available information, the agency does not believe 
that a substantial number of small entities will be 
affected by this final rule, and that any effects on 
small entities would not be significant economic 
impacts. Interested persons are invited to examine 
this section of the FRIA. 

The agency has also analyzed this rule under the 
National Environmental Policy Act and determined 
that it will not have a significant effect on the 
human environment. A discussion of this determi- 
nation can be found in the Environmental Assess- 
ment that has been prepared for this rule. This 
report is available in the public docket for this 
rulemaking action. 

This rule has also been analyzed in accordance with 
the principles and criteria contained in Executive 
Order 12612, and NHTSA has determined that it does 
not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant 
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. 

The Office of Management and Budget (0MB) had 
already approved NHTSA's requirement for phase-in 
reporting for automatic crash protection in passen- 
ger cars (0MB #2127-0535). However, this rule 
extends the existing passenger car requirements to 
light trucks during the phase-in of automatic crash 
protection. This extension is considered to be an 
information collection requirement, as that term is 



(With Secondary Weight) 

Incremental 
Weight per 
Vehicle 



15.3 lbs. 
35.7 
17.0 
8.5 



Total Per Vehicle Cost 
Including Lifetime 
Fuel Cost (1989 $) 

$303.76 

464.47 

214.43 

58.62 



defined by 0MB in 5 CFR Part 1320. Accordingly, 
the information collection requirement was submit- 
ted to and approved by 0MB, pursuant to the re- 
quirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The reporting and recordkeep- 
ing requirements in this rule have been assigned 
0MB #2127-0535 and approved through April 30, 
1993. 

In consideration of the foregoing. Chapter V of 
Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows: 

84.2 of Standard No. 208 is amended by revising 
S4.2.2, S4.2.3, and the title of S4.2.4, and adding 
new S4.2.5 and S4.2.6, to read as follows: 

S4.2 Trucks and multipurpose passenger ve- 
hicles with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. 

***** 

S4.2.2 Trucks and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less 
and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds 
or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 
1991 and before September 1, 1997. Except as 
provided in S4.2.4, each truck and multipurpose 
passenger vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating 
of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle 
weight of 5,500 pounds or less, manufactured on or 
after September 1, 1991 and before September 1, 
1997, shall meet the requirements of S4. 1.2.1, or at 
the option of the manufacturer, S4.1.2.2 or S4.1.2.3 
(as specified for passenger cars), except that convert- 
ibles, open-body type vehicles, walk-in van-type 



PART 571; S208-PRE 499 



trucks, motor homes, vehicles designed to be exclu- 
sively sold to the U.S. Postal Service, and vehicles 
carrying chassis-mount campers may instead meet 
the requirements of S4. 2. 1.1 orS4.2.1.2. Each Type 2 
seat belt assembly installed in a front outboard 
designated seating position in accordance with 
S4.1.2.3 shall meet the requirements of S4.6. 

54.2.3 Trucks and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 
1991 with either a GVWR of more than 8,500 
pounds but not greater than 10,000 pounds or 
with an unloaded vehicle weight greater than 
5,500 pounds and a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or 
less. Except as provided in S4.2.4, each truck and 
multipurpose passenger vehicle manufactured on or 
after September 1, 1991, that has either a gross 
vehicle weight rating which is greater than 8,500 
pounds, but not greater than 10,000 pounds, or has 
an unloaded vehicle weight greater than 5,500 
pounds and a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, shall 
meet the requirements of S4. 1.2.1, or at the option of 
the manufacturer, S4. 1.2.2 or S4. 1.2.3 (as specified 
for passenger cars), except that convertibles, open- 
body type vehicles, walk-in van-type trucks, motor 
homes, vehicles designed to be exclusively sold to the 
U.S. Postal Service, and vehicles carrying chassis- 
mount campers may instead meet the requirements 
ofS4.2.1.1 or S4. 2.1.2. 

54.2.4 Rear outboard seating positions in 
trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 
with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. * * * 

***** 

54.2.5 Trucks, buses, and mvdtipurpose pas- 
senger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or 
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 
pounds or less manufactured on or after Sep- 
tember 1, 1994, and before September 1, 1997. 

S4.2.5.1 Trucks, buses, and multipurpose pas- 
senger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or 
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 
pounds or less manufactured on or after Sep- 
tember 1, 1994 and before September 1, 1995. 

S4.2.5.1.1 Subject to S4.2.5.1.2 and S4. 2.5.5 and 
except as provided in S4.2.4, each truck, bus, and 
multipurpose passenger vehicle, other than walk-in 
van-type trucks and vehicles designed to be exclu- 
sively sold to the U.S. Postal Service, with a GVWR 
of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle 
weight of 5,500 pounds or less that is manufactured 
on or after September 1, 1994 and before September 
1, 1995, shall comply with the requirements of 
S4.1.2.1, S4.1.2.2, or S4. 1.2.3 (as specified for passen- 
ger cars). A vehicle shall not be deemed to be in 
noncompliance with this standard if its manufac- 
turer establishes that it did not have reason to know 



in the exercise of due care that such vehicle is not in 
conformity with the requirement of this standard. 

S4.2.5.1.2 Subject to S4.2.5.5, the amount of / 
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
specified in S4. 2.5. 1.1 complying with S4. 1.2.1 (as 
specified for passenger cars) shall be not less than 20 
percent of: 

(a) The average annual production of trucks, 
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less manufactured 
on or after September 1, 1991, and before September 
1, 1994, by each manufacturer that produced such 
vehicles during each of those annual production 
periods, or 

(b) The manufacturer's total production of trucks, 
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less during the 
period specified in S4.2.5.1.1. 

S4.2.5.2 Trucks, buses, and multipurpose pas- 
senger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or 
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 
pounds or less manufactured on or after Sep- 
tember 1, 1995 and before September 1, 1996. 

54.2.5.2.1 Subject to S4.2.5.2.2 and S4.2.5.5 and 
except as provided in S4.2.4, each truck, bus, and 
multipurpose passenger vehicle, other than walk-in 
van-type trucks and vehicles designed to be exclu- ( 
sively sold to the U.S. Postal Service, with a GVWR 

of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle 
weight of 5,500 pounds or less that is manufactured 
on or after September 1, 1995 and before September 
1, 1996, shall comply with the requirements of 
S4.1.2.1, S4.1.2.2, or S4. 1.2.3 (as specified for passen- 
ger cars). A vehicle shall not be deemed to be in 
noncompliance with this standard if its manufac- 
turer establishes that it did not have reason to know 
in the exercise of due care that such vehicle is not in 
conformity with the requirement of this standard. 

54.2.5.2.2 Subject to S4.2.5.5, the amount of 
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
specified in S4.2.5.2.1 complying with S4. 1.2.1 (as 
specified for passenger cars) shall be not less than 50 
percent of: 

(a) The average annual production of trucks, 
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less manufactured 
on or after September 1, 1992, and before September 
1, 1995, by each manufacturer that produced such 
vehicles during each of those annual production 
periods, or 

(b) The manufacturer's total production of trucks, 
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less during the 



PART 571; S208-PRE 500 



period specified in S4.2.5.2.1. 

54.2.5.3 Trucks, buses, and multipurpose pas- 

)senger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or 
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 
pounds or less manufactured on or after Sep- 
tember 1, 1996 and before September 1, 1997. 

54.2.5.3.1 Subject to S4.2.5.3.2 and S4.2.5.5 and 
except as provided in S4.2.4, each truck, bus, and 
multipurpose passenger vehicle, other than walk-in 
van-type trucks and vehicles designed to be exclu- 
sively sold to the U.S. Postal Service, with a GVWR 
of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle 
weight of 5,500 pounds or less that is manufactured 
on or after September 1, 1996 and before September 
1, 1997, shall comply with the requirements of 
S4.1.2.1, S4. 1.2.2, or S4.1.2.3 (as specified for passen- 
ger cars). A vehicle shall not be deemed to be in 
noncompliance with this standard if its manufac- 
turer establishes that it did not have reason to know 
in the exercise of due care that such vehicle is not in 
conformity with the requirement of this standard. 

54.2.5.3.2 Subject to S4.2.5.5, the amount of 
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
specified in S4.2.5.3.1 complying with S4. 1.2.1 (as 
specified for passenger cars) shall be not less than 90 
percent of: 

(a) The average annual production of trucks, 
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 

I GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less manufactured 
on or after September 1, 1993, and before September 
1, 1996, by each manufacturer that produced such 
vehicles during each of those annual production 
periods, or 

(b) The manufacturer's total production of trucks, 
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less during the 
period specified in S4.2.5.3.1. 

54.2.5.4 Alternative phase-in schedule. A man- 
ufacturer may, at its option, comply with the require- 
ments of this section instead of complying with the 
requirements set forth in S4.2.5.1, S4.2.5.2, and 
S4.2.5.3. 

(a) Except as provided in S4.2.4, each truck, bus, 
and multipurpose passenger vehicle, other than 
walk-in van-type trucks and vehicles designed to be 
exclusively sold to the U.S. Postal Service, with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less that is man- 
ufactured on or after September 1, 1994 and before 
September 1, 1995, shall comply with the require- 
ments of S4.1.2.1, S4. 1.2.2, or S4.1.2.3 (as specified 

k for passenger cars). 

f (b) Except as provided in S4.2.4, each truck, bus, 
and multipurpose passenger vehicle, other than 
walk-in van-type trucks and vehicles designed to be 



exclusively sold to the U.S. Postal Service, with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less that is man- 
ufactured on or after September 1, 1995 shall comply 
with the requirements of S4. 1.2.1 (as specified for 
passenger cars) of this standard. A vehicle shall not 
be deemed to be in noncompliance with this Stand- 
ard if its manufacturer establishes that it did not 
have reason to know in the exercise of due care that 
such vehicle is not in conformity with the require- 
ment of this standard. 

(c) Each truck, bus, and multipurpose passenger 
vehicle with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1995, but 
before September 1, 1998, whose driver's seating 
position complies with the requirements of 
S4. 1.2. 1(a) of this standard by means not including 
any type of seat belt and whose right front passen- 
ger's seating position is equipped with a manual 
Type 2 seat belt that complies with S5.1 of this 
standard, with the seat belt assembly adjusted in 
accordance with S7.4.2, shall be counted as a vehicle 
complying with S4. 1.2.1. 

S4.2.5.5 Calculation of complying trucks, 
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less. 

(a) For the purposes of the calculations required in 
S4.2.5.1.2, S4.2.5.2.2, and S4.2.5.3.2 of the number 
of trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehi- 
cles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less that 
comply with S4. 1.2.1 (as specified for passenger 
cars): 

(1) Each truck, bus, and multipurpose passenger 
vehicle with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less 
whose driver's seating position complies with the 
requirements of S4. 1.2. 1(a) by means not including 
any type of seat belt and whose front right seating 
position complies with the requirements of 
S4. 1.2. 1(a) by any means is counted as 1.5 vehicles, 
and 

(2) Each truck, bus, and multipurpose passenger 
vehicle with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less 
whose driver's seating position complies with the 
requirements of S4. 1.2. 1(a) by means not including 
any type of seat belt and whose right front passen- 
ger's seating position is equipped with a manual 
Type 2 seat belt that complies with S5.1 of this 
Standard, with the seat belt assembly adjusted in 
accordance with S7.4.2, is counted as one vehicle. 

(3) Each truck, bus, and multipurpose passenger 
vehicle with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less that 



PART 571; S208-PRE 501 



is manufactured in two or more stages or that is 
altered (within the meaning of § 567.7 of this chap- 
ter) after having previously been certified in accor- 
dance with Part 567 of this chapter is not subject to 
the requirements of S4.2.5.1.2, S4.2.5.2.2, and 
S4.2.5.3.2. Such vehicles may be excluded from all 
calculations of compliance with S4.2.5.1.2, S4.2.5.2.2, 
and S4.2.5.3.2. 

(b) For the purposes of complying with S4.2.5.1.2, 
a truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger vehicle with 
a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less may be 
counted if it; 

(1) Is manufactured on or after September 1, 1992, 
but before September 1, 1994, and 

(2) Is certified as complying with S4. 1.2.1 (as 
specified for passenger cars). 

(c) For the purposes of complying with S4.2.5.2.2, a 
truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less may be 
counted if it: 

(1) Is manufactured on or after September 1, 1992, 
but before September 1, 1995, 

(2) Is certified as complying with S4. 1.2.1 (as 
specified for passenger cars), and 

(3) Is not counted towards compliance with 
S4.2.5.1.2. 

(d) For the purposes of complying with S4.2.5.3.2, 
a truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger vehicle with 
a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less may be 
counted if it: 

(1) Is manufactured on or after September 1, 1992, 
but before September 1, 1996, 

(2) Is certified as complying with S4. 1.2.1 (as 
specified for passenger cars), and 

(3) Is not counted towards compliance with 
S4.2.5.1.2 or S4.2.5.2.2. 

S4.2.5.6 Trucks, buses, and multipurpose pas- 
senger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or 
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 
pounds or less produced by more than one 
manufacturer. 

S4.2.5.6.1 For the purposes of calculating average 
annual production for each manufacturer and the 
amount of vehicles manufactured by each manufac- 
turer under S4.2.5.1.2, S4.2.5.2.2, or S4.2.5.3.2, a 
truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less produced by 
more than one manufacturer shall be attributed to a 
single manufacturer as follows, subject to S4.2.5.6.2: 

(a) A vehicle that is imported shall be attributed to 
the importer. 

(b) A vehicle that is manufactured in the United 
States by more than one manufacturer, one of which 



also markets the vehicle, shall be attributed to the 
manufacturer that markets the vehicle. 

84.2.5.6.2 A truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger / 
vehicle with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an ^ 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less 
produced by more than one manufacturer shall be 
attributed to any one of the vehicle's manufacturers 
specified in an express written contract, reported to 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
under 49 CFR Part 585, between the manufacturer 
so specified and the manufacturer to which the 
vehicle would otherwise be attributed under 
S4.2.5.4.1. 

S4.2.6 Trucks, buses, and multipurpose pas- 
senger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or 
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 
pounds or less manufactured on or after Sep- 
tember 1, 1997. Except as provided in S4.2.4, each 
truck, bus, and multipurpose passenger vehicle with 
a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less manufactured 
on or after September 1, 1997 shall comply with the 
requirements of S4. 1.2.1 (as specified for passenger 
cars) of this standard, except that walk-in van-type 
trucks and vehicles designed to be exclusively sold to 
the U.S. Postal Service may instead meet the re- 
quirements of S4.2.1.1 or S4.2.1.2. Each truck, bus, 
and multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR , 
of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle y 
weight of 5,500 pounds or less manufactured on or 
after September 1, 1997, but before September 1, 
1998, whose driver's seating position complies with 
the requirements of S4. 1.2. 1(a) of this Standard by 
means not including any type of seat belt and whose 
right front passenger's seating position is equipped 
with a manual Type 2 seat belt that complies with 
S5.1 of this Standard, with the seat belt assembly 
adjusted in accordance with S7.4.2, shall be counted 
as a vehicle complying with S4. 1.2.1. A vehicle shall 
not be deemed to be in noncompliance with this 
Standard if its manufacturer establishes that it did 
not have reason to know in the exercise of due care 
that such vehicle is not in conformity with the 
requirement of this standard. 

3. A new S4.4.4 is added to Standard No 208, to 
read as follows: 

S4.4 Buses. 

***** 

S4.4.4 Buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or 
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 
pounds or less manufactured on or after Sep- 
tember 1, 1994. Each bus with a GVWR of 8,500 | 
pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of ' 
5,500 pounds or less manufactured on or after Sep- 
tember 1, 1994 shall comply with the requirements 



PART 571; S208-PRE 502 



of S4.2.5 and S4.2.6 of this standard, as applicable, 
for front seating positions, and with the require- 
ments of S4.4.3.2 or S4.4.3.3 of this standard, as 
applicable, for all rear seating positions. 

***** 

4. S8. 1.1(b) of Standard No. 208 is revised to read 
as follows: 

S8. Test conditions. 

***** 

SB. 1.1 Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this 
section, the vehicle, including test devices and in- 
strumentation, is loaded as follows: 

***** 

(b) Mviltipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, 
and buses. A multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, 
or bus is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight plus 300 
pounds or its rated cargo and luggage capacity weight, 
whichever is less, secured in the load carrying area 
and distributed as nearly as possible in proportion to 
its gross axle weight ratings, plus the weight of the 
necessary anthropomorphic test devices. For the pur- 
poses of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does not 
include the weight of work-performing accessories. 
Vehicles are tested to a maximum unloaded vehicle 
weight of 5,500 pounds. 



I PART 585-[AMENDED] 

5. The authority citation for Part 585 continues to 
read as follows: 

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

6. Section 585.1 is revised to read as follows: 
This part establishes requirements for manufac- 
turers of trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) 
of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle 
weight of 5,500 pounds or less to submit reports, and 
to maintain records related to the reports, concern- 
ing the number of such vehicles equipped with 
automatic crash protection in compliance with the 
requirements of S4.2.5 of Standard No. 208, Occu- 
pant Crash Protection (49 CFR § 571.208). 

7. Section 585.2 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 585.2 Purpose. 

The purpose of these reporting requirements is to 
aid the National Highway Ti-affic Safety Adminis- 
tration in determining whether a manufacturer of 
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less has 
k complied with the requirements of Standard No. 208, 
■ Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR § 571.208) to 
install automatic crash protection in specified per- 
centages of the manufacturer's annual production of 



those vehicles. 

8. Section 585.3 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 585.3 Applicability. 

This part applies to manufacturers of trucks, 
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less. However, this 
part does not apply to any such manufacturers 
whose production consists exclusively of: 

(a) vehicles manufactured in two or more stages; 

(b) walk-in van-type trucks; 

(c) vehicles designed to be exclusively sold to the 
U.S. Postal Service; 

(d) Vehicles that are altered after previously hav- 
ing been certified in accordance with part 567 of this 
chapter. 

7. Section 585.4 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 585.4 Definitions. 

(a) All terms defined in section 102 of the National 
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391) 
are used in their statutory meaning. 

(b) Bus, gross vehicle weight rating or GVWR, 
multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, and unloaded 
vehicle weight are used as defined in § 571.3 of this 
chapter 

(c) Production year means the 12-month period 
between September 1 of the prior year and August 
31 of the year in question, inclusive. 

8. Section 585.5 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 585.5 Reporting requirements. 

(a) General reporting requirements. 

(1) Within 60 days after the end of the production 
years ending August 31, 1995, August 31, 1996, and 
August 31, 1997, each manufacturer that manufac- 
tured any trucks, buses, and multipurpose passen- 
ger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less 
and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or 
less during the production year (other than walk-in 
van-type trucks, vehicles designed to be exclusively 
sold to the U.S. Postal Service, vehicles manufac- 
tured in two or more stages, or vehicles that were 
altered after previously having been certified in 
accordance with part 567 of this chapter) shall 
submit a report to the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration concerning its compliance 
with the requirements of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 
571.208) for installation of automatic crash protec- 
tion in such vehicles manufactured during that 
production year. 

(2) Each report submitted in compliance with 
paragraph (aXD of this section shall: 

(i) Identify the manufacturer; 
(ii) State the full name, title, and address of the 
official responsible for preparing the report; 



PART 571; S208-PRE 503 



(iii) Identify the production year for which the 
report is filed; 

(iv) Contain a statement regarding the extent to 
which the manufacturer has complied with the re- 
quirements of S4.2.5 of Standard No. 208 (§ 571.208 
of this chapter); 

(v) Provide the information specified in paragraph 
(b) of this section; 

(vi) Be written in the English language; and 

(vii) Be submitted to: Administrator, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. 

(b) Report content. 

(1) Basis for phase-in production goals. Each man- 
ufacturer shall report the number of trucks, buses, 
and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR 
of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle 
weight of 5,500 pounds or less that it manufactured 
for sale in the United States for each of the three 
preceding production years or, at the manufacturer's 
option, for the production year for which the report is 
filed. A manufacturer that did not manufacture any 
trucks, buses, or multipurpose passenger vehicles 
with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less 
during each of the three preceding production years 
must report the number of trucks, buses, and multi- 
purpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR or 8,500 
pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 
5,500 pounds or less manufactured during the pro- 
duction year for which the report is filed. 

(2) Production. Each manufacturer shall report for 
the production year for which the report is filed, and 
for each preceding production year, to the extent that 
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
produced during the preceding production years are 
treated under § 571.208 of this chapter as having 
been produced during the production period for 
which the report is filed, the information specified in 
paragraphs (bX2Xi) through (bX2Xiii) of this section, 
inclusive, with respect to its trucks, buses, and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 
8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight 
of 5,500 pounds or less. 

(i) The number of those vehicles certified as com- 
plying with S4. 1.2.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant 
Crash Protection (49 CFR § 571.208) because they 
are equipped with automatic seat belts and the 



seating positions at which those belts are installed; 

(ii) The number of those vehicles certified as 
complying with S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208, Occu 
pant Crash Protection (49 CFR § 571.208) because 
they are equipped with air bags and the seating 
positions at which those air bags are installed; and 

(iii) The number of those vehicles certified as 
complying with S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208, Occu- 
pant Crash Protection (49 CFR §571.208) because 
they are equipped with other forms of automatic 
crash protection, which forms of automatic crash 
protection shall be described, and the seating posi- 
tions at which those forms of automatic crash pro- 
tection are installed. 

(3) Vehicles produced by more than one manufac- 
turer Each manufacturer whose reporting of infor- 
mation is affected by one or more of the express 
written contracts permitted by section S4.2.5.6.2 of 
§ 571.208 of this chapter shall: 

(i) Report the existence of each such contract, 
including the names of all parties to each such 
contract, and explain how the contract affects the 
report being filed; and 

(ii) Report the number of vehicles covered by each 
such contract. 

11. Section 585.6 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 585.6 Records. 

Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the 
vehicle identification number and type of automatic 
crash protection for each vehicle for which informa- 
tion was reported under § 585.5(bX2), until Decem- 
ber 31, 1999. 

Issued on March 20, 1991. 



Jerry Ralph Curry 
Administrator 

56 F.R. 12472 
March 26, 1991 



PART 571; S208-PRE 504 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE 

SAFETY STANDARD NO. 208 

Occupant Protection 

(Docket No. 74-14; Notice 71) 
RIN 2127-AD11 



ACTION: Final rule. 



SUMMARY: This agency has expressed its intention 
to exclude safety belts that meet dynamic testing 
requirements from some of the static testing require- 
ments to which all safety belts are subject. Dynamic 
testing consists of a 30 mile per hour crash test of the 
vehicle using test dummies as surrogates for human 
occupants. Since the dynamic test measures the 
actual occupant protection which the belt provides 
during a crash, there is no apparent need to subject 
that belt to static testing procedures that are surro- 
gate and less direct measures of the protection which 
the belt would provide to its occupants during a 
crash. 
^ In order to avoid needless regulatory restrictions 
" on safety belts that have been dynamically tested, 
this rule amends the agency's regulations to more 
accurately express the scope of the exemption from 
the static testing requirements for safety belts that 
are dynamically tested. Specifically, this rule: 

1. Excludes all safety belts that are subject to the 
dynamic testing requirements, regardless of the type 
of vehicle in which those belts are installed, from 
some of the static testing requirements for safety 
belts; 

2. Permits the use of load limiters on all safety belts 
installed at seating positions subject to the dynamic 
testing requirements, regardless of whether the sub- 
ject belts are automatic or manual safety belts; and 

3. Correctly identifies all of the static testing 
requirements from which automatic safety belts and 
manual safety belts subject to the dynamic testing 
requirements are excluded in the safety standards, 
instead of listing some of those requirements in the 
safety standards and adding others in the agency's 
interpretations and preambles to rules. 

This notice also clarifies which safety belts the 

agency was referring to when it described safety 

belts as "dynamically tested." NHTSA was referring 

^ only to all automatic belts and to manual safety 

B belts that are the only occupant restraint system at 

• a seating position. Thus, any manual safety belts 

installed at seating positions also equipped with 

either an automatic safety belt or an air bag are not 



"dynamically tested" safety belts with the meaning 
of this rule. Such manual safety belts are, therefore, 
subject to the strength, webbing width, and other 
requirements of Standard No. 209. However, this 
rule excludes manual safety belts installed at seat- 
ing positions also equipped with either an automatic 
safety belt or an air bag from the elongation require- 
ments of Standard No. 209. This exclusion will allow 
maximum engineering flexibility in the design of 
these manual belt systems, while still ensuring 
effective occupant protection. 

DATES: These amendments take effect April 16, 
1991. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 
571.209), sets forth a series of static tests for 
strength and other qualities of the webbing and 
hardware used in a seat belt assembly, along with 
some additional tests of the seat belt assembly as a 
whole. Absent a dynamic test, these tests individu- 
ally evaluate each of the aspects of a belt system that 
NHTSA believes are necessary to ensure that the 
belt system will provide adequate occupant protec- 
tion in a crash. For instance, the strength require- 
ments in Standard No. 209 are intended to ensure 
that the safety belt is strong enough to withstand 
the loads imposed by a person using the belt in a 
crash; the webbing elongation requirements help 
ensure that the belt will not stretch so much that it 
provides a lesser level of protection; and so forth. 
NHTSA assumes that any belt system that achieves 
the required level of performance in all of these tests 
will offer adequate occupant protection when the 
belt system is installed in any vehicle at any seating 
position. 

However, NHTSA has long believed it more appro- 
priate to evaluate the occupant protection afforded 
by vehicles by conducting dynamic testing, which 
consists of a crash test of the vehicle using test 



PART 571; S208-PRE 505 



dummies as surrogates for human occupants. This 
belief is based on the fact that the protection pro- 
vided by safety belts depends on more than the 
performance of the safety belts themselves or of belt 
components tested individually. Occupant protection 
depends on the performance of the safety belts 
themselves and the structural characteristics and 
interior design of the vehicle. A dynamic test of the 
vehicle allows NHTSA to evaluate all of the factors 
that affect occupant crash protection. Further, a 
dynamic test allows the agency to evaluate the 
synergistic effects of all these factors working to- 
gether, instead of evaluating each factor individu- 
ally. Finally, a dynamic test assesses the vehicle's 
capabilities for minimizing the risk of injury as 
measured by test dummies and human-based injury 
criteria, as opposed to individual belt component 
tests that are only indirectly related to human 
injury risk. 

For dynamic testing under Standard No. 208, 
Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), test 
dummies are placed in the vehicle and the vehicle is 
subjected to a frontal crash into a concrete barrier at 
a speed of 30 miles per hour (mph). In evaluating the 
occupant crash protection capabilities of a vehicle, 
this dynamic test assesses safety belt performance. 
A requirement for safety belts to conform to both the 
dynamic testing requirements of Standard No. 206 
and the laboratory testing requirements of Standard 
No. 209 is thus unnecessary, because Standard No. 
208 dynamic testing would evaluate the critical 
aspects of belt and assembly performance that would 
be evaluated under Standard No. 209. To avoid such 
redundancies, automatic safety belts subject to the 
dynamic testing requirements of Standard No. 208 
were excluded from Standard No. 209's laboratory 
testing requirements for webbing, attachment hard- 
ware, and assembly performance shortly after 
NHTSA established the first dynamic testing re- 
quirements in Standard No. 208. See 36 FR 23725; 
December 14, 1971. 

More recently, NHTSA has extended the dynamic 
testing requirements of Standard No. 208 to manual 
safety belt systems installed at the front outboard 
seating positions in passenger cars (51 FR 9800; 
March 21, 1986) and light trucks and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles (52 FR 44898; November 23, 
1987). In both instances, the agency stated in the 
preamble to the rule that dynamically tested man- 
ual belts should be excluded from the same require- 
ments of Standard No. 209 as automatic belts are, for 
the same reasons. See 51 FR 9804; 52 FR 44906. On 
the other hand, both automatic and dynamically 
tested manual belts are subject to other require- 
ments in Standard No. 209; for example, the retrac- 
tor performance requirements, the buckle release 
mechanism performance requirements, and the re- 



quirements for corrosion resistance of attachment 
hardware apply to these types of safety belts. 
NHTSA subsequently denied petitions for reconsid- ( 
eration and a petition for rulemaking on the ques- 
tion of excluding dynamically tested safety belts 
from some of the requirements of Standard No. 209. 
See 53 FR 5579; February 25, 1988. In the denial 
notice, NHTSA reemphasized its conclusion that 
there was no safety or other need to justify applying 
some of the static tests in Standard No. 209 to belt 
systems that have been dynamically tested in the 
vehicle in which they are installed. 

In addition, the preambles to the rules establish- 
ing dynamic testing of some manual safety belt 
systems in passenger cars and light trucks and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles stated that dynam- 
ically tested manual safety belts should be labeled 
indicating the seating positions and particular vehi- 
cles in which these safety belts could be installed. 
See 51 FR 9804; 52 FR 44906-44907. These labels 
were intended to minimize the likelihood that a 
dynamically tested safety belt would be installed in 
a vehicle or a seating position for which it was not 
intended. NHTSA subsequently denied a petition for 
rulemaking, asking that these labeling require- 
ments be amended to apply only to dynamically 
tested manual belt systems that did not comply with 
all the static testing requirements of Standard No. 
209. 53 FR 50429; December 15, 1988. 

However, the regulatory language in Standards 
No. 208 and 209 did not fully and clearly achieve the 
agency's expressed intentions. Therefore, the agency 
proposed to amend the provisions of those standards 
in four areas in a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) published on January 18, 1990 (55 FR 
1681). NHTSA received six comments on this 
NPRM. Commenters included motor vehicle manu- 
facturers, safety belt manufacturers, and motor ve- 
hicle dealers. All of these comments were considered 
in developing this final rule, and the most signifi- 
cant comments are discussed below. For the conven- 
ience of the reader, this rule uses the same organi- 
zation as the NPRM. 

1. Exclusion for Dynamically Tested Manual Belt 
Systems Installed in Passenger Cars From 
Certain Requirements of Standard No. 209 

Volkswagen of America (Volkswagen) submitted a 
petition asking NHTSA to amend the language in 
Standard No. 208 so as to achieve the agency's stated 
intent of excluding dynamically tested manual belt 
assemblies installed at front outboard seating posi- 
tions of passenger cars from the webbing width, 
strength, and elongation requirements of Standard 
No. 209. Volkswagen noted that, although preambles 
to rules on dynamic testing have repeatedly indi- 
cated that NHTSA was excluding dynamically 



PART 571; S208-PRE 506 



tested manual belts in passenger cars from certain 
static testing requirements of Standard No. 209, the 
current language in section S4.6.1 of Standard No. 

208 excludes dynamically tested manual belts in 
passenger cars from some requirements in Standard 
No. 209 only if the requirement for automatic re- 
straints in passenger cars were rescinded. Since 
there was no rescission, there is currently no exclu- 
sion from any of the requirements in Standard No. 

209 for dynamically tested manual belts in passen- 
ger cars. 

In the NPRM, NHTSA repeated its previous state- 
ments that it is appropriate to exclude all belt 
systems subject to dynamic testing requirements, 
including dynamically tested manual belts in pas- 
senger cars, from some of the static testing require- 
ments of Standard No. 209. The failure to provide 
such an exclusion in Standard No. 208 was simply an 
oversight on NHTSA's part. The agency proposed to 
correct that oversight in the NPRM. 

Chrysler, Ford, and BMW commented that they 
supported this proposal. The Automotive Occupant 
Restraints Council (AORC) opposed the proposal. 
According to AORC, excluding dynamically tested 
manual belts from some of the static testing require- 
ments in Standard No. 209 might result in adverse 
safety consequences. For example, AORC noted that 
the static webbing strength test exposes the webbing 
to loading that is approximately twice as great as 
the most heavily-loaded webbing would be exposed 
to during dynamic testing. This commenter asserted 
that an "unknowledgeable or reckless" manufac- 
turer could introduce webbing of lesser strength in 
its dynamically tested safety belts and that this 
webbing of lesser strength would be a "degraded 
occupant crash protection product." Similarly, AORC 
suggested that eliminating the assembly performance 
requirements for dynamically tested safety belts 
"could result in a degradation of performance of the 
seat belt assembly." In the same vein, AORC sug- 
gested that elimination of the webbing width require- 
ments for dynamically tested safety belts "would pro- 
vide the possibility for ill-conceived, unproven 
significant deviations" from the webbing width speci- 
fied in Standard No. 209. 

AORC had previously raised these concerns about 
excluding dynamically tested manual belts from 
some of the static testing requirements of Standard 
No. 209. NHTSA responded in detail in a February 
25, 1988 notice (53 FR 5579). To briefly repeat that 
response, the agency agreed with AORC that the 
static testing provisions of Standard No. 209 are 
well-conceived provisions that have assured ade- 
quate levels of occupant crash protection. The agency 
also agreed that the static testing provisions of 
Standard No. 209 subject the safety belt to higher 
force levels than are generally encountered in dy- 



namic testing under Standard No. 208. Thus, it is 
possible that safety belt manufacturers could make 
design changes to their dynamically tested manual 
safety belts that might result in lesser safety protec- 
tion for belt users. The agency stated that it must 
determine if this possible action by safety belt man- 
ufacturers is sufficiently likely so as to justify some 
preventive regulatory action. 

Automatic belts have been excluded from these 
static testing requirements since 1971. In those 20 
years, NHTSA has no evidence of any instances 
where automatic safety belts provided any lesser 
level of safety protection because those belts are 
excluded from some of the static tests in Standard 
No. 209. Judging from this record, it seems that the 
possibility that safety belt manufacturers would 
take actions that would result in lesser safety pro- 
tection has not become a reality, in the case of 
automatic safety belts. There is no apparent reason 
to believe that this possibility would become a real- 
ity in the case of dynamically tested manual belts, 
and AORC did not suggest such a reason. Hence, 
there is no apparent need for the static testing 
requirements in Standard No. 209 to apply to dy- 
namically tested manual safety belts. 

In addition to these previously expressed reasons 
for excluding dynamically tested manual safety 
belts in general from some of Standard No. 209's 
static tests, NHTSA believes there is an additional 
reason to adopt the proposal to exclude dynamically 
tested manual safety belts in passenger cars from 
those static tests. Dynamically tested manual safety 
belts in light trucks are already excluded from those 
static tests. There is no reason to treat dynamically 
tested manual safety belts differently, depending on 
the type of vehicle in which those belts are installed. 
The differing treatment arose because of an over- 
sight on the agency's part. The adoption of the 
proposal to treat all dynamically tested manual 
safety belts in the same way for the purposes of some 
static testing requirements in Standard No. 209 
corrects that oversight. 

NHTSA would also like to respond to a point 
raised in Ford's comments. Ford suggested that 
manual safety belts installed at seating positions 
equipped with an air bag could be considered dy- 
namically tested manual safety belts, or a "manual 
seat belt assembly subject to the requirements of 
S5.1" of Standard No. 208, as expressed in the 
proposed regulatory language. Ford correctly noted 
that S4. 1.2. 1(a) requires that air bags provide accept- 
able occupant crash protection in a 30 mph barrier 
crash test by automatic means alone. S4.1.2.1(cX2), 
which requires that manual safety belts be installed 
at seating positions equipped with air bags, also 
requires that the seating position provide acceptable 
occupant protection in another 30 mph barrier crash 



PART 571; S208-PRE 507 



test with the manual safety belts fastened. Accord- 
ing to Ford, this testing meant that the manual 
safety belts at seating positions equipped with air 
bags are, strictly speaking, "subject to the require- 
ments of S5.1" and that those belts could be consid- 
ered dynamically tested manual safety belts. 

This interpretation is contrary to NHTSA's intent. 
The safety belts that NHTSA meant to describe as 
subject to the crash testing requirements of S5.1 
included all automatic belts and manual safety belts 
that were the only occupant restraint system at a 
seating position. Thus, any manual belts installed at 
seating positions also equipped with either auto- 
matic safety belts or air bags are not what NHTSA is 
referring to when it uses the term "dynamically 
tested manual belts" in preambles or letters of 
interpretation, lb make this clear, the regulatory 
language adopted in this final rule describes the 
excluded safety belts as "any manual seat belt 
assembly subject to the requirements of S5.1 of this 
standard by virtue of any provision of this standard 
other than S4.1.2.1(cX2)." 

A result of this clarification is that manual safety 
belts installed at seating positions also equipped 
with either automatic safety belts or air bags will 
remain subject to Standard No. 209's requirements 
for webbing width, strength, and so forth. This helps 
ensure that the manual safety belts will provide the 
intended occupant protection in situations in which 
the automatic crash protection is not intended to 
deploy (e.g., in crashes other than frontal crashes 
and rollovers). 

However, the agency believes it is appropriate to 
exclude manual belts installed at seating positions 
also equipped with either automatic belts or air bags 
from the elongation requirements in Standard No. 
209. NHTSA concludes that allowing an exclusion 
from the elongation requirements for these safety 
belts will permit safety belt designs that optimize 
the belt force deflection characteristics of the man- 
ual belts installed in conjunction with automatic 
crash protection systems. Optimized designs could 
achieve better occupant protection. Appropriate 
amendments have been made to Standards No. 208 
and 209 to reflect this exclusion. 

2. Load Limiters on Dynamically 
Tested Manual Belts 
Ford filed a petition for rulemaking asking that 
"load limiters" be permitted on dynamically tested 
manual safety belts. S4.5 of Standard No. 209 in- 
cludes specific regulatory provisions regarding "load 
limiters" on safety belt systems. A "load limiter" is 
defined in section S3 of Standard No. 209 as "a seat 
belt assembly component or feature that controls 
tension on the seat belt to modulate the forces that 
are imparted to occupants restrained by the belt 



assembly during a crash." Before this rule takes 
effect, the language of S4.5 of Standard No. 209 
allows load limiters to be used on belt assemblies 
only if that belt assembly is part of an automatic 
restraint system. 

However, the agency explained in the NPRM that 
it agreed with Ford's suggestion that the agency 
intended to permit the use of load limiters on dy- 
namically tested manual belt systems. As long as a 
belt system is installed at a seating position that is 
subject to dynamic testing requirements, the occu- 
pant protection capabilities of the belt system can be 
evaluated in the dynamic testing. There is no reason 
to permit the use of load limiters on dynamically 
tested automatic belt systems, but prohibit their use 
on dynamically tested manual belt systems. Accord- 
ingly, the NPRM proposed to amend S4.5 of Stand- 
ard No. 209 to allow load limiters to be used on belt 
systems installed in conjunction with an automatic 
restraint system or on belt systems installed at a 
seating position subject to the dynamic testing 
requirements. 

Chrysler and Ford supported this proposal, and no 
commenters objected to the proposal. The proposed 
change is made in this final rule, for the reasons set 
forth in the proposal. 

As an adjunct to the proposal to allow load limit- 
ers on belt systems installed at a seating position 
equipped with automatic crash protection, the 
agency proposed to require those belt systems to be 
labeled in the same way as automatic belts equipped 
with load limiters. Ford commented that it did not 
believe that labeling of dynamically tested safety 
belts is necessary, irrespective of whether the dy- 
namically tested safety belt is manual or automatic. 
Thus, Ford asked that the proposed labeling require- 
ment for dynamically tested safety belts with load 
limiters not be adopted in this final rule. 

NHTSA proposed to require dynamically tested 
manual safety belts equipped with load limiters to 
be labeled in the same way that dynamically tested 
automatic belts with load limiters have been re- 
quired to be labeled since 1981. Prior to Ford's 
comment, NHTSA had not heard of any suggestion 
that the labeling requirements for automatic belts 
with load limiters were unduly burdensome, oner- 
ous, confusing, or the like. During this rulemaking, 
no commenter other than Ford made such a sugges- 
tion. Thus, absent some further explanation of the 
difficulties Ford has experienced, NHTSA does not 
believe that extending the existing labeling require- 
ments for automatic belts with load limiters to 
dynamically tested manual belts with load limiters 
will result in any undue burdens for manufacturers 
or consumers. 

Ford also stated its understanding that the label- 
ing requirements in the proposal would apply to 



PART 571; S208-PRE 508 



automatic and dynamically tested manual belts only 
if those belt assemblies: 

1. Incorporated a load limiter, and 

2. Did not comply with the elongation require- 
ments in Standard No. 209. 

Based on this understanding, Ford asked the 
agency to confirm that NHTSA had not proposed to 
require labeling of dynamically tested safety belts 
that include load limiters, but still comply with the 
elongation requirements in Standard No. 209. Ford's 
understanding is correct. There is no need to specif- 
ically label safety belts that use load limiters, but 
nevertheless comply with the elongation require- 
ments of Standard No. 209. 

After considering the comments, the agency is 
adopting the proposed labeling requirement for 
safety belts that incorporate load limiters, with two 
minor modifications. First, the agency proposed to 
require that safety belts with load limiters be la- 
beled with information describing the belt system as 
"dynamically tested." That phrase has been deleted 
from the required label information in this final 
rule, to reflect the facts that load limiters may be 
used on manual belt systems installed at seating 
positions also equipped with air bags and that those 
belt systems are not what NHTSA means by "dy- 
namically tested manual belts," as explained in the 
preceding section of this preamble. 

Second, the agency proposed to permit load limit- 
ers to be installed on "Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt 
assemblies," if the safety belt were installed at a 
seating position subject to dynamic testing. Strictly 
speaking, an automatic safety belt is not a Type 1 or 
Type 2 seat belt assembly. Thus, notwithstanding 
NHTSA's express intention to permit load limiters 
on automatic belts, the proposed regulatory lan- 
guage would not clearly have done so. This final rule 
deletes the references to Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt 
assemblies from the regulatory language. 

3. Scope of Exclusion From Standard Na 209 
for Dynamically Tested Manual Belt Systems 
Before the effective date of this rule, both Stand- 
ards No. 208 and 209 exclude dynamically tested 
manual belt systems from "the requirements of 
S4.2(a)-(c) and S4.4" of Standard No. 209. However, 
while this exclusion appears to be a comprehensive 
listing of the provisions of Standard No. 209 from 
which dynamically tested safety belts are excluded, 
it is in fact incomplete. Several previous interpreta- 
tions and preambles to rulemaking actions have 
expressed NHTSA's position that dynamically tested 
manual belt systems are excluded from the require- 
ments of S4.2(d)-(f), as well as the listed sections of 
Standard No. 209. The NPRM proposed to amend 
Standard No. 209 so that it would correctly show all of 
the provisions of Standard No. 209 from which dynam- 



ically tested manual belt systems were excluded. 

The commenters supported this proposal. It is 
adopted for the reasons set forth in the NPRM. 

4. Labeling Requirements for Dynamically Tested 
Manual Safety Belts Installed in Passenger Cars 
At this time, Standard No. 209 requires information 
about the vehicles and seating positions in which 
dynamically tested belt systems can be installed to be 
labeled on dynamically tested manual belt systems for 
use in light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehi- 
cles. However, Standard No. 209 currently does not 
require any installation information to be labeled on 
dynamically tested manual belt systems for use in 
passenger cars. The agency proposed in the NPRM to 
remedy this inconsistency by revising Standard No. 
209 so that it would require installation information to 
be labeled on all dynamically tested manual belt 
systems, regardless of the vehicle type in which the 
belt system will be installed. 

This proposal drew the most attention from the 
commenters. The National Automobile Dealers As- 
sociation (NADA) supported this proposal, stating 
that a consistent labeling requirement for safety 
belts would "certainly benefit" aftermarket instal- 
lations of those safety belts. On the other side of this 
issue, Chrysler opposed the proposal, asserting that 
the proposed requirement would be cumbersome, 
and not necessary to ensure proper safety belt re- 
placement and performance. Chrysler asserted that 
it currently has over 300 replacement safety belt 
part numbers for its 1990 vehicles alone. Because of 
this complexity and proliferation of parts, Chrysler 
asserted that dealers and garages do not usually 
stock replacement safety belts, but order the belts 
and parts from Chrysler when needed. Accordingly, 
Chrysler believed that the proposed labeling require- 
ment would not serve any purpose. 

Ford also opposed the proposal. According to Ford, 
dynamically tested safety belts are so complex that 
it would be extremely difficult to mistakenly install 
a dynamically tested safety belt in a vehicle or at a 
seating position other than that for which it is 
designed. Given this difficulty. Ford argued that it 
was very unlikely that such an installation could be 
done inadvertently. Ford suggested that the informa- 
tion proposed to be required to appear on a label on 
the belt instead be required to appear in the instal- 
lation instructions required to be provided with 
safety belt assemblies. BMW and the Automobile 
Importers Association submitted comments that 
were substantially similar to the Chrysler and Ford 
comments. 

NHTSA has reconsidered the proposed labeling 
requirements in response to these comments. On the 
one hand, the agency does not believe there is any 
reason to have different labeling requirements for 



PART 571; S208-PRE 509 



dynamically tested manual belt assemblies to be 
used in passenger cars than for dynamically tested 
manual belt assemblies to be used in light trucks. 
The likelihood that dynamically tested manual 
safety belts will be inadvertently installed in vehi- 
cles or seating positions other than those for which 
the belts were designed would not differ, depending 
upon the type of vehicle in which the dynamically 
tested belt is to be used. The proposal to extend the 
same labeling requirements that currently apply to 
dynamically tested manual belts for use in light 
trucks to dynamically tested manual belts for use in 
passenger cars was an effort by the agency to ensure 
that the labeling requirements were consistent. 

On the other hand, NHTSA does not want to impose 
an unnecessary or burdensome labeling requirement. 
The agency would like to further explore the idea of 
addressing the inappropriate installation of dynami- 
cally tested manual safety belts by means of the 
installation instructions already required to be fur- 
nished with safety belts by S4.1(k) of Standard No. 209. 
If the installation instructions were required to set 
forth the information currently required to be labeled 
on dynamically tested manual safety belts, it would 
seem that persons installing replacement safety belts 
would always have access to the information, just as 
they would if the information were labeled on the 
safety belt. The only instances in which information 
might not be available to the installer would be if the 
installation instructions were lost or if the installer 
was removing a safety belt from one vehicle and 
transferring the belt to another vehicle. NHTSA has 
no indications that either of these events are common 
occurrences. 

To allow for further exploration of this subject, 
NHTSA plans to initiate a rulemaking action pro- 
posing to require that the information currently 
required to be labeled on dynamically tested manual 
belts for use in light trucks instead be required to be 
provided in the installation instructions for all dy- 
namically tested safety belts, both automatic and 
manual. This proposed requirement would apply to 
dynamically tested safety belts for use in both pas- 
senger cars and light trucks. 

Until the agency has completed this planned rule- 
making, it would be premature to make any change 
to the existing requirements for labeling dynami- 
cally tested safety belts. Hence, the labeling require- 
ments for dynamically tested manual belts for use in 
light trucks that are now in place will remain in 
effect. However, this final rule does not adopt the 
proposed extension of the labeling requirements for 
dynamically tested light truck manual safety belts 
to also cover dynamically tested manual safety belts 
for use in passenger cars. 

This final rule operates to relieve some unin- 
tended restrictions on the use of dynamically tested 



safety belts by adopting regulatory language that 
reflects the agency's intention, as expressed in pre- 
ambles of various rules. No additional duties or 
responsibilities are imposed on any party as a result 
of these modifications to the regulatory language. 
Accordingly, NHTSA finds for good cause that these 
modifications should become effective upon publica- 
tion in the Federal Register. 

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

§ 571.208 [Amended] 

2. In §571.208, S4.6 of Standard No. 208 is 
amended by removing existing sections S4.6.1 and 
S4.6.3, redesignating existing S4.6.2 as S4.6.1, and 
adding new sections S4.6.2 and S4.6.3 to read as 
follows: 

S4.6 Dynamic testing of manual belt systems. 
***** 

54.6.2 Any manual seat belt assembly subject to 
the requirements of S5.1 of this standard by virtue of 
any provision of this standard other than S4.1.2.1(cX2) 
does not have to meet the requirements of S4.2(a)-{f) 
and S4.4 of Standard No. 209 {§ 571.209). 

54.6.3 Any manual seat belt assembly subject to 
the requirements of S5.1 of this standard by virtue of 
S4.1.2.1(cX2) does not have to meet the elongation 
requirements of S4.2(c), S4.4(aX2), S4.4(bX4), and 
S4.4(bX5) of Standard No. 209 (§ 571.209). 



§ 571.209 [Amended] 

3. In §571.209, S4.5 of Standard No. 209 is 
amended by revising S4.5(b) and (c) to read as 
follows: 

54.5 Load limiter 

***** 

(b) A seat belt assembly that includes a load 
limiter and that does not comply with the elongation 
requirements of this standard may be installed in 
motor vehicles at any designated seating position 
that is subject to the requirements of S5.1 of Stand- 
ard No. 208 (§ 571.208). 

(c) A seat belt assembly that includes a load 
limiter and that does not comply with the elongation 
requirements of this standard shall be permanently 
and legibly marked or labeled with the following 
statement: 

This seat belt assembly is for use only in [insert 
specific seating position(s), e.g., "front right"] in 
[insert specific vehicles make(s) and model(s)]. 

4. In § 571.209, S4.6(a) of Standard No. 209 is 
revised to read as follows: ^ 

54.6 Manual belts subject to crash protection require- 
ments of Standard Na 208. 



PART 571; S208-PRE 510 



(aKl) A manual seat belt assembly, which is sub- of this standard, 

ject to the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 ***** 

(49 CFR 571.208) by virtue of any provision of 

Standard No. 208 other than S4.1.2.1(cX2) of that Issued on April 10, 1991. 

standard, does not have to meet the requirements of 
S4.2(a)-(f) and S4.4 of this standard. 

(2) A manual seat belt assembly subject to the 
requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR •J®'"^ '?^'P') ^"'"'^ 

571.208) by virtue of S4.1.2.1(cX2) of Standard No. Administrator 

208 does not have to meet the elongation require- 56 F.R. 15295 

ments of S4.2(c), S4.4(aX2), S4.4(bX4), and S4.4(bX5) April 16, 1991 



PART 571; S208-PRE 511-512 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE 

SAFETY STANDARD NO. 208 

Crash Tests With Unrestrained Test Dummies 



(Docket No. 74-14; Notice 72) 
RIN 2127-AC13 



ACTION: Final rule. 



SUMMARY: This rule adopts as a permanent rule 
the interim final rule that extended the period 
during which a Hybrid II test dummy will be the 
only dummy used in compliance tests of vehicles 
with "passive interiors," i.e., vehicles that provide 
occupant protection without using any safety belts 
or air bags. No commenter objected to the interim 
final rule. This rule delays the use of the Hybrid III 
test dummy for compliance testing of such vehicles 
until September 1, 1993. The agency has determined 
that this additional time is needed to allow the 
agency to complete and evaluate the many research 
projects that are now underway examining the Hy- 
brid III test dummy. This rule does not affect the 
requirement that vehicle manufacturers have the 
option of specifying the use of either the Hybrid II or 
the Hybrid III test dummy in compliance testing of 
vehicles that use either air bags or safety belts to 
meet the standard. 



EFFECTIVE DATE: Thi 

1991. 



i rule takes effect on April 26, 



SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Hybrid II 
test dummy has been used to assess the occupant 
protection afforded vehicle occupants in frontal 
crashes since August 1, 1973. The specifications for 
the Hybrid II test dummy appear at Subpart B of 49 
CFR Part 572. The agency has determined that the 
Hybrid II test dummy provides a reasonable simula- 
tion of a human. While the Hybrid II test dummy 
had been the only test dummy specified in NHTSA's 
regulations for use in Standard No. 208 compliance 
testing, the agency published a rule establishing a 
second test dummy, the Hybrid III, for use in Stand- 
ard No. 208 compliance testing on July 25, 1986 (51 
FR 26688). The specifications for the Hybrid III test 
dummy appear at Subpart E of 49 CFR Part 572. The 
agency concluded that this test dummy would allow 
the assessment of more types of potential injuries to 
vehicle occupants and that this test dummy ap- 
peared to be an even more accurate simulation of a 
human than the older Hybrid II test dummy. The 



rule establishing the Hybrid III test dummy for use 
in compliance testing required that the same force 
levels that are measured and recorded for the Hybrid 
II test dummy would be measured and recorded for 
the Hybrid III test dummy, and that the same 
maximum injury criteria levels would apply to both 
types of test dummies. 

The agency determined that the two types of test 
dummies were "equivalent," when the dummies 
were restrained by safety belts or air bags but were 
not equivalent when they were unrestrained. By 
"equivalent," the agency means that they displayed 
only minimal differences in test results when they 
are exposed to equivalent crash environments. This 
is critical in compliance testing to ensure that com- 
pliance or noncompliance with a safety standard is 
entirely dependent upon vehicle attributes instead 
of differing attributes of the types of test dummies. 
The final rule explained that the chest acceleration 
measurements for unrestrained Hybrid III dummies 
were consistently lower than the chest acceleration 
measurements for unrestrained Hybrid II dummies, 
lb make the two unrestrained test dummies equiv- 
alent, some measurement of injury producing forces 
to the chest of the Hybrid III test dummy, in addition 
to the existing measurement of chest acceleration, 
would have to be made to compensate for the lower 
chest acceleration measurements for unrestrained 
Hybrid III test dummies. The agency concluded that 
a measurement of the amount the chest was de- 
flected, or compressed, as measured approximately 
at the sternum for the Hybrid III test dummy would 
appropriately compensate for that dummy's lower 
chest acceleration measurements when it was unre- 
strained. Hence, a limit was established on the 
amount of chest deflection permitted when the Hy- 
brid III test dummy was used in compliance testing. 

Given the differences in chest acceleration with 
the two types of unrestrained dummies, the agency 
concluded in a March 17, 1988 rule (53 FR 8755) that 
it should not permit the Hybrid III test dummy to be 
used for compliance testing with the automatic 
crash protection requirements of vehicles manufac- 



PART 571; S208-PRE 513 



tured before September 1, 1990, which used means 
other than air bags or automatic safety belts to 
provide the automatic protection. NHTSA antici- 
pated that this delay would be sufficient to allow the 
agency to investigate this subject further, to ensure 
that the chest deflection limits for unrestrained 
Hybrid III test dummies would both meet the need 
for safety and ensure equivalence of the Hybrid II 
and Hybrid III test dummies in unrestrained condi- 
tions. However, as NHTSA and others conducted 
research, it became evident that chest deflection 
dynamics in the Hybrid III test dummy were far 
more complex than the agency originally believed 
and that more sophisticated and suitable instrumen- 
tation systems would need to be developed to provide 
measurements of kinematic distortions of the dum- 
my's ribcage. 

Interim Final Rule 

Based on the above, NHTSA issued an interim 
final rule prohibiting the use of the Hybrid III test 
dummy in crash situations where it would be unre- 
strained, until a determination could be made about 
the appropriate chest deflection limits and measure- 
ment techniques for the Hybrid III test dummy in 
those crash situations (55 FR 39283, September 26, 
1990). The interim final rule specified that any 
vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1993 
that comply with the automatic restraint require- 
ment without using any type of safety belt or inflat- 
able restraint must use only the Hybrid II test 
dummy in testing for compliance with the automatic 
restraint requirement. The rule explained that the 
results of the agency's ongoing research program 
will be completed by December 1992. At that time, 
the agency will be able to determine the most 
appropriate course of action and complete the neces- 
sary rulemaking actions by September 1, 1993. 

In issuing the interim final rule, the agency found 
for good cause that notice and opportunity for com- 
ment on that rule before it became effective would 
have been impracticable and contrary to the public 
interest. For a detailed discussion explaining the 
agency's determination that there was good cause 
not to provide notice and comment, the reader 
should refer to the interim final rule. Among the 
reasons set forth were that the circumstances that 
forced this postponement were beyond the agency's 
control, that the agency had acted diligently to 
initiate the supplemental testing and other poten- 
tial modifications to the Hybrid III test dummy, that 
the agency had fully intended to permit the Hybrid 
III to be used for unrestrained testing on schedule, 
and that the postponement of the use of the Hybrid 
III test dummy in unrestrained situations would be 
for a relatively short time. 

In the interim final rule, NHTSA requested com- 



ments on its decision to postpone the use of the 
Hybrid III test dummy in unrestrained situations 
and explained that it would consider all comments 
received on this subject and publish a permanent 
final rule reflecting NHTSA's evaluation of those 
comments. That notice also explained that the per- 
manent final rule would resolve any unforeseen 
burdens resulting from the interim final rule. 

Comments to Interim Final Rule and the 
Agency's Response 

In response to the interim final rule the agency 
received two comments. Chrysler supported the 
amendment to delay the use of the Hybrid III test 
dummy in compliance testing of non-air bag, non- 
seat belt restraint systems and to extend the use of 
the Hybrid II dummy in such testing. In more 
extensive comments. General Motors (GM) stated its 
decision not to oppose the delay of the Hybrid III test 
dummy for use in "unrestrained" compliance testing 
of a vehicle that employed a means other than safety 
belts or air bags to comply with Standard No. 208. 

After reviewing these comments received on that 
notice, NHTSA has decided to issue the interim final 
rule as a final rule, without any modifications. No 
commenter suggested that the delay adopted in the 
interim final rule was inappropriate, burdensome, 
or otherwise improper. The amendments adopted in 
the interim final rule are therefore made final by 
this notice. 

In its comments to the interim final rule, GM also 
petitioned the agency to amend Standard No. 208 to 
allow only the Hybrid III test dummy to be used 
during "restrained" compliance testing. Because 
this petition is outside the scope of this rule, the 
agency will address it separately instead of in this 
rule. 

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. As explained 
at length in the interim final rule, the agency 
concluded it was in the public interest to issue the 
interim final rule. Since the requirements adopted 
in the interim final rule are adopted verbatim in this 
final rule, the agency believes that good cause exists 
to make this final rule effective upon its publication 
in the Federal Register 

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

S5 of Standard No. 208 is amended by revising the 
introductory text of S5.1 and the introductory text of 
S5.2.1, to read as follows: 

S5. Occupant crash protection requirements. 

S5.1 Vehicles subject to S5.1 shall comply with 
either S5.1(a) or S5.1(b), or any combination thereof, 



PART 571; S208-PRE 514 



at the manufacturer's option; except that vehicles able restraint shall comply with S5.2.1(a). 
manufactured before September 1, 1993 that comply ***** 

with the requirements of S4. 1.2. 1(a) by means not 

including any type of seat belt or inflatable restraint issued on April 22 1991 
shall comply with S5.1(a). 
***** 

S5.2 Lateral moving barrier crash test. 

S5.2.1 Vehicles subject to S5.2 shall comply with 
either S5.2.1(a) or S5.2.1(b), or any combination 

thereof, at the manufacturer's option; except that '[^''^ '?^'P^ ^"'''^ 

vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1993 Administrator 

that comply with the requirements of S4. 1.2. 1(c) by 56 F.R. 19306 

means not including any type of seat belt or inflat- April 26, 1991 



PART 571; S208-PRE 515-516 



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

Occupant Crash Protection 

(Docket No. 87-08; Notice 7) 

RIN: 2127-AD92 



ACTION: Final rule, response to petitions for 
reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: In response to two petitions for recon- 
sideration, this notice amends Standard No. 208, 
Occupant Crash Protection, to remove the prohibition 
against pushbutton mechanisms as the means of 
detaching belts for readily removable seats. The agency 
has concluded that there is no evidence to support its 
concerns regarding possible misuse of pushbutton 
releases in this application. Vehicle manufacturers will 
benefit from the additional design flexibility allowed 
by this rule. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: The amendments made by this rule 
are effective on July 8, 1991. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

On November 29, 1988 (53 FR 47982), NHTSA pub- 
lished a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) propos- 
ing to require that rear seat lap/shoulder belts 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. Additionally, 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. 

The agency received more than 70 comments on this 
NPRM. The consensus of commenters was that 
passenger cars other than convertibles should be 
equipped with rear seat lap/shoulder belts. Hence, to 
ensure the earliest possible implementation of such a 
requirement, NHTSA published a final rule on June 14, 
1989 (54 FR 25275). That rule addressed only pas- 
senger 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). This rule included special provisions for 
lap/shoulder belts installed at rear outboard seating 
positions on readily removable seats, by expressly 
providing that shoulder belts for readily removable 
seats could be detachable at the upper anchorage. The 
agency also responded to comments by Ford Motor 
Company (Ford) and General Motors (CM) concerning 
a March 1, 1985 interpretation letter from NHTSA's 
Chief Counsel to Mr. Hiroshi Shimizu of Tokai Rika Co. 
by stating in the preamble to this rule that the Shimizu 
interpretation did not preclude the use of all designs 
of detachable safety belt systems. More specifically, the 
agency explained that the Shimizu interpretation would 
preclude the use of pushbutton mechanisms to release 
shoulder belt anchorages. However, the agency ex- 
pressly stated that the Shimizu interpretation did not 
preclude the use of other release mechanisms, such as 
sHde buttons or slide collars, for shoulder belt 
anchorages. 

The agency received 14 petitions for reconsideration 
of this rule. In a final rule responding to those petitions 
for reconsideration, published on July 30, 1990 (55 FR 
30914), the agency made several changes to the 
November 1989 final rule. Ford's petition for recon- 
sideration raised two issues regarding lap/shoulder 
belts at readily removable seats. Ford asked the agency 
to amend the 1989 rule to permit lap/shoulder belts on 
readily removable seats to be detached at either the 
upper or lower anchorage and to permit the means of 
detachment to consist of a pushbutton release. 



PART 571; S208-PRE 517 



With respect to the first issue, Ford asserted that 
Hmiting the detachment point to the upper anchorage 
point was "overly design restrictive." 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. The agency was per- 
suaded by Ford's argument. While there were legiti- 
mate safety reasons for permitting the belts to be 
detachable at only one point, there was no apparent 
safety purpose served by specifying that the single 
point must be the upper, and not the lower, shoulder 
belt anchorage point. Accordingly, the notice amended 
Standard No. 208 to permit lap/shouJder safety belt sys- 
tems installed at outboard seating positions on readily 
removable seats to detach at either the upper or lower 
shoulder belt anchorage, but not both. 

With respect to the second issue. Ford asked in its 
petition that Standard No. 208 be amended to permit 
the means of detachment to be a pushbutton release, 
asserting that a slide button or slide collar release 
"tends to rattle and provides less control over... the fit 
of the shoulder belt. " NHTS A did not believe that this 
was a sufficient reason to permit the use of a pushbut- 
ton release as the means for detaching the lap/shoul- 
der belt from the vehicle. NHTSA explained that the 
prohibition of a pushbutton mechanism as the means 
of detaching a safety belt from its anchorage 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. The agency again concluded that 
a slide button or slide collar used as the means of 
detaching a shoulder belt would permit the belt to be 
detached when the readily removable seat is removed, 
and would also minimize the possibility that an oc- 
cupant will detach a portion of the lap/shoulder belt sys- 
tem when the readily removable seat is in place in the 
vehicle. To emphasize the agency's intent, express 
language was added to the standard prohibiting the use 
of pushbutton mechanisms to detach lap/shoulder belt 
systems installed for readily removable seats. 

Petitions for reconsideration of this July 1990 
response to Ford were received from GM and Chrys- 
ler Corporation (Chrysler). These petitions again asked 
NHTSA to permit the use of pushbutton releases to 
detach the anchorages of safety belts installed at read- 
ily removable seats. 

Chrysler, in its petition, contended that there was 
no demonstrated safety need for the prohibition. Chrys- 
ler stated that it will use the pushbutton release in cer- 
tain rear seating positions in one of its 1991 models 
because of the "proven performance" of the design and 
because the parts were readily available. In addition, 
Chrysler stated that it has taken steps to help ensure 
that the release is not improperly used, through use 
of a pushbutton cover that requires a special tool to 
depress the release and includes the warning, "Caution- 
Press for seat removal only." Finally, Chrysler argued 



that the Shimizu interpretation was erroneous. Accord- 
ing to Chrysler, S7.2 of Standard No. 208 does not 
preclude the use of a pushbutton release in the man- 
ner requested by its petition, but merely requires that ^ 
a seat belt user be able to release both the lap and shoul- 
der portions of the belt by means of a single release. 

In its petition, GM argued that although the pream- 
ble to the November 1989 final rule discussed the issue 
of pushbutton releases as the mechanism for detach- 
ing shoulder belts, the use of a pushbutton was not ex- 
pressly disallowed in the regulatory language. Hence, 
GM claimed that, under Section 553 of the Adminis- 
trative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C §553), it did not have 
an adequate notice and opportunity to comment on the 
prohibition. As regards the merits of the prohibition 
of pushbutton releases, GM asserted that alternate 
release mechanisms, such as a slide button or collar, 
may be easier to unfasten than certain pushbutton de- 
signs, and, in fact, a prohibition of the pushbutton 
release would permit the use of a simple hook to at- 
tach a safety belt assembly to an anchorage. GM also 
asserted that the agency has not shown a demonstrated 
safety need for the rule. In support of its position, GM 
stated that it has delivered over 400,000 vehicles 
equipped with a pushbutton release and is not aware 
of any complaints or cases of misuse concerning the 
system. GM concluded that this experience did not sup- 
port the agency's position that a pushbutton release 
is more likely to be misused. 

NHTSA has reexamined its previous decision in 
response to these petitions. With respect to GM's 
procedural objection, NHTSA rejects GM's assertion 
that the public did not have notice of and an opportun- 
ity to comment on the prohibition of pushbutton release 
mechanisms. 5 U.S.C. 553 requires notices of proposed 
rulemaking to include either "the terms or substance 
of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and 
issues involved." The courts have interpreted this lan- 
guage to mean that the notice must be sufficiently 
descriptive of the subjects and issues involved so that 
interested parties may offer informed criticism and 
comments. See, e.g. Portland Cement Ass'n v. Ruckels- 
haus, 486 F.2d 375, 392-394 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert, dm., 
417 U.S. 921 (1974). However, the publication of a pro- 
posed rule for comment does not of necessity bind an 
agency to undertake a new round of notice and com- 
ment before it adopts a rule which is different— even 
substantially different— from the proposed rule. Ameri- 
can Iron & Steel Institute v. Environmental Protection 
Agency. 568 F.2d 284, 293 (3rd Cir. 1977)., Interna- ■ 
tional Harvester Co. v. Ruckelshaiis, 478 F.2d 615, 632 
n.51 (D.C. Cir. 1973). The adequacy of the notice is 
tested by determining whether it fairly apprised inter- 
ested persons of the "subjects and issues" before the 
agency. Trans-Pacific Freight v. Federal Maritime 
Commission, 650 F.2d 1235, 1248-1249 (D.C. Cir. 
1980)., Ethyl Coro. v. Environmental Protection I 

Agency, 541 F.2d 1, 48 (D.C. Cir.), cert, den., 426 U.S. 
941 (1976). 



PART 571; S208-PRE 518 



Judged by these criteria, NHTSA concludes that the 
^ NPRM was sufficient to apprise aJl interested persons 
m that the agency was addressing the issue of whether 
to permit safety belts for readily removable seats to 
be detachable from the vehicle and what, if any, 
restrictions should be imposed on the means of detach- 
ment. In the preamble to the NPRM, the agency stated: 
"The agency also believes that manufacturers are capa- 
ble of designing an integral lap/shoulder belt system 
that would be nearly as convenient as a nonintegral 
shoulder belt in MPV's with readily removable seats. 
For instance, a shoulder belt that is readily detachable 
at the anchorage could be used for the outboard seat- 
ing positions." 53 FR 47982, at 47990., November 29, 
1988. In response to this discussion in the preamble, 
both Ford and GM commented that, while they agreed 
with the agency's intent to permit detachable shoul- 
der belts for readily removable seats, the Shimizu 
interpretation appeared to prohibit such belt designs. 
The GM comment may be found on page 7 of Enclosure 
1 in NHTSA Docket No. 87-08-N02-033. In response 
to these comments, the preamble to the final rule ex- 
plained that the Shimizu interpretation did not prohibit 
all detachable belt systems, only those belt systems that 
used a pushbutton as the means of detachment. See 
54 FR 46257, at 46263., November 2, 1989. 

This record shows that the public had notice of and 
the opportunity to comment on the issue of detachable 
^ belts at readily removable seats. The type of release 
^ mechanism for detachable belts is one aspect of the 
issue of detachability. Since the public had express 
notice that permitting detachable belts at readily 
removable seats was one of the subjects and issues 
before the agency, and since the commenters specifi- 
cally addressed this issue and the Shimizu interpreta- 
tion in their comments, GM's suggestion that the 
Administrative Procedure Act required further notice 
is incorrect. 

However, the central point of the Chrysler and GM 
petitions, asserting that there is no reasonable safety 
justification for prohibiting pushbuttons as the means 
of detaching belts, has merit. NHTSA denied Ford's 
earlier request that pushbuttons be permitted because 
of the agency's concern that a pushbutton mechanism 
that detached a safety belt assembly from the vehicle 
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. Upon reconsideration, 
NHTSA agrees vdth the petitioners that pushbuttons 
are not inherently more susceptible to misuse than 
other release designs that would be permitted under 
the July 1990 final rule. Indeed, a pushbutton design 
such as was described in Chrysler's petition may be less 
^ likely to be misused than most other designs. Addition- 
B ally, GM stated that it has equipped more than 400,000 
^ of its vehicles that have readily removable rear seats 
with pushbutton releases. GM stated that it has no 



indication that these releases have been misused. 
NHTSA likewise has no evidence of misuse. Upon 
reconsideration, then, NHTSA has concluded that 
there is no justification for prohibiting pushbutton 
mechanisms as the means of detaching belts for read- 
ily removable seats. Standard No. 208 is amended to 
remove that prohibition. 

The Shimizu interpretation is, therefore, superseded 
to the extent that it is inconsistent with the new regula- 
tory provisions for readily removable seats. However, 
the Shimizu interpretation is stOl an accurate expres- 
sion of the requirements of Standard No. 208 for safety 
belts on seats that are not readily removable. 

This rule relieves a restriction, by allowing manufac- 
turers additional design flexibility in determining which 
release mechanism should be used for the safety belts 
at readily removable seats. It does not impose any ad- 
ditional obligations on any party. Those manufacturers 
that wish to use pushbutton releases will now be free 
to do so, while those manufacturers that wish to use 
releases other than pushbuttons wall also be free to do 
so. Accordingly, NHTSA finds for good cause that this 
rule should become effective 30 days after publication, 
instead of no sooner than 180 days after publication, 
as generally required by the Safety Act. 

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 may use a pushbutton action. 

3. S4.4.3 of Standard No. 208 is amended by revising 
S4.4.3.2.3 to read as follows: 

S4.4.3 Buses manufactured on or after Septem- 
ber 1, 1991. 

S4.4.3.2.3 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 S4.4.3.2 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 may use a pushbutton 
action. 



Issued on May 31, 1991 



56 F.R. 26039 
June 6, 1991 



PART 571; S208-PRE 519-520 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 208 

Occupant Crash Protection in Passenger Cars, IVIultipurpose Passenger 

Vehicles, Trucks and Buses 

(Docket No. 69-7; Notice No. 9) 



51. Scope. This standard specifies perform- 
ance requirements for the protection of vehicle oc- 
cupants in crashes. 

52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is 
to reduce the number of deaths of vehicle oc- 
cupants and the severity of injuries, by specifying 
vehicle crashworthiness requirements in terms of 
forces and accelerations measured on an- 
thropomorphic dummies in test crashes, and by 
specifying equipment requirements for active and 
passive restraint systems. 

53. Application. This standard applies to 
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
trucks, and buses. In addition, S9, Pressure 
vessels and explosive devices, applies to vessels 
designed to contain a pressurized fluid or gas, and 
to explosive devices, for use in the above types of 
motor vehicles as part of a system designed to pro- 
vide protection to occupants in the event of a crash. 

54. General requirements. 

S4.1 Passenger cars. 

S4.1.1 Passenger cars manufactured from 
January 1, 1972, to August 31, 1973. Each 
passenger car manufactured from January 1, 1972, 
to August 31, 1973, inclusive, shall meet the re- 
quirements of S4.1.1.1, S4.1.1.2, or S4.1.1.3. A 
protection system that meets the requirements of 
S4. 1.1.1 or S4.1.1.2 may be installed at one or 
more designated seating positions of a vehicle that 
otherwise meets the requirements of S4.1.1.3. 

S4.1.1.1 First option— complete passive protec- 
tion system. The vehicle shall meet the crash pro- 
tection requirements of S5 by means that require 
no action by vehicle occupants. 

PART 571 



54.1.1.2 Second option— lap belt protection 
system with belt warning. The vehicle shall— 

(a) At each designated seating position have a 
Type 1 seat belt assembly or a Type 2 seat belt 
assembly with a detachable upper torso portion 
that conforms to S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard; 

(b) At each front outboard designated seating 
position have a seat belt warning system that con- 
forms to S7.3; and 

(c) Meet the frontal crash protection re- 
quirements of S5.1, in a perpendicular impact, with 
respect to anthropomorphic test devices in each 
front outboard designated seating position 
restrained only by Type 1 seat belt assemblies. 

54.1.1.3 Third option— lap and shoulder belt pro- 
tection system with belt warning. 

S4.1. 1.3.1 Except for convertibles and open- 
body vehicles, the vehicle shall— 

(a) At each front outboard designated seating 
position have a Type 2 seat belt assembly that con- 
forms to Standard No. 209 and S7.1 and S7.2 of 
this standard, with either an integral or detachable 
upper torso portion, and a seat belt warning 
system that conforms to S7.3; 

(b) At each designated seating position other 
than the front outboard positions, have a Type 1 or 
Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to Stand- 
ard No. 209 and to S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard; 
and 

(c) When it perpendicularly impacts a fixed colli- 
sion barrier, while moving longitudinally forward 
at any speed up to and including 30 m.p.h., under 
the test conditions of S8.1 with anthropomorphic 
test devices at each front outboard position 
restrained by Type 2 seat belt assemblies, ex- 
perience no complete separation of any load-bearing 
element of a seat belt assembly or anchorage. 

S 208-1 



S4.1. 1.3.2 Convertibles and open-body type 
vehicles shall at each designated seating position 
have a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that 
conforms to Standard No. 209 and to S7.1 and S7.2 
of this standard, and at each front outboard desig- 
nated seating position have a seat belt warning 
system that conforms to S7.3. 

S4.1.2 Passenger cars manufactured on or after 
September 1, 1973, and before September 1, 1986. 

Each passenger car manufactured on or after 
September 1, 1973, and before September 1, 1986, 
shall meet the requirements of S4. 1.2.1, S4.1.2.2, 
orS4.1.2.3. 

A protection system that meets the requirements 
of S4. 1.2.1 or S4. 1.2.2 may be installed at one or 
more designated seating positions of a vehicle that 
otherwise meets the requirements of S4.1.2.3. 

54.1.2.1 First option— frontal/angular automatic 
protection system. The vehicle shall— 

(a) At each front outboard designated seating 
position meet the frontal crash protection re- 
quirements of 85. 1 by means that require no action 
by vehicle occupants; 

(b) At each front center designated seating posi- 
tion have a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly 
that conforms to Standard No. 209 and to S7.1 and 
S7.2; and 

(c) Either— 

(1) Meet the lateral crash protection re- 
quirements of S5.2 and the rollover crash protec- 
tion requirements of S5.3 by means that require no 
action by vehicle occupants; or 

(2) At each front outboard designated seating 
position have a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly 
that conforms to Standard No. 209 and to S7.1 
through S7.3, and that meets the requirements of 
S5.1 with front test dummies as required by S5.1, 
restrained by the Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt 
assembly (or the pelvic portion of any Type 2 seat 
belt assembly which has a detachable upper torso 
belt) in addition to the means that require no action 
by the vehicle occupant. 

54.1.2.2 Second option— head-on automatic pro- 
tection system. The vehicle shall— 

(a) At each designated seating position have a 
Type 1 seat belt assembly or a Type 2 seat belt 
assembly with a detachable upper torso portion 
that conforms to S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard. 

(b) At each front outboard designated seating 
position, meet the frontal crash protection re- 
quirements of S5.1, in a perpendicular impact, by 
means that require no action by vehicle occupants; 

(c) At each front outboard designated seating 
position, meet the frontal crash protection re- 



quirements of S5.1, in a perpendicular impact, with 
a test device restrained by a Type 1 seat belt 
assembly; and 

(d) At each front outboard designated seating 
position, have a seat belt warning system that con- 
forms to S7.3. 

S4.1.2.3 Third option— lap and shoulder belt 
protection system with belt warning. 

54.1. 2.3.1 Except for convertibles and open- 
body vehicles, the vehicle shall— 

(a) At each front outboard designated seating 
position have a seat belt assembly that conforms to 
S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard, and a seat belt 
warning system that conforms to S7.3. The belt 
assembly shall be either a Type 2 seat belt 
assembly with a nondetachable shoulder belt that 
conforms to Standard No. 209 (S571.209), or a 
Type 1 seat belt assembly such that with a test 
device restrained by the assembly the vehicle 
meets the frontal crash protection requirements of 
S5.1 in a perpendicular impact. 

(b) At any center front designated seating posi- 
tion, have a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly 
that conforms to Standard No. 209 (S571.209) and 

to S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard, and a seat belt ; 

warning system that conforms to S7.3; and \ 

(c) At each other designated seating position, 
have a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that 
conforms to Standard No. 209 (S571.209) and S7.1 
and S7.2 of this standard. 

54.1. 2.3.2 Convertibles and open-body type 
vehicles shall at each designated seating position 
have a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that 
conforms to Standard No. 209 (S57 1.209) and to 
S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard, and at each front 
designated seating position have a seat belt warn- 
ing system that conforms to S7.3. 

S4.1.3 Passenger cars manufactured on or after 
September 1, 1986, and before September 1, 1989. 

S4.1.3.1 Passenger cars manufactured on or after 
September 1, 1986, and before September 1, 1987. 

S4.1.3.1.1 Subject to S4.1.3.1.2 and S4.1.3.4, 
each passenger car manufactured on or after 
September 1, 1986, and before September 1, 1987, 
shall comply with the requirements of S4. 1.2.1, 
S4.1.2.2orS4.1.2.3. 

(A vehicle shall not be deemed to be in non- 
compliance with this standard if its manufacturer 
establishes that it did not have reason to know in 
the exercise of due care that such vehicle is not in 
conformity with the requirement of this standard. 
(51 F.R. 9801— March 21, 1986. Effective: May 5, 
1986)1 



(Rev. 3/21/86) 



PART 571; S 208-2 



S4.1.3.1.2 Subject to S4.1.3.4 and S4.1.5, the 
amount of passenger cars, specified in S4. 1.3. 1.1 
complying with the requirements of S4. 1.2.1 shall 
not be less than 10 percent of: 

(a) the average annual production of passenger 
cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1983, 
and before September 1, 1986, by each maniifac- 
turer, or 

(b) the manufacturer's annual production of 
passenger cars during the period specified in 
S4.1. 3.1.1. 

[S4.1.3.1.3 A manufacturer may exclude conver- 
tibles which do not comply with the requirements of 
S4.1.2.1, when it is calculating its average annual 
production under S4.1. 3. 1.2(a) or its annual produc- 
tion under S4. 1.3. 1.2(b). (51 F.R. 37028-October 17, 
1986. Effective: November 17, 1986.)! 

54.1 .3.2 Passenger cars manufactured on or after 
September 1, 1987, and before September 1, 1988. 

54.1.3.2.1 Subject to S4. 1.3.2.2 and S4.1.3.4, 
each passenger car manufactured on or after 
September 1, 1987, and before September 1, 1988, 
shall comply with the requirements of S4. 1.2.1, 
S4.1.2.2or S4.1.2.3. 

A vehicle shall not be deemed to be in non- 
compliance with this standard if its manufacturer 
establishes that it did not have reason to know in the 
exercise of due care that such vehicle is not in con- 
formity with the requirement of this standard. 

54.1.3.2.2 Subject to S4.1.3.4 and S4.1.5, the 
amount of passenger cars specified in S4. 1.3.2.1 
complying with the requirements of S4. 1.2.1 shall 
be not less than 25 percent of: 

(a) the average annual production of passenger 
cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1984, 
and before September 1, 1987, by each manufac- 
turer, or 

(b) the manufacturer's annual production of pas- 
senger cars during the period specified in 
S4.1.3.2.1. 

[S4.1 .3.2.3 A manufacturer may exclude conver- 
tibles which do not comply with the requirements of 
S4. 1.2.1, when it is calculating its average annual 
production under S4. 1.3.2.2(a) or its annual produc- 
tion under S4. 1.3.2.2(b). (51 F.R. 37028— October 17, 
1986. Effective: November 17, 1986.)! 

54.1 .3.3 Passenger cars manufactured on or after 
September 1, 1988, and before September 1, 1989. 

S4.1.3.3.1 Subject to S4.1. 3.3.2 and S4.1.3.4, 
each passenger car manufactured on or after 
September 1, 1988, and before September 1, 1989, 
shall comply with the requirements of S4. 1.2.1, 
S4.1.2.2 or S4. 1.2.3. 

A vehicle shall not be deemed to be in non- 
compliance with this standard if its manufacturer 



establishes that it did not have reason to know in 
the exercise of due care that such vehicle is not in 
conformity with the requirement of this standard. 
S4.1.3.3.2 Subject to S4.1.3.4 and S4.1.5, the 
amount of passenger cars specified in S4. 1.3.3.1 
complying with the requirements of S4. 1.2.1 shall 
be not less than 40 percent of: 

(a) the average annual production of passenger 
cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, 
and before September 1, 1988, by each manufac- 
turer or 

(b) the manufacturer's annual production of 
passenger cars during the period specified in 
S4.1.3.3.1. 

[S4.1. 3.3.3 A manufacturer may exclude conver- 
tibles which do not comply with the requirements of 
S4. 1.2.1, when it is calculating its average annual 
production under S4. 1.3. 3. 2(a) or its annual produc- 
tion under S4. 1.3.3.2(b). (51 F.R. 37028— October 17, 
1986. Effective: November 17, 1986.)] 

S4.1.3.4 Calculation of complying passenger cars. 

(a) For the purposes of calculating the numbers 
of cars manufactured under S4. 1.3. 1.2, S4.1.3.2.2, 
or S4.1. 3.3.2 to comply with S4. 1.2.1: 

(1) each car whose driver's seating position 
complies with the requirements of S4. 1.2. 1(a) by 
means not including any type of seat belt and 
whose front right seating position will comply with 
the requirements of S4. 1.2. 1(a) by any means is 
counted as 1.5 vehicles, and 

(2) each car whose driver's seating position 
complies with the requirements of S4. 1.2. 1(a) by 
means not including any type of seat belt and whose 
right front seat seating position is equipped with a 
manual Type 2 seat belt is counted as one vehicle. 

(b) For the purposes of complying with 
S4. 1.3. 1.2, a passenger car may be counted if it: 

(1) is manufactured on or after September 1, 
1985, but before September 1, 1986, and 

(2) complies with S4.1.2.1. 

(c) For the purposes of complying with 
S4. 1.3.2.2, a passenger car may be counted if it: 

(1) is manufactured on or after September 1, 
1985, but before September 1, 1987, 

(2) complies with S4. 1.2.1, and 

(3) is not counted toward compliance with 
S4.1.3.1.2. 

(d) For the purposes of complying with 
S4. 1.3.3.2, a passenger car may be counted if it: 

(1) is manufactured on or after September 1, 
1985, but before September 1, 1988, 

(2) complies with S4. 1.2.1, and 

(3) is not counted toward compliance with 
S4.1.3.1.2 or S4.1.3.2.2. 



(Rev. 10/17/86) 



PART 571; S 208-3 



S4.1.3.5 Passenger cars produced by more than 
one manufacturer. 

54.1. 3.5.1 For the purposes of calculating 
average annual production of passenger cars for 
each manufacturer and the amount of passenger 
cars manufactured by each manufacturer under 
S4.1.3.1.2, S4.1. 3.2.2 or S4. 1.3.3.2, a passenger 
car produced by more than one manufacturer shall 
be attributed to a single manufacturer as follows, 
subject to S4. 1.3.5.2: 

(a) A passenger car which is imported shall be 
attributed to the importer. 

(b) A passenger car manufactured in the United 
States by more than one manufacturer, one of 
which also markets the vehicle, shall be attributed 
to the manufacturer which markets the vehicle. 

54.1. 3.5.2 A passenger car produced by more 
than one manufacturer shall be attributed to any 
one of the vehicle's manufacturers specified by an 
express written contract, reported to the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration under 49 
CFR Part 585, between the manufacturer so speci- 
fied and the manufacturer to which the vehicle 
would otherwise be attributed under S4. 1.3. 5.1. 

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

54.1.4.1 Except as provided in S4.1.4.2, each 
passenger car manufactured on or after September 
1, 1989, shall comply with the requirements of 
S4. 1.2.1. Any passenger car manufactured on or 
after September 1, 1989 and before September 1, 
1993 whose driver's designated seating position 
complies with the requirements of S4.1. 2.1(a) by 
means not including any type of seat belt and whose 
right front designated seating position is equipped 
with a manual Type 2 seat belt so that the seating 
position complies with the occupant crash protec- 
tion requirements of S5.1, with the Type 2 seat belt 
assembly adjusted in accordance with S7.4.2, shall 
be counted as a vehicle complying with S4. 1.2.1. A 
vehicle shall not be deemed to be in noncompliance 
with this standard if its manufacturer establishes 
that it did not know in the exercise of due care that 
such vehicle is not in conformity with this standard. 

54.1.4.2 (a) Each passenger car, other than a 
convertible, manufactured before December 11, 

1989 may be equipped with, and each passenger 
car, other than a convertible, manufactured on or 
after December 11, 1989 and before September 1, 

1990 shall be equipped with a Type 2 seat belt 



assembly at every forward-facing rear outboard \ 

designated seating position. Type 2 seat belt 
assemblies installed pursuant to this provision 
shall comply with Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 
571.209) and with S7.1.1 of this standard. 

(b) lExcept as provided in S4. 1.4.2.1 and 
S4. 1.4.2.2, each passenger car, other than a con- 
vertible, manufactured on or after September 1, 
1990 and each convertible passenger car manufac- 
tured on or after September 1, 1991 shall be equip- 
ped with an integral Type 2 seat belt assembly at 
every forward-facing rear outboard designated 
seating position. Type 2 seat belt assemblies in- 
stalled 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. (55 F.R. 30914— July 30, 1990. Effective: 
January 28, 1991) 

[(c) As used in this section, "rear outboard 
designated seating position" means any "outboard i 

designated seating position" (as that term is 
defined at 49 CFR 571.3) that is rearward of the 
front seat(s), except any designated seating posi- 
tion adjacent to a walkway that is located between 
the seat and the near side of the vehicle and is 
designated to allow access to more rearward 
seating position. (55 F.R. 30914— July 30, 1990. Ef- 
fective: January 28, 1991)1 

S4.1 .4.2.1 Any rear outboard designated seating 
position with a seat that can be adjusted to be 
forward-facing and to face some other direction 
shall either: 

(i) meet the requirements of S4. 1.4.2 with the 
seat in any position in which it can be occupied 
while the vehicle is in motion; or 

(ii) when the seat is in its forward-facing posi- 
tion, have a Type 2 seat belt assembly with an 
upper torso restraint that conforms to S7.1 and 
S7.2 of this standard and that adjusts by means of 
an emergency locking retractor that conforms 
with Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209), which 
upper torso restraint may be detachable at the 
buckle and when the seat is in any position in which 
it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion, 
have a Type 1 seat belt or the pelvic portion of a 
Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to S7.1 
and S7.2 of this standard. 



(Rev. 7/30/90) 



PART 571; S 208-4 



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 pur- 
pose) in a vehicle manufactured on or after Septem- 
ber 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 may 
use a pushbutton action. (56 F.R. 26039— June 6, 
1991. Effective: July 8, 19911 

S4.1.5 Mandatory seatbelt use laws. 

54.1.5.1 If the Secretary of Transportation 
determines, by not later than April 1, 1989, that 
state mandatory safety belt usage laws have been 
enacted that meet the criteria specified in S4. 1.5.2 
and that are applicable to not less than two-thirds 
of the total population of the 50 states and the 
District of Columbia (based on the most recent 
Estimates of the Resident Population of States, by 
Age, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, 
Bureau of the Census), each passenger car manu- 
factured under S4.1.3 or S4.1.4 on or after the date 
of that determination shall comply with the re- 
quirements of S4. 1.2.1, S4.1.2.2, or S4.1.2.3. 

54.1.5.2 The minimum criteria for state man- 
datory safety belt usage laws are: 

(a) Require that each front seat occupant of a 
passenger car equipped with safety belts under 
Standard No. 208 has a safety belt properly fas- 
tened about his or her body at all times when the 
vehicle is in forward motion. 

(b) If waivers from the safety belt usage require- 
ment are to be provided, permit them for medical 
reasons only. 

(c) Provide for the following enforcement 
measures: 

(1) A penalty of not less than $25.00 (which 
may include court costs) for each occupant of a car 
who violates the belt usage requirement. 

(2) A provision specifying that the violation of 
the belt usage requirement may be used to mitigate 
damages with respect to any person who is in- 
volved in a passenger car accident while violating 
the belt usage requirement and who seeks in any 
subsequent litigation to recover damages for in- 
juries resulting from the accident. This require- 
ment is satisfied if there is a rule of law in the State 
permitting such mitigation. 

(3) A program to encourage compliance with 
the belt usage requirement. 

(d) An effective date of not later than 
September 1, 1989. 



S4.2 Trucks and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. 

54.2.1 Trucks and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manu- 
factured on or after January 1, 1976 and before 
September 1, 1991. Each truck and multipurpose 
passenger vehicle, with a gross vehicle weight rat- 
ing of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured before 
September 1, 1991, shall meet the requirements of 
S4. 1.2.1, or at the option of the manufacturer, 
S4. 1.2.2 or S4.1.2.3 (as specified for passenger 
cars), except that forward control vehicles manufac- 
tured prior to September 1, 1981, convertibles, 
open-body type vehicles, walk-in van-type trucks, 
motor homes, vehicles designed to be exclusively 
sold to the U.S. Postal Service, and vehicles carringl 
chassis-mount campers may instead meet the re-' 
quirements of S4.2.1.1 or S4.2.1.2. 

54.2.1.1 First option— complete automatic pro- 
tection system. The vehicle shall meet the crash 
protection requirements of S5 by means that 
require no action by vehicle occupants. 

54.2.1.2 Second option— belt system. The 

vehicle shall have seat belt assemblies that con- 
form to Standard 209 installed as follows: 

(a) A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall 
be installed for each designated seating position in 
convertibles, open-body type vehicles, and walk-in 
van-type trucks. 

(b) In all vehicles except those for which require- 
ments are specified in S4.2. 1.2(a), a Type 2 seat belt 
assembly shall be installed for each outboard desig- 
nated seating position that includes the windshield 
header within the head impact area, and a Type 1 or 
Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each 
other designated seating position. 

84.2.2 Trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less, manufactured 
on or after September 1, 1991 and before September 1, 
1997. Except as provided in S4.2.4, each truck 
and multipurpose passenger vehicle, with a gross 
vehicle weight rating of 8,500 pounds or less and 
an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less, 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 and 
before September 1, 1997, shall meet the re- 
quirements of S4. 1.2.1, or at the option of the 
manufacturer, S4.1.2.2 or S4. 1.2.3 (as specified for 
passenger cars), except that convertibles, open- 
body type vehicles, walk-in van-type trucks, 
motorhomes, vehicles designed to be exclusively 
sold to the U.S. Postal Service, and vehicles carry- 
ing chassis-mount campers may instead meet the 



(Rev. 6/6/91) 



PART 571; S 208-5 



requirements of S4.2.1.1 or S4.2.1.2. Each Type 2 
seat belt assembly installed in a front outboard 
designated seating position in accordance with 
S4.1.2.3. shall meet the requirements of S4.6. 

54.2.3 Trucks and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 
with either a GVWR of more than 8,500 pounds but 
not greater than 10,000 pounds or with an unloaded 
vehicle weight greater than 5,500 pounds and a 
GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Except as provided 
in S4.2.4, each truck and multipurpose passenger 
vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 
1991, that has either a gross vehicle weight rating 
which is greater than 8,500 pounds, but not 
greater than 10,000 pounds, or has an unloaded 
vehicle weight greater than 5,500 pounds and a 
GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall meet the re- 
quirements of S4. 1.2.1, or at the option of 
manufacturer, S4.1.2.2 or S4.1.2.3 (as specified for 
passenger cars), except that convertibles, open- 
body type vehicles, walk-in van-type trucks, motor 
homes, vehicles designed to be exclusively sold to 
the U.S. Postal Service, and vehicles carrying 
chassis-mount campers may instead meet the 
requirements of S4.2.1.1 or S4.2.1.2. 

Note: Multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks 
with a gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less 
and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or 
less nriust comply with the dynamic testing require- 
ments of Sit. 6 of Standard No. 208 beginning on 
September 1, 1991) 

54.2.4 [Trucks and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 
with 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 multipurpose passenger vehicle, other than a 
motor home, manufactured on or after September 
1, 1S91 that has a gross vehicle weight rating of 
10,000 pounds or less shall be equipped with an in- 
tegral 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 incor- 
porates any webbing tension-relieving device, the 
vehicle owner's manual shall include the informa- 
tion specified in S7.4.2(b) of this standard for the 
tension-relieving device, and the vehicle shall com- 
ply with S7.4.2(c) of this standard. 



54.2.4.1 As used in this section— ^ 

(a) "Motor home" means a motor vehicle with 
motive power that is designed to provide tem- 
porary residential accommodations, as evidenced 
by the presence of at least four of the following 
facilities: cooking; refrigeration or ice box; self- 
contained toilet; heating and/or air conditioning; a 
potable water supply system including a faucet and 
a sink; and a separate 110-125 volt electrical power 
supply and/or an LP gas supply. 

(b) "Rear outboard designated seating position" 
means any "outboard designated seating position" 
(as that term is defined at 49 CFR 571.3) that is 
rearward of the front seat(s), except any 
designated seating positions adjacent to a walkway 
located between the seat and the side of the vehi- 
cle, which walkway is designed to allow access to 
more rearward seating positions. 

54.2.4.2 Any rear outboard designated seating 
position with a seat that can be adjusted to be 
forward-facing and to face some other direction 
shall either: 

(a) meet the requirements of S4.2.4 with the 
seat in any position in which it can be occupied \ 
while the vehicle is in motion; or 

(b) when the seat is in its forward-facing posi- 
tion, have a Type 2 seat belt assembly with an 
upper torso restraint that conforms to S7.1 and 
S7.2 of this standard and that adjusts by means of 
an emergency locking retractor that conforms 
with Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209), which 
upper torso restraint may be detachable at the 
buckle, and, when the seat is in any position in 
which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in 
motion, have a Type 1 seat belt or the pelvic por- 
tion of the Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms 
to S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard. 

54.2.4.3 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 pur- 
pose) in a vehicle manufactured on or after Sep- 
tember 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 may use a pushbotton action. (56 F.R. 
26039— June 6, 1991. Effective: July 8, 19911 



PART 571; S 208-6 



[S4.2.5 Trucks, buses, and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or 
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds 
or less manufactured on or after September 1, 1994, 
and before September 1, 1997. 

[S4.2.5.1 Trucks, buses, and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or 
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds 
or less manufactured on or after September 1, 1994, 
and before September 1, 1995. 

(S4.2.5.1.1 Subject to S4.2.5.1.2 and S4.2.5.1.5 
and except as provided in S4.2.4, each truck, bus, 
and multipurpose passenger vehicle, other than 
walk-in van-type trucks and vehicles designed to be 
exclusively sold to the U.S. Postal Service, with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less that is 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1994, and 
before September 1, 1995, shall comply with the re- 
quirements of S4.1.2.1, S4.1.2.2, or S4.1.2.3 (as 
specified for passenger cars). A vehicle shall not be 
deemed to be in noncompliance with this standard 
if its manufacturer establishes that it did not have 
reason to know in the exercise of due care that 
such vehicle is not in conformity with the require- 
ment of this standard. 

IS4.2.5.1.2 Subject to S4.2.5.5, the amount of 
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
specified in S4.2.5.1.1 complying with S4. 1.2.1 (as 
specified for passenger cars) shall be not less than 
20 percent of: 

(a) The average annual production of trucks, 
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less manufac- 
tured on or after September 1, 1991, and before 
September 1, 1994, by each manufacturer that pro- 
duced such vehicles during each of those annual 
production periods, or 

(b) The manufacturer's total production of 
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less 
during the period specified in S4. 2. 5.1.1. 

IS4.2.5.2 Trucks, buses, and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or 
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds 
or less manufactured on or after September 1, 1995, 
and before September 1, 1996. 



[S4.2.5.2.1 Subject to S4.2.5.2.2 and S4.2.5.5 
and except as provided in S4.2.4, each truck, bus, 
and multipurpose passenger vehicle, other than 
walk-in van-type trucks and vehicles designed to be 
exclusively sold to the U.S. Postal Service, with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less than is 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1995, and 
before September 1, 1996, shall comply with the re- 
quirements of S4.1.2.1, S4.1.2.2, or S4.1.2.3 (as 
specified for passenger cars). A vehicle shall not be 
deemed to be in noncompliance with this standard 
if its manufacturer establishes that it did not have 
reason to know in the exercise of due care that 
such vehicle is not in conformity with the require- 
ment of this standard. 

[S4.2.5.2.2 Subject to S4.2.5.5, the amount of 
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
specified in S4.2.5.2.1 complying with S4. 1.2.1 (as 
specified for passenger cars) shall be not less than 
50 percent of: 

(a) The average annual production of trucks, 
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unlqaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less manufac- 
tured on or after September 1, 1992, and before 
September 1, 1995, by each manufacturer that pro- 
duced such vehicles during each of those annual 
production periods, or 

(b) The manufacturer's total production of 
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less 
during the period specified in S4.2.5.2.1. 

[S4.2.5.3 Trucks, buses, and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or 
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds 
or less manufactured on or after September 1, 1996, 
and before September 1, 1997. 

IS4.2.5.3.1 Subject to S4.2.5.3.2 and S4.2.5.5 
and except as provided in S4.2.4, each truck, bus, 
and multipurpose passenger vehicle, other than 
walk-in van-type trucks and vehicles designed to be 
exclusively sold to the U.S. Postal Service, with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less that is 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1996, and 
before September 1, 1997, shall comply with the re- 
quirements of S4.1.2.1, S4.1.2.2, or S4. 1.2.3 (as 
specified for passenger cars). A vehicle shall not be 
deemed to be in noncompliance with this standard 



{Rev. 3/26/91) 



PART 571; S 208-7 



if its manufacturer establishes that it did not have 
reason to know in the exercise of due care that 
such vehicle is not in conformity with the require- 
ment of this standard. 

[S4.2.5.3.2 Subject to S4.2.5.5, the amount of 
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
specified in S4.2.5.3.1 complying with S4. 1.2.1 (as 
specified for passenger cars) shall be not less than 
90 percent of: 

(a) The average annual production of trucks, 
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less manufactured on or 
after September 1, 1993, and before September 1, 
1996, by each manufacturer that produced such 
vehicles during each of those annual production 
periods, or 

(b) The manufacturer's total production of 
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds oh less 
during the period specified in S4. 2. 5. 3.1. 



[S4.2.5.4 Alternative phase-in schedule. A 

manufacturer may, at its option, comply with the 
requirements of this section instead of complying 
with the requirements set forth in S4.2.5.1, 
S4.2.5.2, and S4.2.5.3. 

(a) Except as provided in S4.2.4, each truck, 
bus, and multipurpose passenger vehicle, other 
than walk-in van-type trucks and vehicles designed 
to be exclusively sold to the U.S. Postal Service, 
with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less 
that is manufactured on or after September 1, 

1994, and before September 1, 1995, shall comply 
with the requirements of S4.1.2.1, S4.1.2.2, or 
S4.1.2.3 (ss specified for passenger cars). 

(b) Except as provided in S4.2.4, each truck, 
bus, and multipurpose passenger vehicle, other 
than walk-in van-type trucks and vehicles designed 
to be exclusively sold to the U.S. Postal Service, 
with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less 
that is manufactured on or after September 1, 

1995, shall comply with the requirements of 
S4.1.2.1 (as specified for passenger cars) of this 
standard. A vehicle shall not be deemed to be in 
noncompliance with this standard if its manufac- 
turer establishes that it did not have reason to 
know in the exercise of due care that such vehicle is 
not in conformity with the requirement of this 
standard. 



(c) Each truck, bus, and multipurpose passenger 
vehicle with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and 
an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1995, but 
before September 1, 1998, whose driver's seating 
position complies with the requirements of 
S4. 1.2. 1(a) of this standard by means not including 
any type of seat belt and whose right front 
passenger's seating position is equipped with 
manual Type 2 seat belt that complies with S5.1 of 
this standard, with the seat belt assembly adjusted 
in accordance with S7.4.2, shall be counted as a 
vehicle complying with S4.1.2.1. 

[S4.2.5.5 Calculation of complying trucks, buses, 
and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR 
of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle 
weight of 5,500 pounds or less. 

(a) For the purposes of the calculations required 
in S4.2.5.1.2, S4.2.5.2.2, and S4.2.5.3.2 of the 
number of trucks, buses, and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds 
or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 
pounds or less that comply with S4. 1.2.1 (as a 

specified for passenger cars): I 

(1) Each truck, bus, and multipurpose 
passenger vehicle with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or 
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 
pounds or less whose driver's seating position com- 
plies with the requirements of S4. 1.2. 1(a) by means 
not including any type of seat belt and whose front 
right seating position complies with the re- 
quirements of S4. 1.2. 1(a) by any means is counted 
as 1.5 vehicles, and 

(2) Each truck, bus, and multipurpose 
passenger vehicle with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or 
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 
pounds or less whose driver's seating position com- 
plies with the requirements of S4. 1.2. 1(a) by means 
not including any type of seat belt and whose right 
front passenger's seating position is equipped with 
a manual Type 2 seat belt that complies with S5.1 
of this standard, with the seat belt assembly ad- 
justed in accordance with S7.4.2, is counted as one 
vehicle. 

(3) Each truck, bus, and multipurpose passen- 
ger vehicle with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less 
and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or 
less that is manufactured in two or more stages or 
that is altered (within the meaning of §567.7 of \ 
this chapter) after having previously been certified 

in accordance with Part 567 of this chapter is 



PART 571; S 208- 



not subject to the requirements of S4.2.5.1.2, 
S4.2.5.2.2, and S4.2.5.3.2. Such vehicles may be 
excluded from all calculations of compliance with 
S4.2.5.1.2, S4.2.5.2.2, and S4.2.5.3.2. 

(b) For the purposes of complying with 
S4.2.5.1.2, a truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger 
vehicle with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and 
an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less 
may be counted if it: 

(1) Is manufactured on or after September 1, 
1992, but before September 1, 1994, and 

(2) Is certified as complying with S4. 1.2.1 (as 
specified for passenger cars). 

(c) For the purposes of complying with 
S4.2.5.2.2, a truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger 
vehicle with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and 
an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less 
may be counted if it: 

(1) Is manufactured on or after September 1, 
1992, but before September 1, 1995, 

(2) Is certified as complying with S4. 1.2.1 (as 
specified for passenger cars), and 

(3) Is not counted towards compliance with 
S4.2.5.1.2. 

(d) For the purposes of complying with 
S4.2.5.3.2, a truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger 
vehicle with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and 
an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less 
may be counted if it: 

(1) Is manufactured on or after September 1, 
1992, but before September 1, 1996, 

(2) Is certified as complying with S4. 1.2.1 (as 
specified for passenger cars), and 

(3) Is not counted towards compliance with 
S4.2.5.1.2 or S4.2.5.2.2. 

[S4.2.5.6 Trucks, buses, and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or 
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds 
or less produced by more than one manufacturer. 

[S4.2.5.6.1 For the purposes of calculating 
average annual production for each manufacturer 
and the amount of vehicles manufactured by each 
manufacturer under S4.2.5.1.2, S4.2.5.2.2, or 
S4.2.5.3.2, a truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger 
vehicle with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and 
an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less 
produced by more than one manufacturer shall be 
attributed to a single manufacturer as follows, sub- 
ject to S4.2.5.6.2: 

(a) A vehicle that is imported shall be attributed 
to the importer. 



(b) A vehicle that is manufactured in the United 
States by more than one manufacturer, one of 
which also markets the vehicle, shall be attributed 
to the manufacturer that markets the vehicle. 

[S4.2.5.6.2 A truck, bus, or multipurpose pas- 
senger vehicle with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or 
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 
pounds or less produced by more than one 
manufacturer shall be attributed to any one of the 
vehicle's manufacturers specified in an express 
written contract, reported to the Nationao 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration under 49 
CFR Part 585, between the manufacturer so 
specified and the manufacturer to which the vehi- 
cle would otherwise be attributed under S4.2.5.4.1. 

[S4.2.6 Trucks, buses, and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or 
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds 
or less manufactured on or after September 1, 
1997. Except as provided in S4.2.4, each truck, 
bus, and multipurpose passenger vehicle with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less manufac- 
tured on or after September 1, 1997 shall comply 
with the requirements of S4. 1.2.1 (as specified for 
passenger cars) of this standard, except that walk- 
in van-type trucks and vehicles designed to be 
exclusively sold to the U.S. Postal Service may in- 
stead meet the requirements of S4.2.1.1 or 
S4.2.1.2. Each truck, bus, and multipurpose 
passenger vehicle with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or 
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 
pounds or less manufactured on or after Septem- 
ber 1, 1997, but before September 1, 1998, whose 
driver's seating position complies with the re- 
quirements of S4. 1.2. 1(a) of this standard by means 
not including any type of seat belt and whose right 
front passenger's seating position is equipped with a 
manual Type 2 seat belt that complies with S5.1 of 
this standard, with the seat belt assembly adjusted 
in accordance with S7.4.2, shall be counted as a 
vehicle complying with S4. 1.2.1. A vehicle shall not 
be deemed to be in noncompliance with this stand- 
ard if its manufacturer establishes that it did not 
have reason to know in the exercise of due care that 
such vehicle is not in conformity with the require- 
ment of this standard. (56 F.R. 12472-March 26, 
1991. Effective: September 23, 1991)1 

S4.3 Trucks and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds. 

S4.3.1 Trucks and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds, 
manufactured on or after January 1, 1972 and before 
September 1, 1990. Each truck and multipurpose 



PART 571; S 208-9 



passenger vehicle with a gross vehicle weight 
rating of more than 10,000 pounds, manufactured 
on or after January 1, 1972 and before September 
1, 1990, shall meet the requirements of S4.3.1.1 or 
S4.3.1.2. A protection system that meets the re- 
quirements of S4.3.1.1 may be installed at one or 
more designated seating positions of a vehicle that 
otherwise meets the requirements of S4.3.1.2. 

54.3.1.1 First option— complete passenger pro- 
tection system. The vehicle shall meet the crash 
protection requirements of S5 by means that re- 
quire no action by vehicle occupants. 

54.3.1 .2 Second option— belt system. The vehi- 
cle shall, at each designated seating position, have 
either a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly that 
conforms to § 571.209. 

S4.3.2 Trucl(s and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. Each 
truck and multipurpose passenger vehicle with a 
gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 
pounds, manufactured on or after September 1, 
1990, shall meet the requirements of S4.3.2.1 or 
S4.3.2.2. A protection system that meets the re- 
quirements of S4.3.2.1 may be installed at one or 
more designated seating positions of a vehicle that 
otherwise meets the requirements of S4.3.2.2. 

54.3.2.1 First option— complete passenger pro- 
tection system. The vehicle shall meet the crash 
protection requirements of S5 by means that re- 
quire no action by vehicle occupants. 

54.3.2.2 Second option— belt system. [The 
vehicle shall, at each 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 assembly in- 
stalled at a front outboard seating position shall in- 
clude either an emergency locking retractor or an 
automatic locking retractor. If a seat belt assembly 
installed at the 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 
retractor that is installed at a front outboard 
seating position must allow at least % inch, but less 



than three inches, of webbing movement before 
retracting webbing 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 retrac- 
tor 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 
recorded for the free end of the belt assembly shall 
be at least % inch but less than three inches. (55 
F.R. 18889— May 7, 1990. Effective: September 1, 
1990)1 

S4.4 Buses. 

54.4.1 Buses manufactured on or after January 1 , 
1972 and before September 1, 1990. Each bus 
manufactured on or after January 1, 1972 and 
before September 1, 1990, shall meet the re- 
quirements of S4.4.1.1 or S4.4.1.2. 

54.4.1.1 First option— complete passenger pro- 
tection system— driver only. The vehicle shall 
meet the crash protection requirements of S5, with 
respect to an anthropomorphic test dummy in the 
driver's designated seating position, by means that 
require no action by vehicle occupants. 

54.4.1.2 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. 

54.4.2 Buses manufactured on or after Septem- 
ber 1, 1990. Each bus manufactured on or after 
September 1, 1990, shall meet the requirements of 
S4.4.2.1 or S4.4.2.2. 

S4.4.2.1 First option— complete passenger pro- 
tection system— driver only. The vehicle shall 
meet the crash protection requirements of S5, with 
respect to an anthropomorphic test dummy in the 
driver's designated seating position, by means that 
require no action by vehicle occupants. 



(Rev. 5/7/90) 



PART 571; S 208-10 



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 assembly installed at the driver's 
seating position shall include either an emergency 
locking retractor or an automatic locking retrac- 
tor. 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 
driver's 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 porition of a seat belt 
assembly equipped with an automatic locking 
retractor that is installed at the driver's seating 
position must allow at least % inch, but less than 
three inches, of webbing movement before retract- 
ing webbing 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 retrac- 
tor 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 an 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 
recorded for the free end of the belt assembly shall 
be at least % inch but less than three inches. 

S4.4.3 Buses manufactured on or after Septem- 
ber 1,1991. 

S4.4.3.1 Each bus with a gross vehicle weight 
rating of more than 10,000 pounds shall comply 
with the requirements S4.4.2.1 or S4.4.2.2. 



S4.4.3.2 [Except as provided in S4.4.3.2.2 and 
S4.4.3.2.3, 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 outboard designated seating position, and 
with a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at all 
other designated seating positions. Type 2 seat 
belt assemblies installed in compliance with this re- 
quirement shall comply with Standard No. 209 (49 
CFR 571.209) and with S7.1 and S7.2 of this stand- 
ard. If a Type 2 seat belt assembly installed in com- 
pliance 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 com- 
ply with S7.4.2(c) of this standard. (55 F.R. 
30914— July 30, 1990. Effective: January 28, 1991)1 

54.4.3.2.1 As used in this section, a "rear out- 
board designated position" means any "outboard 
designated seating position" (as that term is de- 
fined at 49 CFR 571.3) that is rearward of the front 
seats, except any designated seating positions ad- 
jacent to a walkway located between the seat and 
the side of the vehicle, which walkway is designed 
to allow access to more rearward seating positions. 

54.4.3.2.2 Any rear outboard designated seating 
position with a seat that can be adjusted to be 
forward-facing and to face some other direction 
shall either: 

(i) meet the requirements of S4.4.3.2 vnth the 
seat in any position in which it can be occupied 
while the vehicle is in motion; or 

(ii) when the seat is in its forward-facing posi- 
tion, have a Type 2 seat belt assembly with an up- 
per torso restraint that conforms to S7.1 and S7.2 
of this standard and that adjusts by means of an 
emergency locking retractor that conforms with 
Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209), which upper 
torso restraint may be detachable at the buckle, 
and, when the seat is in any positon in which it can 
be occupied while the vehicle is in motion, have a 
Type 1 seat belt or the pelvic portion of a Type 2 
seat belt assembly that conforms to S7.1 and S7.2 
of this standard. 

54.4.3.2.3 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 pur- 
pose) in a vehicle manufactured on or sifter 



(Rev. 7/30/90) 



PART 571; S 208-11 



September 1, 1992 shall meet the requirements of 
S4.4.3.2, 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 may use a pushbutton action. (56 F.R. 
26039— June 6, 1991. Effective: July 8, 1991] 

S4.4.3.3 Each school bus with a gross vehicle 
weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less shall be 
equipped with an integral Type 2 seat belt 
assembly at the driver's designated seating posi- 
tion and at the right front passenger's designated 
seating position (if any), and with a Type 1 or Type 
2 seat belt assembly at all other designated seating 
positions. 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. The lap belt portion 
of a Type 2 seat belt assembly installed at the 
driver's designated seating position and at the 
right front passenger's designated seating position 
(if any) shall include either an emergency locking 
retractor or an automatic locking retractor, which 
retractor shall not retract webbing to the next 
locking position until at least % inch of webbing 
has moved into the retractor. In determining 
whether an automatic locking retractor complies 
with the requirement, the webbing is extended to 
75 percent of its length and the retractor is locked 
after the initial adjustment. If a Type 2 seat belt 
assembly installed in compliance with this require- 
ment 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. 

S4.4.4 Buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or 
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds 
or less manufactured on or after September 1, 
1994. Each bus with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or 
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 
pounds or less manufactured on or after Sep- 
tember 1, 1994 shall comply with the requirements 
of S4.2.5 and S4.2.6 of this standard, as applicable, 
for front seating positions, and with the re- 
quirements of S4.4.3.2 or S4.4.3.3 of this standard, 
as applicable, for all rear seating positions. 



S4.5 Other general requirements. 

S4.5.1 Labeling and driver's manual information. 

Each vehicle shall have a label setting forth the 
manufacturer's recommended schedule for the main- 



tenance or replacement, necessary to retain the per- 
formance required by this standard, of any crash- 
deployed occupant protection system. The schedule 
shall be specified by month and year, or in terms of 
vehicle mileage, or by intervals measured from the 
date appearing on the vehicle certification label pro- 
vided pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567. The label shall be 
permanently affixed to the vehicle within the 
passenger compartment and lettered in English in 
block capitals and numerals not less than three 
thirty-seconds of an inch high. Instructions concern- 
ing maintenance or replacement of the system and a 
description of the functional operation of the system 
shall be provided with each vehicle, with an ap- 
propriate reference on the label. If a vehicle 
owner's manual is provided, this information shall 
be included in the manual. 

54.5.2 Readiness indicator. An occupant pro- 
tection system that deploys in the event of a crash 
shall have a monitoring system with a readiness 
indicator. The indicator shall monitor its own 
readiness and shall be clearly visible from the 
driver's designated seating position. A list of the 
elements of the system being monitored by the 
indicator shall be included with the information 
furnished in accordance with S4.5.1 but need not 
be included on the label. 

54.5.3 Automatic belts. Except as provided in 
S4.5.3.1, a seat belt assembly that requires no 
action by vehicle occupants (hereinafter referred 
to as an "automatic belt") may be used to meet the 
crash protection requirements of any option under 
S4 and in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise 
required by that option. 

54.5.3.1 An automatic belt that provides only 
pelvic restraint may not be used pursuant to S4.5.3 
to meet the requirements of an option that requires 
a Type 2 seat belt assembly. 

54.5.3.2 An automatic belt, furnished pursuant 
to S4.5.3, that provides both pelvic and upper torso 
restraint may have either a detachable or nonde- 
tachable upper torso portion, notwithstanding pro- 
visions of the option under which it is furnished. 

54.5.3.3 An automatic belt furnished pursuant 
to S4.5.3 shall: 

(a) Conform to S7.1 and have a single emer- 
gency release mechanism whose components are 
readily accessible to a seated occupant. 

(b) In place of a warning system that conforms 
to S7.3 of this standard, be equipped with the 
following warning system: At the left front desig- 
nated seating position (driver's position), a 



6/6/91) 



PART 571; S 208-12 



warning system that activates a continuous or 
intermittent audible signal for a period of not less 
than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds and 
that activates a continuous or flashing warning 
light visible to the driver for not less than 60 
seconds (beginning when the vehicle ignition 
switch is moved to the "on" or the "start" posi- 
tion) when condition (A) exists simultaneously with 
condition (B), and that activates a continuous or 
flashing warning light, visible to the driver, 
displaying the identifying symbol for the seat belt 
telltale shown in Table 2 of Standard No. 101 or, at 
the option of the manufacturer if permitted by 
Standard No. 101, displaying the words "Fasten 
Seat Belts" or "Fasten Belts", for as long as con- 
dition (A) exists simultaneously with condition (C). 

(A) The vehicle's ignition switch is moved to the 
"on" position or to the "start" position. 

(B) The driver's automatic belt is not in use, as 
determined by the belt latch mechanism not being 
fastened or, if the automatic belt is non-detachable, 
by the emergency release mechanism being in the 
released position. In the case of motorized auto- 
matic belts, the determination of use shall be made 
once the belt webbing is in its locked protective 
mode at the anchorage point. 

(C) The belt webbing of a motorized automatic 
belt system is not in its locked, protective mode at 
the anchorage point. 

S4.5.3.4 An automatic belt furnished pursuant 
to S4.5.3 that is not required to meet the perpen- 
dicular frontal crash protection requirements of 
S5.1 shall conform to the webbing, attachment 
hardware, and assembly performance require- 
ments of Standard No. 209. 



S4.6 Dynamic testing of manual belt systems. 

S4.6.1 Each truck and multipurpose passenger 
vehicle with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and 
an unloaded weight of less than 5,500 pounds that 
is manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, 
and is equipped with a Type 2 seat belt assembly at 
a front outboard designated seating position pur- 
suant to S4. 1.2.3 shall meet the frontal crash pro- 
tection requirements of S5.1 at those designated 
seating positions with a test dummy restrained by 
a Type 2 seat belt assembly that has been adjusted 
in accordance with S7.4.2. A vehicle shall not be 
deemed to be in noncompliance with this standard 
if its manufacturer establishes that it did not have 
reason to know in the exercise of due care that 
such vehicle is not in conformity with the require- 
ment of this standard. 



[S4.6.2 Any manual seat belt assembly subject 
to the requirements of S5.1 of this standard by 
virtue of any provision of this standard other than 
S4. 1.2. 1(c)(2) does not have to meet the re- 
quirements of S4.2(a)-(f) and S4.4 of Standard No. 
209 (§571.209). (56 F.R. 15295— April 16, 1991. Effec- 
tive: April 16, 1991)1 

[S4.6.3 Any manual seat belt assembly subject 
to the requirements of S5.1 of this standard by 
virtue of S4. 1.2. 1(c)(2) does not have to meet the 
elongation requirements of S4.2(c), S4. 4(a)(2), 
S4.4(b)(4), and S4.4(b)(5) of Standard No. 209 
(§571.209). (56 F.R. 15295— April 16, 1991. Effective: 
April 16, 1991)1 

S5. Occupant crash protection requirements. 

55.1 Vehicles subject to S5.1 shall comply with 
either S5.1(a) or S5.1(b), or any combination thereof, 
at the manufacturer's option; except that vehicles 
manufactured before September 1, [19931 that com- 
ply with the requirements of S4. 1.2.1(a) by means not 
including any type of seat belt or inflatable restraint 
shall comply with S5.1(a). (56 F.R. 19306— April 26, 
1991. Effective April 26, 1991)1 

(a) Impact a vehicle traveling longitudinally for- 
ward at any speed, up to and including 30 mph, in- 
to a fixed collision barrier that is perpendicular to 
the line of travel of the vehicle, or at any angle up 
to 30 degrees in either direction from the perpen- 
dicular to the line of travel of the vehicle under the 
applicable conditions of S8. The test dummy 
specified in S8. 1.8.1 placed at each front outboard 
designated seating position shall meet the injury 
criteria of S6.1.1, S6.1.2, 6.1.3, and 6.1.4. 

(b) Impact a vehicle traveling longitudinally for- 
ward at any speed, up to and including 30 mph, in- 
to a fixed collision barrier that is perpendicular to 
line of travel of the vehicle, or at any angle up to 80 
degrees in either direction from the perpendicular 
to the line of travel of the vehicle, under the ap- 
plicable conditions of S8. The test dummy specified 
in 88.1.8.2 placed at each front outboard desig- 
nated seating position shall meet the injury criteria 
of S6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, and 6.2.5. 

55.2 Lateral moving barrier crash. 

S5.2.1 Vehicles subject to S5.2 shall comply with 
either S5.2.1(a) or S5.2.1(b), or any combination 
thereof, at the manufacturer's option; except that 
vehicles manufactured before September 1, [1993] 
that comply with the requirements of S4. 1.2. 1(c) by 
means not including any type of seat belt or in- 
flatable restraint shall comply with S5.2.1(a). (56 
F.R. 19306— April 26, 1991. Effective: April 26, 1991)1 



PART 571; S 208-13 




Attach the Inboard Reach String 
(igys" long) at the base of 
the head on centerline 



\ 



Attach the Outboard Reach String 
(29' long) at this point on the 
sheath 

A — Using llexible tape measure 8' 
from back centerline il'/i' from 
front centerline to find anchor point 
below arm pit on torso sheath. 



Seal Plane is 90° to the Torso Line 



Figure 3a. Location of Anchoring Points for Latchplate Reach Limiting Chains or 
Strings to Test for Latchplate Accessibility Using Subpart B Test Device. 



I head on centerline. 



A 



N 





\ 50ih%-ile 
\ dummy, 
\ seated m 
1 foremost 


I 




1 seat adjust- 
I inent position 


"*" / Attach the Outboard Reach String 
/ (29" long) at this point on the 
/ torso sheath 










' / 

V J 


\ A— Using flexible tape measure B 
\ from bacl< centerline ll-Vi" from 
front centerline to find anchor point 
^'' "^ below arm pit on torso sheath 
/ \ 

V J 



Seal Plane Is 90° 



Figure 3b. Location of Anchoring Points for Latchplate Reach Limiting Chains 
or Strings to Test for Latchplate Accessibility Using Subpart E Test Device. 



(R«v. 11/23/67) 



PART 571; S 208-14 



S5.3 Rollover. Subject a vehicle to a rollover 
test under the applicable condition of S8 in either 
lateral direction at 30 mph with either, at the 
manufacture's option, a test dummy specified in 
S8.1.8.1 or S8.1.8.2, placed in the front outboard 
designated seating position on the vehicle's lower 
side as mounted on the test platform The test 
dummy shall meet the injury criteria of either 
S6.1.1 or S6.2.1. 

S6 Injury criteria. 

S6.1 Injury criteria for the Part 572, Subpart B, 
50th percentile Male Dummy. 

56.1 .1 All portions of the test dummy shall be 
contained within the outer surfaces of the vehicle 
passenger compartment throughout the test. 

56.1.2 The resultant acceleration at the center 
of gravity of the head shall be such that the expres- 
sion: 



/ 



adt 



2.5 



shall not exceed 1,000 where a is the resultant 
acceleration expressed as a multiple of g- (the accel- 
eration of gravity), and tj and t,, are any two points 
in time during the crash of the vehicle which are 
separated by not more than a 36 millisecond time 
interval. 

56.1.3 The resultant acceleration at the center 
of gravity of the upper thorax shall not exceed 60 
g's, except for intervals whose cumulative duration 
is not more than 3 milliseconds. 

56.1.4 The compressive force transmitted 
axially through each upper leg shall not exceed 
2,250 pounds. 

S6.2 Injury Criteria for the Part 572, Subpart E, 
hybrid III Dummy. 

S6.2.1 All portions of the test dummy shall be 
contained within the outer surfaces of the vehicle 
passenger compartment throughout the test. 

6.2.2 The resultant acceleration at the center 
of gravity of the head shall be such that the 
expression: 

t, -1 2.5 

1 



t„ - t, 



/ 



adt 



shall not exceed 1,000, where a is the resultant 
acceleration expressed as a multiple of g (the 
acceleration of gravity), and t, and t, are any two 



points in time during the crash of the vehicle which 
are separated by not more than a 36 millisecond 
time interval. 

56.2.3 The resultant acceleration calculated 
from the output of the thoracic instrumentation 
shown in drawing 78051-218, revision R incor- 
porated by reference in Part 572, Subpart E of this 
Chapter shall not exceed 60 g's, except for inter- 
vals whose cumulative duration is not more than 
3 milliseconds. 

56.2.4 Compression deflection of the sternum 
relative to the spine, as determined by instrumen- 
tation shown in drawing 78051-317, revision A in- 
corporated by reference in Part 572, Subpart E of 
this Chapter, shall not exceed 3 inches. (53 F.R. 
8755— March 17, 1988. Effective: March 17, 1988) 

56.2.5 The force transmitted axially through 
each upper leg shall not exceed 2,250 pounds. 

S7. Seat belt assembly requirements. 

S7.1 Adjustment. 

S7.1.1 Except as specified in S7. 1.1.1 and 
S7.1.1.2, the lap belt of any seat belt assembly fur- 
nished in accordance with S4.1.2 shall adjust by 
means of an emergency-locking or automatic- 
locking retractor that conforms to § 571.209 to fit 
persons whose dimensions range from those of a 

Clearance Test Block 





(NOTE: corners are rounded 
off to reduce snagging.) 



Typical arm rest 



Figure 4. Use of Clearance Test Block to 
Determine Hand/Arm Access 



(Rev. 3/17/88) 



PART 571; S 208-15 



50th-percentile 6-year-old child to those of a 95th- 
percentile adult male and the upper torso restraint 
shall adjust by means of an emergency-locking 
retractor or a manual adjusting device that con- 
forms to § 571.209 to fit persons whose dimensions 
range from those of a 5th-percentile adult female 
to those of a 95th-percentile adult male, with the 
seat in any position, the seat back in the manufac- 
turer's nominal design riding position, and any 
adjustable anchorages adjusted to the manu- 
facturer's norminal design position for a 50th 
percentile adult male occupant. However, an upper 
torso restraint furnished in accordance with 
S4. 1.2.3. 1(a) shall adjust by means of an 
emergency-locking retractor that conforms to 
§ 571.209. The provisions for vehicles with adjustable an- 
chorages will apply to vehicles manufactured on or after 
September 1, 1989, and the provisions for vehicles with tension- 
relieving devices at seating positions also equipped with air bags 
will apply to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 
1990. 

S7.1.1.1 A seat belt assembly installed at the 
driver's seating position shall adjust to fit persons 
whose dimensions range from those of a 5th- 
percentile adult female to those of a 95th-per- 
centile adult male. 

S7.1.1.2. (a) A seat belt assembly installed in a 
motor vehicle other than a forward control vehicle 
at any designated seating position other than the 
outboard positions of the front and second seats 
shall adjust either by a retractor as specified in 
S7.1.1 or by a manual adjusting device that con- 
forms to Standard No. 209. 

(b) A seat belt assembly installed in a forward 
control vehicle at any designated seating position 
other than the front outboard seating positions 
shall adjust either by a retractor as specified in 
S7.1.1 or by a manual adjusting device that con- 
forms to Standard No. 209. 



57.1.1.3 [A Type 1 lap belt or the lap belt por- 
tion of any Type 2 seat belt assembly installed at 
any forward-facing outboard designated seating 
position of a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight 
rating of 10,000 pounds or less to comply with a re- 
quirement of this standard, except walk-in van- 
type vehicles and school buses, shall meet the 
requirements of S7.1 by means of an emergency 
locking retractor that conforms to Standard 
No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209). (55 F.R. 30914— July 30, 
1990. Effective September 1, 1991)1 

(b) The requirements of S7. 1.1. 3(a) do not apply 
to the lap belt portion of any Type 2 belt installed 
in a passenger car manufactured before September 
1, 1989, or to walk-in van-type vehicles. 

57.1.1.4 Notwithstanding the other provisions 
of S7.1-S7.1.1.3, emergency-locking retractors on 
belt assemblies located in positions other than 
front outboard designated seating positions may 
be equipped with a manual webbing adjustment 
device capable of causing the retractor that adjusts 
the lap belt to lock when the belt is buckled. 

57.1.1.5 Removed and Reserved. 
(55 F.R. 30914-July 30. 1990.) 

57.1.2 The intersection of the upper torso belt 
with the lap belt in any Type 2 seat belt assembly 
furnished in accordance with S4.1.1 or S4.1.2, with 
the upper torso manual adjusting device, if pro- 
vided, adjusted in accordance with the manufac- 
turer's instructions, shall be at least 6 inches from 
the front vertical centerline of a 50th-percentile 
adult male occupant, measured along the center- 
line of the lap belt, with the seat in its rearmost 
and lowest adjustable position and with the seat 
back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding 
position. 

57.1.3 The weights and dimensions of the 
vehicle occupants specified in this standard are as 
follows: 





50th-percentile 
6-year-old child 


5th-percentile 
adult female 


50th-percentile 
adult male 


95th-percentile 
adult male 


Weight 






.. 164 pounds __. 
35.7 inches 


...±.3.. 
±•1 


. 215 pounds 


Erect sitting height 


25.4 inches 


30.9 inches 


38 inches 


Hip breadth (sitting) 


8.4 inches 


____ 12.8 inches 


__ 14.7 inches _.. 


..±.-.7._ 






23.9 inches 


36.4 inches 


42 inches 


47.2 inches 


Waist circumference (sitting) 


20.8 inches 


23.6 inches 


__ 32 inches ____. 
9.3 inches ... 

37.4 inches ... 


..±_-_6.. 
..±■.2.. 

±.6 


42.5 inches 


Chest depth 




7.5 inches _ 


10.5 inches 


Chest circumference: 
(nipple) 




30.5 inches 




(upper) 




29.8 inches. 


44.5 inches 


(lower) 




26.6 inches 
















(Rev. 7/30/90) 


PART 


571; S 208-16 









57.2 Latch mechanism. A seat belt assembly 
installed in any vehicle, except an automatic belt 
assembly, shall have a latch mechanism: 

(a) Whose components are accessible to a seated 
occupant in both the stowed and operational 
positions; 

(b) That releases both the upper torso restraint 
and the lap belt simultaneously, if the assembly has 
a lap belt and an upper torso restraint that require 
unlatching for release of the occupant; and 

(c) That releases at a single point by a push- 
button action. 

57.3 |A seat belt assembly provided at the 
driver's seating position shall be equipped with a 
warning system that, at the option of the manufac- 
turer, either 

(a) activates a continuous or intermittent audi- 
ble signal for a period of not less than 4 seconds 
and not more than 8 seconds and that activates a 
continuous or flashing warning light visible to the 
driver displaying the identifying symbol for the 
seat belt telltale shown in Table 2 of FMVSS 101, 
or, at the option of the manufacturer if permitted 
by FMVSS 101, displaying the words "Fasten Seat 
Belts" or "Fasten Belts," for not less that 60 
seconds (beginning when the vehicle ignition 
switch is moved to the "on" or the "start" posi- 
tion) when condition (a) exists simultaneously with 
condition (b), or that 

(b) activates, for a period of not less than 4 
seconds and not more than 8 seconds (beginning 
when the vehicle ignition switch is moved to the 
"on" or the "start" position), a continuous or 
flashing warning light visible to the driver, display- 
ing the identifying symbol for the seat belt telltale 
shown in Table 2 of FMVSS No. 101, or, at the op- 
tion of the manufacturer if permitted by FMVSS 
101, displaying the words "Fasten Seat Belts" or 
"Fasten Belts" when condition (a) exists, and a 
continuous or intermittent audible signal when 
condition (a) exists simultaneously with condition 
(b). (56 F.R. 3222-January 29, 1991. Effective: 
January 29, 1991)] 

(1) The vehicle's ignition switch is moved to 
the "on" position or to the "start" position. 

(2) The driver's lap belt is not in use, as deter- 
mined at the option of the manufacturer, either by 
the belt latch mechanism not being fastened, or by 
the belt not being extended at least 4 inches from 
its stowed position. 

57.3.1 Deleted 

57.3.2 Deleted 

57.3.3 Deleted 

57.3.4 Deleted 



S7.3.5 
S7.3.5.1 



Deleted 
Deleted 



57.3.5.2 Deleted 

57.3.5.3 Deleted 

57.3.5.4 Deleted 



S7.3a 



Deleted 



S7.4 Seat belt comfort and convenience. 

(a) Automatic seat belts. Automatic seat belts in- 
stalled in any vehicle, other than walk-in van-type 
vehicles, which has a gross vehicle weight rating of 
10,000 pounds or less, and which is manufactured 
on or after September 1, 1986, shall meet the 
requirements of S7.4.1, S7.4.2, and S7.4.3. 

(b) Manual seat belts. 

(1) Vehicles manufactured after September 1, 
1986. Manual seat belts installed in any vehicle, 
other than manual Type 2 belt systems installed in 
the front outboard seating positions in passenger 
cars or manual belts in walk-in van-type vehicles, 
which have a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 
pounds or less, shall meet the requirements of 
S7.4.3, S7.4.4, S7.4.5, and S7.4.6. 

(2) Vehicles manufactured after September 1, 
1989. 

(i) If the automatic restraint requirement of 
S4.1.4 is rescinded pursuant to S4.1.5, than 
manual seat belts installed in a passenger car shall 
meet the requirements of S7. 1.1. 3(a), S7.4.2, 
S7.4.3, S7.4.4, S7.4.5, and S7.4.6. 

(ii) Manual seat belts installed in a bus, 
multipurpose passenger vehicle and truck with a 
gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or 
less, except for walk-in van-type vehicles, shall 
meet the requirements of S7.4.3, S7.4.4, S7.4.5, 
and S7.4.6. 

57.4.1 Convenience hooks. Any manual con- 
venience hook or other device that is provided to 
stow seat belt webbing to facilitate entering or 
exiting the vehicle shall automatically release the 
webbing when the automatic belt system is other- 
wise operational and shall remain in the released 
mode for as long as (a) exists simultaneously with 
(b), or, at the manufacturer's option, for as long as 
(a) exists simultaneously with (c)— 

(a) The vehicle ignition switch is moved to the 
"on" or "start" position; 

(b) The vehicle's drive train is engaged; 

(c) The vehicle's parking brake is in the released 
mode (nonengaged). 

57.4.2 Webbing tension-relieving device. [Each 
vehicle with an automatic seat belt assembly or 
with a Type 2 manual seat belt assembly that must 



PART 571; S 208-17 



meet the occupant crash protection requirements 
of S5.1 of this standard installed at a front out- 
board designated seating position, and each vehicle 
with a Type 2 manual seat belt assembly installed 
at a rear outboard designated seating position in 
compliance with a requirement of this standard, 
the has either automatic or manual tension- 
relieving devices permitting the introduction of 
slack in the webbing of the shoulder belt (e.g., 
"comfort clips" or "window-shade" devices), 
shall: 54 F.R. 46257— November 2, 1989. Effective: 
May 1, 1990.)! 

(a) comply with the requirements of S5.1 with 
the shoulder belt webbing adjusted to introduce the 
maximum amount of slack recommended by the 
vehicle manufacturer pursuant to S7.4.2(b); 

(b) have a section in the vehicle owner's manual 
that explains how the tension-relieving device 
works and specifies the maximum amount of slack 
(in inches) recommended by the vehicle manufac- 
turer to be introduced into the shoulder belt under 
normal use conditions. The explanation shall also 
warn that introducing slack beyond the amount 
specified by the manufacturer could significantly 
reduce the effectiveness of the shoulder belt in a 
crash; and 

(c) [have, except for open-body vehicles with no 
doors, an automatic means to cancel any shoulder 
belt slack introduced into the belt system by a 
tension-relieving device. In the case of an 
automatic safety belt system, cancellation of the 
tension relieving device shall occur each time the 
adjacent vehicle door is opened. In the case of a 
manual seat belt required to meet S5.1, cancella- 
tion of the tension-relieving device shall occur, at 
the manufacturer's option, either each time the ad- 
jacent door is opened or each time the latchplate is 
released from the buckle. In the case of Type 2 
manual seat belt assembly installed at a rear out- 
board designated seating position, cancellation of 
the tension-relieving device shall occur, at the 
manufacturer's option either each time the door 
designed to allow the occupant of that seating posi- 
tion entry and egress of the vehicle is opened or 
each time the latchplate is released from the 
buckle. In the case of open-body vehicles with no 
doors, cancellation of the tension-relieving device 
may be done by a manul means. (54 F.R. 46257— 
November 2, 1989. Effective: May 1, 1990)] 

S7.4.3 Belt contact force. Except for manual 
or automatic seat belt assemblies that incorporate 
a webbing tension-relieving device, the upper torso 
webbing of any seat belt assembly, shall not exert 
more than 0.7 pounds of contact force when 



measured normal to and one inch from the chest of 
an anthropomorphic test dummy, positioned in 
accordance with S 10 or SI 1 of this standard in the 
seating position for which that seat belt assembly 
is provided, at the point where the centerline of the 
torso belt crosses the midsagittal line on the 
dummy's chest. 

57.4.4 Latchplate access. Any seat belt 
assembly latchplate that is located outboard of a 
front outboard seating position in accordance with 
S4.1.2, shall also be located within the outboard 
reach envelope of either the outboard arm or the 
inboard arm decribed in S10.6 of this standard and, 
in the case of a Part 572 Subpart B test dummy. 
Figure 3A of this standard, or, in the case of a Part 
572 Subpart E test dummy. Figure 3B of this stand- 
ard, when the latchplate is in its normal stowed 
position and any adjustable anchorages are ad- 
justed to the manufacturer's nominal design posi- 
tion for a 50th percentile male occupant. There 
shall be sufficient clearance between the vehicle 
seat and the side of the vehicle interior to allow the 
test block defined in Figure 4 unhindered transit to 

the latchplate or buckle. The provisions for vehicles with M 

adjustable anchorages will apply to vehicles manufactured on or ^, 

after September 1, 1989, and the provisions for vehicles with 
tension-relieving devices at seating positions also equipped with 
air bags will apply to vehicles manufactured on or after 
September 1, 1990.) 

Note: Multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks 
with a gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less 
and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or 
less must comply with the dynamic testing re- 
quirements of Si. 6 of Standard No. 208 beginning 
on September 1, 1991) 

75.4.5 Retraction.When tested under the condi- 
tions of S8.1.2 and S8.1.3, with anthropomorphic 
test dummies whose arms have been removed and 
which are positoned in accordance with either SIO 
or Sll, or any combination thereof, in the front 
outboard designated seating positions and 
restrained by the belt systems for those positions, 
the torso and lap belt webbing of any of those seat 
belt systems shall automatically retract to a 
stowed position either when the adjacent vehicle 
door is in the open position and the seat belt 
latchplate is released, or, at the option of the 
manufacturer, when the latchplate is released. 

57.4.6 Seat belt guides and hardware. ^ 

S7.4.6.1 (a) Any manual seat belt assembly 
whose webbing is designed to pass through the 



I/2/B9) 



PART 571; S 208-18 



seat cushion or between the seat cushion and seat 
back shall be designed to maintain one of the follow- 
ing three seat belt parts (the seat belt latchplate, the 
buckle, or the seat belt webbing) on top of or above 
the seat cushion under normal conditions (i.e., con- 
ditions other than when belt hardware is inten- 
tionally pushed behind the seat by a vehicle occu- 
pant). In addition, the remaining two seat belt parts 
must be accessible under normal conditions. 

(b) The requirements of S7.4. 6.1(a) do not apply 
to: (1) seats whose seat cushions are movable so that 
the seat back serves a function other than seating, 
(2) seats which are removable, or (3) seats which are 
movable so that the space formerly occupied by the 
seat can be used for a secondary function. 

S7.4.6.2 The buckle and latchplate of a manual 
seat belt assembly subject to S7.4.6.1 shall not pass 
through the guides or conduits provided for in 
S7.4.6.1 and fall behind the seat when the events 
listed below occur in the order specified: (a) the belt 
is completely retracted or, if the belt is nonretrac- 
table, the belt is unlatched; (b) the seat is moved to 
any position to which it is designed to be adjusted; 
and (c) the seat back, if foldable, is folded forward 
as far as possible and then moved backward into 
position. The inboard receptacle end of a seat belt 
assembly installed at a front outboard designated 
seating position shall be accessible with the center 
arm rest in any position to which it can be adjusted 
(without having to move the armrest). 

S8. Test conditions. 

S8.1 General conditions. The following condi- 
tions apply to the frontal, lateral, and rollover tests. 

S8.1.1 Except as provided in paragraph (c) of 
this section, the vehicle, including test devices and 
instrumentation, is loaded as follows: 

(a) Passenger cars. A passenger car is loaded to 
its unloaded vehicle weight plus its rated cargo and 
luggage capacity weight, secured in the luggage 
area, plus the weight of the necessary anthropo- 
morphic test devices. 

(b) MvUipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and 
buses. A multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, or bus 
is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight plus 300 
pounds or its rated cargo and luggage capacity 
weight, whichever is less, secured in the load carrying 
area and distributed as nearly as possible in proportion 
to its gross axle weight ratings, plus the weight of the 
necessary anthropomorphic test devices. [For the pur- 
poses of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does not 
include the weight of work-performing accessories. 
Vehicles are tested to a maximum unloaded vehicle 
weight of 5,500 pounds. (56 F.R. 12472— March 26, 1991. 
Effective: September 23, 1991)1 



(c) Fwl system capacity. With the test vehicle 
on a level surface, pump the fuel from the vehicle's 
fuel tank and then operate the engine until it stops. 
Then, add Stoddard solvent to the test vehicle's 
fuel tank in an amount which is equal to not less 
than 92 and not more than 94 percent of the fuel 
tank's usable capacity stated by the vehicle's 
manufacturer. In addition, add the amount of 
Stoddard solvent needed to fill the entire fuel 
system from the fuel tank through the engine's 
induction system. 

(d) Vehicle test attitude. Determine the distance 
between a level surface and a standard reference 
point on the test vehicle's body, directly above each 
wheel opening, when the vehicle is in its "as 
delivered" condition. The "as delivered" condition 
is the vehicle as received at the test site, with 100 
percent of all fluid capacities and all tires inflated 
to the manufacturer's specifications as listed on 
the vehicle's tire placard. Determine the distance 
between the same level surface and the same 
standard reference points in the vehicle's "fully 
loaded condition." The "fully loaded condition" is 
the test vehicle loaded in accordance with 
S8.1.1.(a) or (b), as applicable. The load placed in 
the cargo area shall be centered over the longi- 
tudinal centerline of the vehicle. The pretest vehi- 
cle attitude shall be equal to either the "as 
delivered" or "fully loaded" attitude or between 
the "as delivered" attitude and the "fully loaded" 
attitude. 

58.1.2 Adjustable seats are in the adjustment 
position midway between the forwardmost and 
rearmost positions, and if separately adjustable in 
a vertical direction, are at the lowest position. If an 
adjustment position does not exist midway 
between the forwardmost and rearmost positions, 
the closest adjustment position to the rear of the 
midpoint is used. 

58.1 .3 IPlace adjustable seat backs in the manu- 
facturer's nominal design riding position in the 
manner specified by the manufacturer. Place any 
adjustable anchorages at the manufacturer's 
nominal design position for a 50th percentile adult 
male occupant. Place each adjustable head 
restraint in its highest adjustment position. Ad- 
justable lumbar supports are positioned so that the 
lumbar support is in its lowest adjustment position. 
(54 F.R. 29045— July 11, 1989. Effective: September 1, 
1989. The provisions for vehicles with adjustable anchorages 
mil apply to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 
1989, and the provisions for vehicles with tension-relieving 
devices at seating positions also equipped with air bags will ap- 
ply to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, i990.)l 



PART 571; S 208-19 



58.1.4 Adjustable steering controls are adjusted 
so that the steering wheel hub is at the geometric 
center of the locus it describes when it is moved 
through its full range of driving positions. 

58.1.5 Movable vehicle windows and vents are 
at the manufacturer's option, placed in the fully 
closed position. 

58.1.6 Convertibles and open-body type 
vehicles have the top, if any, in place in the closed 
passenger compartment configuration. 

58.1.7 Doors are fully closed and latched but 
not locked. 

58.1.8 Anthropomorphic test dummies 

58.1.8.1 The anthropomorphic test dummies 
used for evaluation of occupant protection systems 
manufactured pursuant to applicable portions of 
paragraphs S4.1.2, S4.1.3, and S4.1.4 shall con- 
form to the requirements of Subpart B of Part 572 
of this Chapter. 

58.1.8.2 Anthropomorphic test devices used for 
the evaluation of occupant protection systems 
manufactured pursuant to applicable portions of 
paragraphs S4.1.2, S4.1.3, and S4.1.4 shall con- 
form to the requirements of Subpart E of Part 572 
of this Chapter. 

58.1.9.1 Each Part 572, Subpart B test dummy 
specified in S8. 1.8.1 is clothed in formfitting cotton 
stretch garments with short sleeves and midcalf 
length pants. Each foot of the test dummy is 
equipped with a size llEE shoe which meets the 
configuration size, sole, and heel thickness 
specifications of MIL S-131192 and weighs 1.25 ± 
0.2 pounds. 

58.1.9.2 Each Part 572, Subpart E test dummy 
specified in S8.1.8.2 is clothed in formfitting cotton 
stretch garments with short sleeves and midcalf 
length pants specified in drawings 78051-292 and 
-293 incorporated by reference in Part 572, Sub- 
part E of this Chapter, respectively or their 
equivalents. A size llEE shoe specified in draw- 
ings 78051-294 (left) and 78051-295 (right) or their 
equivalents is placed on each foot of the test 
dummy. 

58.1.10 Limb joints are set at Ig, barely 
restraining the weight of the Hmb when extended 
horizontally. Leg joints are adjusted with the torso 
in the supine position. 

58.1.11 Instrumentation does not affect the 
motion of dummies during impact or rollover. 



S8.1.12 Temperature of the test dummy. 

58.1.12.1 IThe stabilized temperature of the 
test dummy specified by S8. 1.8.1 is at any level 
between 66 degrees F and 78 degrees F. 

58.1 .1 2.2 The stabilized temperature of the test 
dummy specified by S8. 1.8.2 is at any level bet- 
ween 69 degrees F and 72 degrees F. (51 F.R. 
26688— July 25. 1986. Effective: October 23,19861 

S8.2 Lateral moving barrier crash test conditions. 

The following conditions apply to the lateral 
moving barrier crash test: 

58.2.1 The moving barrier, including the impact 
surface, supporting structure, and carriage, 
weighs 4,000 pounds. 

58.2.2 The impact surface of the barrier is a 
vertical, rigid, flat rectangle, 78 inches wide and 60 
inches high, perpendicular to its direction of move- 
ment, with its lower edge horizontal and 5 inches 
above the ground surface. 

58.2.3 During the entire impact sequence the 
barrier undergoes no significant amount of m 
dynamic or static deformation, and absorbs no %- 
significant portion of the energy resulting from the 
impact, except for energy that results in transla- 

tional rebound movement of the barrier. 

58.2.4 During the entire impact sequence the 
barrier is guided so that it travels in a straight line, 
with no significant lateral, vertical or rotational 
movement. 

58.2.5 The concrete surface upon which the 
vehicle is tested is level, rigid and of uniform con- 
struction, with a skid number of 75 when measured 
in accordance with American Society for Testing 
and Materials Method E-274-65T at 40 mph, omit- 
ting water delivery as specified in paragraph 7.1 of 
that method. 

58.2.6 The tested vehicle's brakes are disen- 
and the transmission is in neutral. 



S8.2.7 The barrier and the test vehicle are posi- 
tioned so that at impact— 

(a) The vehicle is at rest in its normal attitude; 

(b) The barrier is traveling in a direction perpen- 
dicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle at 20 
mph; and / 

(c) A vertical plane through the geometric \ 
center of the barrier impact surface and perpen- 
dicular to that surface passes through the driver's 
seating reference point in the tested vehicle. 



(Rev. 7/25/86) 



PART 571; S 208-20 



S8.3 Rollover test condition. The following 
conditions apply to the rollover test: 

S8.3.1 The tested vehicle's brakes are disen- 
and the transmission is in neutral. 



58.3.2 The concrete surface on which the test is 
conducted is level, rigid, of uniform construction, 
and of a sufficient size that the vehicle remains on 
it throughout the entire rollover cycle. It has a skid 
number of 75 when measured in accordance with 
American Society for Testing and Materials 
Method E-274-65T at 40 mph omitting water 
delivery as specified in paragraph 7.1 of that 
method. 

58.3.3 The vehicle is placed on a device, similar 
to that illustrated in Figure 1, having a platform in 
the form of a flat, rigid plane at an angle of 23° 
from the horizontal. At the lower edge of the plat- 
form is an unyielding flange, perpendicular to the 
platform with a height of 4 inches and a length suf- 
ficient to hold in place the tires that rest against it. 
The intersection of the inner face of the flange 
with the upper face of the platform is 9 inches 
above the rollover surface. No other restraints are 
used to hold the vehicle in position during the 
deceleration of the platform and the departure of 
the vehicle. 

58.3.4 With the vehicle on the test platform, the 
test devices remain as nearly as possible in the 
posture specified in S8.1. 

58.3.5 Before the deceleration pulse, the plat- 
form is moving horizontally, and perpendicularly 
to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, at a constant 
speed of 30 mph for a sufficient period of time for 
the vehicle to become motionless relative to the 
platform. 

58.3.6 The platform is decelerated from 30 to 
mph in a distance of not more than 3 feet, without 
change of direction and without transverse or rota- 
tional movement during the deceleration of the 
platform and the departure of the vehicle. The 
deceleration rate is at least 20g for a minimum of 
0.04 seconds. 

S9. Pressure vessels and explosive devices. 

S9.1 Pressure vessels. A pressure vessel that 
is continuously pressurized shall conform to the 
requirements of 49 CFR S178.65-2, -6(b), -7, -9(a) 
and (b), and -10. It shall not leak or evidence 



visible distortion when tested in accordance with 
§ 178.65-1 1(a) and shall not fail in any of the ways 
enumerated in § 178.65-ll(b) when hydrostatically 
tested to destruction. It shall not crack when flat- 
tened in accordance with § 178.65-12(a) to the 
limit specified in § 178.65-12(a) (4). 

S9.2 Explosive devices. An explosive device 
shall not exhibit any of the characteristics pro- 
hibited by 49 CFR S173.51. All explosive material 
shall be enclosed in a structure that is capable of 
containing the explosive energy without sudden 
release of pressure except through overpressure 
relief devices or parts designed to release the 
pressure during actuation. 

S10. Test dummy positioning procedures. [Posi- 
tion a test dummy, conforming to Subpart B of 
Part 572 of this chapter, in each front outboard 
seating position of a vehicle as set forth below in 
SlO through S10.9. Each test dummy is restrained 
during the crash tests of S5 as follows: [(54 F.R. 
23986— June 5, 1989. Effective: December 4, 1989)1 

(a) In a vehicle equipped with automatic 
restraints at each front outboard designated 
seating position that is certified by its manufac- 
turer as meeting the requirements of S4. 1.2. 1(a) 
and (cXl), each test dummy is not restrained 
during the frontal test of S5.1, the lateral test of 
S5.2 and the rollover test of S5.3 by any means 
that require occupant action. 

(bXl) In a vehicle equipped with an automatic 
restraint at each front outboard seating position 
that is certified by its manufacturer as meeting the 
requirements of S4. 1.2. 1(a) and (c)(2), each test 
dummy is not restrained during one frontal test of 
S5.1 by any means that require occupant action. If 
the vehicle has a manual seat belt provided by the 
manufacturer to comply with the requirements of 
S4. 1.2. 1(c), then a second frontal test is conducted 
in accordance with S5.1 and each test dummy is 
restrained both by the authomatic restraint system 
and the manual seat belt, adjusted in accordance 
with S10.9. 

(2) In a vehicle equipped with an automatic 
restraint only at the driver's designated seating 
position, pursuant to S4. 1.3.4(a)(2), that is certified 
by its manufacturer as meeting the requirements 
of S4. 1.2. 1(a) and (cX2), the driver test dummy is 
not restrained during one frontal test of S5.1 by 
any means that require occupant action. If the 
vehicle also has a manual seat belt provided by the 



(Rev. 6/5/89) 



PART 571; S 208-21 



manufacturer to comply with the requirements of 
S4. 1.2. 1(c), then a second frontal test is conducted 
in accordance with S5.1 and the driver test dummy 
is restrained both by the automatic restraint 
system and the manual seat belt, adjusted in accor- 
dance with S10.9. At the option of the manufac- 
turer, a passenger test dummy can be placed in the 
right front outboard designated seating postion 
during the testing required by this section. If a 
passenger test dummy is present, it shall be 
restrained by a manual seat belt, adjusted in accor- 
dance with S10.9 

(c) In a vehicle equipped with a manual safety 
belt at the front outboard designated seating posi- 
tions that is certified by its manufacturer to meet 
the requirements of S4.6, each test dummy is 
restrained by the manual safety belts, adjusted in 
accordance with S10.9, installed at each front out- 
board seating position. 

S10.1 Vehicle equipped with front bucket seats. 

Place the test dummy's torso against the seat back 
and its upper legs against the seat cushion to the ex- 
tent permitted by placement of the test dummy's feet 
in accordance with the appropriate paragraph of 
SIO. Center the test dummy on the seat cushion of 
the bucket seat and set its midsagittal plane so that 
it is vertical and parallel to the centerline of the 
seat cushion. 

S1 0.1.1 Driver position placement. 

(a) Initially set the knees of the test dummy 11% 
inches apart, measured between the outer surfaces 
of the knee pivot bolt heads, with the left outer 
surface 5.9 inches from the midsagittal plane of the 
test dummy. 

(b) Rest the right foot of the test dummy on the 
undepressed accelerator pedal with the rearmost 
point of the heel on the floor pan in the plane of the 
pedal. If the foot cannot be placed on the 
accelerator pedal, set it initially perpendicular to 
the lower leg and place it as far forward as possible 
in the direction of the pedal centerline with the 
rearmost point of the heel resting on the floor pan. 
Except as prevented by contact with a vehicle sur- 
face, place the right leg so that the upper and lower 
leg centerlines fall, as close as possible, in a ver- 
tical longitudinal plane without inducing torso 
movement. 

(c) (Place the left foot on the toeboard with the 
rearmost point of the heel resting on the floor pan 
as close as possible to the point of intersection of 

(Rev. 9/5/86) PART 571; 



the planes described by the toeboard and the floor 
pan and not on the wheelwell projection. If the foot 
cannot be positioned on the toeboard, set it initially 
perpendicular to the lower leg and place it as far 
forward as possible with the heel resting on the 
floor pan. If necessary to avoid contact with the 
vehicle's brake or clutch pedal, rotate the test 
dummy's left foot about the lower leg. If there is 
still pedal interference, rotate the left leg outboard 
about the hip the minimum distance necessary to 
avoid the pedal interference. Except as prevented 
by contact with a vehicle surface, place the left leg 
so that the upper and lower leg centerlines fall, as 
close as possible, in a vertical plane. For vehicles 
with a foot rest that does not elevate the left foot 
above the level of the right foot, place the left foot 
on the foot rest so that the upper and lower leg 
centerlines fall in a vertical plane. (51 F.R. 
31765— September 5, 1986. Effective: September 5, 
1986)] 

S10.1.2 Passenger position placement. 

S1 0.1 .2.1 Vehicle with a flat floor pan/toeboard. 

(a) Initially set the knees 11% inches apart, 
measured between the outer surfaces of the knee 
pivot bolt heads. 

(b) Place the right and left feet on the vehicle's 
toeboard with the heels resting on the floor pan as 
close as possible to the intersection point with the 
toeboard. If the feet cannot be placed flat on the 
toeboard, set them perpendicular to the lower leg 
centerlines and place them as far forward as possi- 
ble with the heels resting on the floor pan. 

(c) Place the right and left legs so that the upper 
and lower leg centerlines fall in vertical 
longitudinal planes. 

SI 0.1 .2.2 Vehicles with wheelhouse projections 
in passenger compartment. 

(a) Initially set the knees 11% inches apart, 
measured between outer surfaces of the knee pivot 
bolt heads. 

(b) Place the right and left feet in the well of the 
floor pan/toeboard and not on the wheelhouse pro- 
jection. If the feet cannot be placed flat on the 
toeboard, initially set them perpendicular to the 
lower leg centerlines and then place them as far 
forward as possible with the heels resting on the 
floor pan. 

(c) If it is not possible to maintain vertical and 
longitudinal planes through the upper and lower 

S 208-22 



leg centerlines for each leg, then place the left leg 
so that its upper and lower centerlines fall, as 
closely as possible, in a vertical longitudinal plane 
and place the right leg so that its upper and lower 
leg centerlines fall, as closely as possible, in a 
vertical plane. 

510.2 Vehicle equipped with bench seating. 

Place a test dummy with its torso against the seat 
back and its upper legs against the seat cushion, to 
the extent permitted by placement of the test dum- 
my's feet in accordance with the appropriate 
paragraph of SI 0.1. 

51 0.2.1 Driver position placement. Place the 
test dummy at the left front outboard designated 
seating position so that its midsagittal plane is 
vertical and parallel to the centerline of the vehicle 
and so that the midsagittal plane of the test 
dummy passes through the center of the steering 
wheel rim. Place the legs, knees, and feet of the 
test dummy as specified in SI 0.1.1. 

51 0.2.2 Passenger position placement. [Place 
the test dummy at the right front outboard 
designated seating position so that the midsagittal 
plane of the test dummy is vertical and 
longitudinal, and the same distance from the vehi- 
cle's longitudinal centerline as the midsagittal 
plane of the test dummy at the driver's position. 
Place the legs, knees, and feet of the test dummy 
as specified in SIO.1.2. (51 F.R. 31765— September 5, 
1986. Effective: September 5, 1986)1 

510.3 Initial test dummy head and arm place- 
ment. With the test dummy at its designated 
seating position as specified by the appropriate re- 
quirements of SlO.l or S10.2, place the upper arms 
against the seat back and tangent to the side of the 
upper torso. Place the lower arms and palms 
against the outside of the upper legs. 

510.4 Test dummy settling. 

51 0.4.1 Test dummy vertical upward displace- 
ment. Slowly lift the test dummy parallel to the 
seat back plane until the test dummy's buttocks no 
longer contact the seat cushion or until there is 
test dummy head contact with the vehicle's 
headlining. 

51 0.4.2 Lower torso force application. Apply a 
rearward force of 50 poimds against the center of the 
test dummy's lower torso in a horizontal direction. 



The line of force application shall be 6.5 inches above 
the bottom surface of the test dummy's buttocks. 

51 0.4.3 Test dummy vertical downward displace- 
ment. Remove as much of the 50-pound force as 
necessary to allow the test dummy to return 
downward to the seat cushion by its own weight. 

51 0.4.4 Test dummy upper torso rocking. Apply a 
10- to- 15-pound horizontal rearward force to the test 
dummy's lower torso. Then apply a horizontal for- 
ward force to the test dummy's shoulders sufficient 
to flex the upper torso forward until its back no 
longer contacts the seat back. Rock the test dummy 
from side to side 3 or 4 times so that the test 
dummy's spine is at any angle from the vertical in the 
14-to-16-degree range at the extremes of each rock- 
ing movement. 

51 0.4.5 Test dummy upper torso force application. 

While maintaining the lO-to-15-pound horizontal 
rearward force applied in SIO.4.4 and with the test 
dummy's midsagittal plane vertical, push the upper 
torso back against the seat back with a force of 50 
pounds applied in a horizontal rearward direction 
along a line that is coincident with the test dummy's 
midsagittal plane and 18 inches above the bottom 
surface of the test dummy's buttocks. 

SI 0.5 Belt adjustment for dynamic testing. With 
the test dummy at its designated seating position 
as specified by the appropriate requirements of 
S8.1.2, S8.1.3, and SlO.l through S10.4, place and 
adjust the safety belt as specified below. 

SI 0.5.1 tVlanual safety belts. Place the Type 1 or 
Type 2 manual belt around the test dummy and 
fasten the latch. Pull the Type 1 belt webbing out 
of the retractor and allow it to retract; repeat this 
operation four times. Remove all slack from the lap 
belt portion of a Type 2 belt. Pull the upper torso 
webbing out of the retractor and allow it to retract; 
repeat this operation four times so that the excess 
webbing in the shoulder belt is removed by the 
retractive force of the retractor. Apply a 2 to 4 
pound tension load to the lap belt of a single retrac- 
tor system by pulling the upper torso belt adjacent 
to the latchplate. In the case of a dual retractor 
system, apply a 2 to 4 pound tension load by pulling 
the lap belt adjacent to its retractor. Measure the 
tension load as close as possible to the same loca- 
tion where the force was applied. After the tension 
load has been applied, ensure that the upper torso 
belt lies flat on the test dummy's shoulder. 



(Rev. 9/5/86) 



PART 571; S 208-23 



51 0.5.2 Automatic safety belts. Ensure that 
the upper torso belt Ues flat on the test dummy's 
shoulder after the automatic belt has been placed 
on the test dummy. 

510.5.3 Belts with tension-relieving devices. If 

the automatic or dynamically-tested manual safety 
belt system is equipped with a tension-relieving 
device, introduce the maximum amount of slack in- 
to the upper torso belt that is recommended by the 
manufacturer for normal use in the owner's 
manual for the vehicle. 

S10.6 Placement of test dummy arms and hands. 

With the test dummy positioned as specified by 
S10.4 and without inducing torso movement, place 
the arms, elbows, and hands of the test dummy, as 
appropriate for each designated seating position in 
accordance with SIO.6.1 or SIO.6.2. Following 
placement of the arms, elbows and hands, remove 
the force applied against the lower half of the torso. 

51 0.6.1 Driver's position. Move the upper and 
the lower arms of the test dummy at the driver's 
position to their fully outstretched position in the 
lowest possible orientation. Push each arm rear- 
ward permitting bending at the elbow, until the 
palm of each hand contacts the outer part of the 
rim of the steering wheel at its horizontal 
centeriine. Place the test dummy's thumbs over 
the steering wheel rim and position the upper and 
lower arm centerlines as close as possible in a ver- 
tical plane without inducing torso movement. The 
thumbs shall be over the steering wheel rim and 
are lightly taped to the steering wheel rim so that 
if the hand of the test dummy is pushed upward by 
a force of not less than 2 pounds and not more than 
5 pounds, the tape shall release the hand from the 
steering wheel rim. 

Note: Multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks 
with a gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less 
and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or 
less must comply with the dynamic testing require- 
ments of SU.6 of Standard No. 208 beginning on 
September 1, 1991) 

51 0.6.2 Passenger position. Move the upper and 
lower arms of the test dummy at the passenger 
position to the fully outstretched position in the 
lowest possible orientation. Push each arm rear- 
ward, permitting bending at the elbow, until the 
upper arm contacts the seat back and is tangent to 
the upper part of the side of the torso, the palm 



contacts the outside of the thigh, and the little 
finger is barely in contact witht the seat cushion. 

510.7 Repositioning of feet and legs. After the 
test dummy has been settled in accordance with 
S10.4, the safety belt system has been positioned, 
if necessary, in accordance with S10.5, and the 
arms and hands of the test dummy have been posi- 
tioned in accordance with S10.6, reposition the 
feet and legs of the test dummy, if necessary, so 
that the feet and legs meet the applicable re- 
quirements of SlO.l or S10.2 

510.8 Test dummy positioning for latchplate ac- 
cess. The reach envelopes specified in S7.4.4. are 
obtained by positioning a test dummy in the 
driver's seat or passenger's seat in its forward- 
most adjustment position. Attach the lines for the 
inboard and outboard arms to the test dummy as 
described in Figure 3 of this standard. Extend each 
line backward and outboard to generate the com- 
pliance arcs of the outboard reach envelope of the 
test dummy's arms. 

510.9 Test dummy positioning for belt contact 
force. 

51 0.9.1 Vehicle manufactured before September 
1, 1987. To determine compliance with S7.4.3 of 
this standard, a manufacturer may use, at its 
option, either the test procedure of S 10.9.1 or the 
test procedure of SIO.9.2. Position the test dummy 
in the vehicle in accordance with the appropriate 
requirements specified in SlO.l or S10.2 and under 
the conditions of S8.1.2 and S8.1.3. Fasten the 
latch and pull the belt webbing three inches from 
the test dummy's chest and release until the 
webbing is within one inch of the test dummy's 
chest and measure the belt contact force. 

510.9.2 Vehicle manufactured on or after 
September 1, 1987. To determine compliance with 
S7.4.3. of this standard, position the test dummy in 
the vehicle in accordance with the appropriate 
requirements specified in SlO.l or S10.2 and under 
the conditions of S8.1.2 and S8.1.3. Close the vehi- 
cle's adjacent door, pull either 12 inches of belt 
webbing or the maximum available amount of belt 
webbing, whichever is less, from the retractor and 
then release it, allowing the belt webbing to return 
to the dummy's chest. Fasten the latch and pull the 
belt webbing three inches from the test dummy's 
chest and release until the webbing is within one 
inch of the test dummy's chest and measure the 
belt contact force. 



PART 571; S 208-24 



S11 Positioning procedure for the Pari 572 
Subpart E Test Dummy. 

Position a test dummy, conforming to Subpart E 
of Part 572 of this Chapter, in each front outboard 
seating position of a vehicle as specified in SI 1.1 
through SI 1.6. Each test dummy is restrained in 
accordance with the applicable requirements of 
S4.1.2.1, 4.1.2.2 or S4.6. 

511.1 Head. [The transverse instrumentation 
platform of the head shall be horizontal within V2 
degree. To level the head of the test dummy, the 
following sequences must be followed. First adjust 
the position of the H point within the limits set 
forth in Sll.4.3.1 to level the transverse in- 
strumentation platform of the head of the test 
dummy. If the transverse instrumentation plat- 
form of the head is still not level, then adjust the 
pelvic angle of the test dummy within the limits 
specified in SI 1.4. 3. 2 of the standard. If the 
transverse instrumentation platform of the head is 
still not level, then adjust the neck bracket of the 
test dummy the minimum amount necessary from 
the non-adjusted "0" setting to ensure that the 

m transverse instrumentation platform of the head is 

" horizontal within V2 degree. The test dummy shall 

remain within the limits specified in Sll.4.3.1 and 
SI 1.4.3. 2 after any adjustment of the neck 
bracket.(54 F.R. 23986-June 5, 1989. Effective: 
December 4, 1989.)! 

511.2 Arms. 

511.2.1 The driver's upper arms shall be adja- 
cent to the torso with the centerlines as close to a 
vertical plane as possible. 

51 1.2.2 The passenger's upper arms shall be in 
contact with the seat back and the sides of torso. 

511.3 Hands. 

S1 1.3.1 The palms of the driver test dummy 
shall be in contact with the outer part of the steer- 
ing wheel rim at the rim's horizontal centerline. 
The thumbs shall be over the steering wheel rim 
and shall be lightly taped to the steering wheel rim 
so that if the hand of the test dummy is pushed up- 
ward by a force of not less than 2 pounds and not 
more than 5 pounds, the tape shall release the hand 
j^ from the steering wheel rim. 

▼ Note: Multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks 
with a gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less 
and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or 



less must comply with the dynamic testing require- 
ments of SJt.6 of Standard No. 208 beginning on 
September 1, 1991) 

S1 1 .3.2 The palms of the passenger test dummy 
shall be in contact with outside of thigh. The little 
finger shall be in contact with the seat cushion. 

51 1.4 Torso. 

51 1.4.1 In vehicles equipped with bench seats, 
the upper torso of the driver and passenger test 
dummies shall rest against the seat back. The mid- 
sagittal plane of the driver dummy shall be vertical 
and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, 
and pass through the center of the steering wheel 
rim. The midsagittal plane of the passenger 
dummy shall be vertical and parallel to the 
vehicle's longitudinal centerline and the same 
distance from the vehicle's longitudinal centerline 
as the midsagittal plane of the driver dummy. 

51 1.4.2 In vehicles equipped with bucket seats, 
the upper torso of the driver and passenger test 
dummies shall rest against the seat back. The mid- 
sagittal plane of the driver and the passenger dum- 
my shall be vertical and shall coincide with the 
longitudinal centerline of the bucket seat. 

51 1.4.3 Lower torso. 

511.4.3.1 H-point. The H-point of the driver and 
passenger test dummies shall coincide within V2 
inch in the vertical dimension and V2 inch in the 
horizontal dimension of a point V4 inch below the 
position of the H-point determined by using the 
equipment and procedures specified in SAE J826 
(Apr 80) except that the length of the lower leg and 
thigh segments of the H-point machine shall be ad- 
justed to 16.3 and 15.8 inches, respectively, instead 
of the 50th percentile values specified in Table 1 of 
SAE J826. 

51 1 .4.3.2 Pelvic angle. As determined using the 
pelvic angle gage (GM drawing 78051-532 in- 
corporated by reference in Part 572, Subpart E of 
this chapter) which is inserted into the H-point 
gaging hole of the dummy, the angle measured 
from the horizontal on the 3 inch flat surface of the 
gage shall be 22V2 degrees plus or minus 2V2 
degrees. 

51 1.5 Legs. The upper legs of the driver and 
passenger test dummies shall rest against the seat 
cushion to the extent permitted by placement of 



(Rev. 6/5/89) 



PART 571; S 208-25 



the feet. The initial distance between the outboard 
knee clevis flange surfaces shall be 10.6 inches. To 
the extent practicable, the left leg of the driver 
dummy and both legs of the passenger dummy 
shall be in vertical longitudinal planes. Final 
adjustment to accommodate placement of feet in 
accordance with S11.6 for various passenger com- 
partment configurations is permitted. 

51 1.5.1 The legs of the driver and passenger 
test dummy shall be placed as provided in Sll.5.2 
or, at the option of the vehicle manufacturer until 
September 1, 1991, as provided in SIO.1.1 for 
driver and SIO.1.2 for the passenger, except that 
the initial distance between the outboard knee 
clevis flange surfaces shall be 10.6 inches for both 
the driver and the passenger rather than 14V2 in- 
ches as specified in SIO.1.1 (a) for the driver and 
11% inches as specified in SIO. 1.2.1 (a) and 
SIO.1.2.2 (a) for the passenger. 

51 1.5.2 The upper legs of the driver and 
passenger test dummies shall rest against the seat 
cushion to the extent permitted by placement of 
the feet. The initial distance between the outboard 
knee clevis flange surfaces shall be 10.6 inches. To 
the extent practicable, the left leg of the driver 
dummy and both legs of the passenger dummy 
shall be in vertical longitudinal planes. To the ex- 
tent practicable, the right leg of the driver dummy 
shall be in a vertical plane. Final adjustment to ac- 
commodate placement of feet in accordance with 
SI 1.6 for various passenger compartment con- 
figurations is permitted. 

Note: Multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks 
with a gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or les 
and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or 
less must comply with the dynamic testing require- 
ments of SJt.6 of Standard No. 208 beginning on 
September 1, 1991.) 

51 1.6 Feet. [The feet of the driver test 
dummy shall be positioned in accordance with 
SIO.1.1 (b) and (c) of this standard. The feet of the 
passenger test dummy shall be positioned in ac- 
cordance with SIO. 1.2.1 (b) and (c) of this standard, 
as appropriate. (54 F.R. 23986— June 5, 1989. Effec- 
tive: December 4, 1989.1 

511.6.1 Removed. (56 F.R. 8232-February 28, 1991) 

511.6.2 Removed. (56 F.R. 8232-February 28, 1991) 

51 1 .6.3 Removed. (56 F.R. 8232- February 28, 1 991 ) 

51 1.7 Test dummy positioning for iatchplate 
access. The reach envelopes specified in S7.4.4 
are obtained by positioning a test dummy in the 



driver's seat or passenger's seat in its forward- I I 

most adjustment position. Attach the lines for the 
inboard and outboard arms to the test dummy as 
described in Figure 3 of this standard. Extend each 
line backward and outboard to generate the com- 
pliance arcs of the outboard reach envelope of the 
test dummy's arms. 

511.8 Test dummy positioning for belt contact 
force. To determine compliance with S7.4.3 of 
this standard, position the test dummy in the vehi- 
cle in accordance with the requirements specified 
in SI 1.1 through SI 1.6 and under the conditions of 
S8.1.2 and S8.1.3. Pull the belt webbing three 
inches from the test dummy's chest and release 
until the webbing is within 1 inch of the test 
dummy's chest and measure the belt contact force. 

51 1.9 IVIanual belt adjustment for dynamic 
testing. With the test dummy at its designated 
seating position as specified by the appropriate re- 
quirements of S8.1.2, S8.1.3 and Sll.l through 
SI 1.6, place the Type 2 manual belt around the test 
dummy and fasten the latch. Remove all slack from 
the lap belt. Pull the upper torso webbing out of the 
retractor and allow it to retract; repeat this opera- 
tion four times. Apply a 2 to 4 pound tension load ^ 
to the lap belt. If the belt system is equipped with a fl 
tension-relieving device introduce the maximum ^ 
amount of slack into the upper torso belt that is 
recommended by the manufacturer for normal use 

in the owner's manual for the vehicle. If the belt 
system is not equipped with a tension-relieving 
device, allow the excess webbing in the shoulder 
belt to be retracted by the retractive force of the 
retractor. 

S12 Removed. (54 F.R. 23986-June 5, 1989) 

Interpretation 

The concept of an occupant protection system 
which requires "no action by vehicle occupants," as 
that term is used in Standard No. 208, is intended to 
designate a system which will perform its protective 
restraining function after a normal process of ingress 
or egress without separate deliberate actions by the 
vehicle occupant to deploy the restraint system. 
Thus, the agency considers an occupant protection 
system to be automatic if an occupant has to take no 
action to deploy the system but would normally 
slightly push the seat belt webbing aside when enter- 
ing or exiting the vehicle or would normally make a 
slight adjustment in the webbing for comfort. 

36 F.R. 4600 ^| 

March 10, 1971 ^P 



PART 571; S 208-26 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE 
SAFETY STANDARD NO. 209 

Seat Belt Assemblies 

(Docket No. 74-14; Notice 71) 

RIN 2127-AD11 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This agency has expressed its intention 
to exclude safety belts that meet dynamic testing 
requirements from some of the static testing require- 
ments to which all safety belts are subject. Dynamic 
testing consists of a 30 mile per hour crash test of the 
vehicle using test dummies as surrogates for human 
occupants. Since the dynamic test measures the actual 
occupant protection which the belt provides during a 
crash, there is no apparent need to subject that belt 
to static testing procedures that are surrogate and less 
direct measures of the protection which the belt would 
provide to its occupant during a crash. 

In order to avoid needless regulatory restrictions on 
safety belts that have been dynamically tested, this rule 
amends the agency's regulations to more accurately 
express the scope of the exemption from the static test- 
ing requirements for safety belts that are dynamically 
tested. Specifically, this rule: 

1. Excludes all safety belts that are subject to the 
dynamic testing requirements, regardless of the type 
of vehicle in which those belts are installed, from some 
of the static testing requirements for safety belts; 

2. Permits the use of load limiters on all safety belts 
installed at seating positions subject to the dynamic 
testing requirements, regardless of whether the sub- 
ject belts are automatic or manual safety belts; and 

3. Correctly identifies all of the static testing re- 
quirements from which automatic safety belts and 
manual safety belts subject to the dynamic testing 
requirements are excluded in the safety standards, 
instead of listing some of those requirements in the 
safety standards, and adding others in the agency's 
interpretations and preambles to rules. 

This notice also clarifies which safety belts the agency 
was referring to when it described safety belts as 
"dynamically tested." NHTSA was referring only to 
all automatic belts and to manual safety belts that are 
the only occupant restraint system at a seating posi- 



tion. Thus, any manual safety belts installed at seat- 
ing positions also equipped with either an automatic 
safety belt or an air bag are not "dynamically tested" 
safety belts within the meaning of this rule. Such 
manual safety belts are, therefore, subject to the 
strength, webbing width, and other requirements of 
Standard No. 209. However, this rule excludes manual 
safety belts installed at seating positions also equipped 
with either an automatic safety belt or an air bag from 
the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209. This 
exclusion will allow maximum engineering flexibility 
in the design of these manual belt systems, while still 
ensuring effective occupant protection. 

EFFECTIVE: April 16, 1991. 

BACKGROUND: Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assem- 
blies (49 CFR § 571.209), sets forth qualities of the 
webbing and hardware used in a seat belt assembly, 
along with some additional tests of the seat belt assem- 
bly as a whole. Absent a dynamic test, these tests 
individually evaluate each of the aspects of a belt 
system that NHTSA believes are necessary to ensure 
that the belt system will provide adequate occupant 
protection in a crash. For instance, the strength re- 
quirements in Standard No. 209 are intended to ensure 
that the safety belt is strong enough to withstand the 
loads imposed by a person using the belt in a crash; 
the webbing elongation requirements help ensure that 
the belt will not stretch so much that it provides a lesser 
level of protection, and so forth. NHTSA assumes that 
any belt system that achieves the required level of per- 
formance in all of these tests will offer adequate 
occupant protection when the belt system is installed 
in any vehicle at any seating position. 

However, NHTSA has long believed it more appro- 
priate to evaluate the occupant protection afforded by 
vehicles by conducting dynamic testing, which consists 
of a crash test of the vehicle using test dummies as 
surrogates for human occupants. This belief is based 
on the fact that the protection provided by safety belts 



PART 571; S209-PRE 53 



depends on more than the performance of the safety 
belts themselves or of belt components tested individu- 
ally. Occupant protection depends on the performance 
of the safety belts themselves and the structural 
characteristics and interior design of the vehicle. A 
dynamic test of the vehicle allows NHTSA to evaluate 
all of the factors that affect occupant crash protection. 
Further, a dynamic test allows the agency to evaluate 
the synergistic effects of all these factors working 
together, instead of evaluating each factor individually. 
Finally, a dynamic test assesses the vehicle's capabili- 
ties for minimizing the risk of injury as measured by 
test dummies and human-based injury criteria, as 
opposed to individual belt component tests that are only 
indirectly related to human injury risk. 

For dynamic testing under Standard No. 208, 
Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR § 571.208), test 
dummies are placed in the vehicle and the vehicle is 
subjected to a frontal crash into a concrete barrier at 
a speed of 30 miles per hour (mph). In evaluating the 
occupant crash protection capabilities of a vehicle, this 
dynamic test assesses safety belt performance. A 
requirement for safety belts to conform to both the 
dynamic testing requirements of Standard No. 208 and 
the laboratory testing requirements of Standard No. 
209 is thus unnecessary, because Standard No. 208 
dynamic testing would evaluate the critical aspects of 
belt and assembly performance that would be evalu- 
ated under Standard No. 209. To avoid such redundan- 
cies, automatic safety belts subject to the dynamic 
testing requirements of Standard No. 208 were ex- 
cluded from Standard No. 209's laboratory testing 
requirements for webbing, attachment hardware, and 
assembly performance shortly after NHTSA estab- 
lished the first dynamic testing requirements in Stan- 
dard No. 208. See 36 FR 23725. December 14, 1971. 

More recently, NHTSA has extended the dynamic 
testing requirements of Standard No. 208 to manual 
safety belt systems installed at the front outboard seat- 
ing positions in passenger cars (51 FR 9800; March 21, 
1986) and light trucks and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles (52 FR 44898; November 23, 1987). In both 
instances, the agency stated in the preamble to the rule 
that dynamically tested manual belts should be ex- 
cluded from the same requirements of Standard No. 
209 as automatic belts are, for the same reasons. See 
51 FR 9804; 52 FR 44906. On the other hand, both 
automatic and dynamically tested manual belts are sub- 
ject to other requirements in Standard No. 209; for 
example, the retractor performance requirements, the 
buckle release mechanism performance requirements, 
and the requirements for corrosion resistance of attach- 
ment hardware apply to these types of safety belts. 
NHTSA subsequently denied petitions for reconsider- 
ation and a petition for rulemaking on the question of 
excluding dynamically tested safety belts from some 



of the requirements of Standard No. 209. See 53 FR 
5579; February 25, 1988. In the denial notice, NHTSA 
reemphasized its conclusion that there was no safety ^ 
or other need to justify applying some of the static tests » 
in Standard No. 209 to belt systems that have been 
dynamically tested in the vehicle in which they are 
installed. 

In addition, the preambles to the rules establishing 
dynamic testing of some manual safety belt systems 
in passenger cars and light trucks and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles stated that dynamically tested 
manual safety belts should be labeled indicating the 
seating positions and particular vehicles in which these 
safety belts could be installed. See 51 FR 9804; 52 FR 
44906-44907. These labels were intended to minimize 
the likelihood that a dynamically tested safety belt 
would be installed in a vehicle or a seating position for 
which it was not intended. NHTSA subsequently 
denied a petition for rulemaking asking that these 
labeling requirements be amended to apply only to 
dynamically tested manual belt systems that did not 
comply with all the static testing requirements of Stan- 
dard No. 209. 53 FR 50429; December 15, 1988. 

However, the regulatory language in Standards No. 
208 and 209 did not fully and clearly achieve the 
agency's expressed intentions. Therefore, the agency 
proposed to amend the provisions of those standards 
in four areas in a notice of proposed rulemaking j 
(NPRM) published on January 18, 1990 (55 FR 1681). (| 
NHTSA received six comments on this NPRM. Com- 
menters included motor vehicle manufacturers, safety 
belt manufacturers, and motor vehicle dealers. All of 
these comments were considered in developing this 
final rule, and the most significant comments are dis- 
cussed below. For the convenience of the reader, this 
rule uses the same organization as the NPRM. 

1. Exclusion for Dynamically Tested Manual Belt 
Systems Installed in Passenger Cars from Certain 
Requirements of Standard No. 209. 

Volkswagen of America (Volkswagen) submitted a 
petition asking NHTSA to amend the language in Stan- 
dard No. 208 so as to achieve the agency's stated intent 
of excluding dynamically tested manual belt assemblies 
installed at front outboard seating positions of pas- 
senger cars from the webbing width, strength, and 
elongation requirements of Standard No. 209. Volks- 
wagen noted that, although preambles to rules on 
dynamic testing have repeatedly indicated that 
NHTSA was excluding dynamically tested manual belts 
in passenger cars from certain static testing require- 
ments of Standard No. 209, the current language in 
section S4.6.1 of Standard No. 208 excludes dynami- 
cally tested manual belts in passenger cars from some M 
requirements in Standard No. 209 only if the ^ 
requirement for automatic restraints in passenger cars 
were rescinded. Since there was no rescission, there 



PART 571; S209-PRE 54 



is currently no exclusion from any of the requirements 
in Standard No. 209 for dynamically tested manual 
belts in passenger cars. 

In the NPRM, NHTSA repeated its previous state- 
ments that it is appropriate to exclude all belt systems 
subject to dynamic testing requirements, including 
dynamically tested manual belts in passenger cars, 
from some of the static testing requirements of Stan- 
dard No. 209. The failure to provide such an exclusion 
in Standard No. 208 was simply an oversight on 
NHTSA's part. The agency proposed to correct that 
oversight in the NPRM. 

Chrysler, Ford, and BMW commented that they 
supported this proposal. The Automotive Occupant 
Restraints Council (AORC) opposed the proposal. 
According to AORC, excluding dynamically tested 
manual belts from some of the static testing require- 
ments in Standard No. 209 might result in adverse 
safety consequences. For example, AORC noted that 
the static webbing strength test exposes the webbing 
to loading that is approximately twice as great as the 
most heavily-loaded webbing would be exposed to 
during dynamic testing. This commenter asserted that 
an "imknowledgeable or reckless" manufacturer could 
introduce webbing of lesser strength in its dynamically 
tested safety belts and that this webbing of lesser 
strength would be a "degraded occupant crash protec- 
tion product." Similarly, AORC suggested that 
eliminating the assembly performance requirements 
for dynamically tested safety belts "could result in a 
degradation of performance of the seat belt assembly." 
In the same vein, AORC suggested that elimination of 
the webbing width requirements for dynamically tested 
safety belts "would provide the possibility for 
ill-conceived, unproven significant deviations" from the 
webbing width specified in Standard No. 209. 

AORC had previously raised these concerns about 
excluding dynamically tested manual belts from some 
of the static testing requirements of Standard No. 209. 
NHTSA responded in detail in a February 25, 1988 
notice (53 FR 5579). To briefly repeat that response, 
the agency agreed with AORC that the static testing 
provisions of Standard No. 209 are well-conceived 
provisions that have assured adequate levels of 
occupant crash protection. The agency also agreed that 
the static testing provisions of Standard No. 209 
subject the safety belt to higher force levels than are 
generally encountered in dynamic testing under Stan- 
dard No. 208. Thus, it is possible that safety belt 
manufacturers could make design changes to their 
dynamically tested manual safety belts that might 
result in lesser safety protection for belt users. The 
agency stated that it must determine if this possible 
action by safety belt manufacturers is sufficiently likely 
so as to justify some preventive regulatory action. 



Automatic belts have been excluded from these static 
testing requirements since 1971. In those 20 years, 
NHTSA has no evidence of any instances where auto- 
matic safety belts provided any lesser level of safety 
protection because those belts are excluded from some 
of the static tests in Standard No. 209. Judging from 
this record, it seems that the possibility that safety belt 
manufacturers would take actions that would result in 
lesser safety protection has not become a reality, in the 
case of automatic safety belts. There is no apparent 
reason to believe that this possibility would become a 
reality in the case of dynamically tested manual belts, 
and AORC did not suggest such a reason. Hence, there 
is no apparent need for the static testing requirements 
in Standard No. 209 to apply to dynamically tested 
manual safety belts. 

In addition to these previously expressed reasons for 
excluding dynamically tested manual safety belts in 
general from some of Standard No. 209's static tests, 
NHTSA believes there is an additional reason to adopt 
the proposal to exclude dynamically tested manual 
safety belts in passenger cars from those static tests. 
Dynamically tested manual safety belts in light trucks 
are already excluded from those static tests. There is 
no reason to treat dynamically tested manual safety 
belts differently, depending on the type of vehicle in 
which those belts are installed. The differing treatment 
arose because of an oversight on the agency's part. The 
adoption of the proposal to treat all dynamically tested 
manual safety belts in the same way for the purposes 
of some static testing requirements in Standard No. 
209 corrects that oversight. 

NHTSA would also like to respond to a point raised 
in Ford's comments. Ford suggested that manual 
safety belts installed at seating positions equipped with 
an air bag could be considered dynamically tested 
manual safety belts, or a "manual seat belt assembly 
subject to the requirements of S5.1" of Standard No. 
208, as expressed in the proposed regulatory language. 
Ford correctly noted that S4. 1.2. 1(a) requires that air 
bags provide acceptable occupant crash protection in 
a 30 mph barrier crash test by automatic means alone. 
S4.1.2.1(cX(2), which requires that manual safety belts 
be installed at seating positions equipped with air bags, 
also requires that the seating position provide accept- 
able occupant protection in another 30 mph barrier 
crash test with the manual safety belts fastened. 
According to Ford, this testing meant that the manual 
safety belts at seating positions equipped with air bags 
are, strictly speaking, "subject to the requirements of 
S5.1" and that those belts could be considered dynam- 
ically tested manual safety belts. This interpretation 
is contrary to NHTSA's intent. The safety belts that 
NHTSA meant to describe as subject to the crash test- 
ing requirements of S5.1 included all automatic belts 
and manual safety belts that were the only occupant 



PART 209-PRE 55 



restraint system at a seating position. Thus, any 
manual belts installed at seating positions also equipped 
with either automatic safety belts or air bags are not 
what NHTSA is referring to when it uses the term 
"dynamically tested manual belts" in preambles or 
letters of interpretation. To make this clear, the regula- 
tory language adopted in this final rule describes the 
excluded safety belts as "any manual seat belt assem- 
bly subject to the requirements of S5.1 of this standard 
by virtue of any provision of this standard other than 
S4.1.2.1(cX2)." 

A result of this clarification is that manual safety 
belts installed at seating positions also equipped with 
either automatic safety belts or air bags will remain 
subject to Standard No. 209's requirements for web- 
bing width, strength, and so forth. This helps ensure 
that the manual safety belts will provide the intended 
occupant protection in situations in which the auto- 
matic crash protection is not intended to deploy (e.g., 
in crashes other than frontal crashes and rollovers). 

However, the agency believes it is appropriate to 
exclude manual belts installed at seating positions also 
equipped with either automatic belts or air bags from 
the elongation requirements in Standard No. 209. 
NHTSA concludes that allowing an exclusion from the 
elongation requirements for these safety belts will 
permit safety belt designs that optimize the belt force 
deflection characteristics of the manual belts installed 
in conjunction with automatic crash protection systems. 
Optimized designs could achieve better occupant pro- 
tection. Appropriate amendments have been made to 
Standards No. 208 and 209 to reflect this exclusion. 

2. Load Limiters on Dynamically Tested Manvxd Belts. 
Ford filed a petition for rulemaking asking that "load 
limiters" be permitted on dynamically tested manual 
safety belts. S4.5 of Standard No. 209 includes specif- 
ic regulatory provisions regarding "load limiters" on 
safety belt systems. A "load limiter" is defined in 
section S3 of Standard No. 209 as "a seat belt assem- 
bly component or feature that controls tension on the 
seat belt to modulate the forces that are imparted to 
occupants restrained by the belt assembly during a 
crash." Before this rule takes effect, the language of 
S4.5 of Standard No. 209 allows load limiters to be used 
on belt assemblies only if that belt assembly is part of 
an automatic restraint system. 

However, the agency explained in the NPRM that 
it agreed with Ford's suggestion that the agency 
intended to permit the use of load limiters on dynami- 
cally tested manual belt systems. As long as a belt 
system is installed at a seating position that is subject 
to dynamic testing requirements, the occupant protec- 
tion capabilities of the belt system can be evaluated in 
the dynamic testing. There is no reason to permit the 
use of load limiters on dynamically tested automatic 



belt systems, but prohibit their use on dynamically 
tested manual belt systems. Accordingly, the NPRM 
proposed to amend S4.5 of Standard No. 209 to allow ^ 
load limiters to be used on belt systems installed in con- ^ 
junction with an automatic restraint system or on belt 
systems installed at a seating position subject to the 
dynamic testing requirements. 

Chrysler and Ford supported this proposal, and no 
commenters objected to the proposal. The proposed 
change is made in this final rule, for the reasons set 
forth in the proposal. 

As an adjunct to the proposal to allow load limiters 
on belt systems installed at a seating position equipped 
with automatic crash protection, the agency proposed 
to require those belt systems to be labeled in the same 
way as automatic belts equipped with load limiters. 
Ford commented that it did not believe that labeling 
of dynamically tested safety belts is necessary, 
irrespective of whether the dynamically tested safety 
belt is manual or automatic. Thus, Ford asked that the 
proposed labeling requirement for dynamically tested 
safety belts with load limiters not be adopted in this 
final rule. NHTSA proposed to require dynamically 
tested manual safety belts equipped with load limiters 
to be labeled in the same way that dynamically tested 
automatic belts with load limiters have been required 
to be labeled since 1981. Prior to Ford's comment, 
NHTSA had not heard of any suggestion that the label- ,A 
ing requirements for automatic belts with load limiters \S 
were unduly burdensome, onerous, confusing, or the 
like. During this rulemaking, no commenter other than 
Ford made such a suggestion. Thus, absent some 
further explanation of the difficulties Ford has 
experienced, NHTSA does not believe that extending 
the existing labeling requirements for automatic belts 
with load limiters to dynamically tested manual belts 
with load Hmiters will result in any undue burdens for 
manufacturers or consumers. 

Ford also stated its understanding that the labeling 
requirements in the proposal would apply to automatic 
and dynamically tested manual belts only if those belt 
assemblies: (1) incorporated a load limiter, and 
(2) did not comply with the elongation requirements 
in Standard No. 209. 

Based on this understanding. Ford asked the agency 
to confirm that NHTSA had not proposed to require 
labeling of dynamically tested safety belts that include 
load limiters, but still comply with the elongation 
requirements in Standard No. 209. Ford's understand- 
ing is correct. There is no need to specifically label 
safety belts that use load limiters, but nevertheless 
comply with the elongation requirements of Standard 
No. 209. M 

After considering the comments, the agency is adopt- W 
ing the proposed labeling requirement for safety belts 
that incorporate load limiters, with two minor modifi- 



PART 209-PRE 56 



cations. First, the agency proposed to require that 
safety belts with load limiters be labeled with informa- 
A tion describing the belt system as "dynamically test- 
W ed." That phrase has been deleted from the required 
label information in this final rule, to reflect the facts 
that load limiters may be used on manual belt systems 
installed at seating positions also equipped with air 
bags and that those belt systems are not what NHTSA 
means by "dynamically tested manual belts" as ex- 
plained in the preceding section of this preamble. 

Second, the agency proposed to permit load limiters 
to be installed on "Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assem- 
blies," if the safety belt were installed at a seating 
position subject to dynamic testing. Strictly speaking, 
an automatic safety belt is not a Type 1 or Type 2 seat 
belt assembly. Thus, notwithstanding NHTSA's ex- 
press intention to permit load limiters on automatic 
belts, the proposed regulatory language would not 
clearly have done so. This final rule deletes the refer- 
ences to Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assemblies from 
the regulatory language. 

3. .Scope of Exclusion from Standard No. 209 for 
Dynamically Tested Manual Belt Systems. 

Before the effective date of this rule, both Standards 
No. 208 and 209 exclude dynamically tested manual 
belt systems from "the requirements of S4.2(a)-(c) and 
^ S4.4" of Standard No. 209. However, while this exclu- 
P sion appears to be a comprehensive listing of the 
provisions of Standard No. 209 from which dynamically 
tested safety belts are excluded, it is in fact incomplete. 
Several previous interpretations and preambles to 
rulemaking actions have expressed NHTSA's position 
that dynamically tested manual belt systems are ex- 
cluded from the requirements of S4.2 (d)-(f), as well as 
the listed sections of Standard No. 209. The NPRM 
proposed to amend Standard No. 209 so that it would 
correctly show all of the provisions of Standard No. 209 
from which dynamically tested manual belt systems 
were excluded. The commenters supported this 
proposal. It is adopted for the reasons set forth in the 
NPRM. 

4. Labeling Requirements for Dynamically Tested 
Manual Safety Belts Installed in Passenger Cars. 

At this time. Standard No. 209 requires information 
about the vehicles and seating positions in which 
dynamically tested belt systems can be installed, to be 
labeled on dynamically tested manual belt systems for 
use in light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehi- 
cles. However, Standard No. 209 currently does not 
require any installation information to be labeled on 
dynamically tested manual belt systems for use in 
j^ passenger cars. The agency proposed in the NPRM to 
" remedy this inconsistency by revising Standard No. 209 
so that it would require installation information to be 
labeled on all dynamically tested manual belt systems. 



regardless of the vehicle type in which the belt system 
will be installed. 

This proposal drew the most attention from the com- 
menters. The National Automobile Dealers Association 
(NADA) supported this proposal, stating that a consis- 
tent labeling requirement for safety belts would "cer- 
tainly beneiit" aftermarket installations of those safety 
belts. On the other side of this issue, Chrysler opposed 
the proposal, asserting that the proposed requirement 
woiild be cumbersome, and not necessary to ensure 
proper safety belt replacement and performance. 
Chrysler asserted that it currently has over 300 
replacement safety belt part numbers for its 1990 
vehicles alone. Because of this complexity and prolifer- 
ation of parts, Chrysler asserted that dealers and 
garages do not usually stock replacement safety belts, 
but order the belts and parts from Chrysler when 
needed. Accordingly, Chrysler believed that the pro- 
posed labeling requirement would not serve any 
purpose. 

Ford also opposed the proposal. According to Ford, 
dynamically tested safety belts are so complex that it 
would be extremely difficult to mistakenly install a 
dynamically tested safety belt in a vehicle or at a seat- 
ing position other than that for which it is designed. 
Given this difficulty, Ford argued that it was very 
unlikely that such an installation could be done inad- 
vertently. Ford suggested that the information pro- 
posed to be required to appear on a label on the belt 
instead be required to appear in the installation instruc- 
tions required to be provided with safety belt assem- 
blies. BMW and the Automobile Importers Association 
submitted comments that were substantially similar to 
the Chrysler and Ford comments. 

NHTSA has reconsidered the proposed labeling re- 
quirements in response to these comments. On the one 
hand, the agency does not believe there is any reason 
to have different labeling requirements for dynamically 
tested manual belt assemblies to be used in passenger 
cars than for dynamically tested manual belt assem- 
blies to be used in light trucks. The likelihood that 
dynamically tested manual safety belts will be inadver- 
tently installed in vehicles or seating positions other 
than those for which the belts were designed would not 
differ, depending upon the type of vehicle in which the 
djmamically tested belt is to be used. The proposal to 
extend the same labeling requirements that currently 
apply to dynamically tested manual belts for use in light 
trucks to dynamically tested manual belts for use in 
passenger cars was an effort by the agency to ensure 
that the labeling requirements were consistent. 

On the other hand, NHTSA does not want to impose 
an unnecessary or burdensome labeling requirement. 
The agency would like to further explore the idea of 
addressing the inappropriate installation of dynami- 
cally tested manual safety belts by means of the in- 



PART 209-PRE 57 



structions already required to be furnished with safety 
belts by S4.1(k) of Standard No. 209. If the installa- 
tion instructions were required to set forth the infor- 
mation currently required to be labeled on dynamically 
tested manual safety belts, it would seem that persons 
installing replacement safety belts would always have 
access to the information, just as they would if the 
information were labeled on the safety belt. The only 
instances in which information might not be available 
to the installer would be if the installation instructions 
were lost or if the installer was removing a safety belt 
from one vehicle and transferring the belt to another 
vehicle. NHTSA has no indications that either of these 
events are common occurrences. 

To allow for further exploration of this subject, 
NHTSA plans to initiate a rulemaking action propos- 
ing to require that the information currently required 
to be labeled on dynamically tested manual belts for 
use in light trucks instead be required to be provided 
in the installation instructions for all dynamically tested 
safety belts, both automatic and manual. This proposed 
requirement would apply to dynamically tested safety 
belts for use in both passenger cars and light trucks. 

UntU the agency has completed this planned rulemak- 
ing, it would be premature to make any change to the 
existing requirements for labeling dynamically tested 
safety belts. Hence, the labeling requirements for 
dynamically tested manual belts for use in light trucks 
that are now in place will remain in effect. However 
this final rule does not adopt the proposed extension 
of the labeling requirements for dynamically tested 
light truck manual safety belts to also cover dynami- 
cally tested manual safety belts for use in passenger 
cars. 

This final rule operates to relieve some unintended 
restrictions on the use of dynamically tested safety 
belts by adopting regulatory language that reflects the 
agency's intention, as expressed in preambles of vari- 
ous rules. No additional duties or responsibilities are 
imposed on any party as a result of these modifications 
to the regulatory language. Accordingly, NHTSA finds 
for good cause that these modifications should become 
effective upon publication in the Federal Register. 

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 
Executive Order 12291 (Federal Regulation) DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

NHTSA has considered the impacts 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 regulatory policies and procedures. 
The amendments made in this notice will give manufac- 
turers additional freedom to design and install manual 
belts in any way that ensures adequate protection 



for the user in the event of a crash. To the extent that 
the former language in Standards No. 208 and 209 did ^ 
not accurately reflect the agency's intended require- fi 
ments for dynamically tested safety belts, the former " ' 
language imposed some insignificant, but unnecessary, 
costs on vehicle manufacturers. This rule eliminates 
those needless costs. 

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

(1) S4.6 of Standard No. 208 is amended by removing 
existing sections S4.6.1 and S4.6.3, redesignating ex- 
isting S4.6.2 as S4.6.1, and adding new sections S4.6.2 
and S4.6.3 to read as follows: 

S4.6 Dynamic testing of manual belt systems. 



54.6.2 Any manual seat belt assembly subject to the 
requirements of S5.1 of this standard by virtue of any 
provision of this standard other than S4.1.2 l(cX2) does 
not have to meet the requirements of S4.2(a)-(f) and 
S4.4 of Standard No. 209 (§ 571.209). 

54.6.3 Any manual seat belt assembly subject to the 
requirements of S5.1 of this standard by virtue of 
S4. 1.2. 1(c)(2) does not have to meet the elongation re- 
quirements of S4.2(c), S4.4(aX2), S4.4(b)(4), and 
S4.4(b)(5) of Standard No. 209 (§ 571.209). 



§ 571.209 [Amended] 

(2) S4.5 of Standard No. 209 is amended by revis- 
ing S4.5(b) and (c) to read as follows: 

S4.5 Load-limiter. 



(b) A seat belt assembly that includes a load limiter 
and that does not comply with the elongation require- 
ments of this standard may be installed in motor vehi- 
cles at any designated seating position that is subject 
to the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 
(§ 571.208). 

(c) A seat belt assembly that includes a load limiter 
and that does not comply with the elongation require- 
ments of this standard shall be permanently and legi- 
bly marked or labeled with the following statement: 

This seat belt assembly is for use only in [insert 
specific seating position(s), e.g., "front right"] in 
[insert specific vehicles make(s) and model(s)]. 
S4.6(a) of Standard No. 209 is revised to read as 
follows: 

S4.6 Manual belts subiect to crash protection require- 
ments of Standard No. 208. 

(a)(1) A manual seat belt assembly, which is subject ^| 
to the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 (49 ^ 
CFR § 571.208) by virtue of any provision of Standard 
No. 208 other than S4.1.2.1(cX2) of that standard, does 



PART 571; S209-PRE 58 



I 



not have to meet the requirements of S4.2(a)-(f) and Issued on April 10, 1991 
S4.4 of this standard. 

(2) A manual seat belt assembly subject to the re- 
quirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 

§ 571.208) by virtue of S4.1.2. 1(c)(2) of Standard No. jerry Ralph Curry 

208 does not have to meet the elongation requirements Administrator 

of S4.2(c), S4.4(a)(2), S4.4(b)(4), and S4.4(b)(5) of this 

^'^"^^^^ 56 F.R. 15295 

April 16, 1991 



PART 571; S209-PRE 59-60 



(e) Adjustment force. The force required to 
decrease the size of a seat belt assembly shall not 
exceed 11 pounds or 5 kilograms when measured 
by the procedure specified in S5.2(e). 

(f) Tilt-lock adjustment. The buckle of a seat 
belt assembly having tilt-lock adjustment shall lock 
the webbing when tested by the procedure 
specified in S5.2(f ) at an angle of not less than 30 
degrees between the base of the buckle and the 
anchor webbing. 

(g) Bicckle latch. The buckle latch of a seat belt 
assembly when tested by the procedure specified in 
S5.2(g) shall not fail, nor gall or wear to an extent 
that normal latching and unlatching is impaired, 
and a metal-to-metal buckle shall separate when in 
any position of partial engagement by a force of 
not more than 5 pounds or 2.3 kilograms. 

(h) Nonlocking retractor. The webbing of a seat 
belt assembly shall extend from a nonlocking retrac- 
tor within 0.25 inch or 6 millimeters of maximum 
length when a tension is applied as prescribed in 
S5.2(h). A nonlocking retractor on upper-torso 
restraint shall be attached to the nonadjustable end 
of the assembly, the reel of the retractor shall be 
easily visible to an occupant while wearing the 
assembly, and the maximimi retraction force shall 
not exceed 1.1 pounds or 0.5 kilogram in any strap 
or webbing that contacts the shoulder when 
measured by the procedure specified in S5.2(h), 
unless the retractor is attached to the free end of 
webbing which is not subjected to any tension dur- 
ing restraint of an occupant by the assembly. 

(i) Automatic-locking retractor. The webbing 
of a seat belt assembly equipped with an automatic- 
locking retractor, when tested by the procedure 
specified in S5.2(i), shall not move more than 1 inch 
or 25 millimeters between locking positions of the 
retractor, and shall be retracted with a force under 
zero acceleration of not less than 0.6 pound or 0.27 
kilogram when attached to pelvic restraint, and 
not less than 0.45 pound or 0.2 kilogram nor more 
than 1.1 pounds or 0.5 kilogram in any strap or 
webbing that contacts the shoulder of an occupant 
when the retractor is attached to upper-torso 
restraint. An automatic-locking retractor attached 
to upper-torso restraint shall not increase the 
restraint on the occupant of the seat belt assembly 
during use in a vehicle traveling over rough roads 
as prescribed in S5.2(i). 

(j) Emergency-locking retractor. An 
emergency-locking retractor of a Type 1 or Type 2 



seat belt assembly, when tested in accordance with 
the procedures specified in paragraph S5.2(j)— 

(1) Shall lock before the webbing extends 1 
inch when the retractor is subjected to an 
acceleration of 0.7g; 

(2) Shall not lock, if the retractor is sensitive 
to webbing withdrawal, before the webbing 
extends 2 inches when the retractor is subjected 
to an acceleration of 0.3g or less; 

(3) Shall not lock, if the retractor is sensitive 
to vehicle acceleration, when the retractor is 
rotated in any direction to any angle of 15° or 
less from its orientation in the vehicle; 

(4) Shall exert a retractive force of at least 0.6 
pound under zero acceleration when attached 
only to the pelgic restraint; 

(5) Shall exert a retractive force of not less 
than 0.2 pound and not more than 1.1 pounds 
under zero acceleration when attached only to an 
upper-torso restraint; 

(6) Shall exert a retractive force of not less 
than 0.2 pound and not more than 1.5 pounds 
under zero acceleration when attached to a strap 
or webbing that restrains both the upper torso 
and the pelvis. 

(k) Performance of retractor. A retractor used 
on a seat belt assembly after subjection to the tests 
specified in S5.2(k) shall comply with applicable 
requirements in paragraphs (h) to (j) of this section 
and S4.4, except that the retraction force shall be 
not less than 50 percent of its original retraction 
force. 

S4.4 Requirements for assembly performance. 

(a) Type 1 seat belt assembly. Except as pro- 
vided in S4.5, the complete seat belt assembly in- 
cluding webbing, straps, buckles, adjustment and 
attachment hardware, and retractors shall comply 
with the following requirements when tested by 
the procedures specified in S5.3(a): 

(1) The assembly loop shall withstand a force 
of not less than 5,000 pounds or 2,270 kilograms; 
that is, each structural component of the 
assembly shall withstand a force of not less than 
2,500 pounds or 1,130 kilograms. 

(2) The assembly loop shall extend not more 
than 7 inches or 18 centimeters when subjected 
to a force of 5,000 pounds or 2,270 kilograms; 
that is, the length of the assembly between 
anchorages shall not increase more than 14 
inches or 36 centimeters. 



PART 571; S 209-5 



(3) Any webbing cut by the hardware during 
test shall have a breaking strength at the cut of 
not less than 4,200 pounds or 1,910 kilograms. 

(4) Complete fracture through any solid 
section of metal attachment hardware shall not 
occur during test. 

(b) Type 2 seat belt assembly. Except as pro- 
vided in S4.5, the components of a Type 2 seat belt 
assembly including webbing, straps, buckles, ad- 
justment and attachment hardware, and retractors 
shall comply with the following requirements when 
tested by the procedure specified in S5.3(b): 

(1) The structural components in the pelvic 
restraint shall withstand a force of not less than 
2,500 pounds or 1,139 kilograms. 

(2) The structural components in the upper- 
torso restraint shall withstand a force of not less 
than 1,500 pounds or 680 kilograms. 

(3) The structural components in the assembly 
that are common to pelvic and upper-torso 
restraints shall withstand a force of not less than 
3,000 pounds or 1,360 kilograms. 

(4) The length of the pelvic restraint between 
anchorages shall not increase more than 20 
inches or 50 centimeters when subjected to a 
force of 2,500 pounds or 1,130 kilograms. 

(5) The length of the upper-torso restraint 
between anchorages shall not increase more 
than 20 inches or 50 centimeters when subjected 
to a force of 1,500 pounds or 680 kilograms. 

(6) Any webbing cut by the hardware during 
test shall have a breaking strength of not less 
than 3,500 pounds or 1,590 kilograms at a cut in 
webbing of the pelvic restraint, or not less than 
2,800 pounds or 1,270 kilograms at a cut in 
webbing of the upper-torso restraint. 

(7) Complete fracture through any solid 
section of metal attachment hardware shall not 
occur during test. 

S4.5 Load-limiter. 

(a) A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that in- 
cludes a load-limiter is not required to comply with 
the elongation requirements of S4.2(c), S4. 4(a)(2), 
S4.4(b)(4) or S4.4(b)(5). 

(b) lA seat belt assembly that includes a load 
limiter and that does not comply with the elonga- 
tion requirements of this standard may be installed 
in motor vehicles at any designated seating posi- 
tion that is subject to the requirements of S5.1 of 
Standard No. 208 (§ 571.208). 

(c) A seat belt assembly that includes a load 
limiter and that does not comply with the elonga- 



tion requirements of this standard shall be per- 
manently and legibly marked or labeled with the 
following statement: 
This seat belt assembly is for use only in [insert 
specific seating position(s), e.g., "front right"] in 
[insert specific vehicles make(s) and 
model(s)] (56 F.R. 15295— April 16, 1991. Effec- 
tive: April 16, 1991)J 

S4.6 Manual belts subject to crash protection 
requirements of Standard No. 208. 

[(a)(1) A manual seat belt assembly, which is 
subject to the requirements of S5.1 of Standard 
No. 208 (49 CFR § 571.208) by virtue of any provi- 
sion of Standard No. 208 other than S4.1.2.1(cX2) 
of that standard, does not have to meet the re- 
quirements of S4.2(a)-(f) and S4.4 of this standard. 
(2) A manual seat belt assemble subject to the 
requirements of 85. 1 of Standard No. 208 (49 
CFR § 571.208) by virtue of S4.1.2. 1(c)(2) of 
Standard No. 208 does not have to meet the 
elongation requirements of S4.2(c), S4.4(aX2), 
S4.4(b)(4), and S4.4(b)(5) of this standard. (56 
F.R. 15295— April 16, 1991. Effective: April 16, 
1991)1 A 

(b) A seat belt assembly that meets the re- " 

quirements of 4.6 of Standard No. 208 shall be 
permanently and legibly marked or labeled with 
the following statement: 

This dynamically-tested seat belt assembly is 
for use only in (insert specific seating 
position(s), e.g., "front right") in (insert 
specific vehicle make(s), and model(s))." 
Multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks 
with a gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less 
and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or 
less must comply with the dynamic testing re- 
quirements ofS4.6 of Standard No. 208 beginning 
on September 1, 1991.)\ 

S5. Demonstration procedures. 

S5.1 Webbing. 

(a) Width. The width of webbing from three 
seat belt assemblies shall be measured after con- 
ditioning for at least 24 hours in an atmosphere 
having relative humidity between 48 and 67 per- 
cent and a temperature of 23°±2°C or 
73.4° ±3.6° F. The tension during measurement 
of width shall be not more than 5 pounds or 2 
kilograms on webbing from a Type 1 seat belt ^ 

assembly, and 2,200 ±100 pounds or 1,000 ±50 M 

kilograms on webbing from a Type 2 seat belt ^ 

assembly. The width of webbing from a Type 2 
seat belt assembly may be measured during the 



(Rev. 4/16/91) 



PART 571; S 209-6 



breaking strength test described in paragraph (b) 
of this section. 

(b) Breaking strength. Webbing from three 
seat belt assemblies shall be conditioned in ac- 
cordance with paragraph (a) of this section and 
tested for breaking strength in a testing machine 
of capacity verified to have an error of not more 
than one percent in the range of the breaking 
strength of the webbing in accordance with 
American Society for Testing and Materials 
E4-79, "Standard Methods of Load Verification of 
Testing Machines." 




A 1 TO 2 INCHES OR 2.5 TO 5 CENTIMETERS 
B A MINUS 0.06 INCH 0.15 CENTIMETER 

FIGURE 1 

The machine shall be equipped with split drum 
grips illustrated in Figure 1, having a diameter 
between 2 and 4 inches or 5 and 10 centimeters. The 
rate of grip separation shall be between 2 and 4 
inches per minute or 5 and 10 centimeters per 
minute. The distance between the centers of the 
grips at the start of the test shall be between 4 and 
10 inches or 10 and 25 centimeters. After placing 
the specimen in the grips, the webbing shall be 
stretched continuously at a uniform rate to failure. 



Each value shall be not less than the applicable 
breaking strength requirement in S4.2(b), but the 
median value shall be used for determining the 
retention of breaking strength in paragraphs (d), 
(e), and (f ) of this section. 

(c) Elongation. Elongation shall be measured 
during the breaking strength test described in 
paragraph (b) of this section by the followring 
procedure: A preload between 44 and 55 pounds or 
20 and 25 kilograms shall be placed on the webbing 
mounted in the grips of the testing machine and 
the needle points of an extensometer, in which the 
points remain parallel during test, are inserted in 
the center of the specimen. Initially the points shall 
be set at a known distance apart between 4 and 8 
inches or 10 and 20 centimeters. When the force on 
the webbing reaches the value specified in S4.2(c), 
the increase in separation of the points of the 
extensometer shall be measured and the percent 
elongation shall be calculated to the nearest 0.5 
percent. Each value shall be not more than the 
appropriate elongation requirement in S4.2(c). 

(d) Resistance to abrasion. The webbing from 
three seat belt assemblies shall be tested for 
resistance to abrasion by rubbing over the hexagon 
bar prescribed in Figure 2 in the following manner: 




A -WEBBING 

B— WEIGHT 

C - HEXAGONAL ROD 

STEEL -SAE 51416 

ROCKWELL HARDNESS- B-97 TO B-101 

SURFACE -COLD DRAWN FINISH 

SIZE - 0.250 ± 0.001 INCH OR 
6.35 ± 0.03 MILLIMETER 

RADIUS ON EDGES -0.020 ± 0.004 INCH OR 
0.5 ± 0.1 MILLIMETER 
D-DRUM DIAMETER -16 INCHES OR 

40 CENTIMETERS 
E- CRANK 
F- CRANK ARM 
G- ANGLE BETWEEN WEBBING - 85 ± 2 DEGS. 



(Rev. 4/16/91) 



PART 571; S 209-7 



The webbing shall be mounted in the apparatus 
shown schematically in Figure 2. One end of the 
webbing (A) shall be attached to a weight (B) which 
has a mass of 5.2 ±0.1 pounds or 2.35 ±0.05 kilo- 
grams, except that a mass of 3.3 ±0.1 pounds or 
1.50 ±0.05 kilograms shall be used for webbing in 
pelvic and upper-torso restraints of a belt assembly 
used in a child restraint system. The webbing shall 
be passed over the two new abrading edges of the 
hexagon bar (C) and the other end attached to an 
oscillating drum (D) which has a stroke of 13 inches 
or 33 centimeters. Suitable guides shall be used to 
prevent movement of the webbing along the axis of 
hexagonal bar C. Drum D shall be oscillated for 
5,000 strokes or 2,500 cycles at a rate of 60 ±2 
strokes per minute or 30 ± 1 cycles per minute. The 
abraded webbing shall be conditioned as prescribed 
in paragraph (a) of this section and tested for 
breaking strength by the procedure described in 
paragraph (b) of this section. The median values 
for the breaking strengths determined on abraded 
and unabraded specimens shall be used to calculate 
the percentage of braking strength retained. 

(e) Resistance to light. [Webbing at least 20 
inches or 50 centimeters in length from three seat 
belt assemblies shall be suspended vertically on the 
inside of the specimen rack in a Type E carbon-arc 
light-exposure apparatus described in Standard 
Practice for Operating Light-Exposure Apparatus 
(Carbon-Arc Type) With and Without Water for 
Exposure of Nonmetallic Materials, ASTM 
Designation: G23-81, published by the American 
Society for Testing and Materials, except that the 
filter used for 100 percent polyester yarns shall be 
chemically strengthened soda-lime glass with a 
transmittance of less than 5 percent for wave 
lengths equal to or less than 305 nanometers and 
90 percent or greater transmittance for wave 
lengths of 375 to 800 nanometers. The apparatus 
shall be operated without water spray at an air 
temperature of 60° ±2 degrees Celsius or 
140° ±3.6 degrees Fahrenheit measured at a point 
1.0 ±0.2 inch or 25 ±5 millimeters outside the 
specimen rack and midway in height. The 
temperature sensing element shall be shielded 
from radiation. The specimens shall be exposed to 
light from the carbon arc for 100 hours and then 
conditioned as prescribed in paragraph (a) of this 
section. The colorfastness of the exposed and con- 
ditioned specimens shall be determined on the 
Geometric Gray Scale issued by the American 
Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists. The 
breaking strength of the specimens shall be deter- 



mined by the procedure prescribed in paragraph (b) 
of this section. The median values for the breaking 
strengths determined on exposed and unexposed 
specimens shall be used to calculate the percentage 
of breaking strength retained. (49 F.R. 36507— 
September 18, 1984. Effective: September 18, 1985)] 

(f) Resistance to micro-organisms. Webbing at 
least 20 inches or 50 centimeters in length from 
three seat belt assemblies shall first be precondi- 
tioned in accordance with Appendix A(l) and (2) of 
American Association of Textile Chemists and Col- 
orists Test Method 30-81, "Fungicides Evaluation 
on Textiles; Mildew and Rot Resistance of Tex- 
tiles," and then subjected to Test I, "Soil Burial 
Test" of that test method. After soil-burial for a 
period of 2 weeks, the specimen shall be washed in 
water, dried and conditioned as prescribed in 
paragraph (a) of this section. The breaking 
strengths of the specimens shall be determined 
by the procedure prescribed in paragraph (b) of this 
section. The median values for the breaking 
strengths determined on exposed and unexposed 
specimens shall be used to calculate the percentage 
of breaking strength retained. 

Note.— This test shall not be required on webbing 
made from material which is inherently resistant 
to micro-organisms. 

(g) Colorfastness to crocking. Webbing from 
three seat belt assemblies shall be tested by the 
procedure specified in American Association of 
Textile Chemists and Colorists Standard Test 
Method 8-181, "Colorfastness to Crocking: 
AATCC Crockmeter Method." 

(h) Colorfastness to staining. Webbing from 
three seat belt assemblies shall be tested by the 
procedure specified in American Association of 
Textile Chemists and Colorists (AATCC) Standard 
Test Method 107-1981, "Colorfastness to Water," 
except that the testing shall use (1) distilled water, 
(2) the AATCC perspiration tester, (3) a drying 
time of four hours, specified in section 7.4 of the 
AATCC procedure, and (4) section 9 of the AATCC 
test procedures to determine the colorfastness to 
staining on the AATCC Chromatic Transference 
Scale. 

S5.2 Hardware. 

(a) Corrosion resistance. Three seat belt 
assemblies shall be tested in accordance with 
American Society for Testing and Materials 



PART 571; S 209-8 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE 
SAFETY STANDARD NO. 216 

Roof Crush Resistance 

(Docket No. 89-22; Notice 03) 

RIN: 2127-AC13 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This notice amends Federal Motor Vehi- 
cle Safety Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, 
to extend its requirements to light trucks with a gross 
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 6,000 pounds or less. 
The standard currently applies to passenger cars only. 
The extension is, in part, a response to the increasing 
sales of light trucks and the increasing use of those 
vehicles to transport people instead of or in addition 
to property. 

NHTSA proposed to extend Standard No. 216 to 
light trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. 
However, comments on the proposal raised issues con- 
cerning the feasibility of extending the standard to light 
trucks with a GVWR between 6,000 and 10,000 
pounds. NHTSA will investigate those issues further 
and may possibly conduct future rulemaking concern- 
ing such light trucks. This final rule and other similar 
rulemakings are part of NHTSA's effort to ensure that 
occupants of light trucks are adequately protected. 

DATES: The amendments made by this final rule to 
the Code of Federal Regulations are effective Septem- 
ber 1, 1993. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

/. Background 

Standard No. 216 is intended to reduce deaths and 
injuries due to the crushing of the roof into the pas- 
senger compartment in rollover crashes. The standard 
currently establishes strength requirements for the 
forward portion of the roof (i.e., the area most likely 
to sustain severe damage in a rollover crash) of pas- 
senger cars, to increase the resistance of the roof to 
crush and intrusion. 

In the test specified by Standard No. 216, the roof 
of a stationary vehicle is subjected to a force of IV2 
times the unloaded weight of the vehicle or 5,000 
pounds, whichever is less. This force is gradually 



applied by a rigid test device in a static test. To pass 
the test, the roof structure must be strong enough so 
that the device does not depress more than five inches 
during the test. Standard No. 216 currently applies to 
passenger cars, but not to light trucks, for the reasons 
stated in NHTSA's April 1988 light truck report to 
Congress entitled, "Safety Programs for Light Trucks 
and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles": 

In the early years of NHTSA's existence, the regula- 
tory and research approach was based on a clear 
distinction between the design and intended purpose 
of passenger cars and light trucks. Unlike passenger 
cars, light trucks were designed and used primarily 
as cargo-carrying vehicles rather than as people- 
carrying vehicles. In addition, because light trucks 
were structurally different than passenger cars, the 
agency anticipated that occupants of light trucks 
would not be as vulnerable to injuries as passenger 
car occupants. Also, car occupants suffered far more 
deaths and injuries than did occupants of light 
trucks. Thus, the initial standards concentrated on 
requirements for passenger cars so that the agency 
could reduce deaths and injuries in those vehicles. 

There have been substantial changes in the number 
and use of light trucks. In 1988, light trucks captured 
approximately 29 percent of the total retail sales for 
cars and light trucks. Statistics from the Federal High- 
way Administration show that light truck registrations 
in 1988 had increased 25 percent since 1982. Travel 
by 2-axle, 4-tire trucks, which closely correspond to the 
class of vehicles in this rulemaking, has increased by 
over 250 percent compared to 1970. From 1977 to 
1985, the percentage of light trucks in the compact 
category increased from 10.2 percent to 52.6 percent. 

The Census Bureau's "Truck Inventory and Use 
Survey" shows that the percentage of pickup truck use 
for, personal transportation purposes increased from 
51 percent in 1967 to 66 percent in 1982 and that the 
percentage of use for agricultural purposes decreased 
from 26 percent to 12 percent in the same time period. 



PART 571; S216-PRE 7 



NHTSA has noted that the greater use of light trucks 
as passenger carrying vehicles is leading to increases 
in the number of light trucks and vans on the road, the 
number of persons transported in such vehicles, and 
consequently, the number of persons exposed to 
crashes in those vehicles. 

On November 2, 1989, NHTSA proposed to extend 
the requirements of Standard No. 216 to light trucks 
with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 
pounds or less. (As used in this document, the term 
"light trucks" includes trucks, buses, vans and other 
multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) with a gross 
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of either 10,000 pounds 
or less or 6,000 pounds or less, depending upon the 
context.) The proposal was part of NHTSA's efforts 
to ensure that occupants of light trucks are adequately 
protected, particularly in rollovers. Under the proposal, 
light trucks would have been required to withstand a 
force of IV2 times their unloaded weight. Unlike the 
force applied to passenger cars, the force applied to 
light trucks would not have been limited by a 5,000 
pound maximum. The proposal did not include school 
buses since they must already comply with roof crush 
protection requirements in Standard No. 220, School 
Bus Rollover Protection. The effective date for this 
amendment to Standard No. 216 would have been 
September 1, 1991. 

//. Brief Summary of Comments on Proposal 
The public comments on the proposed rule are briefly 
summarized below. NHTSA more fully summarizes and 
responds to those comments later in this notice and in 
the Final Regulatory Evaluation. Some of the com- 
ments supported the proposed amendment or stated 
that the commenter had no objection to the proposal, 
while others opposed certain aspects of the proposal. 
The majority of commenters suggested that the 
standard not be extended to all light trucks with a 
GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Some commenters 
opposed the extension of the standard to vehicles such 
as vans, van conversions, and motor homes. Other com- 
menters opposed the extension to vehicles over a cer- 
tain GVWR (e.g., 8,500 pounds, 6,000 pounds, or 5,500 
pounds). One commenter opposed extension of the stan- 
dard to commercial and vocational trucks produced in 
two or more stages and designed to carry cargo or 
work-related equipment. This commenter and others 
discussed certification problems that they believed 
would be experienced by final-stage manufacturers as 
a result of extending the standard. 

A number of commenters urged that the roof crush 
test force for light trucks be subject to the same 5,000 
pound limit that currently applies to the test for pas- 
senger cars. Some commenters suggested that NHTSA 
adopt a test force of the lesser of 5,000 pounds or the 
GVWR of the light truck. 



Some commenters suggested that NHTSA adopt the 
roof crush test of Standard No. 220, School Bus Roll- 
over Protection, for certain light trucks or otherwise ^ 
modify the proposed roof crush procedure to take into ' ' 
account special characteristics and features of motor 
homes, vans, and van conversions. 



///. Summary of the Final Rule 
After considering the comments and other available 
information, NHTSA has decided to adopt its proposal 
to extend Standard No. 216 to light trucks, but to do 
so in a way that differs in two significant respects from 
that proposal. The GVWR limitation on the affected 
vehicles is 6,000 pounds instead of the proposed 10,000 
pound cut-off. In addition, this amendment to the stan- 
dard is effective September 1, 1993, rather than the 
proposed date of September 1, 1991. The final rule es- 
tablishes the same test procedure as proposed. Below, 
NHTSA discusses in greater detail the contents of the 
final rule and the reasons for its adoption. 

IV. Safety Need 

NHTSA stated in the proposal that there has been 
a convergence between light trucks and passenger cars, 
both in their structure (with many trucks in the com- 
pact size range) and in their use (with many trucks used 
for personal transportation rather than cargo). NHTSA ^ 
believed that these changes point strongly toward the m 
need to reevaluate the standards applicable to light 
trucks. NHTSA has responded to these changes 
regarding light trucks by evaluating the degree to 
which occupant safety in light trucks can be improved 
through the extension of existing passenger car stand- 
ards to those vehicles. In conducting this evaluation, 
NHTSA was mindful that it is required by the National 
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that 
each standard is appropriate for the vehicle type to 
which it applies. 

In the case of Standard No. 216, the agency observed 
a significantly greater incidence of rollover crashes per 
registered vehicle for light trucks than for passenger 
cars. NHTSA stated in the proposal that rollover pro- 
tection requirements are especially important for light 
trucks in view of traffic crash data which show that 
the light truck fatality rate (per registered vehicle) in 
rollovers is approximately twice that for passenger 
cars. 

General Motors Corporation (GM), while not oppos- 
ing an extension of Standard No. 216 to light trucks 
with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less, disagreed with 
NHTSA's analysis of the safety need for the proposal. 
GM believes that studies have demonstrated the lack M 
of a causal relationship between roof crush and oc- ^ 
cupant injury in rollover accidents. According to GM, 
occupant injury causation in rollovers results primarily 



PART 571; S216-PRE 8 



from ejection or occupant impact with the vehicle 

interior. According to GM, the most effective method 

\ to mitigate injury in rollovers is for occupants to use 

y occupant restraints properly. 

NHTSA agrees that a principal cause of the high 
fatality rate in light truck rollover crashes is occupant 
ejection. Over two-thirds of the light truck occupants 
killed in rollover accidents are ejected from the vehi- 
cle. NHTSA believes that the number of fatalities in 
rollovers can be reduced by reducing the number of 
occupants ejected in such crashes through increasing 
the use of safety belts. However, efforts to increase 
occupant safety through the increased use of safety 
belts can only be beneficial if those benefits are not 
negated by collapse of the passenger compartment in 
a rollover crash. NHTSA believes that amending 
Standard No. 216 to set requirements for light trucks 
to prevent collapse of the passenger compartment will 
complement regulatory and other actions directed 
toward reducing ejections in rollovers. 

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) 
agreed with NHTSA concerning the safety need for 
extending the requirements of Standard No. 216 to 
light trucks. According to IIHS, light trucks are dis- 
proportionately involved in fatal rollover accidents. 
IIHS stated that, in 1988, the death rate in single 
vehicle crashes for small pickups (weight less than 
\ 3,500 pounds) was twice the overall average for 

P/ vehicles (1.9 compared to 0.9). According to IIHS, 
rollover was involved in 39 percent of these crashes. 
IIHS stated that for small utility vehicles (wheelbase 
less than 100 inches), the death rate was again twice 
the overall average (2.1 compared to 0.9) and rollover 
crashes were involved in 65 percent of the deaths. 
According to IIHS, the safety need for the extension 
of the standard is further demonstrated by NHTSA's 
analysis showing crush intrusion is greater for light 
trucks than for passenger cars. 

Other commenters questioned the need to extend the 
standard to certain types or sizes of light trucks. 
NHTSA responds to those comments in Part V below. 

V. Vehicle Population 
NHTSA proposed that Standard No. 216 be extended 
to light trucks having a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or 
less. The NPRM specifically requested comment on the 
effects of limiting the extension to light trucks with 
a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and the impact of 
these different GVWR cut-offs on final-stage manufac- 
turers and alterers. 
Volvo Cars of North America (Volvo) explicitly sup- 
\ ported the extension of the standard to light trucks up 
[J to 10,000 pounds GVWR. In addition, Nissan Research 
and Development, Inc. (Nissan), Volkswagen of 
America, Inc. (Volkswagen), and the Insurance 



Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) implicitly sup- 
ported such an extension since they supported the pro- 
posed rule without reservation. 

Other commenters did not support extending the 
standard as proposed. Some suggested extending it 
only to light trucks with a certain GVWR (i.e., 8,500 
pounds, 6,000 pounds, or 5,500 pounds), while others 
suggested extending it only to certain types of light 
trucks. GM and Ford Motor Company (Ford) supported 
extension of the standard only to light trucks with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less. The Recreation Vehicle 
Industry Association (RVIA) urged NHTSA to exclude 
motor homes, vans, and van conversions from the 
standard. If those types of vehicles are not generally 
excluded, RVIA urged NHTSA to exclude those that 
have a GVWR of more than 6,000 pounds. A number 
of individual companies made similar comments and 
one, Kentron, Inc., suggested a cut-off of 5,500 pounds 
GVWR. The National Truck Equipment Association 
(NTEA) supported the extension of Standard No. 216 
to light trucks used as passenger vehicles, but opposed 
extension to commercial and vocational light trucks 
produced in two or more stages and designed to carry 
cargo or work-related equipment. NTEA stated that 
if NHTSA does not exclude such light trucks from the 
standard, extending the standard only to light trucks 
with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less would proAnde 
significant relief, compared to the proposal. 

NHTSA has decided to extend the requirements of 
Standard No. 216 to light trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 
pounds or less in this rulemaking. NHTSA needs 
additional time to assess the feasibility of applying the 
standard to light trucks with higher GVWR's. NHTSA 
may address these light trucks in possible future 
rulemaking. 

NHTSA is covering all types of light trucks in the 
final rule, with the exception of school buses, which are 
already covered by Standard No. 220. Thus, NHTSA 
did not follow the suggestions of some commenters to 
exclude certain types of light trucks from the rule. 
NHTSA believes that the concerns raised by these 
commenters about the practicality of the requirements 
will be adequately addressed by extending the standard 
only to cover light trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds 
or less in this rulemaking. The types of vehicles that 
commenters thought should be excluded from the 
standard generally have a GVWR greater than 6,000 
pounds and are thus excluded by this limit. 

As mentioned above, NTEA suggested excluding 
certain vehicles produced in two or more stages from 
Standard No. 216. NTEA claimed that NHTSA "has 
not established . . . that the rollover accident fatality 
or injury rate for commercial or vocational trucks 
produced in two or more stages warrants the imposi- 
tion of expensive and burdensome testing require- 
ments." In the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, 



PART 571; S216-PRE 



NHTSA has analyzed the potential safety benefits of 
this final rule. However, NHTSA disagrees with the 
premise that the agency must quantify the magnitude 
of the safety problem and the safety benefits gained 
through adoption or extension of a safety standard for 
every conceivable subclass of a particular type of 
vehicle. NTEA apparently believes that NHTSA must 
demonstrate through analysis of crash data that there 
is a safety need to protect occupants of every conceiv- 
able subclass of light truck (e.g., tow trucks, ambu- 
lances, bread delivery vehicles, public utility vehicles, 
snow plows, dump trucks, etc.). Crash data broken 
down by such discrete subclasses of light trucks are not 
available. Even Lf such detailed data were avaOable, the 
data cells would likely be too small to draw statistically 
valid conclusions. 

However, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act does not require this degree of specificity. 
Section 103(fX3) of the Safety Act requires that a safety 
standard be "appropriate for the particular type of 
motor vehicle ... for which it is prescribed." In 49 
CFR 571.3, NHTSA has defined the types of motor 
vehicles and, for this rulemaking, the relevant vehicle 
types include trucks, multi-purpose passenger vehicles 
(MPV's), and buses with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or 
less. NTEA's assertion that vehicles manufactured in 
more than one stage constitute a separate type of 
vehicle is not substantiated and runs counter to the 
Safety Act's legislative history. The Senate Report 
states that differences in safety standards "would be 
based on the type of vehicle rather than its place of 
origin or any special circumstances of its manufacture." 
S. Rep. No. 1301 (89th Cong., 2d Sess.) at 6. 

In its comments, NTEA did not explain how its 
members' vehicles either offer improved roof crush 
protection or why the occupants of such vehicles do not 
require such protection. NTEA provided no data or 
even anecdotal information to support its position that 
the extension of Standard No. 216 to vehicles manufac- 
tured by its members is not necessary. Since these 
vehicles are driven on the same roads and at the same 
times as other light trucks, they are subject to the same 
safety risks as other light trucks, absent some special 
vehicle characteristic that would reduce such risks. 
Indeed, the risk to occupants of many vehicles produced 
by NTEA members may even exceed that to occupants 
of other light trucks. For example, occupants of vehi- 
cles used for emergency or rescue purposes (e.g., 
ambulances and tow trucks) may be at greater risk than 
occupants of other light trucks. 

NTEA argues that because vehicles manufactured 
by its members are not intended to transport pas- 
sengers and because they "are driven by professionals 
who are more likely to be aware of the benefits derived 
by safety belt use," there is less safety need to apply 
Standard No. 216 to such vehicles. First, NTEA sub- 



mitted no information showing that drivers of light 
trucks manufactured by its members are more likely 
to use safety belts. In fact, overall safety belt use is 
lower for light truck drivers than for passenger car 
drivers. Second, as discussed above, efforts to increase 
occupant safety through increased use of safety belts 
can only be beneficial if those benefits are not negated 
by collapse of the passenger compartment in a rollover 
crash. Thus, the extension of Standard No. 216 to the 
light trucks manufactured by NTEA's members will 
complement efforts to reduce ejections by increased use 
of safety belts. Third, many light trucks manufactured 
by NTEA's members typically have passengers. 
Examples of such vehicles include ambulances (where 
an injured or ill person and a medical technician are 
typical passengers), tow trucks (where the disabled 
vehicle's driver is a typical passenger), and utility 
vehicles (which often have a two-person crew). Fourth, 
even if a light truck does not typically have passengers, 
NHTSA is still concerned about the risk to the driver. 
Indeed, 70 percent of all fatalities in light truck crashes 
are drivers. Finally, NTEA does not show that light 
trucks manufactured by its members are somehow 
safer because their drivers are "professionals." NTEA 
submitted no information about any special training or 
licensing requirements for operators of such light 
trucks and NHTSA is not aware of any such require- 
ments. 

Further, there is a legal issue concerning whether 
NHTSA is able to exclude vehicles produced in two or 
more stages from Standard No. 216. The court stated 
in Chrysler Corp. v. Dept. of Transportation that any 
differences between standards for different classes of 
vehicles are to "be based on type of vehicle rather than 
its place of origin or any special circumstances of its 
manufacturer." 472 F.2d 659, 679 (6th Cir. 1972). 
Thus, under this decision, NHTSA may not exclude 
vehicles from Standard No. 216 simply because they 
are manufactured in two or more stages. NHTSA 
acknowledges that a recent decision in National Truck 

Equipment Association v. NHTSA, F.2d (6th 

Cir. 1990), seems to indicate that NHTSA does have 
authority to exclude commercial vehicles manufactured 
in two or more stages from coverage under a safety 
standard. However, even if authority can be found in 
the statute for such an approach, NHTSA does not 
believe that the approach would be appropriate here. 
NHTSA believes that the occupants of light trucks 
manufactured in two or more stages should be provided 
the same protection against roof crush as occupants 
of other light trucks. In Unit VII below, NHTSA 
discusses ways that final-stage manufacturers and al- 
terers may comply with Standard No. 216. 

NHTSA also received a comment from Chrysler stat- 
ing that it considers the Jeep Wrangler, which is 
designed as an open-body vehicle, to be a convertible, 



PART 571; S216-PRE 10 



and thus excluded from Standard No. 216. More 
recently, Chrysler submitted a request for a rule 
interpretation on the same issue. Convertibles are 
excluded from Standard No. 216. NHTSA has defined 
"open-body type vehicle" to mean "a vehicle having 
no occupant compartment top or an occupant compart- 
ment top that can be installed or removed by the user 
at his convenience." 49 CFR 571.3. In many previous 
interpretations and preambles, NHTSA has defined 
convertible as "a vehicle whose A-pillar or windshield 
peripheral support is not joined at the top with the 
B-pillar or another rear roof support rearward of the 
B-pillar by a fixed rigid structural member." As the 
terms are defined by NHTSA, "open-body type vehi- 
cles" are a subset of the class of vehicles considered 
"convertibles." Thus, if the Jeep Wrangler is an "open- 
body type vehicle," as stated by Chrysler, that vehicle 
would also be considered a "convertible" for purposes 
of the safety standards. 

VI. Test Procedure 
The final rule establishes the same test procedure as 
proposed. The final rule requires that the roof of a light 
truck covered by the standard be able to sustain a 
displacement of no more than five inches when a force 
of IV2 times the vehicle's unloaded weight is applied 
to either side of the forward edge of the vehicle's roof. 
The test is the same as the one currently required for 
passenger cars, with one exception. For light trucks 
under this rule, there is no 5,000 pound ceiling for the 
roof crush test force as there is for passenger cars. 

A. Roof Crush Test Force 

NHTSA received a number of comments concerning 
the proposed roof crush test force. Nissan commented 
that it did not oppose elimination of the 5,000 pound 
test force limit. GM, Chrysler, Ford, RVIA, NTEA, 
Sherrod Vans, Inc. (Sherrod), and Kentron opposed 
elimination of the 5,000 pound test force Hmit. Chrys- 
ler asserted that the elimination of the 5,000 pound 
limit would make the test more stringent for light 
trucks than for passenger cars and that NHTSA did 
not justify the need for this. Ford and NTEA thought 
that the elimination of the 5,000 pound test force limit 
would burden final-stage manufacturers. GM suggested 
that requiring a test force equal to the GVWR of the 
light truck, with a 5,000 pound limit, would simplify 
validation testing. RVIA, Sherrod, and Kentron also 
supported requiring a test force equal to the GVWR 
of the vehicle, with a 5,000 pound limit. 

After considering the comments, NHTSA has 
decided to adopt the proposed roof crush test force 
requirements. The requirements are the same as for 
passenger cars, except that the 5,000 pound roof crush 
force ceiling is not adopted for light trucks. NHTSA 



believes that to adopt a standard for light trucks that 
is equivalent to that for passenger cars, it cannot adopt 
the 5,000 pound ceiling currently allowed for passenger 
cars. Only a small portion of passenger cars currently 
weigh enough to take advantage of the 5,000 pound 
ceiling. They are generally heavier cars with low 
rollover rates. Because trucks are generally much 
heavier as a group, a large portion of the light truck 
population, which does have a high rollover rate, would 
have been able to comply using the 5,000 pound ceil- 
ing that applies for passenger cars. Since nearly all pas- 
senger cars must comply with Standard No. 216 at a 
force IV2 times their unloaded weight, allowing light 
trucks to utilize the 5,000 pound ceiling would estab- 
lish a weaker standard for light trucks than for pas- 
senger cars. 

NHTSA did not adopt the GM suggestion to have the 
test force equal the GVWR of the light truck because 
that was outside the scope of the proposal. However, 
NHTSA will consider whether it is appropriate to pro- 
pose such a change and may address this as part of the 
le future rulemaking discussed above. 



B. Other Aspects of the Test Procedure 
In addition to comments on the roof crush force, 
NHTSA also received a number of comments on other 
aspects of the roof crush test procedure. RVIA sug- 
gested that NHTSA modify the roof crush test proce- 
dures to take into account special characteristics and 
features of motor homes, vans, and van conversions. 
Other commenters made similar suggestions. Ford 
questioned the need for a five-inch roof crush limita- 
tion for vehicles wath full standing headroom and 
suggested that NHTSA consider relating the maximum 
roof crush requirement to the occupant space availa- 
ble. Other commenters made similar suggestions. 
Grumman Olsen (Grumman) suggested that the test 
procedure in Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover 
Protection, would be more appropriate for walk-in vans 
and cargo vans. Mark III Industries (Mark III) suggest- 
ed that the test procedures of Standard No. 220 would 
be more appropriate for van conversions. Mark III 
asserted that the Standard No. 216 procedure tests the 
integrity of the original equipment manufacturer's 
chassis, rather than the structural integrity of the 
raised roof installed by the van converter. Mark III 
further asserted that the Standard No. 220 procedure 
tests the integrity of the raised roof as well as the 
structural integrity of the chassis. Ford suggested that 
the test procedure specified in the current Standard 
No. 216 could place the test platen at the comer of the 
cargo box in some vehicles and over the rear raised roof 
section in some other vehicles. Other commenters 
stated that it may be difficult to follow the current test 
procedure on some vehicle roofs that have been altered. 
Ford suggested an amendment to the standard to 
specify the positioning of the test platen differently. 



PART 571; S216-PRE 11 



NHTSA believes that all of the above issues raised 
by commenters, concerning alternative test procedures 
and requirements, merit further consideration by the 
agency. However, based on other information sub- 
mitted by commenters, the agency believes that these 
issues are significant primarily for light trucks with a 
GVWR of over 6,000 pounds. Therefore, NHTSA is not 
adopting any changes in the test procedure as part of 
this rulemaking. However, NHTSA will analyze these 
issues further and may decide to propose amendments 
to the test procedure as part of the possible future 
rulemaking discussed above. 

Ford also suggested that NHTSA clarify the mean- 
ing of section S6.1 of Standard No. 216 as it will apply 
to light trucks. Section S6.1 currently states: "Place 
the sills or the chassis frame of the vehicle on a rigid 
horizontal surface. ..." 

Ford believes that at least some light trucks should 
be tested while supported at the sills, rather than the 
chassis frame. Many light trucks have a narrow frame. 
Ford found that when some light truck models covered 
by this final rule were tested with the chassis frame 
mounted, there was an elastic deformation of the 
rubber body mounts of the vehicle. When the same light 
trucks were tested with the sills mounted, there was 
no such deformation. Ford believes that testing these 
light trucks with the sills mounted is in keeping with 
the intent of Standard No. 216 (i.e., to measure roof 
crush resistance). However, testing these light trucks 
with the chassis frame mounted may not provide a good 
indication of roof crush strength since the test pro- 
cedure would also cause deformation of the rubber body 
mounts. 

NHTSA agrees with Ford that, in at least some 
cases, it is best to test light trucks with the sills, rather 
than the chassis frame, mounted on the rigid horizon- 
tal surface. This approach may best test the roof crush 
strength of a light truck. NHTSA intends to conduct 
its compliance testing of light trucks with the sills 
mounted. 

VII. Leadtime 

NHTSA proposed that Standard No. 216 be extend- 
ed to light trucks effective September 1, 1991. NHTSA 
tentatively concluded in the proposal that the 
widespread voluntary compliance with the require- 
ments of Standard No. 216 by manufacturers of light 
trucks demonstrated the availability of the engineer- 
ing and manufacturing resources needed to implement 
the rule by the proposed effective date. 

NHTSA received a number of comments concerning 
leadtime. IIHS considered the proposed leadtime to be 
adequate. Chrysler stated that it could comply with a 
rule extending the current requirements for passenger 
cars in Standard No. 216 to light trucks by September 



1, 1991, if the final rule was promulgated by July 1, 
1990. However, Chrysler stated that it would have to 
redesign and retool the A-pillar, roof rail, and other djT' 
related body components on most of its light trucks to ^i 
comply with the proposed requirements. Chrysler 
further stated that it would need at least two years 
following publication of the final rule to comply with 
the proposed requirements. Ford commented that all 
of its light trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less 
would meet the proposed requirements. However, 
some of Ford's light trucks with a GVWR over 8,500 
pounds would not meet the proposed requirements. 
NTEA commented that if the 8,500 pound GVWR 
threshold were adopted and multi-stage work-related 
vehicles were included, multi-stage manufacturers 
would need at least six months additional leadtime than 
that provided to manufacturers of incomplete vehicles. 
NTEA stated that final and intermediate stage 
manufactm-ers can begin their design efforts for com- 
pliance with a safety standard only after a vehicle 
model is introduced and the chassis manufacturer's 
guidelines for completing the vehicle are published. 

GM commented that there was no reasonable basis 
for NHTSA to conclude in the proposal that the major- 
ity of light trucks already met the requirements of the 
proposed rule. GM stated that light trucks with a 
GVWR over 8,500 pounds would have more difficulty 
complying with the proposal if it were adopted. yflj 

After the close of the comment period, GM submit- ^ 
ted information indicating that three of its current light 
truck model lines may not be in compliance with the 
proposed requirements of Standard No. 216. Accord- 
ing to GM, these three model lines did not demonstrate, 
in their limited testing, the required margin of compli- 
ance necessary to account for test variability and 
product variability. GM considers such a performance 
margin essential to ensure that each vehicle would be 
found in compliance if tested. GM states that the de- 
sign modifications, which may be required to assure 
reasonable compliance margins, would require a tool- 
ing leadtime of 45 weeks and cost $750,000. Accord- 
ing to GM, the added cost per vehicle would be an 
additional $9.00. GM suggested an effective date of 
January 1, 1993 to permit it to replace these vehicles 
with new model lines, rather than modify the current 
vehicles. According to GM, the successor vehicles will 
not be available to dealers until the end of the 1992 
calendar year. 

While NHTSA believes that the proposed leadtime 
may be appropriate for some of the light trucks that 
are covered by this final rule, a number of commenters 
pointed out problems complying with the proposed 
requirements by September 1, 1991. A number of light ^ 
trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less do not ^ 
currently meet the requirements that are being 
adopted in this final rule. The manufacturers of such 



PART 571; S216-PRE 12 



vehicles must redesign the vehicles and carry out the 
necessary retooling. In addition, there are a number 
of final-stage manufacturers, many of which are small 
businesses, which need more leadtime than originally 
proposed to determine how to certify compliance with 
the standard. (NTEA stated that virtually all of the 
over 2,000 distributors and manufacturers of multi- 
stage commercial vehicles are small businesses. RVIA 
stated that many of its 650 members who manufacture 
recreational vehicles are also small businesses.) These 
manufacturers must determine compliance for a vari- 
ety of commercial and recreational vehicle types. Some 
of these vehicles must be redesigned. This could involve 
extensive changes, such as substitution of steel for 
fiberglass or the inclusion of roll cages. Final-stage 
manufacturers may not be able to initiate their com- 
pliance work until the chassis manufacturers publish 
their guidelines for completing vehicles in compliance 
with the amended standard and make those vehicles 
available. In view of this, NHTSA believes that it is 
appropriate to establish an effective date of Septem- 
ber 1, 1993 for this amendment. Therefore, for the 
good cause shown, NHTSA finds that it is in the public 
interest to have an effective date later than one year 
after promulgation of the rule. 

VIII. Compliance by Multi-Stage Manufacturers 
In the proposal, NHTSA addressed the issue of light 
trucks that are manufactured in more than one stage 
or altered after they are certified by the original 
manufacturer. There are a number of final-stage 
manufacturers, many of which are small businesses, 
involved in installing truck bodies and/or work-related 
equipment on chassis. There are also a number of 
alterers involved in modifying the structure of new 
vehicles. Based on information from commenters, the 
majority of such vehicles have a GVWR greater than 
6,000 pounds. Under NHTSA's regulations, a final- 
stage manufacturer must certify that the completed 
vehicle conforms to all applicable safety standards and 
alterers must certify that the altered vehicle continues 
to comply with all applicable safety standards. 

In the proposal, NHTSA tentatively concluded that 
the task these final-stage manufacturers and alterers 
would face in certifying compliance with the proposed 
requirements of Standard No. 216 would not differ 
significantly from the tasks they already face in 
certifying compliance with other standards. In com- 
ments on the proposal, NTEA stated that NHTSA 
imderestimated the number of light trucks that 
manufacturers would have to recertify for compliance 
with Standard No. 216. NTEA stated that extending 
Standard No. 216 to only light trucks with a GVWR 
of 8,500 pounds or less, instead of 10,000 pounds or 
less, would provide final-stage manufacturers signifi- 
cant relief. NTEA further stated that there currently 



are no vehicles with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less 
that are assembled from incomplete chassis cabs. RVIA 
commented that it thought the proposed requirements 
would have a severe adverse economic impact on van- 
converters. RVIA thought that limiting coverage of the 
standard to vehicles with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or 
less would substantially reduce the economic conse- 
quences to its members. 

NHTSA believes that limiting the coverage of the 
standard to light trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds 
or less will greatly lessen the problems cited by NTEA 
and RVIA. However, since some final-stage manufac- 
turers and alterers are covered by this final rule, 
NHTSA below outlines ways that final-stage manufac- 
turers and alterers may certify compliance. 

NHTSA recognizes that final-stage manufacturers 
and alterers often do not have the engineering or finan- 
cial resources to conduct their own testing of the 
vehicles they have completed. However, testing is not 
necessarily required for vehicle certification and each 
manufacturer is not required to conduct testing individ- 
ually. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act permits manufactiu*ers, including final- 
stage manufacturers and alterers, to use other means 
to certify their vehicles, provided that due care is 
exercised in making the determination of compliance 
with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. 
(Throughout the rest of this Unit, the term "final-stage 
manufacturer" is used to refer to both final-stage 
manufacturers and alterers.) 

First, the final-stage manufacturer could stay within 
the limits set by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. 
NHTSA's certification regulations require that the 
manufacturers of truck chassis used by final-stage 
manufacturers provide information regarding the 
limitations on the center of gravity, weight, and other 
attributes that must be observed in completing the 
vehicle so as not to affect the vehicle's compliance with 
the safety standards. Incomplete vehicle manufacturers 
which produce chassis cabs must certify that their 
vehicles comply with applicable safety standards. 
Incomplete vehicle manufacturers which produce other 
vehicles that are not chassis cabs, e.g., cutaway chas- 
sis or stripped chassis, are not required under NHTSA 
regulations to certify that their incomplete vehicles 
comply with safety standards. However, such manufac- 
turers must provide subsequent stage manufacturers 
with an "incomplete vehicle document" that describes 
the limits within which the vehicle can be modified and 
still remain in compliance with safety standards. When 
the final-stage manufacturer observes the limits set by 
the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, it simply states 
that fact on the certification label. Under those circum- 
stances, its certification of the vehicle's compliance 
with the safety standards is based on staying within 
the limits set by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. 



PART 571; S216-PRE 13 



Thus, if the final-stage manufacturer observes all of 
the limits specified by the incomplete vehicle manufac- 
turer, the final-stage manufacturer does not have to 
conduct any testing or analysis to support its certifi- 
cation that the vehicle complies with the safety 
standards. 

NTEA indicated that there are no commercial light 
trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less that are 
assembled from an incomplete chassis. Therefore, by 
limiting the coverage of Standard No. 216 to light 
trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less, NHTSA 
is excluding vehicles from which certification by final- 
stage manufacturers is automatically required. 
Whether there must be recertification by the final- 
stage manufacturer will depend on the extent of the 
modifications made by the final-stage manufacturer 
and the requirements of the original manufacturer's 
certification. NHTSA believes that final-stage 
manufacturers will often be able to pass through the 
certification for vehicles assembled from pickup box 
removal programs and from completed chassis cabs. 
NHTSA recognizes that recertification may be neces- 
sary if final-stage manufacturers add weight which 
exceeds manufacturer certification limits or make 
direct roof modifications. 

Second, if the final-stage manufacturer cannot stay 
within the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's limits in 
using a given chassis to produce a particular sort of 
completed vehicle, the final-stage manufacturer may 
choose to use another chassis with greater limits to 
produce the same sort of vehicle. This option is most 
relevant when the final-stage manufacturer adds 
weight to the vehicle. By switching to a different 
chassis and staying within the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer's limits for that chassis, the final-stage 
manufacturer may avoid the possible necessity of 
conducting additional testing or engineering analysis 
to support its certification that the completed vehicle 
conformed to all safety standards. It could be argued 
that a final-stage manufacturer may not always be able 
to use this option since the chassis is sometimes sup- 
plied by a customer. If an incomplete vehicle design 
supplied by a customer is such that the vehicle might 
not comply with Standard No. 216 if completed out- 
side the limits specified by the manufacturer, NHTSA 
believes that the final-stage manufacturer must advise 
the customer that a more suitable chassis is necessary 
as a matter of law, and desirable as a matter of safety. 

NTEA asserted that final-stage manufactiu-ers using 
incomplete chassis cabs will not be able to pass through 
the incomplete chassis cab manufacturer's certification 
for roof crush. According to NTEA, it would not be 
possible for a stripped chassis manufacturer to provide 
any parameters for roof completion and certification 
since no cab or roof would exist. NTEA also asserted 
that a cutaway chassis, which has a cab and roof but 



no wall behind the driver compartment, is not likely 
to come with information concerning the roof crush 
capabilities of the vehicle. ^ 

NHTSA does not believe that this will be a problem ' 
for the vehicles covered by the final rule. As shown in 
the Final Regulatory Evaluation, no incomplete chassis 
cabs are produced with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or 
less. 

NHTSA believes that incomplete vehicle manufac- 
turers will continue to provide chassis that can satisfy 
the market need for vehicles that have reasonable com- 
pliance limits and that, in many cases, enable a final- 
stage manufacturer to adopt either the first or second 
option discussed above. However, whether or not the 
complete vehicle manufacturers do so, a final-stage 
manufacturer has additional options. 

The final-stage manufacturer may choose not to 
remain within the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's 
limits for the chassis. In such a case, the final-stage 
manufacturer could not rely on the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer's certification and/or limits as the basis 
for certifying the completed vehicle. Instead, the final- 
stage manufacturer would have to take steps, such as 
conducting or sponsoring testing or engineering anal- 
ysis, sufficient to enable it to certify, with due care, 
that the completed vehicle complies with applicable 
safety standards, including Standard No. 216. 

Even in this situation, NHTSA does not believe that ^ 
each final-stage manufacturer would have to conduct 
its own testing. Commenters pointed out possible 
alternatives to testing by each final-stage manufac- 
turer. Bay Bridge Manufacturing, Inc. (Bay Bridge) 
suggested that a group test the type of vehicle that Bay 
Bridge and its competitors manufacture, with the cost 
of testing shared by all of the final-stage manufacturers 
of that type of vehicle. Bay Bridge thought that this 
would limit the cost of certification to a reasonable 
amount. Continental Van & Truck Conversions (Con- 
tinental) suggested that van converters, raised roof 
manufacturers, and van chassis manufacturers cooper- 
ate to design a raised roof and an installation proce- 
dure that complies with Standard No. 216. Continental 
volunteered to help in such an endeavor. NHTSA 
agrees that approaches such as those suggested by Bay 
Bridge and Continental could limit the costs of com- 
pliance testing. In the Final Regulatory Evaluation, 
NHTSA further analyzes issues concerning compliance 
with Standard No. 216 through testing. 

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

1. The title of the heading of Standard No. 216, Roof _ 
Crush Resistance— Passenger Cars, is revised to read ^ 
as follows: 
Standard No. 216; Roof Crush Resistance. 



PART 571; S216-PRE 14 



2. Paragraph S3 is revised to read as follows: 

53. Application. This standard applies to passenger 
cars, and to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, 
and buses with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less. 
However, it does not apply to (a) school buses, (b) ve- 
hicles that conform to the rollover test requirements 
(S5.3) of Standard No. 208 (§ 571.208) by means that 
require no action by vehicle occupants, or (c) convert- 
ibles, except for optional compliance with the standard 
as an alternative to the rollover test requirements in 
S5.3 of Standard No. 208. 

3. Paragraph S4 is revised to read as follows: 

54. Requirements. 

(a) Passenger cars. A test device as described in S5 
shall not move more than 5 inches, measured in accord- 
ance with S6.4, when it is used to apply a force of 172 
times the unloaded vehicle weight of the vehicle or 
5,000 pounds, whichever is less, to either side of the 
forward edge of a vehicle's roof in accordance with the 
procedures of S6. Both the left and right front portions 
of the vehicle's roof structure shall be capable of meet- 
ing the requirements, but a particular vehicle need not 
meet further requirements after being tested at one 
location. 

(b) Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and 
buses with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less, manufac- 
tured on or after September 1, 1993. A test device as 
described in S5 shall not move more than 5 inches, 
measured in accordance with S6.4, when it is used to 
apply a force of Vk times the unloaded vehicle weight 
of the vehicle to either side of the forward edge of a 
vehicle's roof in accordance with the procedures of S6. 
Both the left and right front portions of the vehicle's 
roof structure shall be capable of meeting the require- 



ments, but a particular vehicle need not meet further 
requirements after being tested at one location. 

4. Paragraph S6.3 is revised to read as follows: 
S6.3 (a) Passenger cars. Apply force in a downward 
direction perpendicular to the lower surface of the test 
device at a rate of not more than one-half inch per se- 
cond until reaching a force of IV2 times the unloaded 
vehicle weight of the tested vehicle or 5,000 pounds, 
whichever is less. Complete the test within 120 seconds. 
Guide the test device so that throughout the test it 
moves, without rotation, in a straight line with its lower 
surface oriented as specified in S6.2(a) through S6.2(d). 
(b) Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and 
buses with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less, manufac- 
tured on or after September 1, 1993. Apply force in 
a downward direction perpendicular to the lower sur- 
face of the test device at a rate of not more than one- 
half inch per second until reaching a force of 1 V2 times 
the unloaded vehicle weight of the tested vehicle. Com- 
plete the test within 120 seconds. Guide the test device 
so that throughout the test it moves, without rotation, 
in a straight line with its lower surface oriented as 
specified in S6.2(a) through S6.2(d). 

Issued on April 11, 1991. 



Jerry Ralph Curry 
Administrator 

56 F.R. 15510 
April 17, 1991 



s) 



PART 571; S216-PRE 15-16 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 216 
Roof Crush Resistance 



51. Scope. This standard establishes strength 
requirements for the passenger compartment roof. 

52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is 
to reduce deaths and injuries due to the crushing of 
the roof into the passenger compartment in roll- 
over accidents. 

53. Application. [This standard applies to 
passenger cars, and to multipurpose passenger 
vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 6,000 
pounds or less. However, it does not apply to (a) 
school buses, (b) vehicles that conform to the 
rollover test requirements (S5.3) of Standard 208 
(§ 571.208) by means that require no action by 
vehicle occupants, or (c) convertibles, except for 
optional compliance with the standard as an alter- 
native to the rollover test requirements in S5.3 of 
Standard 208. (56 F.R. 15510— April 17, 1991. 
Effective: September 1, 1993)1 

54. Requirements. 

1(a) Passenger cars. A test device as described in 
S5 shall not move more than 5 inches, measured in 
accordance with S6.4, when it is used to apply a 
force of IV2 times the unloaded vehicle weight of 
the vehicle or 5,000 pounds, whichever is less, to 
either side of the forward edge of a vehicle's roof in 
accordance with the procedures of S6. Both the left 
and right front portions of the vehicle's roof struc- 
ture shall be capable of meeting the requirements, 
but a particular vehicle need not meet further re- 
quirements after being tested at one location. 

(b) Multipuryose passenger vehicles, trucks, and 
buses with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less, manu- 
factured on or after September 1, 1993. A test 
device as described in S5 shall not move more than 
5 inches, measured in accordance with S6.4, when 
it is used to apply a force of IV2 times the unloaded 
vehicle weight of the vehicle to either side of the 
forward edge of a vehicle's roof in accordance with 
the procedures of S6. Both the left and right front 
portions of the vehicle's roof structure shall be 
capable of meeting the requirements, but a par- 
ticular vehicle need not meet further requirements 
after being tested at one location. (56 F.R. 
15510— April 17, 1991. Effective: September 1, 1993)1 



55. Test Device. The test device is a rigid 
unyielding block with its lower surface formed as a 
flat rectangle 30 inches x 72 inches. 

56. Test Procedure. Each vehicle shall be 
capable of meeting the requirements of S4 when 
tested in accordance with the following procedure. 

S6.1. Place the sills or the chassis frame of the 
vehicle on a rigid horizontal surface, fix the vehicle 
rigidly in position, close all windows, close and lock 
all doors, and secure any convertible top or 
removable roof structure in place over the 
passenger compartment. 

S6.2 Orient the test device as shown in Figure 
1, so that— 

(a) Its longitudinal axis is at a forward angle 
(side view) of 5° below the horizontal, and is 
parallel to the vertical plane through the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline; 

(b) Its lateral axis is at a lateral outboard 
angle, in the front view projection, 25° below the 
horizontal; 

(c) Its lower surface is tangent to the surface 
of the vehicle; and 

(d) The initial contact point, or center of the 
initial contact area, is on the longitudinal 
centerline of the lower surface of the test device 
and 10 inches from the forwardmost point of that 
centerline. 




RIGID HORIZONTAL SURFACE 
FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW 

TEST DEVICE LOCATION AND APPLICATION TO THE ROOF 

Figure 1 



(Rev. 4/17/91) 



PART 571; S 216-1 



S6.3. 1(a) Passenger cars. Apply force in a 
downward direction perpendicular to the lower 
surface of the test device at a rate of not more than 
one-half inch per second until reaching a force of 
IV2 times the unloaded vehicle weight of the tested 
vehicle or 5,000 pounds, whichever is less. Com- 
plete the test within 120 seconds. Guide the test 
device so that throughout the test it moves, 
without rotation, in a straight line with its lower 
surface oriented as specified in S6.2(a) through 
S6.2(d). 

(b) Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and 
buses with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less, 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1993. Apply 
force in a downward direction perpendicular to the 
lower surface of the test device at a rate of not 



more than one-half inch per second until reaching a 
force of IV2 times the unloaded vehicle weight of 
the tested vehicle. Complete the test within 120 
seconds. Guide the test device so that throughout 
the test it moves, without rotation, in a straight 
line with its lower surface oriented as specified in 
S6.2(a) through S6.2(d). (56 F.R. 15510— April 17. 
1991. Effective: September 1, 1993)1 

S6.4 Measure the distance that the test device 
moves, i.e., the distance between the original 
location of the lower surface of the test device and 
its location as the force level specified in S6.3 is 
reached. 

36 F.R. 23299 
December 8, 1971 



PART 571; S 216-2 



• U.S. COVIRNMENrT PRINTING OmCE 



k ) 



I) 



^ Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

usDepartmenr Stanclarcls ancl Regulations 

of Transportation 

?r°oSaS?;""' Supplement 47— Amendments 



Administration 



and Interpretations Issued 

OEPOSlTOflY 



<:b?> Motor Vehicle Saf... 



D 8.6/2:990/supp.47 DurlnO 1991 

Page Control Chart 



AHH 2 9 lyb,: 



RnSTOMffMBl,iCUBRAR> 



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

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 531-PRE 185 behind page in book numbered PART 531-PRE 184. 

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

(2) Part 541— Final Listing of High Theft Lines for MY 1992 

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 541-PRE 73 behind page in book numbered PART 541-PRE 72. 

(b) Substitute attached pages numbered PART 541— A-1 through 5-6 for similarly numbered pages in book. 

(3) Part 571— Seating Reference Point 

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 571— PRE 57 through 69-70 behind page in book numbere- 
PART 571-PRE 55-56. 

(b) Substitute attached pages numbered PART 571-1 through 4 for similarly numbered page in book. 

(4) Part 574— Tire Identification and Recordkeeping 

Substitute attached pages numbered PART 574-3 through 6 for similarly numbered pages in book. These pages n 
vised to incorporate minor editorial changes needed to bring the PART 574 format in conformity with the one i 
the Code of Federal Regulations. 

(5) Part 585— Automatic Restraint Phase-in Reporting Requirements 

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 585— PRE 23 through 44 behind page in book numbered 
PART 585-PRE 21-22. 

(b) Subsitute attached PART 585 for PART 585 in book. 

(6) Part 586— Side Impact Phase-in Reporting Requirements 

Substitute attached page numbered PART 586-1 for similarly numbered page in book. This page revised to incoi 
porate minor editorial changes needed to bring the PART 586 format in conformity with the one in the Code ofFea 
eral Regulations. 

(7) Part 587— Side Impact Moving Deformable Barrier 

Substitute attached page PART 587-1 for similarly numbered page in book. This page revised to incorporate mino 
editorial changes needed to bring the Part 587 format into conformity with the one in the Code of Federal Regulatiom 

(8) Part 591— Importation of Motor Vehicles and Equipment 

In Supplement 44, paragraph S591.7 was listed as having been deleted. Only paragraph (c) should have been deletec 
This replacement page corrects that error. n f w 

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. 
Tfie United States Code of Federal Regulations is the only source of legal authority for the standards. 



Page Control Chart— Con ^/nued 



(9) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201 

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 571— PRE 13 through PRE 16 behind page in book numbered 
PART 571; S201-PRE 12. 

(b) Substitute attached Standard 201 for Standard 201 in book. 

(10) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 

(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 571; S214-PRE 9 through 74 behind page in book numbered PART 571; 
S214-PRE 8. 



(b) Substitute attached Standard 214 for Standard 214 in book. 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 531 
Passenger Automobile Average Fuel Economy Standards 
(Docket No. LVM 89-01; Notice 101) 
ACTION: Final decision. 



SUMMARY: This decision is issued in response to a 
petition filed by Butcher Motors, Inc. (Dutcher) re- 
questing that it be exempted from the generally ap- 
plicable average fuel economy standard of 27.5 miles 
per gallon (mpg) for model years (MY) 1993, 1994, and 
1995 passenger automobiles, and that a lower alterna- 
tive standard be established for it for each of these 
model years. This decision exempts Dutcher and estab- 
lishes an alternate standard of 17.0 mpg for each of 
MYs 1993, 1994, and 1995. The decision was preceded 
by publication of a notice requesting public comments. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 23, 1991. 

This exemption and the alternative standards apply to 
Dutcher for MYs 1993, 1994, and 1995. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA is ex- 
empting Dutcher from the generally applicable aver- 
age fuel economy standard for 1993, 1994, and 1995 
model year passenger automobiles and establishing al- 
ternative standards applicable to Dutcher for each of 
these model years. This exemption is issued under the 
authority of section 502(c) of the Motor Vehicle Infor- 
mation and Cost Savings Act, as amended ("the Act") 
(15 U.S.C. 2002(c)). Section 502(c) provides that a 
passenger automobile manufacturer which manufac- 
tures fewer than 10,000 passenger automobiles an- 
nually 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 feasi- 
ble 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 deci- 
sion announcing the agency's tentative conclusion that 
Dutcher should be exempted from the generally ap- 
plicable MY 1993, 1994, and 1995 passenger automo- 
bile average fuel economy standard of 27.5 mpg, and 
that an alternative standard of 17.0 mpg should be 
established for Dutcher for each of these model years 
(56 FR 21653, May 10, 1991). 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 Dutcher in each of MYs 
1993, 1994, and 1995 is 17.0 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 affected by granting this exemption, 
NHTSA hereby exempts Dutcher from the generally 
applicable passenger automobile average fuel economy 
standard for the 1993, 1994, and 1995 model years and 
establishes an alternative standard of 17.0 miles per 
gallon for Dutcher for each of these years. 

Section 531.5 is amended by revising paragraph 
(bXll); the introductory text of paragraph (b) is repub- 
lished to read as follows: § 531.5 Fuel economy 
standards. 



PART 531-PRE 185 



The following manufacturers shall comply with the issued on- August 1 1991 

standards mdicated below for the specified model 
years: 

* * ^ ^ Jerry Ralph Curry 

Administrator 
(11) Butcher Motors, Inc. 56 F R 37478 

August 7, 1991 



AVERAGE FUEL 
ECONOMY STAND AED 
MODEL YEAR (miles per gallon) 



1986 16.0 

16.0 

16.0 

17.0 

1993 17.0 



1987, 



1992. 



1994. 



17.0 



1995 17.0 



PART 531 -PRE 



PART 531-PASSENGER AUTOMOBILE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS 



5531.1 Scope. 

This part establishes average fuel economy 

standards pursuant to section 502(a) of the Motor "^"Srfird CmaT"^ 

Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, as Model year per gallon) 

amended, for passenger automobiles. 

^ ^ 1978 18.0 

1979 19.0 

1980 20.0 

5531.2 Purpose. J^g 22;J 

The purpose of this part is to increase the fuel 1983 26.0 

economy of passenger automobiles by establishing |^^^ |^"^ 

minimum levels of average fuel economy for those 2.986 26^0 

vehicles. 1987 26.0 

1988 26.0 

1989 26.5 

1990 and thereafter 27.5 

5531.3 Applicability. 

This part applies to manufacturers of passenger .?? ^^he following manufacturers shall comply 

\_., r- o ^^^^ j.j^g standards mdicated below tor the 

automobiles. specified model years: 

(1) Avanti Motor Corporation. 

5531.4 Definitions. Average Fuel Economy Standard 

(a) Statutory terms. (1) The terms "average Miles per 
fuel economy," "manufacture," "manufacturer," Model year gaUon 
and "model year" are used as defined in section .„„„ ~^ 
501 of the Act. 1979 ' ' " " ' ' ' ' ' ' " " ' ' ' ' [ ' ' ' " " ' ' ' i^'^ 

(2) The terms "automobile" and "passenger Jgg^ Jg2 

automobile" are used as defined in section 501 of ^932 ................................ 18^2 

the Act and in accordance with the determination 1983 16.9 

in part 523 of this chapter. 1984 16.9 

1985 16.9 

(b) Other terms. As used in this part, unless 

otherwise required by the context- (2) Rolls-Royce Motors, Inc. 

(1) "Act" means the Motor Vehicle Informa- ^^^^^^^ P^^, Economy Standard 

tion and Cost Savings Act, as amended by Pub. L. 

94-163. Miles per 

Model year gallon 

1978 10.7 

5531.5 Fuel economy Standards. 1979 10.8 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this r^g^ :H 

section each manufacturer of passenger auto- ^932 10 6 

mobiles shall comply with the following standards 1933 9^9 

in the model years specified: 1984 10.0 

PART 531-1 



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 



(3) Checker Motors Corporation. 

Average Fuel Economy Standard 

Miks per 

Model year gallon 

1978 17.6 

1979 16.5 

1980 18.5 

1981 18.3 

1982 18.4 



(4) Aston Martin Lagonda, Inc. 

Average Fuel Economy Standard 

Miks per 

Model year gallon 

1979 11.5 

1980 12.1 

1981 12.2 

1982 12.2 

1983 11.3 

1984 11.3 

1985 11.4 



(5) Excalibur Automobile Corporation. 

Average Fuel Economy Standard 

Miles per 

Model year 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) (Reserved) 



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

Average Fuel Economy Standard 

Miles per 

Model year gallon 

1978 12^5 

1979 12.5 

1980 9.5 

1984 17.9 



1985 


16.8 


(8) Lamborghini of North America 

Average Fuel Economy Standard 


Model year 


Miles per 
gallon 


1983 


13 7 


1984 


13 7 






(9) London Coach Co., Inc. 

Average Fuel Economy Standard 


Model year 


Miks per 
gallon 


1985 


21.0 


1986 


21 


1987 


21.0 







(10) (Reserved) 

(11) Dutcher Motors, Inc. 

Average Fuel Economy Standard 

Miles per 
Model year gallon 

1986 16.0 

1987 16.0 

1988 16.0 

11992 17.0 

1993 17.0 

1994 17.0 

1995 17.0 

56 F.R. 37478— August 7, 1991. Effective: September 
23, 1991)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 



PART 531-2 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 541 

Final Listing of IHigh Theft Lines for 1992 Model Year 
Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard 

(Docket No. T84-01; Notice 260) 
RIN: 2127-AD53 



ACTION: Final rule, technical amendment. 

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to (1) report 
the results of this agency's actions for determining 
which car lines are subject to the marking requirements 
of the motor vehicle theft prevention standard for the 
1992 model year and, (2) publish a list of those car lines. 
NHTSA has previously published lists of the car lines 
that were selected as high theft car lines for prior 
model years, beginning with the 1987 model year. The 
list in this notice includes all of the car lines in the previ- 
ous lists, as well as four new lines that were introduced 
for the 1992 model year and that have been selected 
as likely high theft lines. In addition, this listing shows 
the five additional lines that have standard equipment 
anti-theft devices and have been granted exemptions 
from the requirements of the theft prevention standard 
beginning with the 1992 model year. Two more car 
lines have been exempted in part and are required to 
have only their engines and transmissions marked. 

This final listing for the 1992 model year is intended 
to inform the public, particularly law enforcement 
groups, of the car lines that are subject to the mark- 
ing requirements of the theft prevention standard for 
the 1992 model year. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: This hsting applies to the model 
year. The amendment made by this notice is effective 
September 4, 1991. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Stand- 
ard, 49 CFR Part 541, sets forth requirements for 
inscribing or affixing identification numbers onto 
covered original equipment major parts, and the 
replacement parts for those original equipment parts, 
on all vehicles in lines selected as high theft lines. 

Section 603(a)(2) of the Motor Vehicle Information 
and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2023(aX2); hereinafter 
"the Cost Savings Act") specifies that NHTSA shall 
select the high theft lines, with the agreement of the 
manufacturer, if possible. Section 603(d) of the Cost 
Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2023(d)) provides that once a 



line has been designated as a high theft line, it remains 
subject to the theft prevention standard unless that line 
is exempted under Section 605 of the Cost Savings Act 
(15 U.S.C. 2025). Section 605 provides that a manufac- 
turer may petition to have a high theft line exempted 
from the requirements of Part 541, if the line is 
equipped as standard equipment with an antitheft 
device. The exemption is granted if NHTSA deter- 
mines that the antitheft device is likely to be as effec- 
tive as compliance with Part 541 in reducing and 
deterring motor vehicle thefts. 

The agency annually publishes the names of the lines 
which were listed as high theft lines for one or more 
previous model years and of the lines which are being 
listed for the first time and will be subject to the theft 
prevention standard beginning with the next model 
year. This notice is intended to inform the public, par- 
ticiilarly law enforcement groups, of the high theft car 
lines for the 1992 model year. It also identifies those 
car lines that are exempted from the theft prevention 
standard for the 1992 model year because of standard 
equipment anti-theft devices. 

The list includes the four new 1992 car lines se- 
lected by the agency in accordance with procedures 
published in 49 CFR Part 542 as likely to be high theft 
lines. The list also includes all those lines that were 
selected as high theft lines and listed for prior model 
years. 

The notice also includes seven high theft lines 
exempted by the agency, beginning from MY 1992, 
from the parts marking requirements of Part 541. Five 
of these car lines are exempted in full from Part 541, 
and two are exempted in part, with the manufacturer 
required to mark only the engines and transmissions 
of these vehicles. 

Notice and comment; effective date. The car lines listed 
as being subject to the standard have been selected as 
high theft lines in accordance with the procedures of 
49 CFR Part 542 and Section 603 of the Cost Savings 
Act. Under these procedures, manufacturers evaluate 
new car lines to conclude whether those new lines are 
likely to have high theft rates. Manufacturers submit 



PART 541-PRE 73 



these evaluations and conclusions to the agency, which 
makes an independent evaluation, and, on a prelimi- 
nary basis, determines whether the new line should be 
subject to parts marking. NHTSA informs the manu- 
facturer in writing of its evaluations and determina- 
tions, together with the factual information considered 
by the agency in making them. The manufacturer may 
request the agency to consider these preliminary 
determinations. Within 60 days of the receipt of the 
request, NHTSA makes its final determination. 
NHTSA informs the manufacturer by letter of these 
determinations and its response to the request for 
reconsideration. If there is no request for reconsider- 
ation, the agency's determination becomes final 45 days 
after sending the letter with the preliminary determin- 
ation. Each of the new car lines on the high theft list 
is the subject of a final determination. 

Similarly, the car lines listed as being exempt from 
the standard have been exempted in accordance with 
the procedures of 49 CFR Part 543 and Section 605 
of the Cost Savings Act. 

Therefore, NHTSA finds for good cause that notice 
and opportunity for comment on this listing are un- 
necessary. Further, public comment on the listing of 
selections and exemptions is not contemplated by Title 
VI, and is unnecessary after the selections and exemp- 
tions have been made in accordance with the statutory 
criteria. 

For the same reasons, since this revised listing only 
informs the public of previous agency actions, and does 
not impose any additional obligations on any party, 
NHTSA finds for good cause that the amendment made 
by this notice should be effective as soon as it is pub- 
lished in the Federal Register. 



In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 541 
is amended as follows: 

Appendix A of Part 541 is revised to read as follows. 
Appendix A-I is revised to read as follows, and Appen- 
dix A-II is revised to read as follows: 



aendix A— 




Chrysler 


Eagle Talon 


General Motors 


Saturn Sports Coupe 


Mazda 


MX-3* 


Subru 


svx* 


aendix A-I— 




BMW 


8 Car line** 


Honda 


Acura Vigor** 


Porsche 


968** 


Toyota 


Lexus SC300** 




Lexus SC400** 



Volkswagen Audi 200/84 

Appendix A-II— 
General Motors 
Buick Park Avenue*** Engine, Transmission 
Pontiac Bonneville*** Engine, Transmission 

* Car lines added in IVIodel Year 1992. 

** Lines exempted in full from the requirements of 

Part 541 pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, beginning from 
MY 1992. 

*** Lines exempted in part from the requirements of 

Part 541 pursuant to 49 CFR 543, beginning in 
MY 1992. 



Issued on August 28, 1991. 



56 F.R. 43711 
September 4, 1991 



PART 541-PRE 74 



PART541— Appendix A 
Lines subject to the requirements of Part 541 



Manufacturer 


Subject Lines 


Alfa Romeo 


Milano 161 
Fiat 164 


BMW 


3-Carlineri 

5-Carline 

6-Carline 



ufacturer 



Subject Li; 



Chrysler 



General Motors 



Chrysler Executive Sedan/Limousine 

Chrysler Fifth Avenue/Newport 

Chrysler Laser 

Chrysler LeBaron/Town & Country 

Chrysler LeBaron GTS 

Chrysler TC 

Chrysler Eagle Talon 

Chrysler New Yorker Fifth Avenue 

Dodge Aries 

Dodge Daytona 

Dodge Diplomat 

Dodge Lancer 

Dodge 600 

Dodge Stealth 

I Eagle Talon] 

Plymouth Caravelle 

Plymouth Laser 

Plymouth Gran Fury 

Plymouth Reliant 



Consulier GTP 



Ford Mustang 
Ford Thunderbird 
Ford Probe 
Mercury Capri 
Mercury Cougar 
Lincoln Continental 
Lincoln Mark 
Lincoln Town Car 
Merkur Scorpio 
Merkur XR4Ti 



Buick Electra 
Buick LeSabre 
Buick Reatta 
Buick Regal 
Buick Riviera 
CadUlac DeVUle 
Cadillac Eldorado 
CadUlac Seville 
Chevrolet Nova 



Mercedes-Benz 



Chevrolet Lumina 

Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme 

Oldsmobile Delta 881*1 

Oldsmobile Toronado 

Pontiac Fiero 

Pontiac Grand Prix 

Geo Prizm 

Geo Storm 

ISaturn Sports Coupe| 



Isuzu 


Impulse 
Stylus 


Jaguar 


XJ 

XJ-6 

XJ-40 


Lotus 


Lotus Elan 


Maserati 


Biturbo 

Quattroporte 

228 



GLC 

626 
MX-6 

MX-5 Miata 
|MX-3*1 



190 D/E 

250D-T 

260 E 

300 CE 

300 D/E 

300 SE 

300 SL 

300 TD 

300 TE 

300 SDL 

300 SEL 

380 SEC/500 SEC 

380 SEL/500 SEL 

380 SL 

420 SEL 

500 SL 

560 SEL 

560 SEC 

560 SL 



Cordia 
Tredia 
Eclipse 



PART 541-A-l 



PART 541— Appendix A— Continued 

Lines subject to the requirements of Part 541 



Manufacturer 


Subject Lines 




Peugeot 


405 




Porsche 


924S 




Reliant 


SSI 




Saab 


900 




Subaru 


XT 

ISVX'l 




Toyota 


Camry 

Celica 

Corolla/Corolla Sport 

MR2 

Starlet 




Volkswagen 


Audi Quattro 
Volkswagen Cabriolet 
Volkswagen Rabbit 
Volkswagen Scirocco 
Volkswagen Corrado 





• Lines added in Model Year 1992. 

(56 F.R. 437H-September 4, 1991. Effective: September 4, 1991) 



(Rev. 9/11/90) 



PART 541-A-2 



PART541— Appendix A-l 

High-Theft Lines With Antitheft Devices That are Exempted from the Requirements of This Standard 
Pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543 



Manufacturer 


Exempted Lines 


Austin Rover 


Sterling 


BMW 


7 Car line 
|8 Car line**l 


Chrysler 
Chrysler 


Chrysler Conquest 
Imperial 


General Motors 


Cadillac Allante 
Chevrolet Corvette 


Honda 


Acura NS-X 
Acura Legend 
lAcura Vigor* •] 


Isuzu 


Impulse 


Mazda 


929 
RX7 


Mitsubishi 


Galant 
Starion 



Maxima 
300 ZX 
Infiniti M30 
Infiniti Q45 



911 



1968**1 



Toyota 



Volkswagen 



Volvo 



Supra 
Cressida 
Lexus LS400 
Lexus ES250 
ILexus SC300* 
ILexus SC400* 



Audi 500S 
Audi 100 
lAudi 200/S41 



480ES 



•• Lines exempted Trom the requirements of Part 541 pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543 in MY 1992. 

(56 F.R. 43711— September 4, 1991— Effective: September 4. 1991) 



PART 541-A-3-4 



PART541— Appendix A-ll 

High Theft Lines With Antitheft Devices That are Exempted in Part From the Parts-IVIarking Requirements 
of This Standard Pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543 



Manufacturer Exempted Lines 



General Motors 



Chevrolet Camaro 
Pontiac Firebird 
Cadillac Deville- 

Fleetwood 
Oldsmobile 98 
[Buick Park 

Avenue*** 
[Pontiac 

Bonneville* *• 



Engine, Transmission 
Engine, Transmission 
Engine, Transmission 

Engine, Transmission 
Engine, Transmission] 

Engine, Transmission! 



'*• Received partial exemptions from the requirements of PART 541 pur- 
suant to 49 CFR Part 543 in MY 1992. 

(56 F.R. 43711— September 4, 1991— Effective: September 4, 1991) 



(Rev. 9/11/90) 



PART 541-A-5-6 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 571 

Seating Reference Point 

(Docket No. 82-05; Notice 4) 
RIN: 2127-AD46 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule amends the definition of "seat- 
ing reference point," a term used in this agency's 
safety standards. "Seating reference point" identifies 
a single adjustment point for each seating position. 
That point is used in determining if the vehicle com- 
plies with requirements set forth in several of the 
safety standards. 

This rule amends the definition of "seating reference 
point" to clarify that it is not necessarily the absolute 
rearmost point to which a seat can be adjusted. This 
rule also amends the definition to provide that the 
"seating reference point" is established using 95th per- 
centile adult male leg segments, instead of the smaller 
90th percentile adult male leg segments specified in the 
current definition. 

DATES: The amendment to the definition of "seating 
reference point" made in this rule is effective as of Sep- 
tember 1, 1992. At their option, manufacturers may 
begin using the post September 1992 definition, in 
place of the current one, after September 11, 1997. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Seating Reference Point 

For the purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards, the term "seating reference point" is cur- 
rently defined in 49 CFR §571.3 as: 

The manufacturer's design reference point which— 

(a) Establishes the rearmost normal design driving 
or riding position of each designated seating position 
in a vehicle; 

(b) Has coordinates established relative to the 
designed vehicle structure; 

(c) Simulates the position of the pivot center of the 
human torso and thigh; and 

(d) Is the reference point employed to position the 
two dimensional templates described in SAE Recom- 
mended Practice J826, "Manikins for Use in Defining 
Vehicle Seating Accommodations," November 1962. 



The four conditions set forth in the definition of 
"seating reference point" are intended to ensure that 
only one point will be the "seating reference point" for 
any seating position in a motor vehicle, and to ensure 
that all parties can agree where that one point is 
located for a particular seating position. The "seating 
reference point" is used, either directly or indirectly, 
as a reference point in determining compliance with 
several of the agency's safety standards. Standards No. 
103 and 104 each use the "seating reference point" as 
a reference point to define a field of view or certain 
areas of the windshield that must comply with speci- 
fied requirements. Standards No. 201, 202, 207, and 
210 each use the "seating reference point" as a refer- 
ence point for determining the components that are 
subject to the requirements of the standard or for posi- 
tioning the seats to determine compliance with the 
requirements of the standard. 

Rulemaking History 

In 1980, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (Mer- 
cedes) petitioned the agency to amend the definition 
of "seating reference point" to specify 95th percentile 
thigh and lower leg segments in determining the loca- 
tion of the "seating reference point." In 1982, in 
response to the Mercedes petition, the agency pub- 
lished an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
(ANPRM) stating that the "seating reference point" 
is not necessarily the absolute rearmost position to 
which a seat can be adjusted and that the agency in- 
tended to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) to change the definition of "seating reference 
point" (47 FR 9865; March 8, 1982). The purpose of 
the ANPRM was to allow interested parties an oppor- 
tunity to raise issues and provide information that the 
agency should consider when formulating its proposal. 

After evaluating the comments received on the 
ANPRM, the agency published an NPRM which 
differed substantially from the ANPRM (51 FR 20536; 
June 5, 1986). The NPRM stated that the interpreta- 
tion in the ANPRM that "seating reference point" was 
not necessarily the absolute rearmost position of the 
seat was incorrect. The new interpretation was based 
on two circumstances. First, Standard No. 210 used 
the SRP as its reference point and required the seat 



PART 571-PRE 57 



to be in its rearmost position. Thus, the location dic- 
tated by Standard No. 210 would prevent a manufac- 
turer from establishing a seating position rearward of 
the SRP. Second, the agency surveyed the location of 
the SRP in vehicles in the most recent compliance test- 
ing program and discovered that all manufacturers had 
determined the SRP with the seat in its rearmost po- 
sition. In addition, the agency was concerned that the 
ANPRM interpretation could lead a manufacturer to 
conclude that a seating position rearward of the SRP 
could be occupied while the vehicle was in motion. This 
could result in an upper anchorage location being for- 
ward of the occupant's shoulder, resulting in increased 
head movement and potentially increasing the risk of 
head injury. 

Because the agency had determined that the location 
of the SRP should always be determined with the seat 
in its rearmost position, the agency proposed to delete 
the reference to leg segment length in the definition. 
Leg segment length was used in the current definition 
to determine the seat adjustment position used to 
locate the SRP. Since the NPRM proposed to specify 
the seat adjustment position at which the SRP was 
located as the rearmost position, there was no longer 
any need to refer to a particular leg segment length. 

After further consideration, the agency tentatively 
concluded that the NPRM approach was not the best 
approach for this rulemaking. The agency decided that 
there were simpler, but equally effective, ways of en- 
suring that seats are positioned in the rearmost posi- 
tion for determining the upper anchorage locations in 
Standard No. 210. In April 1990, the agency published 
a final rule amending Standard No. 210 so that it no 
longer referred to "seating reference point" (55 FR 
17970). In September 1990, the agency published a sup- 
plementary notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) 
on the definition of "seating reference point," propos- 
ing to return to the approach originally discussed in 
the ANPRM (55 FR 37719). The definition proposed 
in the SNPRM was based upon the recommended prac- 
tice of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). 
(For interested parties, the history of this rulemaking 
is explained in greater detail in the SNPRM.) 

NHTSA received 10 comments in response to the 
SNPRM. Eight of the nine automotive manufacturers 
who commented on the SNPRM unanimously sup- 
ported adopting the proposed definition. Mercedes sup- 
ported "the Agency's approach to clarifying the 
inconsistencies related to the definition of the seating 
reference point," but recommended the adoption of the 
wording they suggested in their comments on the 
NPRM. The only other commenter, the Automotive 
Occupants Restraints Council, deferred to the 
responses of the vehicle manufacturers. Commenters 
also raised six other issues relevant to this rulemak- 
ing, which are discussed below. 



Comments 

1. Adopt Mercedes definition for the "seating 

reference point. " 

Although Mercedes supported "the Agency's ap- 
proach to clarifying the inconsistencies related to the 
definition of the seating reference point," they recom- 
mended adoption of their wording of paragraph (a), as 
suggested in their comments of May 5, 1983, to Docket 
82-05, Notice 2: 

"(a) Establishes the rearmost normal design driving 
or riding position as stipulated by the manufacturer, 
which accounts for all modes of cushion adjustment- 
including horizontal, vertical, and tilt— that are avail- 
able in the seat, but not to include seat track travel used 
for purposes other than normal driving and riding 
positions." 

The language preferred by Mercedes attempts to fur- 
ther clarify that the "seating reference point" is 
established by the manufacturer and is not the abso- 
lute rearmost point to which a seat can be adjusted. 

Paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d)(1) of NHTSA's pro- 
posed definition are nearly identical with the SAE defi- 
nition. In addition, all of the commenters except 
Mercedes supported the definition as proposed. Mer- 
cedes' recommendation that the agency adopt their 
unique language appears based upon preference only, 
and does not appear to significantly improve or clarify 
the proposed definition. Therefore, the agency is adopt- 
ing the definition of "seating reference point" as 



2. Adoption of "(SqRP)" in the definition of 
"seating reference point. " 

General Motors (GM) recommended that the agency 
adopt the phrase "(SgRP)" that is found after the word- 
ing "seating reference point" in SAE JllOO Jun84. GM 
stated that this would further clarify the meaning of 
the wording used in the standard and parallel current 
industry practice. GM stated that the "SRP" acronym 
used by NHTSA when referring to "seating reference 
point" may create confusion in some situations because 
GM and others in the industry use the "SRP" acronym 
to refer to the absolute rearmost position for the seat. 

In the SNPRM, the agency stated that the proposed 
"definition of SRP is similar to the SgRP concept used 
by the SAE." In fact, the two definitions are virtually 
identical. Since the inclusion of the phrase "(SgRP)" 
in the definition would not change its meaning or re- 
quire any additional modifications to any safety stand- 
ards, the agency has decided to include the phrase to 
avoid any possible confusion. Hereinafter, the phrase 
"SgRP" will be used for the term "seating reference 
point" in this notice. 

3. Allow use of either the present or proposed 
definition of "seating/reference point. " 

In its comments, Volvo requested that manufacturers 
be allowed to choose between either the present or 



PART 571-PRE 58 



proposed definition in the future. Volkswagen stated 
that the final rule should allow immediate optional com- 
pliance with either the present or proposed definition. 

The only reason offered by Volvo to support its sug- 
gestion was that manufacturers would not have to 
recertify their vehicles. The agency does not find this 
to be a compelling argument. Any rulemaking may re- 
quire that manufacturers recertify their vehicles. In ad- 
dition, four of the commenters (Chrysler, Ford, 
Volkswagen, and FreightHner) indicated that this 
rulemaking would have little or no effect on their cur- 
rent practices. 

Volkswagen requested that the Final Rule allow op- 
tional use of either definition from publication of the 
final rule until the September 1, 1992 effective date. 
This would allow manufacturers who can comply with 
the 95th percentile location without product design 
changes to harmonize with European requirements as 
soon as possible. The agency finds this request to be 
reasonable. 

Since no commenter suggested that the proposed 
September 1, 1992 effective date was not reasonable, 
it has been adopted. In addition, optional use of the new 
definition is permissible effective September 11, 1991. 

4. Revision of other safetv standards. 

The SNPRM requested comments on whether adop- 
tion of the proposed The SNPRM requeste change to 
the SgRP definition would create a need to amend 
safety standards which currently use the seating refer- 
ence point or similar terminology. Commenters raised 
issues involving several standards. 

GM recommended modifications of Standard No. 
104, Windshield Hiping and Washing Systems. GM 
stated: 

"FMVSS No. 104 and, by reference, FMVSS No. 
103 substitute the term "seating reference point" 
for the terms "manikin H point" and "H point" 
wherever either of those terms appears in any SAE 
Standard or Recommended Practice referred to in 
the standard. This substitution of terms results in 
references to "seating reference point with seat in 
rearmost position" (SAE Recommended Practice 
J903a, Figure 1). This terminology is potentially in- 
ternally contradictory when the "seating reference 
point" is defined to permit a location at some point 
other than the rearmost position of the seat." 

NHTSA agrees with GM that the amended definition 
of SgRP will create potentially contradictory refer- 
ences in Standard No. 104. Elsewhere in today's edition 
of the Federal Register, the agency has published an 
NPRM proposing to amend S3 of Standard No. 104. 
In its comments, Mercedes requested revisions of 
Standards No. 103, 104, 107, and 111 "to permit the 
use of the "Eyellipse and Head Contour Locator 



Line— Adjustable Seats" as described in the newest 
version of SAE J941, October 1985." These standards 
all use SAE J941, November 1965 to determine the 
location for either the 95th or 99th percentile eye range 
contour (eyellipse). This SAE Recommended Practice 
requires the seat to be in its rearmost position. Since 
"seating reference point" is not referenced, NHTSA 
does not believe that it would be appropriate to address 
amendment of any of these standards in the rulemak- 
ing to amend Standard No. 104. 

5. Reference uodated version of SAE J 1100. 

Volkswagen commented that SAE JllOO JUN84 was 
presently being updated by the SAE, and recom- 
mended that the updated version be substituted if avail- 
able. NHTSA has contacted the SAE and been 
informed that the June 1984 version of SAE JllOO is 
the most recently approved version. 

6. Correction of Typographical Error. 

Volkswagen pointed out that paragraph (b)(4) of the 
proposed definition inaccurately references "SAE 
J826" as "SEA J826." This typographical error has 
been rectified in the final rule. 

7. Seat location of Standard No. 210 upper 
anchorage requirements. 

Mercedes also submitted comments concerning the 
April 30, 1990 amendment of Standard No. 210 (Docket 
87-02; Notice 2). These comments were also submitted 
by Mercedes during the Standard No. 210 rulemaking 
and were addressed in the preamble to the Final Rule 
(55 FR 17970; April 30, 1990). 

In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA Part 571 
of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows: 

Section 571.3 is amended by revising the definition 
of "seating reference point" in paragraph (b). The 
amendment is effective on and after September 1, 1992 
and may be used at the manufacturer's option on or 
after September 11, 1991. As amended, the definition 
reads as follows: 

§571.3 Definitions. 

(b) Other definitions. 

Seating reference point (SgRP) means the unique 
design H-point, as defined in SAE JllOO (June 1984), 
which: 

(a) Establishes the rearmost normal design driving 
or riding position of each designated seating position, 
which includes consideration of all modes of adjust- 
ment, horizontal, vertical, and tilt, in a vehicle; 

(b) Has X, Y, and Z coordinates, as defined in SAE 
TllOO (June 1984), established relative to the designed 
vehicle structure; 



PART 571-PRE 59 



(c) Simulates the position of the pivot center of the not be positioned in the seating position, is located with 
human torso and thigh; and the seat in its most rearward adjustment position 

(d) Is the reference point employed to position the 

two-dimensional drafting template with the 95th per- Issued on August 6, 1991 

centile leg described in SAE J826 (May 1987), or, if 56 f.R. 38084 

the drafting template with the 95th percentile leg can- August 12, 1991 



PART 571-PRE 60 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 571 

Seating Reference Point 

(Docket No. 87-02; Notice 4) 
RIN: 2127-AA43 



ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for recon- 
sideration. 

SUMMARY: In April 1990, this agency published a 
final rule making several amendments to the safety 
standard regulating seat belt assembly anchorages. 
NHTSA received 7 petitions for reconsideration of this 
rule. In response to these petitions, the agency is mak- 
ing several changes to the final rule published in April 
1990. Specifically, this rule: 

1. Excludes the attachment hardware for automatic 
belts and for those dynamically tested manual belts that 
are the only restraint at a seating position from the 
Standard No. 210 strength test; 

2. Modifies the regulatory language to specify that 
the geometry of the webbing is to be duplicated "at 
the initiation of the test." 

3. Extends the effective date of the increased lap 
belt minimum angle requirement one year for rear 
seats; 

4. Removes all redundant anchorage requirements; 

5. Amends the simultaneous testing requirement; 
and 

6. Substitutes the term "hip point" for the term 
"seating reference point" in the definition of "outboard 
designated seating position". 

DATES: The amendments made in this rule are effec- 
tive September 1, 1992. 

Any petitions for reconsideration of this rule must 
be received by NHTSA no later than September 1, 
1992. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
Background 

On April 30, 1990 (55 FR 17970), NHTSA published 
a final rule amending Standard No. 210, Seat Belt 
Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR 571.210). The rule 
made several amendments to the safety standard, 
specifically: 

1. Increasing the minimum lap belt angle to reduce 
the likelihood of occupant submarining in a crash; 

2. Excluding front outboard designated seating 
positions equipped with automatic safety belts from the 



requirement that those positions also be equipped Math 
anchorages for manual shoulder belts; 

3. Permitting the optional use of some new test 
equipment for compliance testing to make the compli- 
ance tests simpler and less costly to perform; and 

4. Removing some ambiguities in the current com- 
pliance testing procedures so that all parties would 
know precisely how compliance testing will be con- 
ducted by the agency. 

The agency received 7 petitions for reconsideration 
of this rule. This notice responds to those petitions. In 
addition. General Motors' [GM] petition included five 
requests for interpretation of the final rule which will 
also be discussed in this notice. 

Petition Issues 

I. Attachment Hardware Definition and Testing 

A. Exclude Attachment Hardware 

The final rule extended the applicability of Standard 
No. 210 to the attachment hardware of a safety belt 
system. Navistar International attachment hardware 
Transportation Corporation (Navistarl, Ford Motor 
Company [Ford], and the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers 
Association of the United States Incorporated [MVMA] 
submitted petitions opposing this amendment. All three 
petitioners stated that this amendment was unneces- 
sary because Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, 
already specifies performance requirements for the 
strength of attachment hardware. All three petition- 
ers argued that the Standard No. 208 dynamic test and 
the Standard No. 209 static test are reasonable and 
sufficient tests, by themselves, to test the performance 
of the attachment hardware of safety belt systems. In 
addition, MVMA argued that the inclusion of attach- 
ment hardware in Standard No. 210 was in conflict 
with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. 
Section S4.5.3.4 of Standard No. 208 excludes auto- 
matic safety belt systems, including the attachment 
hardware, from the performance requirements of 
Standard No. 209. Thus, MVMA argued that the 



PART 571-PRE 61 



amendment to Standard No. 210 effectively reinstated 
a static test performance requirement for the attach- 
ment hardware of an automatic safety belt system. 

After the April 30, 1990 final rule, the attachment 
hardware for different belt systems were subject to 
different testing requirements. The attachment hard- 
ware for automatic belts that were tested during the 
Standard No. 208 crash test, were excluded from 
Standard No. 209's static tests, but were subject to 
Standard No. 210's static tests. The attachment hard- 
ware for dynamically tested manual belts were tested 
during the Standard No. 208 crash test and the Stand- 
ards No. 209 and 210 static tests. The attachment hard- 
ware for other manual belts were not crash tested 
under Standard No. 208, but were subject to the static 
tests of Standards No. 209 and 210. 

On April 16, 1991, NHTSA published a final rule 
making the requirements of Standard No. 209 identi- 
cal for automatic belts and those dynamically tested 
manual belts that are the only occupant restraint at a 
seating position (56 FR 15295). As a result of this 
rulemaking action, the attachment hardware for both 
automatic and dynamically tested manual belts are now 
excluded from Standard No. 209's static tests. The 
agency explained that Standard No. 209's static test 
procedures were a surrogate for Standard No. 208's 
crash test and that the surrogate was unnecessary for 
attachment hardware that have been crash tested. 
NHTSA has determined that this reasoning is equally 
persuasive for attachment hardware under the Stand- 
ard No. 210 static tests. Therefore, this rule excludes 
the attachment hardware for seat belt assemblies that 
meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 
of Standard No. 208. It should be noted, as explained 
in the April 16, 1991 notice, the agency does not con- 
sider a manual belt installed at a seating position that 
is also equipped with an air bag to be dynamically 
tested, and, therefore, the attachment hardware for 
these belts would be subjected to the Standard No. 210 
strength tests. 

The requirement to test attachment hardware under 
Standard No. 210 is not redundant or unnecessary for 
manual safety belt systems that are not dynamically 
tested. Attachment hardware is an integral part of the 
transfer of safety belt loads to the vehicle structure. 
The strength conditions in Standard No. 210 are in- 
tended to subject the vehicle anchorage to force levels 
that are sufficiently high than one can be reasonably 
certain that the safety belt will remain attached to the 
vehicle structure, even when exposed to severe crash 
conditions. If the attachment hardware were not sub- 
jected to those same force levels, during the Standard 
No. 210 test, the test would be less useful. A belted 
occupant will not be well protected in a crash if the 
attachment hardware breaks, but the rest of the 
anchorage withstands the crash loading. To minimize 
the chances of the attachment hardware breaking 



during a crash, the agency is not rescinding the require- 
ment to test attachment hardware for non-dynamically 
tested safety belts. 

In addition, the agency continues to believe that the 
attachment hardware originally installed at a seating 
position should be used during Standard No. 210 com- 
pliance tests for the anchorages for all safety belt sys- 
tems, including those whose attachment hardware is 
excluded from the requirements of S4.1.1 and S4.1.2. 
in order to ensure that the load application onto the 
anchorage is as realistic as possible. The agency has 
considered conducting the compliance tests using 
replacement fixtures which duplicate the geometry. 
However, the agency is concerned that developing a 
fixture which would accurately simulate every attach- 
ment would be very difficult. The agency cannot just- 
ify devoting the time necessary to solve this difficult 
problem, because such a fixture would be less represen- 
tative of the particular attachment hardware in the 
vehicle being tested. However, for safety belts excluded 
from the requirements of S4.1.1 and S4.1.2. failure of 
the attachment hardware will be considered an incom- 
plete test, not an apparent non-compliance. 

B. Develop a More Objective Test Procedure 

Ford's and MVMA's petitions for reconsideration 
stated that the final rule did not establish an objective 
test procedure for testing attachment hardware. Some 
of the issues that Ford indicated needed to be resolved 
include: adjusted position of adjustable attachment 
hardware for D-rings and automatic belts, status of ad- 
justment mechanisms, amount of webbing on the 
retractor spools, retractor locking mechanism status, 
door latch and lock status, and convertible top and mov- 
able window status. As explained below, the agency 
does not agree that further clarification of these issues 
is necessary, and therefore, denies these aspects of 
these petitions. 

As a general matter, when a standard does not spec- 
ify a particular test condition, there is a presumption 
that the requirements of the standard must be met at 
all such test conditions. This presumption that the 
standard must be met at all positions of unspecified test 
conditions may be rebutted if the language of the stand- 
ard as a whole or its purposes indicate an intention to 
limit unspecified test conditions to a particular condi- 
tion or conditions. 

In the case of the strength requirements in Standard 
No. 210, nothing in the language of the standard sug- 
gests that the strength requirements were only to be 
measured with the safety belt or other vehicle features 
at certain adjustment positions. Indeed, the purpose 
of the standard is to reduce the likelihood that an an- 
chorage will fail in a crash. To serve this purpose, the 
anchorage must be capable of meeting the strength re- 
quirements with the safety belt and other vehicle fea- 
tures at any adjustment, since those features could be 
at any adjustment position during a crash. 



PART 571 -PRE 62 



C. Rescind the Requirement to "Duplicate the 



In the final rule, Standard No. 210 was amended to 
require that the test setup "duplicate the geometry" 
of the original equipment webbing at that seating 
position. In its petition for reconsideration. GM re- 
quested that the agency reconsider this test require- 
ment. GM stated that the agency has not provided any 
information regarding the connection of the cables, 
chains or webbing to the attachment hardware to allow 
vehicle manufacturers to determine objectively that 
their compliance test "duplicates the geometry" of the 
original equipment webbing. Specifically, they stated 
that the agency has provided no clarification regard- 
ing what geometry a manufacturer is to simulate for 
compliance testing. Therefore, GM concludes, the 
manufacturer must either test with the seat belt as- 
sembly installed as original equipment or risk that its 
own interpretation of "duplicate the geometry" will 
agree with NHTSA's interpretation should a question 
of Standard No. 210 compliance arise. 

The agency continues to believe that the phrase 
"duplicate the geometry" is necessary for the enforce- 
ment of this standard. The phrase simply means that 
the direction of loading and the orientation of the at- 
tachment hardware should be the same as it would be 
for the original equipment webbing. The phrase was 
included in conjunction with the use of substitute web- 
bing material to protect vehicle manufacturers from 
the agency identifying apparent noncompliances based 
upon test conditions with unrealistic loading. However, 
as evidenced by GM's concern about what geometry 
must be simulated, the agency recognizes that the 
direction of loading and the orientation of the attach- 
ment hardware may change during the course Of the 
test. Therefore, to provide clarification, the agency has 
modified the regulatory language to specify that the 
geometry is to be duplicated "at the initiation of the 
test." 

II. Lap Belt Minimum Angle 

A. Reduce Lap Belt Angle Back to 20 Degrees 

In the final rule, based on test data that showed that 
the occurrence of occupant submarining is diminished 
as the lap belt angle is increased, the agency increased 
the minimum lap belt angle from 20 degrees to 30 
degrees above the horizontal, measured from the seat- 
ing reference point [SgRP] to either the anchorage or 
the point where the safety belt contacts the seat frame. 
In its petition for reconsideration, GM requested that 
the agency rescind this change. While agreeing with 
the agency that increasing the lap belt angle will 
decrease the possibility of submarining. GM argued 
that increasing the lap belt angle from 20 to 30 degrees 
cannot be objectively quantified as an enhancement of 
motor vehicle safety. In its petition for reconsideration. 



Jaguar Cars, Incorporated [Jaguar] also asked the 
agency to reconsider this amendment and reduce the 
rear lap belt angle back to 20 degrees to harmonize this 
requirement with Economic Commission for Europe 
[ECE] Regulation No. 14. 

Neither petitioner submitted any information to per- 
suade the agency that its initial conclusion was incor- 
rect. While GM is correct that the agency cannot 
precisely quantify the safety benefit of increasing the 
minimum lap belt angle 10 degrees, GM did not dis- 
pute the agency conclusion that this 10 degree increase 
will enhance safety by reducing the likelihood of sub- 
marining. Additionally, Jaguar did not submit any 
information indicating that the likelihood of submarin- 
ing caused by a shallow belt angle is any less for rear 
seat occupants, nor is the agency aware of any such 
information. Therefore, until a test is available to 
specifically evaluate submarining, the agency will con- 
tinue to rely on a minimum lap belt angle requirement 
in Standard No. 210 to prevent submarining. 

B. Extend the Effective Date 

In addition to asking the agency to reconsider the 
increased lap belt minimum angle requirement, both 
GM and Jaguar objected to this amendment on the 
grounds that more time is needed for implementation. 
GM asserted that, although some seat belt anchorages 
may be moved with minimal vehicle modification, other 
anchorages cannot be relocated without first address- 
ing the overall performance of the seat/restraint sys- 
tem at that location. GM also stated that the increased 
lap belt angle requirement would significantly affect 
rear seating positions in several GM vehicles and 
provided a list of 9 body component changes and as- 
sembly component changes affected by this amend- 
ment. GM did not suggest a possible date that this 
requirement should be effective. 

Jaguar stated that a one year extension to Septem- 
ber 1, 1993 was necessary to meet the new require- 
ments, including design and development, compliance 
testing, and introduction into production. Like GM, 
Jaguar stated that relocation of the safety belt an- 
chorages in the rear seats would involve the hardest 
and most time intensive design changes. 

The agency recognized that the final rule would re- 
quire relocation of the safety belt anchorages, and for 
this reason provided two and one half years lead time 
to implement these changes. However, the agency finds 
GM's and Jaguar's explanation of the special difficul- 
ties in relocation of the rear seat anchorages persua- 
sive. To allow manufacturers sufficient time to 
implement the necessary design changes in rear seats, 
the agency is extending the effective date one year for 
rear seats. The agency believes that the September 1, 
1992 effective date should continue to apply for all 
front outboard seating positions. 



PART 571-PRE 63 



III. Seating Reference Point 

In the final rule, NHTSA revised S4.3.2 to require 
the seat to be ad]usted so that the "H" point of the 
drafting template is located at "the design "H" point 
of the seat for its full rearward and full downward 
position," rather than at the seating reference point 
(SgRP), when determining if the shoulder belt for that 
seat complies with the location requirements of Stand- 
ard No. 210. The agency did not reexamine the seat 
adjustment specification that is the basis for determin- 
ing whether a lap belt or the lap belt portion of a 
lap/shoulder belt meets the minimum and maximum 
mounting angle requirements in Standard No. 210. The 
agency stated that it would continue to use the exist- 
ing SgRP, even though the seating adjustment posi- 
tion for the SgRP "may not be the rearmost position." 

In its petition. Volkswagen requested an amendment 
to Standard No. 210 "to provide that the seating refer- 
ence point for determining the minimum and maximum 
lap belt angles be based on the seating reference point 
located with the 95th percentile male dummy leg 
length." On August 12th, the agency published a final 
rule amending the definition of SgRP (56 FR 38084). 
The amended definition establishes that the SgRP is 
located using the 95th percentile male dummy leg 
length. 

In reviewing this petition, however, the agency has 
tentatively determined that use of the SgRP may not 
be an appropriate means of determining lap belt angle 
for rear adjustable seats. Elsewhere in today's edition 
of the Federal Register, the agency has published an 
NPRM proposing to measure the lap belt angle from 
the rearmost seating position for rear adjustable seats. 

IV. Redundant Anchorages 

Prior to the April 30, 1990 final rule, S4.1.1 of Stand- 
ard No. 210 required anchorages for manual lap/shoul- 
der belts to be installed for all front outboard seating 
positions in passenger cars. Section S4.1.4 of Standard 
No. 208 requires that front outboard seating positions 
in passenger cars manufactured on or after Septem- 
ber 1, 1989 be equipped with automatic crash protec- 
tion. As discussed previously, NHTSA has expressly 
excluded the anchorages for automatic or dynamically 
tested manual safety belts from the anchorage location 
requirements in Standard No. 210. Thus, the an- 
chorages to which automatic or dynamically tested 
manual safety belts originally installed in a vehicle are 
attached are not required to comply with the location 
requirements of Standard No. 210. 

However, if the anchorages for any automatic or 
dynamically tested manual safety belts originally 
installed at a front outboard seating position in a 
passenger car do not comply with the location require- 
ments of Standard No. 210, the standard provided 
(prior to the April 30, 1990 final rule) that anchorages 



for a manual lap/shoulder belt that comply with the an- 
chorage location requirements must also be installed 
at that seating position. This redundant anchorage re- 
quirement was partially rescinded by the final rule by 
the addition of section S4. 1.3(b) which stated that 
redundant upper anchorages for manual safety belts 
were not required in the front outboard seats of pas- 
senger cars equipped with dynamically tested or auto- 
matic safety belts. 

On November 23, 1987, the agency amended Stand- 
ard No. 208 to require dynamic testing of manual 
lap/shoulder belts installed in the front outboard seat- 
ing positions of trucks and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating [GVWR] of 
8,500 pounds or less [LTV's] manufactured on and after 
September 1, 1991. On March 12, 1986, the agency ex- 
cluded the anchorages for dynamically tested manual 
belts from the anchorage location requirements in 
Standard No. 210 (55 FR 9813). However, as explained 
for automatic belts, while the anchorages for these 
belts are not required to comply with the location re- 
quirements of Standard No. 210, if the anchorages do 
not comply with the location requirements additional 
anchorages which do comply with the location require- 
ments must be installed in these vehicles. 

Volkswagen of America, Incorporated 's [Volkswa- 
gen] and MVMA's petitions for reconsideration re- 
quested that the agency extend the deletion of 
redundant upper anchorages to all vehicles equipped 
with dynamically tested or automatic safety belts. In 
addition, Volkswagen noted that S4.1.2 of Standard 
No. 210 still requires a redundant or unused (for 
manufacturers who have chosen to comply with Stand- 
ard No. 208 using a shoulder belt and a knee bolster) 
Type 1 safety belt anchorage 

The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRMl for this 
rulemaking requested comments about a proposal "to 
delete the requirement for providing separate Type 2 
safety belt anchorages at designated seating positions 
equipped with automatic and dynamically tested man- 
ual belts which meet the occupant crash protection re- 
quirements of Standard No. 208." See, 52 FR 3293 at 
3296; February 3, 1987. As stated previously, the final 
rule deleted only the requirement for redundant upper 
anchorages in passenger cars' even though the discus- 
sion in the preamble mentioned anchorages for 
lap/shoulder belts. See, 55 FR 17970 at 17978. April 
30, 1990. The agency also believes that the reasons the 
redundant anchorage requirement was deleted for pas- 
senger cars are equally applicable to LTV's. 

As stated in the final rule, the agency believes that 
all redundant anchorages for manual lap or lap/shoul- 
der belts are unnecessary, unless they are needed to 
secure a child safety seat. Therefore, the agency is 
amending S4. 1.3(b) to remove all redundant anchorage 
requirements, including the manual shoulder belt an- 
chorage in light trucks (S4.1.1) and the manual lap belt 
anchorage in S4.1.2. 



PART 571-PRE 64 



The agency notes that S4.1.3 still requires an- 
chorages for a Type 1 or a Type 2 safety belt anchorage 
at the right front seat of an automobile or light truck 
if the restraint at that seat cannot secure a child safety 
seat. The agency intends to leave this requirement in 
place. 

V. Reduce Test Loads on School Buses 

In its petition for reconsideration. Thomas Built 
Buses, Incorporated (Thomasl asked the agency to 
reconsider a portion of the final rule pertaining to the 
anchorage strength requirements on small school buses 
(GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less). The final rule re- 
quired simultaneous testing of the anchorages on a 
small school bus seat, thus requiring the application of 
10,000 or 15,000 pounds of force during the test. 
Thomas is concerned that it would not be practicable 
to design floors to withstand these loads, and asked the 
agency to base the new requirement on either 2,500 
pounds per seating position or a 30 mph barrier crash 
Thomas believes that the 5,000 pound requirement for 
each belt's anchorage system is not warranted, because 
they have never observed an anchorage failure and be- 
cause their testing indicates low crash test loads. 

While Thomas did not comment on the NPRM, 
another manufacturer of small school buses. Blue Bird 
Body Company [Blue Bird] submitted similar comments 
to the NPRM. The agency considered the issue of 
lowering the anchorage test load requirement for small 
school buses in the analysis for the final rule, and 
determined that this change would degrade the level 
of safety of the school bus. Thomas has not provided 
any data that has persuaded the agency to alter this 
position. 

First, Thomas' petition asserted that the floor 
strength will be required to support a load of 30,000 
pounds. The agency disagrees with this assertion. The 
highest load any floor would be subject to during test- 
ing would be 15,000 pounds. This would be during the 
anchorage test for a 3-passenger bench seat. Thomas' 
assertion appears to be based on an incorrect interpre- 
tation that the standard requires simultaneous testing 
of the entire row, i.e., two laterally adjacent 
3-passenger bench seats. 

Second, the agency has seen evidence from two 
manufacturers of small school buses, Lewis Manufac- 
turing and Blue Bird, that the floors on two different 
takes of small school buses can comply with the 15.000 
pound load on existing flooring, with only minor rein- 
forcement of the bolt holes. The floor structure itself, 
even when not the original flooring from the first stage 
manufacturer, did not have to be reinforced. 

Finally, the agency would like to emphasize that, dur- 
ing an actual crash, the floor will be subject to loads 
at least this high, if not higher, due to the loading of 
all safety belts and seat backs. In the absence of a 



dynamic test, the agency feels that the 5,000 pound re- 
quirement is warranted. The agency is not convinced 
by Thomas, assertions of no known failures or upon 
measures of low crash test loads on individual safety 
belts. 

VI. Simultaneous Testing 

Prior to the final rule, Standard No. 210 required all 
floor-mounted anchorages for adjacent designated seat- 
ing positions to be tested simultaneously for anchorage 
strength. ECE Regulation No. 14 requires all an- 
chorages common to a single seat assembly, whether 
floor-mounted or mounted on a seat frame, to be tested 
simultaneously. In the NPRM, the agency proposed: 
"Except for seat belt anchorages common to 
forward-facing and rearward-facing seats, all floor- 
mounted and seat-mounted seat belt anchorages 
for a set of laterally adjacent designated seating 
positions shall be tested by simultaneously 
loading..." 

The agency was attempting to clarify the existing re- 
quirement. The agency was concerned that the term 
"adjacent" in the existing regulation was imprecise and 
could be misinterpreted as specifying simultaneous 
testing for front and rear outboard seating positions 
on the same side of a vehicle, or for buckat seats in the 
front separated by a console or some other structure. 
In addition, the agency was proposing to extend the 
simultaneous testing requirement to seat-mounted seat 
belt anchorages. 

In the final rule, the reference to "adjacent desig- 
nated seating positions" was deleted and a requirement 
for simultaneous testing of all designated seating 
positions that face in the same direction and are com- 
mon to the same occupant seat was substituted. Thus, 
the final rule deleted the requirement to test adjacent 
bucket seats. 

Ford petitioned the agency to reconsider this final 
rule for bucket seats. It pointed out that the amend- 
ment of S4.2.4 would specify non-simultaneous load- 
ing of anchorages for three separate but immediately 
adjacent bucket seats, even if those seats used com- 
mon floor-mounted anchorages and/or Common attach- 
ment hardware. Ford stated that these seating 
arrangements are becoming more common in multipur- 
pose passenger vehicles, and that S4.2.4 is inadequate 
to meet the need for motor vehicle safety for vehicles 
using such a seat design. 

The agency agrees with Ford that the anchorages for 
such seating arrangements should be simultaneously 
tested. The intent of S4.2.4 is to require simultaneous 
testing for safety belt anchorages that are likely to sig- 
nificantly affect the strength of each other. During this 
rulemaking, the agency expressly considered the 
bucket seats in the front of passenger vehicles. These 
seats are usually separated by either the transmission 



PART 571-PRE 65 



tunnel or an instrument console and, therefore, are un- 
likely to significantly affect each other. The agency also 
expressly considered the extremely high test loads that 
might be required for the floors of small school buses 
if an entire row had to be tested simultaneously. The 
agency did not see a need to test two bench seats in 
a small school bus simultaneously as these are sepa- 
rated by an aisle and are, therefore, unlikely to signifi- 
cantly affect each other. The agency did not expressly 
consider seating positions that are not on the same 
seat, but are not separated by an aisle, transmission 
tunnel, or the like. Examples of these types of seats 
would include the split bench seats in the front seats 
of passenger vehicles and the adjacent bucket seats in 
the rear of vans and multipurpose passenger vehicles. 
Therefore, the agency is amending S4 2.4 to require 
simultaneous testing of anchorages for designated seat- 
ing positions which are either common to the same 
occupant seat or, although not common to the same 
occupant seat, are laterally adjacent and have an- 
chorages that are within 12 inches of each other. The 
agency believes the 12 inch measurement is a practi- 
cal means of identifying anchorages whose perfor- 
mance is likely to significantly affect the performance 
of other anchorages. The agency believes that front 
bucket seats are not likely to be affected by this require- 
ment because they are separated by a transmission tun- 
nel or console and therefore the distance between the 
anchorages usually exceeds 12 inches. Similarly, later- 
ally adjacent bench seats in a small school bus would 
be unaffected as the anchorages are mounted on the 
seat and the aisle is required to be at least 12 inches. 

VII. Upper Anchorage Zone 

In the final rule, the agency redefined the method 
for locating the upper anchorage zone. Specifically, the 
point of reference was redefined as the H-point rather 
than the SgRP. In its petition. Ford stated its belief 
"that the only anchorages affected by this amendment 
are those in front seats of trucks and MPVs with either 
a GVWR of more than B500 pounds but not greater 
than 10.000 pounds or with an unloaded vehicle weight 
greater than 5500 pounds and an GVWR of 10,000 
pounds or less, as well as convertible trucks, walk-in 
vans. Postal Service vehicles, motor homes, etc." Ford 
requested that the agency rescind this amendment be- 
cause "Ford believes that it was not the agency's in- 
tent to apply new anchorage location requirements 
solely to this low volume, complex, and diverse group 
of vehicles." 

The agency believes that Ford's request is based 
upon two misconceptions. First, the agency does not 
perceive the redefinition as having changed the loca- 
tion requirements. Prior to the final rule, S4.3.2 of 
Standard No. 210 stated that the seat must be in the 
rearmost position with the template's "H" point at the 
SgRP. The agency has always interpreted this to 



require the template to be positioned fully rearward 
in the seat. While the SgRP is usually located with the 
seat in its rearmost position, the agency substituted 
a requirement that the template's "H" point be located 
at the design "H" point of the seat, rather than at the 
SgRP because of confusion which arose when the SgRP 
is not the rearmost position as required by the stand- 
ard, for example, if the seat has "extended travel." 
Therefore, while the names changed, the positions of 
the seat and the template for determining compliance 
with the anchorage location requirements did not 
change. 

Second, Ford apparently overlooked the rear seats 
in automobiles, light trucks and MPVs that still must 
comply with the upper anchorage zone requirement. 
S4.3 of Standard No. 210 states that all anchorages for 
automatic seat belt assemblies and for dynamically 
tested seat belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash 
protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 
are excluded from the location requirements of Stand- 
ard No. 210. 

Notwithstanding this exclusion, anchorages at each 
of the following outboard seats must comply with the 
upper anchorage location requirements: 

—the seats behind the first row of seats on auto- 
mobiles, MPVs and light trucks; 

—trucks with a GVWR above 8,500 pounds but 
under 10,000 pounds; 

—trucks with an unloaded weight above 5,500 pounds 
but a GVWR under 10,000 pounds, 

—convertibles, open-body type vehicles, walk-in 
van-type trucks, motor homes, vehicles designed 
to be exclusively sold to the U.S. Postal Service, 
and vehicles carrying chassis-mounted campers. 

Ford did not provide any data to show that there was 
no degi'adation of safety when upper anchorages of 
non-dynamically tested safety belts are allowed to be 
placed outside the specified zone. The agency has 
clearly stated its concern with permitting anchorages 
forward of the occupant. See, 55 FR 17970, 17975, 
April 30, 1990. Since the agency beheves that there 
would be a negative safety effect as a result of delet- 
ing this upper anchorage zone requirement. Ford's 
petition is denied. 

VIII. Technical Errors 

In its petition for rulemaking. Ford pointed out three 
errors in the final rule. First, Ford noted that, in S5.2, 
the reference to the upper body block, and references 
to the published Figure 3 were omitted. Second, Ford 
noted that the onset rate and test time is repeated in 
S5.2. These errors were corrected in a June 15, 1990 
technical amendment (55 FR 24240). 

Third, Ford pointed out that the definition of "out- 
board designated seating position" at 49 CFR 571.3 
references the SgRP and the shoulder reference point 



PART 571-PRE 66 



"as shown in Figure 1 of Standard No. 210." However, 
SgRP is no longer shown in Figure 1. In the final rule, 
Figure 1, used to locate the upper anchorage zone, was 
amended to substitute the Hip-Point (H-Point) with the 
seat in its full rearward and full downward position for 
the SgRP. According to Ford, this substitution also 
changed the location of the shoulder reference point 
in Figure 1. 

The agency contacted Ford to determine what 
change it saw in the location of the shoulder reference 
point. Ford stated that by substituting the H-point for 
the SgRP, both the hips and the shoulders of the tem- 
plate were moved back in movable seats, to the rear- 
most position. In a Ford vehicle, this would typically 
be about one inch backwards and one-tenth of an inch 
down. 

As discussed previously, the agency does not agree 
with the Ford's belief that this new Figure 1 changed 
the position of the template rearward. However, the 
agency agrees it is appropriate to substitute the term 
H-point for SgRP in the definition of "outboard desig- 
nated seating position" in §571.3. 

Finally, in reviewing the Ford petition, the agency 
discovered an inadvertent error in S5.2. The end of the 
second sentence currently reads, "with an initial force 
application angle of not less than 5 degrees more than 
15 degrees above the horizontal." The sentence should 
have included the word "nor", as follows: "with an in- 
itial force application of not less than 5 degrees nor 
more than 15 degrees above the horizontal." 

Requests for Interpretation 
I. Which seats must comply with the 5,000 oound 
test and which must comply with the 3, 000 pound 
test? 

At the outset, the test requirement for the safety belt 
anchorages at any seat is either 5,000 pounds or 6,000 
pounds. A technical error in the final rule deleted men- 
tion of the upper shoulder restraint body block, creat- 
ing the impression of a 3,000 pound test. This error 
was corrected in the June 15, 1990 technical amend- 
ment. Thus, there is a 3,000 pound test load on the 
pelvic body block, and a 3,000 pound test load on the 
upper torso body block. 

The final rule specifies which load shall be applied 
in S4.2.1 and S4.2.2, S4.2.1 requires a minimum load 
of 5,000 pounds on the pelvic body block for the an- 
chorages for seating positions which may not have a 
shoulder belt, or for seating positions whose shoulder 
belt anchorages are not required to be tested. This in- 
cludes the anchorages for: (1) a Type 1 safety belt. (2) 
a shoulder belt which is not required by Standard No. 
208 (a "voluntarily installed" shoulder belt) and there- 
fore is not subject to Standard No. 210, and (3) a 
detachable shoulder belt (permitted for automatic belts 
under S4.5.3.2 of Standard No. 208). For other an- 



chorages, S4.2.2 requires a test load of 3,000 pounds 
on the lap belt body block and 3,000 pounds on the 
shoulder belt body block. 

II. Clarification of the definition of attachment 
hardware. 

GM requested an interpretation of the term "attach- 
ment hardware" for Standard No. 210. Specifically, 
GM was concerned with certain Type 2 seat belt as- 
sembly designs that incorporate a buckle and latchplate 
near the seat belt anchorage. GM stated that, although 
these designs meet the requirements of Standard No. 
209, it is unclear whether they would be considered 
"attachment hardware" and therefore subject to the 
performance requirements of Standard No. 210. Else- 
where in today's edition of the Federal Register, the 
agency has published a final rule amending the defini- 
tion of "seat belt anchorage." In that final rule, the 
agency stated that the definition did not include the 
webbing, straps or similar device, or the buckles which 
comprise the seat belt itself. 

III. What is the meaning of "duplicate the 
geometry?" 

For an explanation of this term, see section 10 of the 
discussion on petition issues. 

IV. Define "voluntarily installed. " 

The agency considers a "voluntarily installed" safety 
belt system to be a system which is neither required 
by Standard No. 208 nor necessary to pass the dynamic 
test in Standard No. 208. Requests for interpretation 
regarding specific safety belt systems should be 
directed to the Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 400 
Seventh Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. 

V. Is a manual 3-point belt installed at a seating 
position equipped with a supplemental inflatable 
restraint (SIR) system regarded as a synamically 
tested belt? 

As discussed in the recent rulemaking to exclude 
dynamically tested safety belts from static testing 
requirements, the agency does not consider a manual 
3-point belt installed at a seating position equipped with 
an SIR system to be a dynamically tested belt. See, 56 
FR 15295, 15297; April 16, 1991. However, since a 
March 14, 1988 interpretation letter to Mr. Karl-Heinz 
Faber of Mercedes Benz, the agency has considered a 
manual 3-point belt installed at a seating position 
equipped with an SIR system to be exempt from the 
location requirements, of Standard No. 210. Because 
of the confusion associated with the phrase "dynami- 
cally tested" the agency is amending S4.3 to clarify, 
consistent with agency interpretation of this section, 
that the anchorages for all seat belt assemblies that 
meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 
of Standard No. 208 are exempt from the location 
requirements 



PART 571-PRE 67 



In reviewing this request for interpretation, the 
agency noted that the final sentence of the introduc- 
tory text in S4.3 exempts anchorages for the upper 
torso portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly installed 
at a forward facing rear outboard seating position of 
a passenger car manufactured on or after December 
11, 1989, and before September 1, 1990, from the re- 
quirements of S4.3.2. Since this exemption no longer 
has any substantive effect, this sentence has been 
deleted. 

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

2. Section 571.3 is amended by revising the defini- 
tion of "outboard designated seating position" in para- 
graph (b), to read as follows: 

(b) Other definitions. 

"Outboard designated seating position" means a 
designated seating position where a longitudinal ver- 
tical plane tangent to the outboard side of the seat 
cushion is less than 12 inches from the innermost point 
on the inside surface of the vehicle at a height between 
the design H-point and the shoulder reference point (as 
shown in fig. 1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ard No. 210) and longitudinally between the front and 
rear edges of the seat cushion. 

571.210 [Amendedl 

3. S4.1.3 of Standard No. 210 is revised to read as 
follows: 

54.1 Type. 

S4.1.3 (a) 

(b) The requirement in S4.1.1 and S4.1.2 of this 
standard that seat belt anchorages for a Type 1 or a 
Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for certain 
designated seating positions does not apply to any such 
seating positions that are equipped with a seat belt as- 
sembly that meets the frontal crash protection require- 
ments of S5.1 of Standard No 208 (49 CFR 571.208). 

4. S4.2 of Standard No. 210 is amended by revising 
S4.2.1, S4.2.2. and S4.2.4 to read as follows: 

54.2 Strength. 

S4.2.1 Except as provided in S4.2.5, and except for 
side-facing seats, the anchorages, attachment hard- 
ware, and attachment bolts for any of the following 
seat belt assemblies shall withstand a 5,000-pound force 
when tested in accordance with S5.1 of this standard: 

(a) Type 1 seat belt assembly; 

(b) Lap belt portion of either a Type 2 or automatic 
seat belt assembly, if such seat belt assembly is volun- 
tarily installed at a seating position; and 



(c) Lap belt portion of either a Type 2 or automatic 
seat belt assembly, if such seat belt assembly is 
equipped with a detachable upper torso belt. 

S4.2.2 Except as provided in S4 2.5. the an- 
chorages, attachment hardware, and attachment bolts 
for all Type 2 and automatic seat belt assemblies that 
are installed to comply with Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 
571.208) shall withstand 3,000-pound forces when 
tested in accordance with S5.2. 

54.2.4 Anchorages, attachment hardware, and at- 
tachment bolts shall be tested by simultaneously load- 
ing them in accordance with the applicable procedures 
set forth in S5 of this standard if the anchorages are 
either: 

(a) for designated seating positions that are common 
to the same occupant seat and that face in the same 
direction, or 

(b) for laterally adjacent designated seating positions 
that are not common to the same occupant seat, but 
that face in the same direction, if the vertical center- 
line of the bolt hole for at least one of the anchorages 
for one of those designated seating positions is within 
12 inches of the vertical centerline of the bolt hole for 
an anchorage for one of the adjacent seating positions. 

54.2.5 The attachment hardware of a seat belt as- 
sembly, which is subject to the requirements of S5.1 
of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208) by virtue of any 
provision of Standard No. 208 other than S4.1.2.1(cX2) 
of that standard, does not have to meet the require- 
ments of S4.2.1 and S4.2.2 of this standard. 

5. S4.3 of Standard No. 210 is amended by revising 
the introductory text of S4.3 and by adding a new sec- 
tion S4.3.1.5, to read as follows: 

S4.3 Location. As used in this section, "forward" 
means the direction in which the seat faces, and other 
directional references are to be interpreted accord- 
ingly. Anchorages for seat belt assemblies that meet 
the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of 
Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208) are exempt from 
the location requirements of this section. 

S4.3.1.5 Notwithstanding the provisions of S4.3.1.1 
through S4.3.1.4, the lap belt angle for seats behind 
the front row of seats shall be between 20 degrees and 
75 degrees for vehicles manufactured between Septem- 
ber 1, 1992 and September 1, 1993. 

6. S5 of Standard No. 210 is revised to read as 
follows: 

S5 Test procedures. Each vehicle shall meet the re- 
quirements of S4.2 of this standard when tested accord- 
ing to the following procedures. Where a range of 
values is specified, the vehicle shall be able to meet the 



PART 571-PRE 



requirements at all points within the range. For the 
testing specified in these procedures, the anchorage 
shall be connected to material whose breaking strength 
is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the 
webbing for the seat belt assembly installed as origi- 
nal equipment at that seating position. The geometry 
of the attachment duplicates the geometry, at the in- 
itiation of the test, of the attachment of the originally 
installed seat belt assembly. 

S5.1 Seats with Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt anchorages. 

With the seat in its rearmost position, apply a force 
of 5,000 pounds in the direction in which the seat faces 
to a pelvic body block as described in Figure 2A, in a 
plane parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the 
vehicle, with an initial force application angle of not 
less than 5 degrees nor more than 15 degrees above 
the horizontal. Apply the force at the onset rate of not 
more than 50,000 pounds per second. Attain the 5,000 
pound force in not more than 30 seconds and maintain 
it for 10 seconds. At the manufacturer's option, the 
pelvic body block described in Figure 2B may be substi- 
tuted for the pelvic body block described in Figure 2A 
to apply the specified force to the center set(s) of 
anchorages for any group of three or more sets of an- 
chorages that are simultaneously loaded in accordance 
with S4.2.4 of this standard. 



S5.2 Seats with Type 2 or automatic seat belt an- 
chorages. With the seat in its rearmost position, 
apply forces of 3,000 pounds in the direction in which 
the seat faces simultaneously to a pelvic body block, 
as described in Figure 2A, and an upper torso body 
block, as described in Figure 3, in a plane parallel to 
the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle, with an initial 
force application angle of not less than 5 degrees nor 
more than 15 degrees above the horizontal. Apply the 
forces at the onset rate of not more than 30,000 pounds 
per second. Attain the 3,000 pound forces in not more 
than 30 seconds and maintain it for 10 seconds. At the 
manufacturer's option, the pelvic body block described 
in Figure 28 may be substituted for the pelvic body 
block described in Figure 2A to apply the specified 
force to the center set(s) of anchorages for any group 
of three or more sets of anchorages that are simul- 
taneously loaded in accordance with S4.2.4 of this 
standard. 

Issued on November 27, 1991 



56 F.R. 63676 
December 5, 1991 



PART 571-PRE 69-70 



PART 571 — FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 



SUBPART A-GENERAL 

§ 571.1 Scope. 

This part contains the Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standards for motor vehicles and motor 
vehicle equipment established under section 103 of 
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 
of 1966 (80 Stat. 718). 

§ 571.3 Definitions. 

(a) Statutory definitions. All terms defined in 
section 102 of the Act are used in their statutory 
meaning. 

(b) Other definitions. As used in this chapter 
Act means the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 718). 

Approved, unless used with reference to another 
person, means approved by the Secretary. 

Boat trailer means a trailer designed with 
cradle-type mountings to transport a boat and con- 
figured to permit launching of the boat from the 
rear of the trailer. 

Bus means a motor vehicle with motive power, 
except a trailer designed for carrying more than 10 
persons. 

Curb weight means the weight of a motor vehicle 
with standard equipment: maximum capacity of 
engine fuel, oil, and coolant; and, if so equipped, air 
conditioning and additional weight optional 
engine. 

Designated seating capacity means the number 
of designated seating positions provided. 

Designated seating position means any plan view 
location capable of accommodating a person at 
least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the 
overall seat configuration and design and vehicle 
design is such that the position is likely to be used as 
a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, 
except for auxiliary seating accommodations such 
as temporary or folding jump seats. Any bench or 
split-bench seat in a passenger car, truck or 
multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR less 
than 10,000 pounds, having greater than 50 inches 
of hip room (measured in accordance with SAE 
Standard JllOO (a)) shall have not less than three 



designated seating positions, unless the seat 
design or vehicle design is such that the center 
position cannot be used for seating. 

Driver means the occupant of a motor vehicle 
seated immediately behind the steering control 
system. 

Emergency brake means a mechanism designed 
to stop a motor vehicle after a failure of the service 
brake. 

5th percentile adult female means a person 
possessing the dimensions and weight of the 5th 
percentile adult female specified for the total age 
group in Public Health Service Publication No. 
1000, Series 11, No. 8, "Weight, Height, and 
Selected Body Dimensions of Adults." 

Fixed collision barrier means a flat, vertical, 
unyielding surface with the following 
characteristics: 

(1) The surface is sufficiently large that when 
struck by a tested vehicle, no portion of the vehicle 
projects or passes beyond the surface. 

(2) The approach is a horizontal surface that is 
large enough for the vehicle to attain a stable atti- 
tude during its approach to the barrier, and that 
does not restrict vehicle motion during impact. 

(3) When struck by a vehicle, the surface and its 
supporting structure absorb no significant portion 
of the vehicle's kinetic energy, so that a perform- 
ance requirement described in terms of impact 
with a fixed collision barrier must be met no 
matter how small an amount of energy is absorbed 
by the barrier. 

Firefighting vehicle means a vehicle designed ex- 
clusively for the purpose of fighting fires. 

Forward control means a configuration in which 
more than half of the engine length is rearward of 
the foremost point of the windshield base and the 
steering wheel hub is in the forward quarter of the 
vehicle length. 

Gross axle weight rating or GAWR means the 
value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the 
load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as 
measured at the tire-ground interfaces. 



PART 571-1 



Gross combination weight rating or GCWR 
means the value specified by the manufacturer as 
the loaded weight of a combination vehicle. 

Gross vehicle weight rating or GVWR means the 
value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded 
weight of a single vehicle. 

H point means the mechanically hinged hip point 
of a manikin which simulates the actual pivot 
center of the human torso and thigh, described in 
SAE Recommended Practice J826. "Manikin for 
Use in Defining Vehicle Seating Accommoda- 
tions," November 1962. 

Head impact area means all non-glazed surfaces 
of the interior of a vehicle that are statically con- 
tactable by a 6.5-inch diameter spherical head form 
of a measuring device having a pivot point to "top- 
of-head" dimension infinitely adjustable from 29 to 
33 inches in accordance with the following pro- 
cedure, or its graphic equivalent: 

(a) At each designated seating position, place 
the pivot point of the measuring device— 

(1) For seats that are adjustable fore and aft, 
at- 

(i) The seating reference point; and 
(ii) A point 5 inches horizontally forward of 
the seating reference point and vertically 
above the seating reference point an amount 
equal to the rise which results from a 5-inch 
forward adjustment of the seat or 0.75 inches; 
and 

(2) For seats that are not adjustable fore and 
aft, at the seating reference point. 

(b) With the pivot point to "top-of-head" dimen- 
sions at each value allowed by the device and the 
interior dimensions of the vehicle, determine all 
contact points above the lower windshield glass 
line and forward of the seating reference point. 

(c) With the head form at each contact point, 
and with the device in a vertical position if no con- 
tact point exists for a particular adjusted length, 
pivot the measuring device forward and downward 
through all arcs in vertical planes to 90° each side 
of the vertical longitudinal plane through the 
seating reference point, until the head form con- 
tacts an interior surface or until it is tangent to a 
horizontal point 1 inch above the seating reference 
point, whichever occurs first. 

Includes means includes but is not limited to. 



Interior compartment door means any door in 
the interior of the vehicle installed by the manufac- 
turer as a cover for storage space normally used 
for personal effects. 

Longitudinal or longitudinally means parallel to 
the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. 

Motorcycle means a motor vehicle with motive 
power having a seat or saddle for the use of the 
rider and designed to travel on not more than three 
wheels in contact with the ground. 

Motor-driven cycle means a motorcycle with a 
motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less. 

Multipurpose passenger vehicle means a motor 
vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, de- 
signed to carry 10 persons or less which is con- 
structed either on a truck chassis or with special 
features for occasional off-road operation. 

Open-body type vehicle means a vehicle having no 
occupant compartment top or an occupant com- 
partment top that can be installed or removed by 
the user at his convenience. 

Outboard designated seating position means a 
designated seating position where a longitudinal 
vertical plane tangent to the outboard side of the 
seat cushion is less than 12 inches from the inner- 
most point on the inside surface of the vehicle at a 
height between |the design H-point and the 
shoulder reference point and the shoulder 
reference point (as shown in Fig. 1 of Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210) and 
longitudinally between the front and rear edges of 
the seat cushion. (56 F.R. 63676— December 5, 1991. 
Effective: September 1, 1992.)! 

Overall vehicle width means the nominal design 
dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, ex- 
clusive of signal lamps, marker lamps, outside rear- 
view mirrors, flexible fender extensions, and mud 
flaps, determined with doors and windows closed 
and the wheels in the straight-ahead position. 

Parking brake means a mechanism designed to 
prevent the movement of a stationary motor 
vehicle. 



' car means a motor vehicle with motive 
power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, 
motorcycle, or trailer designed for carrying 10 per- 
sons or less. 

Pelvic impact area means that area of the door 
or body side panel adjacent to any outboard 
designated seating position which is bounded by 
horizontal planes 7 inches above and 4 inches below 
the seating reference point and vertical transverse 
planes 8 inches forward and 2 inches rearward of 
the seating reference point. 



PART 571-2 



Pole trailer means a motor vehicle without 
motive power designed to be drawn by another 
motor vehicle and attached to the towing vehicle 
by means of a reach or pole, or by being boomed or 
otherwise secured to the towing vehicle, for trans- 
porting long or irregularly shaped loads such as 
poles, pipes, or structural members capable 
generally of sustaining themselves as beams be- 
tween the supporting connections. 

School bus means a bus that is sold, or introduced 
in interstate commerce, for purposes that include 
carrying students to and from school or related 
events, but does not include a bus designed and 
sold for operation as a common carrier in urban 
transportation. 

[Seating reference point (SgRP) means the uni- 
que design H-point, as defined in SAE JllOO (June 
1984), which: 

(a) Establishes the rearmost normal design driv- 
ing or riding position of each designated seating 
position, which includes consideration of all modes 
of adjustment, horizontal, vertical, and tilt, in a 
vehicle; 

(b) Has X, Y, and Z coordinates, as defined in 
SAE JllOO (June 1984), established relative to the 
designed vehicle structure; 

(c) Simulates the position of the pivot center of 
the human torso and thigh; and 

(d) Is the reference point employed to position 
the two dimensional drafting templates with the 
95th percentile leg described in SAE J826 (May 
1987), or, if the drafting template with the 95th 
percentile leg cannot be positioned in the seating 
position, is located with the seat in its most rear- 
ward adjustment position. (56 F.R. 38084— August 
12, 1991. Effective: September 1, 1992)1 

Semitrailer means a trailer, except a pole trailer, 
so constructed that a substantial part of its weight 
rests upon or is carried by another motor vehicle. 

Service brake means the primary mechanism 
designed to stop a motor vehicle. 

Speed attainable in 1 mile means the speed 
attainable by accelerating at maximum rate from a 
standing start for 1 mile, on a level surface. 

Speed attainable in 2 miles means the speed at- 
tainable by accelerating at a maximum rate from a 
standing start for 2 miles, on a level surface. 

Torso line means the line connecting the "H" 
point and the shoulder reference point as defined 
in SAE Recommended Practice J787b, "Motor 
Vehicle Seat Belt Anchorage," September 1966. 



Trailer means a motor vehicle with or without 
motive power, designed for carrying persons or 
property and for being drawn by another motor 
vehicle. 



Trailer converter dolly means a trailer 
equipped with one or more axles, a lower half of a 
fifth wheel and a drawbar. 

Truck means a motor vehicle with motive power, 
except a trailer, designed primarily for the 
transportation of property or special purpose 
equipment. 

Truck tractor means a truck designed primarily 
for drawing other motor vehicles and not so con- 
structed as to carry a load other than a part of the 
weight of the vehicle and the load so drawn. 

Unloaded vehicle weight means the weight of a 
vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids 
necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without 
cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily 
removed from the vehicle when they are not in use. 

95th percentile adult male means a person 
possessing the dimensions and weight of the 95th 
percentile adult male specified in Public Health 
Service Publication No. 1000, Series 11, No. 8, 
"Weight, Height, and Selected Body Dimensions 
of Adults." 

Vehicle fuel tank capacity means the tank's 
unusable capacity (i.e., the volume of fuel left at 
the bottom of the tank when the vehicle's fuel 
pump can no longer draw fuel from the tank) plus 
its usable capacity (i.e., the volume of fuel that can 
be pumped into the tank through the filler pipe 
with the vehicle on a level surface and with the 
unusable capacity already in the tank). The term 
does not include the vapor volume of the tank (i.e., 
the space above the fuel tank filler neck) nor the 
volume of the fuel tank filler neck. 

§ 571.4 Explanation of usage. 

The word "any," used in connection with a 
range of values or set of items in the requirements, 
conditions, and procedures of the standards or 
regulations in this chapter, means generally the 
totality of the items or values, any one of which 
may be selected by the Administration for testing, 
except where clearly specified otherwise. 

Examples: "The vehicle shall meet the 
requirements of S4.1 when tested at any point 
between 18 and 22 inches above the ground." This 
means that the vehicle must be capable of meeting 
the specified requirements at every point between 
18 and 22 inches above the ground. The test in 



(Rev. 12/5/91) 



PART 571-3 



question for a given vehicle may call for a single 
test (a single impact, for example), but the vehicle 
must meet the requirement at whatever point the 
Administration selects, within the specified range. 

"Each tire shall be capable of meeting the 
requirements of this standard when mounted on 
any rim specified by the manufacturer as suitable 
for use with that tire." This means that, where the 
manufacturer specifies more than one rim as 
suitable for use with a tire, the tire must meet the 
requirements with whatever rim the Administra- 
tion selects from the specified group. 

"Any one of the items listed below may, at the 
option of the manufacturer, be substituted for the 
hardware specified in S4.1." Here the wording 
clearly indicates that the selection of items is at the 
manufacturer's option. 

§ 571.5 Matter incorporated by reference. 

(a) Incorporation. There are hereby incorpo- 
rated, by reference, into this part, all materials 
referred to in any standard in Subpart B of this 
part that are not set forth in full in the standard. 
These materials are thereby made part of this 
regulation. The Director of the Federal Register 
has approved the materials incorporated by 
reference. For materials subject to change, only 
the specific version approved by the Director of the 
Federal Register and specified in the standard are 
incorporated. A notice of any change in these 
materials will be published in the Federal Register. 
As a convenience to the reader, the materials in- 
corporated by reference are listed in the Finding 
Aid Table found at the end of this volume of the 
Code of Federal Regulations. 

(b) Availability. The materials incorporated by 
reference, other than acts of Congress and matter 
published elsewhere in the Federal Register, are 
available as follows: 

(1) Standards of the Society of Automotive En- 
gineers (SAE). They are published by the Society 
of Automotive Engineers, Inc. Information and 
copies may be obtained by writing to: Society of 
Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth 
Drive, Warrendale, Pennsylvania 15096. 

(2) Standards of the American Society for 
Testing and Materials. They are published by the 
American Society for Testing and Materials. In- 
formation on copies may be obtained by writing 
to the American Society for Testing and Mate- 
rials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, Penn- 
sylvania, 19103. 



(3) Standards of the American National 
Standards Institute. They are published by the 
American National Standards Institute. Infor- 
mation and copies may be obtained by writing to: 
American National Standards Institute, 1430 
Broadway, New York, New York 10018. 

(4) Data from the National Health Survey, 
Public Health Publication No. 1000, Series 11, 
No. 8. This is published by the U.S. Department 
of Health, Education, and Welfare. Copies may 
be obtained for a price of 35 cents from the 
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government 
Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 20402. 

(5) Test methods of the American Association 
of Textile Chemists and Colorists. They are pub- 
lished by the American Association of Textile 
Chemists and Colorists. Information and copies 
can be obtained by writing to: American Associa- 
tion of Textile Chemists and Colorist, Post Office 
Box 886, Durham, NC. 

[(6) Test methods of the Illuminating 
Engineering Society of North America (lES). 
They are published by the Illuminating 
Engineering Society of North America, 345 East 
47th St., New York, N.Y. 10017. (54 F.R. 
20082— May 9, 1989. Effective: May 9, 1989)1 

§ 571.7 Applicability. 

(a) General. Except as provided in paragraphs (c) 
and (d) of this section, each standard set forth in Sub- 
part B of this part applies according to its terms to all 
motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment 
the manufacture of which is completed on or after 
the effective date of the standard. 

(b) Chassis-cabs. Chassis-cabs, as defined in 
371.3(b), manufactured on or after January 1, 
1968, shall meet all standards in effect on the date 
of manufacture of the chassis-cab as are applicable 
to the principal end use intended by its manufac- 
turer except that where the chassis-cab is equipped 
with only part and not all of the items of lighting 
equipment referred to in standard No. 108, it need 
not meet such standards. 

(Revoked 36 F.R. 7055. Effective: 4/14/71) 

(c) Military vehicles. No standard applies to a 
vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, 
and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the 
United States in conformity with contractural 
specifications. 

(d) Export. No standard applies to a vehicle or 
item of equipment in the circumstances provided in 
section 108(b) (5)of the Act(15U.S.C. 1397(b) (5)). 

(e) Combining and new used components. When a 
new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the 



PART 571-4 



S574.7 Information requirements— new tire manu- 
facturers, new tire brand name owners. 

(aXl) Each new tire manufacturer and each new tire 
brand name owner (hereinafter referred to in this sec- 
tion and §574.8 as "tire manufacturer") or its desig- 
nee, shall provide tire registration forms to every 
distributor and dealer of its tire which offers new tires 
for sale or lease to tire purchasers. 

(2) Each tire registration form provided to in- 
dependent distributors and dealers pursuant to para- 
graph (aXl) of this section shall contain space for 
recording the information specified in paragraphs 
(aX4Xi) through (aX4Xiii) of this section and shall con- 
form in content and format to Figures 3a and 3b. 
Each form shall be: 

(i) Rectangular; 

(ii) Not less than .007 inches thick; 



(iii) Greater than 3V2 inches, but not greater than 
4V4 inches wide; and 

(iv) Greater than 5 inches, but not greater than 
6 inches long. 

(3) Each tire registration form provided to distri- 
butors and dealers, that are not independent distri- 
butors or dealers, pursuant to paragraph (aXl) of this 
section shall be similar in format and size to Figure 
4 and shall contain space for recording the informa- 
tion specified in paragraphs (aX4Xi) through (aX4Xiii) 
of this section. 

(4Xi) Name and address of the tire purchaser. 

(ii) Tire identification number. 

(iii) Name and address of the tire seller or other 
means by which the tire manufacturer can identify 
the tire seller. 



OPTION 1 

REF SYMBOL 




ABOVE. BELOW OR TO THE LEFT PVf^T 

OR RIGHT OF TIRE IDENTIFICATION L/W I 



•5/32" LETTERING FOR TIRES OF LESS THAN 
6,00 INCH CROSS SECTION WIDTH AS WELL AS 
THOSE LESS THAN 13" BEAD DIAMETER MAY E 
USED 



1 - Tire identification number shall 
be in Futura Bold, Modified 
Condensed or Gotfiic characters 
permanently molded (0 020 to 
0.040" deep, measured from the 
surface immediately surrounding 
characters! into or onto tire at 
indicated location on one side. 
(See Note 4) 

2. Groups of symbols in the identification 
number shall be in the order indicated 
Deviation from the straight line arrange 

shown will be permitted if required 
to conform to the curvature of the lire 

3. When Tire Type Code is omitted, or par 
tially used, place Date of Manufacture m 
the unused area 

4 Other print type will be permit 

ted if approved by the administration 



LOCATE ALL REQUIRED LABELING 
IN LOWER SEGMENT OF ONE SIDEWALL 
BETWEEN MAXIMUM SECTION WIDTH 
AND BEAD SO THAT DATA WILL NOT BE 
OBSTRUCTED BY RIM FLANGE 



FIGURE 1 -IDENTIFICATION NUMBER FOR NEW TIRES 

PART 574-3 



SPACING 
1/4" MIN 
3/4" MAX 



^' 



REF MVSS 
No, 117, S 6. C 



TIRE IDENTIFICATION 
NUMBER 



nr 



DOT-R XXX XX XXX XXX 



MANUFACTURER S 

IDENTIFICATION 

MARK 

TIRE SIZE 



"USE 5/32" LETTERING FOR TIRES OF LESS 
THAN 6.00 INCH CROSS SECTION WIDTH AS 
WELL AS THOSE LESS THAN 13" BEAD DIAMETER. 




TIRE 
TYPE CODE 
(OPTIONAL) 

DATE OF 
MANUFACTURE 



LOCATE 

TIRE IDENTIFICATION 
NUMBER IN THIS AREA 
BUT NOT ON THE 
SCUFF RIB(S). 





SPACING 




1/4 


■ MIN 




3/4 


■ MAX 


OPTION 2 




"1 


SPACING 


1 


1/4' 


MIN 




3/4' 


MAX 


T" 




DENTIFICATION 

NUMBER 



j_XXXXX XXX 
DOT-R 



XXX 



ABOVE, BELOW OR TO THE LEFT 
OR RIGHT OF TIRE IDENTIFICATION 
NUMBER. 



Tire identification number shall be in "Futura 
Bold, Modified, Condensed or Gothic" char- 
acters permanently molded (0.020 to 0.040" 
deep, measured from the surface immediately 
surrounding characters) into or onto tire at 
indicated location on one side. 
(See Note 4) 

Groups of symbols in the identification num- 
ber shall be m the order indicated. Deviation 
from the straight line arrangement shown will 
be permitted if required to conform to the 
curvature of the tire. 

When Tire Type Code is omitted, or partially 
used, place Date of Manufacture in the unused 
area. 



Other print type will be perr 
by the Administration. 



tted if approved 



FIGURE 2— IDENTIFICATION NUMBER FOR RETREADED TIRES 



PART 574-4 



IMPORTANT A 



In case o( a recall, we can reach you only if we have 

your name and address. You MUST send In this 

card to be on our recall list. 



SHADED AREAS MUST 
BE FILLED IN BY SELLER 



Do it today. 


TIRE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS 




QTY 


1 1 2 1 3 1 . 1 5 1 a 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 ,0 1 n 








CUSTOMERS NAME iPleaseP.ml) 






CUSTOMERS ADDRESS 






CITY STATE ZIP CODE 






NAME OF DEALER WHICH SOLD TIRE 






DEALER'S ADDRESS 







A Preprinted tire manufactturer's name— unless the manufacturer's name appears on 
reverse side of tfie form. 



FIGURE 3a-REGISTRATI0N FORM FOR INDEPENDENT DISTRIBUTORS AND DEALERS- 
TIRE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER SIDE 



Name and address of 
tire manufacturer or 
its designee 

(Preprinted) 



FIGURE 3b-REGISTRATI0N FORM FOR INDEPENDENT DISTRIBUTORS AND DEALERS-ADDRESS SIDE 

(Rev. 2/8/84) PART 574-5 



/ IMPORTANT FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES 
/ TIRE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS MUST 
BE REGISTERED 

(PLEASE PRINT) 


® 


© 






\ 


CUSTOMERS NAME 








1 




, 


ADDRESS 


QTY 


TIRE IDENTIFICATION NUMRF-R-S 1 


1 






2 


■s 


'' 


b 


B 


7 


" 


9 


10 


" 


CITY STATE 


ZIP 
lOPTIONALI 


























DATE LLJJ FLEET VEHICLE N 




























SELLERS NAME AND/OR MANUFACTURER SELLE 


R NUMBER 


























ADDRESS 


























1 1 1 1 1 1 
























y 


VCITY STATE 





(a) PREPRINTED TIRE MANUFACTURERS' 
LOGO OR OTHER IDENTIFICATION 
AND MAILING ADDRESS 



(§) MICROFILM NUMBER 

LOCATION IF NECESSARY 



A-B AREAS TO SUr 

MANUFACTURERS 

REQUIREMENTS 



FIGURE 4a-UNIVERSAL FORMAT 



(b) Each tire manufacturer shall record and main- 
tain, or have recorded and maintained for it by a desig- 
nee, the information from registration forms which are 
submitted to its or its designee. No tire manufacturer 
shall use the information on the registration forms for 
any commercial purpose detrimental to tire distribu- 
tors and dealers. Any tire manufacturer to which regis- 
tration forms are mistakenly sent shall forward those 
registration forms to the proper tire manufacturer 
within 90 days of the receipt of the forms. 

(c) Each tire manufacturer shall maintain, or have 
maintained for it by a designee, a record of each tire 
distributor and dealer that purchases tires directly 
from the manufacturer and sells them to tire pur- 
chasers, the number of tires purchased by each such 
distributor or dealer, the number of tires for which 
reports have been received from each such distributor 
or dealer other than an independent distributor or 
dealer, the number of tires for which reports have been 
received from each such independent distributor or 
dealer, the total number of tires for which registration 
forms have been submitted to the manufacturer of its 
designee, and the total number of tires sold by the 
manufacturer. 

(d) The information that is specified in paragraph 
(aX4) of this section and recorded on registration forms 
submitted to a tire manufacturer or its designee shall 
be maintained for a period of not less than three years 
from the date on which the information is recorded by 
the manufacturer or its designee. 



S574.8 Information requirements— tire distributors 
and dealers. 

(a) Independent distributors and dealers. (1) Each 
independent distributor and each independent dealer 
selling or leasing new tire to tire purchasers or lessors 
(hereinafter referred to in this section as "tire pur- 
chasers") shall provide each tire purchaser at the time 
of sale or lease of the tire(s) with a tire registration 
form. 

(2) The distributor or dealer may use either the 
registration forms provided by the tire manufac- 
turers pursuant to §574. 7(a) for forms provided by 
tire manufacturers to independent distributors and 
dealers. 

(3) Before giving the registration form to the tire 
purchaser, the distributor or dealer shall record in 
the appropriate spaces provided on that form: 

(i) The entire tire identification number of the 
tire(s) sold or leased to the tire purchaser; and 

(ii) The distributor's or dealer's name and ad- 
dress or other means of identification known to the 
tire manufacturer. 

(4) Multiple tire purchases or leases by the same 
tire purchaser may be recorded on a single registra- 
tion form. 

(b) Other distributors and dealers. (1) Each distri- 
butor and each dealer, other than an independent dis- 
tributor or dealer, selling new tires to tire purchasers 



PART 574-6 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 585 



Automatic Restraint Phase-In Reporting Requirement 

(Docket No. 74-14; Notice 70) 
RIN 2127-AD10 



ACTION: Final rule. 



SUMMARY: This rule extends the requirements for 
automatic crash protection, which currently apply to 
front outboard seats in passenger cars, to front 
outboard seats in three additional types of light-duty 
vehicles. With automatic crash protection, occu- 
pants of those vehicle types will be protected by 
means that require no action by vehicle occupants. 
The effectiveness of automatic crash protection is 
dynamically tested, that is, a vehicle must comply 
with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test 
dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 miles per 
hour barrier crash test. The three newly covered 
vehicle types are trucks, multipurpose passenger 
vehicles (such as passenger vans and four-wheel 
drive utility vehicles), and buses, all with a gross 
vehicle weight rating of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less. 
These vehicles are collectively termed "light trucks" 
throughout the rest of this preamble. 

The automatic crash protection requirements for 
light trucks will be implemented in a manner that 
closely parallels the manner in which the automatic 
crash protection requirements for cars were imple- 
mented. As was the case with passenger cars, the 
automatic crash protection requirements for light 
trucks will be phased in over a period of several 
years. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: The changes made in this rule 
become effective September 23, 1991. 

Light trucks manufactured before September 1, 
1994 will not be required to comply with the auto- 
matic crash protection requirements set forth in this 
rule. Each manufacturer and each importer will be 
required to install automatic protection in— 
20 percent of its light trucks manufactured from 
September 1, 1994 to August 31, 1995, inclusive; 
50 percent of its light trucks manufactured from 
September 1, 1995 to August 31, 1996, inclusive; 
90 percent of its light trucks manufactured from 
September 1, 1996 to August 31, 1997, inclusive; 
and 
100 percent of its light trucks manufactured on 



or after September 1, 1997. 

Alternatively, a manufacturer may choose to com- 
ply with a schedule which postpones by one year the 
date on which its first light truck must have auto- 
matic protection, but accelerates by two years the 
date on which all of its trucks must be so equipped. 
Under this alternative schedule, a manufacturer 
will not be required to equip any light trucks man- 
ufactured on or before August 31, 1995 with auto- 
matic crash protection, but must equip all light 
trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1995 
with automatic crash protection. 

Background 

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 
CFR 571.208) is intended to reduce the likelihood of 
occupant deaths and the likelihood and severity of 
occupant injuries in crashes. As one means of achiev- 
ing these goals, Standard No. 208 has long required 
the installation of safety belts in passenger cars. 
Since September 1, 1989, Standard No. 208 has also 
required each new passenger car to be equipped with 
automatic crash protection for outboard front-seat 
occupants. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash 
protection protect their occupants by means that 
require no action by vehicle occupants. The effective- 
ness of automatic crash protection is dynamically 
tested, that is, a vehicle must comply with specified 
injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when 
tested by this agency in a 30 miles per hour barrier 
crash test. The two types of automatic crash protec- 
tion currently offered on new passenger cars are 
automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) 
and air bags (which supplement safety belts and 
offer some protection even when safety belts are not 
used). Automatic crash protection in cars will save 
thousands of lives and prevent tens of thousands of 
serious injuries each year when all cars are so 
equipped. 

Although Standard No. 208 has long required the 
installation of safety belts at all designated seating 
positions in light trucks, it has not required those 
vehicles to provide automatic crash protection. 



PART 585-PRE 23 



NHTSA decided it was appropriate to consider 
whether light trucks should be required to offer 
automatic crash protection in front outboard seating 
positions, in addition to safety belts at all seating 
positions. This effort led NHTSA to propose to re- 
quire automatic crash protection in light trucks in a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on 
January 9, 1990 (55 FR 747). 

That NPRM proposed to require automatic crash 
protection in trucks, multipurpose passenger vehi- 
cles (such as passenger vans and utility vehicles), 
and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500 
pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 
5,500 pounds or less, and to measure the effective- 
ness of the automatic crash protection using the 
same crash test procedures specified for passenger 
cars. Additionally, the NPRM proposed to phase in 
the automatic crash protection requirements, as was 
done for the passenger car automatic crash protec- 
tion requirements. Finally, to encourage the produc- 
tion of light trucks with air bags, it proposed to allow 
a "one-truck credit" provision for vehicles with air 
bags at the driver's position, along the lines of the 
"one-car credit" provision for passenger cars. 

NHTSA received 34 comments in response to this 
NPRM. Commenters included vehicle manufactur- 
ers, air bag suppliers, trade associations, represent- 
atives of the insurance industry, academia, other 
governmental agencies, and consumers. Several of 
the manufacturers commented that they would have 
difficulty complying with some or all of the elements 
of the proposed implementation schedule. To further 
explore these comments, NHTSA requested addi- 
tional information from five vehicle manufacturers 
(Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Mazda, and Toyota) 
on May 24, 1990. 

NHTSA has considered and analyzed all of the 
comments and other information in developing this 
final rule. For the convenience of the reader, this 
rule uses the same organization and format as the 
NPRM did. 

Requirements of This Rule 

1. Vehicles Covered by This Rule 
The agency proposed to extend the requirements 
for automatic crash protection to trucks, multipur- 
pose passenger vehicles, and buses with a gross 
vehicle weight rating of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less. As 
noted in the NPRM, nearly all trucks and multipur- 
pose passenger vehicles in this weight range will be 
required to comply with the injury criteria in a 30 
mph barrier crash with manual lap/shoulder belts at 
the front outboard seats fastened around test dum- 
mies, or, at the manufacturer's option, with auto- 
matic crash protection for those seating positions, as 



of September 1, 1991. Given that implementation of 
this new crash testing requirement for light trucks 
would precede the implementation of the automatic 
restraint requirement for those vehicles, the agency 
stated in the NPRM that, "NHTSA believes that the 
need for structural changes to accommodate the 
installation of automatic crash protection in light 
trucks beginning in late 1993 would be minimal 
because of the changes already necessary to comply 
with the dynamic testing requirements in Standard 
No. 208 applicable to light trucks manufactured on 
or after September 1, 1991." 55 FR 749; January 9, 
1990. 

The commenters generally concurred with the 
proposal that trucks and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles be equipped with automatic crash protec- 
tion. However, some commenters suggested that the 
installation of automatic crash protection would not 
be as simple as was implied in the NPRM, while 
others asked for additional leadtime to install auto- 
matic crash protection, and still others identified 
particular types of trucks and multipurpose passen- 
ger vehicles that could pose unique problems for 
automatic crash protection. This final rule requires 
trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles to be 
equipped with automatic crash protection. 

The NPRM also set forth a proposal to require 
automatic crash protection in front outboard seats of 
small buses, even though small buses will not be 
subject to the dynamic testing requirements that 
become effective September 1, 1991. The agency 
stated its belief that automatic crash protection in 
small buses would be practicable, especially because 
many van-type buses are based on a platform and 
drivetrain that are the same as or similar to the 
platform and drivetrain of van-type multipurpose 
passenger vehicles that will be subject to the dy- 
namic testing requirements. Further, the NPRM set 
forth the agency's belief that the safety need for 
automatic crash protection for the driver and any 
other front outboard seat occupants in a small bus 
did not appear to be any different than it is for 
occupants of front outboard seats of multipurpose 
passenger vehicles and trucks of similar size and 
weight. The agency sought comments on these ten- 
tative conclusions. No commenters suggested that 
the agency was incorrect. Accordingly, this rule 
adopts the proposed requirement for small buses to 
be equipped with automatic crash protection, for the 
reasons set forth in the proposal. 

The agency also sought comment on its proposal to 
include certain types of light trucks in the require- 
ment for automatic crash protection, even though 
those vehicles were excluded from the dynamic test- 
ing requirements. These vehicles were: 

a. motor homes, 

b. convertibles, 



PART 585-PRE 24 



c. open-body type vehicles, 

d. walk-in van-type trucks, 

e. vehicles designed exclusively to be sold to the 
U.S. Postal Service, and 

f. vehicles with chassis-mounted campers. 
These types of light trucks were excluded from the 

dynamic testing requirements because the vehicles 
are unique in design, often have unique restraint 
systems, and are intended to accommodate a nar- 
rowly defined end use. Additionally, the numbers of 
these vehicles produced annually are limited, so the 
overall impact of these vehicle types on light truck 
safety is proportionally small. 

Notwithstanding this previous decision, NHTSA 
proposed to make these types of light trucks subject 
to the automatic protection requirements. The 
NPRM noted that the agency is unaware of any data 
showing a differing safety need for front-seat occu- 
pants of these types of light trucks than for front- 
seat occupants of other light trucks of comparable 
size and weight. The agency expressly noted that 
designs for automatic crash protection may be more 
complex and the costs for automatic crash protection 
may well be higher in these particular types of light 
trucks than in other light trucks. However, NHTSA 
tentatively concluded that the increased complexity 
and higher costs were not sufficient to justify allow- 
ing these light trucks to provide a lesser level of 
occupant safety than other light trucks of compara- 
ble size and weight. The agency sought public com- 
ment on this tentative conclusion in the NPRM. 

The agency received extensive comments. Ford 
commented that a requirement for automatic crash 
protection would pose particular technical difficul- 
ties for manufacturers of motor homes and walk-in 
vans. Chrysler commented that a requirement for 
automatic crash protection would pose particular 
technical difficulties for manufacturers of light 
truck convertibles and open-body type vehicles. In 
addition, Chrysler commented that NHTSA had not 
provided any substantive justification for concluding 
that automatic crash protection would be practicable 
for these types of light trucks. General Motors (GM) 
commented that walk-in van-type vehicles should be 
excluded from the automatic crash protection re- 
quirements because of a lesser safety need for occu- 
pant protection in those vehicles. GM commented 
that these vehicles are typically used to make deliv- 
eries in urban areas, and not generally used for 
highway driving or personal use. GM also com- 
mented that only about 30 percent of its walk-in 
vans are equipped with front passenger seats, and 
that, in the 1989 model year, GM sold only 137 
walk-in vans within the proposed weight ranges. 
Finally, GM asserted that a considerable redesign of 
its walk-in vans would be needed to comply with a 
requirement for automatic crash protection, and 



that this redesign would not be practical for such a 
small number of vehicles. The Recreation Vehicle 
Industry Association (RVIA) commented that the 
final rule should either exclude motor homes from 
the automatic restraint requirements or limit the 
automatic restraint requirements to motor homes 
with a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000 pounds or 
less. According to RVIA, motor homes "are not part 
of the 'safety problem' " and structural changes to 
motor homes would be needed to comply with the 
automatic restraint requirements. Winnebago In- 
dustries, a motor home manufacturer, commented 
that one of its models would have a difficult time 
complying with the automatic restraint require- 
ments and asked that this model of motor home be 
excluded from the automatic crash protection 
requirements. 

In response to these comments, NHTSA has care- 
fully reexamined its proposal to include these light 
truck types in the automatic crash protection re- 
quirements. The agency believes it should apply the 
automatic crash protection requirements to all types 
of light trucks if it would be practicable to install 
automatic protection in these vehicles and if the 
safety benefits of automatic protection would be 
reasonably related to the cost of such installations. 
NHTSA has applied this approach to whether the 
automatic crash protection requirements should be 
applied to each of the six light truck types that were 
excluded from the dynamic testing requirements. 

With respect to convertibles and open-body type 
vehicles, the available evidence indicates that it is 
practicable to install automatic crash protection. 
Convertible passenger cars are required to include 
automatic crash protection. Manufacturers such as 
Chrysler are advertising the merits of air bag tech- 
nology, especially in convertibles. The transfer of 
technology from convertible passenger cars to pro- 
vide automatic crash protection in convertible and 
open-body light trucks will not require any techno- 
logical "breakthroughs." Instead, such a transfer 
will require careful planning and engineering to 
install automatic crash protection in these types of 
light trucks. 

NHTSA concurs with Chrysler's comment to the 
extent that it suggests that installing automatic 
crash protection in convertible and open-body light 
trucks will be more difficult than in convertible 
passenger cars, because these types of light trucks 
are generally designed for off road or other utility 
use. This greater degree of difficulty is a good reason 
for allowing manufacturers some additional lead- 
time to incorporate automatic crash protection in 
these vehicles. This final rule does that by providing 
an additional year in the phase-in, as discussed later 
in this preamble. 

However, NHTSA does not concur with Chrysler's 



PART 585-PRE 25 



comment to the extent that it suggests that this 
greater degree of difficulty is sufficient to justify 
excluding convertibles and open-body type light 
trucks from the automatic crash protection require- 
ments. As explained above, NHTSA agrees that 
careful planning and engineering will be needed to 
modify the automatic crash protection systems used 
in convertible passenger cars for application to con- 
vertible and open-body light trucks. The agency 
believes that the requirement for automatic crash 
protection in convertible and open-body light trucks 
is "practicable" within the meaning of section 103(a) 
of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 
(15 U.S.C. 1392(a)), because manufacturers can com- 
ply with the requirement by transferring the basic 
technology from similar vehicles (convertible pas- 
senger cars), and making modifications to account 
for the different characteristics of the light trucks. 

The costs for providing automatic crash protection 
in these trucks are estimated to be roughly compa- 
rable to the costs for providing automatic crash 
protection in convertible passenger cars. Similarly, 
the safety benefits of automatic crash protection in 
these trucks should be comparable to the benefits of 
automatic crash protection in convertible passenger 
cars. In 1988 alone, 174 front seat occupants of 
open-body trucks were killed in vehicle crashes. 
NHTSA has previously concluded that the safety 
benefits from automatic crash protection in convert- 
ible passenger cars are more than adequate to justify 
the estimated costs associated with installing auto- 
matic crash protection in convertibles. See 52 FR 
10122; March 30, 1987 and 53 FR 15067; April 27, 
1988. The agency has no reason to alter that conclu- 
sion here. 

Accordingly, NHTSA concludes that it is practica- 
ble to provide automatic crash protection in light 
trucks that are convertibles or open-body vehicles. 
Further, the agency believes that the safety benefits 
of automatic crash protection in these types of light 
trucks will be reasonably related to the costs of 
providing automatic crash protection in these 
trucks. Therefore, this rule does not exclude convert- 
ibles and open-body light trucks from the automatic 
crash protection requirements. 

The next type of light truck examined by the 
agency was walk-in vans. These vehicles pose special 
technical difficulties for automatic crash protection, 
because of their unique design features, including 
nearly vertical steering columns, fold-away driver's 
seats, large open doorway areas, and the absence of 
B-pillars near the driver's seating position. Further, 
there are no passenger cars similar to walk-in vans, 
so it would not be possible to transfer, with some 
modifications, automatic crash protection technol- 
ogy from a similar type of passenger car. Thus, while 
it might be possible, it would present substantially 



gi-eater technical and engineering challenges to in- 
stall automatic crash protection in walk-in vans 
than would be presented to install automatic protec- 
tion in the other types of light trucks that were 
excluded from the dynamic testing requirements for 
manual safety belts. 

In addition, walk-in vans are designed primarily 
for deliveries in urban areas, where the driver will 
frequently enter and exit the vehicle to make the 
deliveries. Hence, these vehicles are less likely than 
others to be involved in high-speed crashes. Addi- 
tionally, most walk-in vans are not within the pro- 
posed weight limits for light trucks to be equipped 
with automatic crash protection. In its comments, 
GM stated that it sold only 137 walk-in vans within 
the proposed weight limits during 1988. NHTSA 
concludes that the costs that would be associated 
with designing a system of automatic crash protec- 
tion for walk-in vans, which would be spread over the 
few walk-in vans that fell within these weight limits, 
would not be reasonably related to the safety bene- 
fits anticipated for such walk-in vans. After consid- 
ering these factors, NHTSA has concluded that the 
requirement for automatic restraints in light trucks 
should not apply to walk-in vans. 

The agency next examined vehicles designed ex- 
clusively to be sold to the U.S. Postal Service. The 
available evidence indicates that these light trucks 
would not present any serious problems for the 
installation of automatic crash protection. Hence, it 
would be practicable to require automatic crash 
protection in these light trucks. However, the safety 
benefits from requiring automatic crash protection 
in these vehicles would be marginal, because the 
U.S. Postal Service requires its employees to wear 
the safety belts in the Postal Service vehicles while 
on the job. This safety belt use policy should ensure 
that persons riding in these light trucks will have 
the safety protection of manual lap/shoulder belts 
every time they ride in these vehicles. Automatic 
crash protection would, therefore, offer marginal, if 
any, additional protection in these vehicles. Given 
the lesser safety benefits for automatic crash protec- 
tion in light trucks designed exclusively for sale to 
the U.S. Postal Service, the agency has decided to 
exclude these light trucks from the automatic crash 
protection requirements. 

Finally, the agency examined motor homes and 
vehicles carrying chassis-mount campers. The com- 
menters that addressed the proposal to cover these 
vehicles did not suggest that there were any partic- 
ular difficulties presented for installing automatic 
crash protection in motor homes and vehicles carry- 
ing chassis-mount campers. Instead, those comment- 
ers focused on the fact that these vehicles are typi- 
cally manufactured in more than one stage and that 
the final-stage manufacturers are small businesses. 



PART 585-PRE 26 



No commenter identified some characteristic in the 
design of these vehicles that would make it harder to 
install automatic crash protection in them than in 
other types of light trucks, nor is NHTSA aware of 
any such characteristic. Similarly, there are no indi- 
cations of any lesser safety need for automatic crash 
protection in these vehicles. Motor homes and vehi- 
cles carrying chassis-mount campers are not de- 
signed primarily for use in urban areas, nor is there 
any reason to believe that safety belt use in these 
vehicles is substantially greater than in other types 
of light trucks. Further, the cost of installing auto- 
matic crash protection in these vehicles would not 
exceed the costs of installing automatic protection in 
other types of light trucks. After examining these 
factors, there is no apparent basis for excluding 
these vehicles from the automatic crash protection 
requirements. Therefore, this rule requires motor 
homes and vehicles carrying chassis-mount campers 
to comply with the automatic crash protection 
requirements. 

To the extent that commenters were addressing 
the particular attributes of motor home manufactur- 
ers, instead of the particular attributes of vehicles 
that are motor homes, the agency believes it is appro- 
priate under the National TrafTic and Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act (the Safety Act) to have the standard apply 
to all motor homes and vehicles carrying chassis- 
mount campers. If any manufacturer of motor homes 
and/or vehicles carrying chassis-mount campers would 
experience a substantial economic hardship as a result 
of these requirements, that manufacturer may file a 
petition requesting a tempoi'ary exemption from the 
automatic crash protection requirements, pursuant to 
49 CFR Part 555, Tfemporary Exemption from Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standards. NHTSA can consider the 
special circumstances of vehicle manufacturers in the 
context of evaluating any such petitions, and take 
appropriate actions to afford any necessary special 
treatment for such manufacturers. 

2. Crash Test Procedural and 
Performance Requirements 
The NPRM proposed that compliance testing for 
light trucks equipped with automatic crash protec- 
tion be conducted according to the same test proce- 
dures and using the same injury criteria that are 
currently specified for use in testing passenger cars 
equipped with automatic crash protection. Ford 
asked in its comments that calculation of the head 
injury criterion (HIC) be limited to a 15 millisecond 
maximum, instead of the currently-specified 36 mil- 
lisecond maximum. Ford previously raised this iden- 
tical comment for HIC calculations for passenger 
cars. NHTSA specifically rejected Ford's earlier com- 
ment in the preamble to the rule that established 
the 36 millisecond maximum for HIC calculations; 



see 51 FR 37028, at 37031; October 17, 1986. In its 
new comment. Ford did not provide any additional 
data or information, nor did Ford explain why it 
believes HIC should be calculated differently for 
passenger cars and light trucks. There is, therefore, 
no reason for NHTSA to modify its previous rejection 
of Ford's 15 millisecond limit. 

Ford also commented that a minor adjustment 
should be made to the test procedures in Standard 
No. 208 to make them consistent with the procedures 
in Standards No. 212, Windshield Mounting, and No. 
219, Windshield Zone Intrusion. Ford correctly 
noted that Standards No. 212 and 219 include a 
provision in the test procedures for trucks, multipur- 
pose passenger vehicles, and buses that "unloaded 
vehicle weight does not include the weight of work- 
performing accessories." The effect of this provision 
is that certain work-performing accessories mounted 
on the front of trucks, such as snow plows and 
winches, are not mounted on the vehicle for the 
crash test. Absent a similar provision in Standard 
No. 208, those portions of the work-performing ac- 
cessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehi- 
cle when they are not in use (such as the snowplow 
blade) would not be mounted on the vehicle for the 
crash test, but any accessories that are mounted on 
the vehicle before delivery and are not ordinarily 
removed (such as the snowplow mounting hardware) 
would remain in place on the vehicle for the crash 
test. 

Ford commented that these differing provisions in 
Standard No. 208 and Standards No. 212 and 219 
would force manufacturers to conduct two different 
crash tests for the purposes of certifying compliance. 
If the test procedures for the standards were the 
same, the manufacturers would only have to conduct 
one crash test, just as a single test can be used to 
measure compliance with the three standards for 
passenger cars. The exclusion of work-performing 
accessories from the calculation of unloaded vehicle 
weight in Standards No. 212 and 219 also places the 
certification burden on the original vehicle manufac- 
turers, instead of the small manufacturers that 
attach work-performing accessories to new vehicles, 
and keeps the certification burden manageable for 
the vehicle manufacturer, because not every differ- 
ent combination of vehicle and work-performing 
accessory is subject to compliance testing. NHTSA is 
persuaded by this comment for the reasons offered by 
Ford. Therefore, this final rule amends S8.1.1fb) of 
Standard No. 208 to include the same provision in 
the test procedures for light trucks that has long 
been included in the test procedures for light trucks 
subject to Standards No. 212 and 219. 

No other commenters addressed the proposal to 
apply the passenger car test procedures and injury 
criteria to light trucks with automatic crash protec- 



PART 585-PRE 27 



tion. With the exception of the modification made in 
response to the Ford comment discussed above, the 
proposed procedures are adopted in this final rule. 

The NPRM also proposed to establish the same 
due care defense for light trucks with automatic 
crash protection as is currently established for pas- 
senger cars. Both Ford and GM commented in sup- 
port of this proposal. It is adopted in this final rule 
for the reasons stated in the proposal. 

3. Phased-In Implementation of the Automatic 
Crash Protection Requirements 

a The Phase-In. The NPRM proposed to "phase 
in" the automatic crash protection requirements for 
light trucks in a similar manner as the automatic 
crash protection requirements were phased in for 
passenger cars. The commenters supported the con- 
cept of implementing automatic crash protection 
requirements for light trucks by a "phase-in." This 
rule adopts a "phase-in" for automatic crash protec- 
tion requirements. 

To allow sufficient leadtime before the start of the 
phase-in for automatic crash protection in light 
trucks, the agency proposed to begin the phase-in 
with vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 
1993. This schedule was proposed to allow manufac- 
turers two years after implementation of the dy- 
namic testing requirements for light trucks (on 
September 1, 1991) to complete the engineering 
steps and certification testing needed to install au- 
tomatic crash protection in light trucks. The agency 
believed this period of leadtime was sufficient to 
develop automatic crash protection for light trucks 
because, at the time of the NPRM, NHTSA believed 
that passenger car technology could be "readily 
transferred" to light trucks. 

A delay in the beginning of the phase-in was urged 
by all the vehicle manufacturers that commented on 
that aspect of the notice. They emphasized the 
number of new regulations that will take effect 
during this time period, including the extension of 
several passenger car standards to light trucks, the 
expiration (in September 1993) of the "one car 
credit" for passenger cars with an air bag at the 
driver's position, and new side impact standards for 
passenger cars. The commenters asserted that the 
cumulative effect of all these new requirements 
would tax the engineering, design, development, and 
testing staff and resources of the vehicle manufac- 
turers to a greater extent than was acknowledged in 
the NPRM. 

Other vehicle manufacturers commented that the 
timing of the start of the phase-in period would affect 
the type of automatic crash protection that was in- 
stalled in light trucks. Because of the development 
work that will have to be done, especially for the 
sensors, to install air bags on light trucks, the manu- 



facturers said that an early start to the phase-in would 
result in manufacturers installing less innovative 
forms of automatic crash protection, such as non- 
motorized automatic safety belts. The point of these 
comments was that the agency would inadvertently 
discourage the installation of more advanced means of 
automatic crash protection, such as air bags, if 
NHTSA required the phase-in to begin too early. 

NHTSA has carefully reexamined the proposed 
September 1, 1993 starting date for the phase-in in 
light of these comments. In the NPRM, the agency 
stated that it did not want to begin the phase-in for 
automatic crash protection too soon after the Sep- 
tember 1, 1991 implementation of the dynamic test- 
ing requirements for manual safety belts in light 
trucks. The comments to the NPRM indicate that 
the transfer of air bag technology from passenger 
cars to light trucks may be more complex than the 
agency believed, especially the sensors to deploy the 
air bag on vehicles that are used off-road. Vehicle 
manufacturers will need time to develop air bag 
systems for light trucks. The less time that is avail- 
able for development and installation of automatic 
crash protection in light trucks, the less likely it is 
that manufacturers will choose the more difficult 
and riskier course of installing more innovative 
types of automatic crash protection, such as air bags. 
Instead, the manufacturers would be more likely to 
install non-motorized automatic safety belts. The 
agency does not want to inadvertently discourage 
efforts to install air bags or other innovative types of 
automatic crash protection in light trucks. After 
further considering this issue, NHTSA has decided 
to delay the start of the phase-in period for an 
additional year. Hence, this rule provides that the 
automatic restraint requirements will apply to light 
trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1994. 

A related question concerns the percentage of each 
manufacturer's light trucks that should be required 
to be equipped with automatic crash protection in 
each year of the phase-in, and the length of the 
phase-in before all subject light trucks should be 
required to be equipped with automatic crash pro- 
tection. The NPRM proposed a 3-year phase-in, with 
20 percent of a manufacturer's light trucks required 
to offer automatic crash protection in the first year of 
the phase-in, 50 percent doing so in the second year 
of the phase-in, and all light trucks manufactured 
two years or more after the start of the phase-in 
equipped with automatic crash protection. Several 
commenters asked that this phase-in be extended. 
For example, GM asked that the agency use the 
same 4-year phase-in that was used for passenger 
cars (10, 25, 40, and 100 percent), while Chrysler 
asked for a 5-year phase-in (10, 25, 50, 75, and 100 
percent) 

NHTSA explained in the NPRM that the phase-in 



PART 585-PRE 



proposed for light trucks was more rapid than what 
was specified for passenger cars, because the phase-in 
for automatic crash protection in passenger cars re- 
flected some considerations that are not present for 
automatic crash protection in light trucks. These con- 
siderations were: 

1. the need for public familiarity with and accep- 
tance of the different types of automatic crash 
protection; 

2. the need for vehicle manufacturers to design 
and incorporate automatic crash production in their 
production vehicles for the first time; and 

3. the need to establish a supplier base for auto- 
matic crash protection systems. 

None of these three considerations apply to the 
same extent for light trucks. By the start of this 
phase-in in September of 1994, the public will have 
seen automatic crash protection in all new passen- 
ger cars made in the preceding 5 years. The manu- 
facturers will be able to apply the engineering 
knowledge and experience that they have acquired 
over that period to solve the problems that must be 
overcome to provide automatic crash protection in 
light trucks. Finally, the air bag suppliers that 
commented on this rulemaking stated that they will 
have no trouble developing sufficient capacity to 
meet the anticipated future demand for their prod- 
ucts in light trucks. Hence, NHTSA has concluded 
that it is appropriate to require a more rapid intro- 
duction of automatic crash protection in light trucks 
than was required in passenger cars. 

Ford commented that it supported NHTSA's pro- 
posal to adopt a more rapid introduction of auto- 
matic crash protection in light trucks than in pas- 
senger cars. However, Ford's comments urged the 
agency to add one additional year to the phase-in, 
and require 90 percent of light trucks to offer auto- 
matic crash protection in this additional year. Ac- 
cording to Ford, this 90 percent year would effec- 
tively require automatic crash protection on nearly 
all light trucks, while allowing an additional year to 
address any unique problems that may arise with 
particular types of low-volume light trucks, such as 
larger off-road vehicles. 

NHTSA has concluded that this comment has 
merit. There are many more types of light trucks 
than passenger cars. If any unanticipated problems 
should arise in connection with equipping light 
trucks with automatic crash protection, it is most 
likely that those problems would occur for one of the 
unusual (i.e., limited production volume) light truck 
configurations. A third year of a phase-in set at the 
90 percent level would ensure that the public has 
nearly all the benefits expected from automatic 
crash protection in light trucks, while also allowing 
the manufacturers flexibility to accommodate some 
of the more difficult engineering problems presented 



by a requirement for automatic crash protection in 
all light trucks. For example, adding a third year to 
the phase-in in which 90 percent of all light trucks 
are required to offer automatic crash protection would 
permit Chrysler an additional year of time to equip its 
convertibles and open-body vehicles with automatic 
crash protection. At the same time, Chrysler would be 
required to install automatic crash protection in the 
vast majority of its other light trucks, including min- 
ivans and pickups. Accordingly, Ford's suggestion is 
adopted in this final rule. 

The agency also asked for comments on whether 
small buses should be excluded from the automatic 
crash protection requirements during the phase-in, 
and be required to be equipped with automatic crash 
protection requirements at the end of the phase-in 
(September 1, 1997). This would have been similar to 
the approach used for convertible passenger cars 
during the phase-in of the automatic crash protec- 
tion requirements for passenger cars. Chrysler and 
Ford commented that there was no need for small 
buses to be excluded from the automatic crash pro- 
tection requirements during the phase-in, and no 
commenter suggested that small buses should be 
excluded during the phase-in. Hence, NHTSA has 
not included any such provision in this final rule. 

Range Rover commented that the proposed phase-in 
schedule would, in effect, require light truck manufac- 
turers that produce only one model to provide auto- 
matic crash protection in 100 percent of their light 
trucks in the first year of the phase-in. This is because 
manufacturers that make several models of light 
trucks can select a few models for automatic crash 
protection to comply with the early years of the 
phase-in and leave production of the other models 
unchanged. However, the manufacturer of a single 
light truck model must design, certify and put into 
production automatic crash protection for its entire 
fleet (the single model) beginning with the first year of 
the phase-in. Range Rover commented that this was 
unfair, and that the phase-in provided no flexibility or 
relief for small, single line manufacturers. 

NHTSA believes that the proposed phase-in sched- 
ule can be viewed as being not necessarily any more 
difficult for single line manufacturers than for large 
manufacturers. Since the proposed phase-in sched- 
ule requires at least 20 percent of a manufacturer's 
light trucks to comply with the new automatic crash 
protection requirement in the first year of the phase- 
in, in practice each manufacturer must bring at 
least one model into compliance for that year. 
Viewed in this way, the burden on a manufacturer 
with only one model in the U.S. market to bring one 
model into compliance for the first year may be 
regarded as not being any different than that of a 
manufacturer which sells many models. NHTSA 
further notes that the phase-in for automatic crash 



PART 585-PRE 29 



protection in passenger cars made no special provi- 
sions for single line manufacturers and those man- 
ufacturers were able to comply with that phase-in. 

On the other hand, the agency recognizes that a 
single model represents all of a single line manufac- 
turer's production and only a small portion of a 
multi-line manufacturer's production. It also recog- 
nizes that a gi-eater portion of a single line manu- 
facturer's engineering expertise and other resources 
will be called upon to bring that single line into 
compliance than a multi-line manufacturer will 
have to use to achieve compliance for a single line. 

The agency has identified an alternative compli- 
ance schedule which it believes would help meet the 
concerns of single line manufacturers, while also 
being consistent with the need for motor vehicle 
safety. Under this option, a manufacturer would not 
need to meet the new requirements for any of its 
light trucks during the first year of the phase-in 
(September 1, 1994 to August 31, 1995), but would 
then be required to meet the requirements for all of 
its light trucks beginning with the second year of the 
phase-in (September 1, 1995 to August 31, 1996). A 
manufacturer choosing this option would thus have 
four full model years of leadtime to meet the new 
requirements. While this option would be available 
to all manufacturers, the information currently 
available indicates that the larger manufacturers 
will choose to comply with the 20/50/90 phase-in. 
NHTSA believes that the 0/100/100 phase-in option 
would be consistent with the need for motor vehicle 
safety, since the number of light trucks meeting the 
new automatic crash protection requirements dur- 
ing the 3-year phase-in period would be considerably 
higher under this option than under the other 20/ 
50/90 phase-in schedule. Therefore, this final rule 
adopts an optional phase-in schedule of 0/100/100 to 
address the concerns of single line manufacturers, as 
expressed in Range Rover's comment. 

b. Calculation of Compliance with Phase-In. 
NHTSA proposed to carry over most of the procedures 
used in calculating compliance with the phase-in of 
passenger cars with automatic crash protection so as 
to make the same procedures apply during the 
phase-in of automatic crash protection in light trucks. 
Specifically, NHTSA proposed to use the same means 
for assigning responsibility for vehicles with more 
than one statutory "manufacturer" and the same 
means for specifying how to calculate the appropriate 
percentage of the manufacturer's total production dur- 
ing the phase-in. No commenters addressed these 
proposals, so they are adopted for the reasons set forth 
in the NPRM. 

c. Phase-In Exclusion for Vehicles Manufactured in 
Two or More Stages and for Altered Vehicles. The 
NPRM proposed that the automatic crash protection 
requirements would not apply during the phase-in 



period to light trucks that were altered or manufac- 
tured in two or more stages, but that all light trucks 
would be subject to those requirements after the 
phase-in expires. After considermg all comments, 
NHTSA has decided to adopt that proposal. 

The Safety Act requires that every manufacturer 
certify that each of its vehicles complies with all 
applicable safety standards. NHTSA has previously 
recognized that this statutory requirement could 
impose unreasonable burdens on final stage manu- 
facturers if they had to certify not only the work they 
had performed on the finished vehicle, but also the 
work performed on the incomplete vehicle by its 
manufacturer (generally large manufacturers such 
as Chrysler, Ford, and GM). Therefore, the agency 
adopted regulations that prescribe the method by 
which manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in 
more than one stage shall assure conformity with 
the safety standards. 49 CFR 567.5 and Part 568. 

Under 49 CFR 568.4(aX7), the manufacturer of an 
"incomplete vehicle," as defined in 49 CFR 568.3, 
must provide an "incomplete vehicle document" 
that states, for each applicable safety standard, 
either (i) that the vehicle when completed will con- 
form to the standard if no alterations are made in 
specified components of the vehicle; (ii) the specific 
conditions of final manufacture under which the 
completed vehicle will conform to the standard; or 
(iii) that conformity with the standard is not sub- 
stantially affected by the design of the incomplete 
vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle manufac- 
turer makes no representation as to conformity. 
Thus, for all standards "affected" by the design of 
the incomplete vehicle, if the final stage manufac- 
turer completes the vehicle within the specifications 
set forth by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, it 
can be assured that the completed vehicle will com- 
ply with the applicable standards. 

In addition, pursuant to 49 CFR 567.5(a), the 
manufacturer of a "chassis-cab," the most common 
form of incomplete vehicle, must certify that the 
completed vehicle will conform to all applicable 
standards if it is completed in accordance with the 
incomplete vehicle document furnished pursuant to 
Part 568. (A chassis-cab is defined in 49 CFR 567.3 
as "an incomplete vehicle, with a completed occu- 
pant compartment, that requires only the addition of 
cargo-carrying, work-performing, or load-bearing 
components to perform its intended functions.") Pur- 
suant to 49 CFR 567.5(c), if a final stage manufac- 
turer completes a chassis-cab in accordance with its 
manufacturer's specifications, it need state only that 
fact on the certification label to impute responsibil- 
ity for the completed vehicle's conformity with the 
applicable standards to the manufacturer of the 
chassis-cab. (Pursuant to section 159(cX2) of the 
Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1419(cX2), the final stage 



PART 585-PRE 30 



manufacturer is normally obligated to conduct any 
recalls that may be necessary to correct noncompli- 
ances with safety standards or safety-related defects. 
However, the manufacturers may assign this respon- 
sibility among themselves by contract. 49 CFR 
567.5(e), 568.7.) 

NHTSA recognizes that manufacturers of incom- 
plete vehicles that are not "chassis-cabs" (such as cowl 
chassis, cutaway chassis, and stripped chassis) are not 
i-equired by section 567.5 to certify the compliance of 
their incomplete vehicles with applicable safety stan- 
dards. They are, however, required by 49 CFR 568.4 to 
provide an "incomplete vehicle document" that de- 
scribes the manner in which the incomplete vehicle 
may be completed and remain in compliance with the 
standards "affected" by the incomplete vehicle. On the 
other hand, the manufactui'ers of many of these chas- 
sis, such as those that do not have completed occupant 
compartments, will not be making any representa- 
tions with respect to the conformity of their vehicles 
with Standard No. 208, since the design of the chassis 
may not "affect" that standard. Therefore, a final 
stage manufacturer that chooses to use such a chassis 
would have the duty to certify that the completed 
vehicle conformed with Standard No. 208, as would a 
final stage manufactm-er that completed any chassis, 
including a chassis-cab, in a manner that was not 
consistent with the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's 
specifications. 

Very few (if any) final stage manufacturers have 
the engineering and financial resources necessary to 
independently determine whether a completed vehi- 
cle complies with a complex safety standard such as 
Standard No. 208. Thus, as a practical matter, 
NHTSA anticipates that most, if not all, final stage 
manufacturers will have to complete their vehicles 
within specifications established by an incomplete 
vehicle manufacturer, and, in most cases, they will 
have to use chassis-cabs. 

Similarly, an alterer must certify that every vehi- 
cle it alters complies with all applicable safety 
standards as altered. Alterers perform their alter- 
ations on vehicles that have already been certified as 
complying with all applicable safety standards. The 
alterer must certify that each of its vehicles contin- 
ues to comply with all applicable safety standards 
after the alterer has performed its operations on the 
vehicle. Alterers must, therefore, have some inde- 
pendent basis for their certifications that the altered 
vehicles continue to comply with all applicable 
safety standards. Certifications of continuing com- 
pliance for altered vehicles may be based on, among 
other things, engineering analyses, computer simu- 
lations, actual testing, or instructions for alteration 
voluntarily provided by the original vehicle manu- 
facturer in a "body builder's guide." 

The National Truck Equipment Association 



(NTEA), an association of final stage manufacturers 
and alterers, suggested that vehicles produced in 
more than one stage should be excluded from the 
automatic crash protection requirements. In its com- 
ment, NTEA acknowledged that its members can 
pass through the certification on chassis-cabs that 
are completed in accordance with the incomplete 
vehicle manufacturer's instructions. NTEA claimed, 
however, that not all vehicles can be completed or 
modified in accordance with those instructions. 
NTEA suggested that the incomplete vehicle manu- 
facturers might impose severe new restrictions that 
would effectively "force" final stage manufacturers 
to complete the vehicle outside the original manu- 
facturer's instructions. 

NHTSA has previously considered assertions that 
incomplete vehicle manufacturers would establish 
unreasonably stringent limitations on their vehi- 
cles. In the rules establishing dynamic testing re- 
quirements for manual safety belts in light trucks 
under Standard No. 208 (53 FR 50221; December 14, 
1988) and extending Standard No. 204's steering 
column rearward displacement limitations to addi- 
tional light trucks (54 FR 24344; June 7, 1989), 
NHTSA noted that it did not believe that any incom- 
plete vehicle manufacturer could, as a practical 
matter, establish unreasonably stringent limita- 
tions for its incomplete vehicles. If any incomplete 
vehicle manufacturer were to do so, final stage 
manufacturers would purchase their incomplete ve- 
hicles from other manufacturers that had estab- 
lished more realistic limitations. 

The agency's belief that market forces will prevent 
incomplete vehicle manufacturers from establishing 
unreasonably stringent limitations seems to have 
been correct. No manufacturer has provided NHTSA 
with any evidence that overly stringent limitations 
have been or will be imposed on incomplete vehicles 
subject to any of the existing crash testing require- 
ments. Thus, NHTSA does not find persuasive 
NTEA's suggestion that unreasonably stringent lim- 
itations will be imposed on the completion of incom- 
plete vehicles as a result of this amendment. 

NHTSA recognizes that the adoption of the auto- 
matic crash protection requirements may lead in- 
complete vehicle manufacturers to impose some new 
limitations on the manner in which their vehicles 
may be completed, in order to assure that the com- 
pleted vehicle will meet the requirements of the 
standard. However, there is no reason to believe that 
final stage manufacturers will be unable to complete 
their vehicles within those limitations. 

NTEA's comments also addressed the fact, dis- 
cussed above, that under 49 CFR 567.5, only manu- 
facturers of incomplete chassis-cabs are required to 
provide a formal certification that can be "passed- 
through" by a final stage manufacturer. When com- 



PART 585-PRE 31 



pleting an incomplete vehicle that is not a chassis- 
cab, or when completing an incomplete vehicle outside 
of the incomplete vehicle manufactui-er's instructions, 
the final stage manufacturer would have to indepen- 
dently certify that the completed vehicle complied 
with the automatic crash protection requirements. 
NTEA argued that final stage manufacturers lack the 
financial and engineering expertise needed to make 
such a certification, and contended that this obliges 
NHTSA to permanently exempt those vehicles from 
the automatic crash protection requirements. 

With respect to non-chassis-cabs, NHTSA reiterates 
that, as provided by 49 CFR Part 568, completion of an 
incomplete vehicle in accordance with the specifica- 
tions set forth in an incomplete vehicle document will 
ensure conformity with applicable standards and thus 
provide a basis for a final stage manufacturer to certify 
the completed vehicle. Therefore, with respect to those 
chassis for which the incomplete vehicle manufacturer 
provides specifications with respect to Standard No. 
208, NTEA's concerns regarding the ability of final 
stage manufacturers to independently certify these 
vehicles are not well grounded. However, NHTSA 
acknowledges that most non-chassis-cabs will not in- 
clude specifications for Standard No. 208. Thus, final- 
stage manufacturers that do not have an independent 
basis for certifying compliance with the automatic 
crash protection requirements will not be able to use 
non-chassis-cabs to complete vehicles within the 
weight ranges subject to the automatic crash protec- 
tion requirements. 

As discussed above, NHTSA agrees that as a 
practical matter, most final stage manufacturers 
will not have the resources to develop an indepen- 
dent basis to certify compliance with Standard No. 
208 if they do not complete vehicles within the 
specifications established by incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers or if the incomplete vehicle manufac- 
turer does not provide specifications applicable to 
that standard. That is why the agency has consis- 
tently suggested that the simplest way for final 
stage manufacturers to assure that their vehicles 
will comply with the safety standards is to complete 
the vehicles in accordance with those specifications. 
A final stage manufacturer may have to "shop 
around" among different incomplete vehicles and 
different manufacturers to find an incomplete vehi- 
cle that can be completed in the manner that its 
customer desires, while remaining within the incom- 
plete vehicle manufacturer's limitations. However, 
this is not an unreasonable burden in light of the 
safety benefits of automatic crash protection. 

Moreover, NHTSA is not convinced that it will be 
impossible for final stage manufacturers to establish 
that vehicles that are completed outside of an incom- 
plete vehicle manufacturer's specifications comply 
with the automatic crash protection requirements of 



Standard No. 208. Final stage manufacturers that 
complete vehicles outside the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer's specifications are in the same posi- 
tion as alterers regarding the certification responsi- 
bility. That is, the final stage manufacturer and the 
alterer must base their certification of compliance 
with the automatic crash protection requirements of 
Standard No. 208 on the evaluations and analyses 
made by the final stage manufacturer or alterer, 
instead of basing their certification on the specifica- 
tions the original vehicle manufacturer provided for 
the vehicle. Although it might be too difficult or 
expensive for an individual final stage manufacturer 
or alterer to independently certify compliance 
through crash tests, it may be feasible for several 
such entities to join together to conduct or sponsor 
crash tests and/or engineering analyses that would 
provide an adequate basis for certification. 

Volkswagen commented that it believed that it 
will not be practicable for modified vehicles to com- 
ply with the automatic crash protection require- 
ments, particularly if the incomplete vehicle is 
equipped with an air bag. According to Volkswagen, 
it is "virtually impossible" for the manufacturer of 
an incomplete vehicle with an air bag system to 
provide guidance and certification information to 
final stage manufacturers, in part because of the 
different types of special equipment and/or bodies 
that might be added to the incomplete vehicle. 
Further, according to Volkswagen, it would be im- 
possible for final stage manufacturers to indepen- 
dently certify compliance without conducting a 
crash test for each specific configuration. Because of 
this alleged impracticability, Volkswagen concluded 
that any light trucks that are produced in two or 
more stages should be excluded from the automatic 
crash protection requirements. 

NHTSA has previously explained in detail its rejec- 
tion of similar arguments in the rulemakings extend- 
ing dynamic testing of manual safety belts to light 
trucks under Standard No. 208 (53 FR at 50225- 
50228) and extending Standard No. 204's steering 
column rearward displacement limitations to addi- 
tional light trucks (54 FR at 24347-24350). lb briefly 
repeat, manufacturers of all light trucks have been 
required for more than a decade to certify that their 
vehicles comply with three standards (Nos. 212, 219, 
and 301) that use a 30 mph barrier crash test to 
determine compliance. Throughout that period, man- 
ufacturers of incomplete vehicles have been required 
by 49 CFR Part 568 to provide incomplete vehicle 
documents that contain certification information and 
instructions to final stage manufacturers along with 
the incomplete vehicle. In order to have a basis for the 
specifications contained in the incomplete vehicle 
documents— j. e, to assure that vehicles that are com- 
pleted within those specifications will comply with 



PART 585-PRE 32 



applicable crash test standards— the incomplete ve- 
hicle manufacturer must conduct some analysis of 
how the chassis would perform in a crash test. While 
this analysis may be more complex for the dynamic 
testing and automatic crash protection require- 
ments of Standard No. 208 than for the other Stand- 
ards that require crash testing, the process is not 
fundamentally different. Thus, Volkswagen's sug- 
gestion that it is not feasible for incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers to provide guidance to final stage 
manufacturers is not persuasive. 

Ford commented that it believed NHTSA had 
underestimated the difficulty that the automatic 
crash protection requirements would pose for final 
stage manufacturers and alterers. Ford commented 
that it would "find it relatively manageable" to 
provide guidance and appropriate limits for Ford 
vehicles used by final stage manufacturers and al- 
terers if the vehicles incorporated Ford-designed 
seats and occupant protection systems. However, 
Ford also commented that "alterers appear to be- 
lieve" that installing different seats is fundamental 
to their manufacturing and marketing operations 
and stated that it was unlikely that Ford could 
provide much useful guidance for seats and occupant 
protection systems that are not designed and in- 
stalled by Ford. 

Ford's comment is consistent with its reported 
response to the dynamic testing requirement that 
will apply to manual safety belts in light trucks 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1991. In a 
November 27, 1989 article on page E4 of Automotive 
News, it was reported that, for the purposes of the 
dynamic testing requirement. Ford's instructions to 
final stage manufacturers and alterers would re- 
quire the use of front seats installed by Ford. How- 
ever, that same article reported that Chrysler and 
General Motors plan to develop guidelines that will 
allow final stage manufacturers and alterers to 
replace the original front seats and still be covered 
by the original certification of compliance. Thus, it 
appears that such fiexibility is practicable. 

If Ford does specify in its incomplete vehicle 
documents and body builders' guide that final stage 
manufacturers and alterers could only be assured of 
compliance with Standard No. 208 if they used 
Ford's seats, final stage manufacturers and alterers 
would have two options that would enable them to 
avoid having to independently certify compliance. 
They could either use Ford vehicles and complete or 
modify the vehicle in accordance with Ford's instruc- 
tions, or use vehicles produced by a different manu- 
facturer that permit the use of a variety of seats. In 
either case, no significant compliance burden would 
be imposed on the final stage manufacturer or 
alterer. 

For the foregoing reasons, NHTSA has concluded 



that there is no need to exclude vehicles produced in 
two or more stages or altered vehicles from the 
automatic crash protection requirements once the 
phase-in has ended. However, somewhat different 
considerations apply to the issue of whether those 
requirements should apply during the phase-in, 
which ends August 31, 1997. 

During the phase-in period, manufacturers of com- 
pleted light trucks will be required to install auto- 
matic crash protection in some but not all of their 
vehicles. If automatic crash protection were not 
available in the particular type of chassis used by a 
final stage manufacturer or alterer (perhaps because 
the chassis manufacturer did not intend to install 
automatic crash protection in its completed vehicles 
that are based on that chassis), it is unlikely that the 
final stage manufacturer or alterer could design, 
install, and certify a system of automatic crash 
protection for the vehicle. In recognition of these 
difficulties, the agency proposed to exclude light 
trucks manufactured in two or more stages and light 
trucks that are altered from the automatic crash 
protection requirements during the 20/50/90 phase- 
in period. 

No commenter opposed this proposal and several 
supported it. NHTSA remains convinced that it 
would be impracticable to require final stage manu- 
facturers and alterers to assure that a specified 
percentage of their vehicles complied with the auto- 
matic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 
208 during the phase-in. Therefore, this final rule 
adopts the proposed exclusion of light trucks manu- 
factured in two or more stages and light trucks that 
are altered from the automatic crash protection 
requirements during the phase-in. Because of this 
exclusion, this rule also adopts the proposal to allow 
original manufacturers the option to either include 
or exclude their light trucks that are sent to second 
stage manufacturers and alterers, when determin- 
ing compliance during the phase-in period for auto- 
matic crash protection in light trucks. However, as 
indicated above, once the phase-in is completed, all 
light trucks must be equipped with automatic crash 
protection. 

d. Phase-In Reporting Requirements. The agency 
proposed to adopt substantially the same reporting 
requirements for light trucks as were previously 
specified for passenger cars during the phase-in of 
the automatic crash protection requirements for 
those vehicles. The agency also proposed to not 
require information about altered light trucks and 
light trucks manufactured in two or more stages to 
be submitted in these reports, because manufactur- 
ers of those light trucks were not required to comply 
with the percentage requirements during the phase- 
in. No commenters addressed this subject. These 
requirements are adopted as proposed, for the rea- 



PART 585-PRE 33 



sons set forth in the NPRM. 

e. Phase-In Certification Requirements. The NPRM 
proposed to require a separate certification to appear 
on light trucks that were produced during the 
phase-in and were intended to be among the percent- 
age of their manufacturer's annual production certi- 
fied as complying with the automatic crash protec- 
tion requirements. During the phase-in of automatic 
crash protection, some of a manufacturer's vehicles 
are equipped with automatic crash protection, while 
the rest are equipped only with manual safety belts. 
However, the information on the certification labels 
on both vehicles equipped with automatic crash 
protection and those equipped with only manual 
safety belts would fail to differentiate between the 
vehicles. 

Additionally, during a phase-in, manufacturers 
are permitted to equip those vehicles with both 
manual safety belts and air bags, for example, but 
not certify the vehicles as complying with the auto- 
matic crash protection requirements. Instead, the 
manufacturers could certify that the vehicles com- 
plied with Standard No. 208 by virtue of the manual 
safety belts and assert the position that the air bags 
were a voluntary additional means of occupant pro- 
tection. In this case, nothing on the certification 
label would alert the agency that these vehicles were 
not certified as complying with the automatic crash 
protection requirements. 

NHTSA proposed to address the practical difficul- 
ties that had arisen in these situations in the pas- 
senger car phase-in by requiring manufacturers to 
affix an additional certification label on their light 
trucks produced during the phase-in period, if the 
light trucks were certified as complying with the 
automatic crash protection requirement. This pro- 
posal reflected the agency's tentative conclusions 
that this additional certification would effectively 
solve those problems, while imposing only minimal 
added burdens on the manufacturers. 

The commenters strongly disagreed with the 
agency's proposal. Ford commented that the addi- 
tional certification label would likely be misleading 
to consumers. Ford also commented that agency 
personnel would have ample additional sources for 
learning whether particular vehicles were certified 
as complying with the automatic crash protection 
requirements, including the proposed reports and 
the proposed requirement to keep records of the 
vehicle identification numbers of the vehicles certi- 
fied as complying with the automatic crash protec- 
tion requirements. Chrysler, Nissan, and Volkswa- 
gen all commented that the proposed additional 
certification label would be an increased burden, 
even if it were only slight, and that the agency had 
not articulated any benefits, great or small, that 
would result from imposing that burden. 



After reviewing these comments, the agency has 
concluded that the proposed additional certification 
label should not be adopted in this final rule. As 
noted in the comments, agency personnel will be 
able to obtain the necessary certification informa- 
tion if the proposed reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements are adopted for the phase-in. NHTSA 
can make that information available to the public if 
there is any confusion about particular light trucks 
during the phase-in. Thus, there is no compelling 
reason to require an additional certification label on 
light trucks during the phase-in. 

f. Retention of VINs. For the phase-in of automatic 
crash protection for passenger cars, NHTSA deter- 
mined that it was important for enforcement pur- 
poses that manufacturers maintain records of the 
vehicle identification number (VIN) and the type of 
automatic crash protection installed on each passen- 
ger car produced during the phase-in period that was 
reported to NHTSA as one of the manufacturer's cars 
equipped with automatic crash protection. Again with 
respect to passenger cars, the manufacturers were 
required to retain these records for slightly more than 
two years after the end of the phase-in. The agency 
proposed to adopt the same requirements for light 
trucks. No commenter offered any objections to this 
proposal. Therefore, this final rule adopts the proposed 
VIN recordkeeping requirement. 

4. "One-Truck Credit" Provision 
As the requirements for automatic crash protec- 
tion were being phased-in for passenger cars, 
NHTSA adopted provisions designed to give car 
manufacturers an incentive to use more innovative 
automatic crash protection systems in their vehicles. 
Accordingly, Standard No. 208 includes provisions so 
that each car equipped with a non-belt automatic 
crash protection system for the driver's position, 
such as an air bag or passive interior, and a manual 
safety belt for the right front passenger's position 
will be counted as a vehicle complying with the 
automatic crash protection requirements. These pro- 
visions are referred to as the "one-car credit." NHTSA 
repeatedly stated its belief that the "one-car credit" 
would encourage the introduction of non-belt auto- 
matic crash protection systems into passenger cars 
sooner than would occur if manufacturers were simply 
required to install automatic crash protection systems 
in both front seating positions simultaneously. 

NHTSA tentatively determined it would also be 
appropriate to offer an incentive for light truck 
manufacturers to install more innovative systems of 
automatic crash protection. This tentative determina- 
tion reflected the agency's belief that, as in the case of 
passenger cars, the relative technological ease of wide- 
spread installation in light trucks of passenger-side air 
bags is less than that of passenger-side automatic 



PART 585-PRE 34 



belts. Absent some measures to equalize this techno- 
logical disparity, NHTSA believes that light truck 
manufacturers would opt for the installation of auto- 
matic belts at both the driver's and passenger's posi- 
tions, instead of installing an air bag at the driver's 
position and an automatic belt at the passenger's 
position. Thus, the agency proposed to offer the "one- 
truck credit" to allow the passage of sufficient time for 
the relative technological difficulties of passenger- 
side air bags and passenger-side automatic belts to 
become nearly equal. The agency tentatively con- 
cluded that 4 years was the minimum time sufficient 
for that purpose. Therefore, the NPRM proposed that 
the one-truck credit be available for light trucks 
manufactured during the 4-year period after the be- 
ginning of the phase-in of the automatic crash protec- 
tion requirement. 

Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors supported the 
proposed one-truck credit. The only commenter that 
objected to the proposal was Motor Voters. According 
to Motor Voters, market forces may be sufficient to 
encourage light truck manufacturers to choose air 
bags as the means for complying with the automatic 
crash protection requirement. In this case, there 
would be no need for any additional regulatory 
incentives. Because of this. Motor Voters suggested 
in its comments that the one-truck credit be allowed 
during the phase-in period, but that the one-truck 
credit provision be ended when the phase-in expires. 

NHTSA concurs with Motor Voters' belief that the 
one-truck credit provision should not be offered for 
an excessive period of time, because it would then 
serve to delay for too long the safety benefits of 
automatic crash protection for the right front pas- 
senger position in light trucks. In the preamble to 
the NPRM, NHTSA also explained that it believed 
that, if the one-truck credit provision were available 
for a period of less than 4 years, the short credit 
would not provide sufficient time to resolve technical 
issues associated with passenger side air bags in 
light trucks. Hence, if the one-truck credit were 
made available for too short a time, it would do little 
to encourage light truck manufacturers to install 
driver-side air bags in light trucks. Motor Voters' 
comments did not set forth any new facts or infor- 
mation not previously considered by the agency in 
reaching its tentative decision on the appropriate 
length of time for the one-truck credit provision. A 
review of the available information reinforces 
NHTSA's technical judgment that there are special 
technical problems presented by the installation of 
air bags in light trucks that can be alleviated by 
allowing the one-truck credit. After this review, 
NHTSA has decided to adopt the proposed 4-year 
duration for the one-truck credit in this final rule. 



Other "Credit" Issues During the Phase-In 

The agency proposed to adopt the same 1.5 vehicle 
credit for light trucks that was available for passen- 
ger cars during the phase-in. Pursuant to this provi- 
sion, cars equipped with an air bag or other non-belt 
means of automatic crash protection at the driver's 
position, and any type of automatic crash protection 
at the right front passenger's position, were counted 
as 1.5 cars equipped with automatic crash protection 
during the phase-in of the automatic crash protec- 
tion requirements for passenger cars. 

In its comments, Ford stated that the 1.5 credit 
provides some incentive for truck manufacturers to 
introduce passenger-side air bags, but that a two- 
truck credit would be more effective as an incentive. 
Ford acknowledged that Porsche had sought a two- 
car credit for passenger cars, and that this request 
was denied by NHTSA. 51 FR 42598; November 25, 
1986. However, Ford commented that most of the 
agency's reasons for denying the two-car credit for 
cars would not be applicable for light trucks. Hence, 
Ford asked NHTSA to reexamine this issue. 

In its denial of a two-vehicle credit provision for 
cars, NHTSA explained that the 1.5 vehicle credit 
already provided an extra incentive for manufactur- 
ers to install air bags for both the driver and right 
front passenger and that no manufacturer had pro- 
vided detailed data specifically explaining how a 
two-car credit would serve as an additional incentive 
to any manufacturer to change its production plans 
during the phase-in. Absent such a quantification, 
NHTSA's judgment was that a two-vehicle credit 
provision could actually serve as a disincentive to 
installing air bags in the greatest number of vehi- 
cles during the phase-in. 

The agency believes this reasoning is equally appli- 
cable to light trucks. Neither Ford nor any other 
manufacturer has provided any details about how a 
two-truck credit would affect their plans to install air 
bags in their trucks. Absent such information, it is 
NHTSA's technical judgment that an additional 0.5 
vehicle credit over and above the existing 1.5 vehicle 
credit for trucks with both driver and passenger air 
bags would not ensure more air bags in light trucks 
during the phase-in. Hence, this final rule does not 
include a two-truck credit provision. 

During the phase-in of automatic crash protection 
in passenger cars, NHTSA decided to permit the 
"carry-forward" of credits for vehicles equipped with 
automatic crash protection. The carry-forward provi- 
sions allow manufacturers that exceed the minimum 
percentage of vehicles equipped with automatic 
crash protection in one year of the phase-in to count 
those excess vehicles as credits toward the specified 
percentage during any subsequent model years of 
the phase-in. Additionally, for passenger cars, man- 



PART 585-PRE 35 



ufacturers were allowed to count cars produced dur- 
ing the year before the start of the phase-in as 
credits toward the specified percentage in any year 
of the phase-in. NHTSA explained that these carry- 
forward credits would encourage the early introduc- 
tion of more vehicles with automatic crash protection, 
provide increased flexibility for vehicle manufacturers, 
and assure an orderly build-up of production capa- 
bility for automatic crash protection. The agency 
proposed to allow the same carry-forward of credits 
during the phase-in of automatic crash protection for 
light trucks. 

Ford commented that it supported the proposed 
carry-forward of credits. However, Ford requested 
that manufacturers be permitted to carry-forward 
credits for light trucks equipped with automatic 
crash protection that are produced in the 2 years 
before the start of the phase-in (i.e., September 1, 
1992 to August 31, 1994), instead of the proposed 
carry-forward of credits for automatic crash protec- 
tion in light trucks produced in the year before the 
start of the phase-in (i.e., September 1, 1993 to 
August 31, 1994). Ford commented that this exten- 
sion of the carry-forward credit provision would 
encourage manufacturers to introduce automatic, 
crash protection in light trucks as soon as possible. 

NHTSA is persuaded by this comment. To the 
extent that light truck manufacturers are not per- 
mitted to receive credit for trucks equipped with 
automatic crash protection produced before the start 
of the phase-in, those manufacturers would have an 
incentive to hold off the installation of automatic 
crash protection in their light trucks until they 
would receive such credit. Otherwise, a manufac- 
turer that installed automatic crash protection as 
soon as it could in its light trucks would end up 
installing automatic crash protection in a higher 
percentage of its vehicles than manufacturers who 
make lesser efforts to install automatic crash protec- 
tion, while both received the same credits for pur- 
poses of complying with the phase-in. For example, a 
manufacturer that installs automatic crash protec- 
tion in 10 percent of its vehicles the model year 
before the phase-in starts and then in an additional 
ten percent of its vehicles during the first year of the 
phase-in (for a total of 20 percent of its vehicles) 
would not be credited any differently than a manu- 
facturer that equipped 20 percent of its vehicles with 
automatic crash protection during the first year of 
the phase-in, if there were no provision allowing 
carry-forward of credits. Hence, an extension of the 
period for carry-forward credits serves the interests 
of safety by encouraging the earliest possible intro- 
duction of automatic crash protection. Accordingly, 
this rule adopts Ford's suggestion to permit the 
carry-forward of credits for light trucks equipped 
with automatic crash protection produced in the 2 



years before the start of the phase-in. 

Obviously, light trucks that are not certified as 
complying with the automatic crash protection re- 
quirements cannot be carried forward as credits 
toward complying with the automatic protection 
requirements. The agency has slightly revised the 
provision for calculating credits in S4.2.5.5 of Stand- 
ard No. 208 and the reporting requirements in 
§ 585.5(bX2), to ensure that all parties understand 
that carry-forward credits are only available for 
light trucks certified as providing automatic crash 
protection. 

Finally, Mazda asked the agency to permit the 
"carry-back" of credits, a procedure that was explic- 
itly rejected for the passenger car phase-in. "Carry- 
back" provisions allow manufacturers that fall short 
of the minimum percentage of vehicles equipped 
with automatic crash protection in one year of the 
phase-in to make up the shortfall in future model 
years of the phase-in. Carry-back provisions were 
rejected for the passenger car phase-in, because 
these provisions would allow vehicle manufacturers 
to delay the installation of automatic crash protec- 
tion and result in lesser safety benefits for the 
public. 

Mazda did not question the agency's previous 
conclusions that carry-back credits delay the avail- 
ability of automatic crash protection. Absent any 
additional information, NHTSA has no basis for 
changing its previously stated rejection of the con- 
cept of carry-back credits during the phase-in period. 

5. Compatibility with Child Safety Seats 
In the NPRM, the agency proposed to include 
special requirements for the passenger seating posi- 
tion in two-seater vehicles. The agency proposed that 
the automatic crash protection system installed at 
the right front seating position must be capable of 
being adjusted to secure a child safety seat or the 
seating position must be equipped with an original 
equipment manual lap or lap/shoulder belt to secure 
a child seat. Many vehicle manufacturers that com- 
mented on the NPRM objected to this proposal. 
Motor Voters and the Automotive Occupant Re- 
straints Council both supported the proposal. 

After the publication of this NPRM on automatic 
crash protection in light trucks, the agency pub- 
lished an NPRM devoted to the subject of the com- 
patibility of safety belt systems with child safety 
seats; 55 FR 30937; July 30, 1990. Instead of ad- 
dressing this issue in a piecemeal fashion in several 
different rulemakings, NHTSA believes it is more 
appropriate to use the child seat compatibility rule- 
making as the forum for addressing all concerns 
about the compatibility of child safety seats and the 
various occupant protection systems, including au- 
tomatic crash protection systems. Hence, the subject 



PART 585-PRE 36 



will not be addressed further in this rulemaking 
action. 

Technical Amendments of Regulatory 
Language 

Ford concluded its comments with a request that 
NHTSA clarify the interrelationship of three rule- 
making actions under Standard No. 208 addressing 
occupant protection requirements for light trucks. 
The first of these was the rule requiring dynamic 
testing of manual safety belts installed in front 
outboard seating positions in light trucks (52 FR 
44898; November 23, 1987), codified at S4.2.2 and 
S4.2.3 of Standard No. 208. The second rulemaking 
was the requirement for rear seat lap/shoulder 
safety belts in light trucks (54 FR 46257; November 
2, 1989), codified at S4.2.4 of Standard No. 208. The 
third rulemaking is this rulemaking requiring au- 
tomatic crash protection in light trucks, codified at 
S4.2.5 and S4.2.6 of Standard No. 208. 

Ford commented that S4.2.4 appears to require 
lap/shoulder belts in rear outboard seating positions 
of most light trucks. However, Ford correctly noted 
that the dynamic testing requirements for manual 
safety belts in light trucks and the automatic crash 
protection requirements for light trucks refer to the 
older passenger car options for occupant protection, 
which permit the installation of lap-only safety belts 
in rear outboard seats of vehicles. Ford suggested 
that this be clarified. This rule makes the requested 
clarification, so that no unintended confusion will 
arise about whether light trucks must be equipped 
with lap/shoulder belts in rear seating positions. 

Ford also commented that it was unclear if the 
dynamic testing requirements for light trucks 
equipped with manual safety belts applied to light 
trucks equipped with manual safety belts that are 
produced during the phase-in period for automatic 
crash protection. The answer is that dynamic testing 
will apply to all subject light trucks manufactured 
on or after September 1, 1991, including the years 
during which automatic crash protection will be 
phased in, that meet the requirements of Standard 
No. 208 by providing manual lap/shoulder belts at 
front outboard seating positions. Language has been 
added to the dynamic testing requirements to make 
this requirement more explicit. 

Finally, Ford commented that it assumed light 
trucks not subject to the dynamic testing require- 



ments but that would be subject to the automatic 
crash protection requirement (motor homes, convert- 
ibles, open-body vehicles, etc.) would be excluded 
from a manufacturer's production total when deter- 
mining compliance with the phase-in. This assump- 
tion is incorrect. NHTSA explicitly proposed to in- 
clude these vehicles and did not propose to exclude 
such vehicles during the phase-in. This rule does not 
have any such exclusion. 

Regulatory Impacts 

NHTSA has examined the impacts of this rule- 
making action and determined that it is both "ma- 
jor" within the meaning of Executive Order 12291 
and "significant" within the meaning of the Depart- 
ment of Transportation's regulatory policies and 
procedures, because of both the costs and the public 
interest associated with this proposed rulemaking 
action. Accordingly, a Final Regulatory Impact 
Analysis (FRIA) has been prepared for this proposal, 
and a copy of the FRIA has been placed in the public 
docket for this rulemaking action. A copy of the 
FRIA may be obtained by writing to: Docket Section, 
NHTSA, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Wash- 
ington, D.C. 20590. 

T^ble 1 presents the incremental benefits of auto- 
matic crash protection assuming all light trucks 
with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less 
would have automatic belts, or assuming all light 
trucks would have driver side air bags, or assuming 
all light trucks would have air bags for the driver 
and right front seat passenger. These benefits can be 
considered to accrue over the lifetime of one model 
year's production when all light trucks in that model 
year have automatic crash protection or these bene- 
fits can be considered annual benefits at some future 
date when all light trucks in the fleet incorporate 
automatic crash protection. These incremental ben- 
efits are compared to manual safety belt use rates of 
26.6 to 40 percent (26.6 percent was derived from the 
Fatal Accident Reporting System, and represents 
belt use in potentially fatal accidents by light truck 
occupants for 1989; 40 percent is an estimate of 
potential safety belt use levels in 1995 based on a 
continuing trend of increased use due to State safety 
belt use laws, consumer safety awareness, and safety 
belt education programs). 



PART 585-PRE 37 



TABLE 1 

Incremental Benefits for Automatic Crash Protection 

Assuming Light Trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 Pounds GVWR or Less 

And Unloaded Vehicle Weight of 5,500 Pounds or Less 

Were Equipped with that Type of Automatic Protection 



Fatalities 



Driver 
Air Bags 

Driver and 
Right Front 
Air Bags 

Automatic 

Belts 

Usage 

50 Percent 
60 Percent 
70 Percent 



1,573 to 1,855 



2,016 to 2,378 



370 to 1,216 

949 to 1,796 

1,529 to 2,375 



AIS 2-5 
Injuries 


AISl 
Injuries 


18,688 to 22,178 


32,837 to 40,423 


23,960 to 28,434 


42,098 to 51,824 



4,353 to 13,829 
10,881 to 20,357 
17,409 to 26,883 



7,258 to 16,984 
14,517 to 24,243 
21,775 to 31,501 



The estimated costs of automatic crash protection for light trucks are shown in Tfeible 2. 

TABLE 2 
Estimated Consumer Costs of Automatic Crash Protection 



Restraint System 

Driver air bag 
Driver and RF air bag 
Automatic belts Motorized 
Automatic belts Non-motorized 



Consumer 
Cost (1989 $) 

$277.86 

404.16 

185.66 

44.21 



The estimated lifetime fuel costs for the added weight of these various types of automatic protection are 
shown in Tbble 3. 



TABLE 3 

Lifetime Fuel Cost 

(Present Value, 10% Annual Discount Rate) 



Restraint System 

Driver air bag 
Driver and RF air bag 
Automatic belts Motorized 
Automatic belts Non-motorized 



Incremental 

Weight per 

Vehicle 

9.0 lbs. 
21.0 
10.0 

5.0 



Tbtal Vehicle 
Lifetime Fuel 
Cost (1989 $) 

$12.38 

28.80 

13.75 

6.89 



PART 585-PRE 38 



TABLE 4 

Total Vehicle Costs Including 

Lifetime Fuel Costs 

(Present Value, 10% Annual Discount Rate) 

(Without Secondary Weight) 



Restraint System 

Driver air bag 
Driver and RF air bag 
Automatic belts Motorized 
Automatic belts Non-motorized 



Incremental 

Weight per 

Vehicle 



9.0 lbs. 
21.0 
10.0 

5.0 



Total Per Vehicle Cost 
Including Lifetime 
Fuel Cost (1989 $) 

$290.24 

432.96 

199.41 

51.10 



Restraint System 

Driver air bag 
Driver and RF air bag 
Automatic belts Motorized 
Automatic belts Non-motorized 



(With Secondary Weight) 

Incremental 

Weight per 

Vehicle 



15.3 

35.7 

17.0 

8.5 



Total Per Vehicle Cost 
Including Lifetime 
Fuel Cost (1989 $) 

$303.76 

464.47 

214.43 

58.62 



Additionally, the agency has analyzed the effects 
of this proposal on small entities, in accordance with 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This analysis ap- 
pears at Section IV of the FRIA. Based on the 
available information, the agency does not believe 
that a substantial number of small entities will be 
affected by this final rule, and that any effects on 
small entities would not be significant economic 
impacts. Interested persons are invited to examine 
this section of the FRIA. 

The agency has also analyzed this rule under the 
National Environmental Policy Act and determined 
that it will not have a significant effect on the 
human environment. A discussion of this determi- 
nation can be found in the Environmental Assess- 
ment that has been prepared for this rule. This 
report is available in the public docket for this 
rulemaking action. 

This rule has also been analyzed in accordance with 
the principles and criteria contained in Executive 
Order 12612, and NHTSA has determined that it does 
not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant 
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. 

The Office of Management and Budget (0MB) had 
already approved NHTSA's requirement for phase-in 
reporting for automatic crash protection in passen- 
ger cars (0MB #2127-0535). However, this rule 
extends the existing passenger car requirements to 
light trucks during the phase-in of automatic crash 
protection. This extension is considered to be an 
information collection requirement, as that term is 



defined by 0MB in 5 CFR Part 1320. Accordingly, 
the information collection requirement was submit- 
ted to and approved by 0MB, pursuant to the re- 
quirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The reporting and recordkeep- 
ing requirements in this rule have been assigned 
0MB #2127-0535 and approved through April 30, 
1993. 

In consideration of the foregoing. Chapter V of 
Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows: 

S4.2 of Standard No. 208 is amended by revising 
S4.2.2, S4.2.3, and the title of S4.2.4, and adding 
new S4.2.5 and S4.2.6, to read as follows: 

S4.2 Trucks and multipurpose passenger ve- 
hicles with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. 

S4.2.2 Trucks and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less 
and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds 
or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 
1991 and before September 1, 1997. Except as 
provided in S4.2.4, each truck and multipurpose 
passenger vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating 
of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle 
weight of 5,500 pounds or less, manufactured on or 
after September 1, 1991 and before September 1, 
1997, shall meet the requirements of S4. 1.2.1, or at 
the option of the manufacturer, S4. 1.2.2 or S4. 1.2.3 
(as specified for passenger cars), except that convert- 
ibles, open-body type vehicles, walk-in van-type 



PART 585-PRE 39 



trucks, motor homes, vehicles designed to be exclu- 
sively sold to the U.S. Postal Service, and vehicles 
carrying chassis-mount campers may instead meet 
the requirements of S4. 2. 1.1 or S4.2.1.2. Each Type 2 
seat belt assembly installed in a front outboard 
designated seating position in accordance with 
S4. 1.2.3 shall meet the requirements of S4.6. 

54.2.3 Trucks and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 
1991 with either a GVWR of more than 8,500 
pounds but not greater than 10,000 pounds or 
with an unloaded vehicle weight greater than 
5,500 pounds and a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or 
less. Except as provided in S4.2.4, each truck and 
multipurpose passenger vehicle manufactured on or 
after September 1, 1991, that has either a gross 
vehicle weight rating which is greater than 8,500 
pounds, but not greater than 10,000 pounds, or has 
an unloaded vehicle weight gi-eater than 5,500 
pounds and a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, shall 
meet the requirements of S4. 1.2.1, or at the option of 
the manufacturer, S4.1.2.2 or S4.1.2.3 (as specified 
for passenger cars), except that convertibles, open- 
body type vehicles, walk-in van-type trucks, motor 
homes, vehicles designed to be exclusively sold to the 
U.S. Postal Service, and vehicles carrying chassis- 
mount campers may instead meet the requirements 
of S4. 2. 1.1 or S4.2.1.2. 

54.2.4 Rear outboard seating positions in 
trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 
with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. * * * 

***** 

54.2.5 Trucks, buses, and multipurpose pas- 
senger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or 
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 
pounds or less manufactured on or after Sep- 
tember 1, 1994, and before September 1, 1997. 

S4.2.5.1 Trucks, buses, and multipurpose pas- 
senger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or 
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 
pounds or less manufactured on or after Sep- 
tember 1, 1994 and before September 1, 1995. 

S4. 2.5. 1.1 Subject to S4. 2.5. 1.2 and S4.2.5.5 and 
except as provided in S4.2.4, each truck, bus, and 
multipurpose passenger vehicle, other than walk-in 
van-type trucks and vehicles designed to be exclu- 
sively sold to the U.S. Postal Service, with a GVWR 
of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle 
weight of 5,500 pounds or less that is manufactured 
on or after September 1, 1994 and before September 
1, 1995, shall comply with the requirements of 
S4. 1.2.1, S4.1.2.2, or S4.1.2.3 (as specified for passen- 
ger cars). A vehicle shall not be deemed to be in 
noncompliance with this standard if its manufac- 
turer establishes that it did not have reason to know 



in the exercise of due care that such vehicle is not in 
conformity with the requirement of this standard. 

S4.2.5.1.2 Subject to S4.2.5.5, the amount of 
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
specified in S4.2.5.1.1 complying with S4. 1.2.1 (as 
specified for passenger cars) shall be not less than 20 
percent of: 

(a) The average annual production of trucks, 
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less manufactured 
on or after September 1, 1991, and before September 
1, 1994, by each manufacturer that produced such 
vehicles during each of those annual production 
periods, or 

(b) The manufacturer's total production of trucks, 
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less during the 
period specified in S4.2.5.1.1. 

S4.2.5.2 Trucks, buses, and multipurpose pas- 
senger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or 
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 
pounds or less manufactured on or after Sep- 
tember 1, 1995 and before September 1, 1996. 

54.2.5.2.1 Subject to S4.2.5.2.2 and S4.2.5.5 and 
except as provided in S4.2.4, each truck, bus, and 
multipurpose passenger vehicle, other than walk-in 
van-type trucks and vehicles designed to be exclu- 
sively sold to the U.S. Postal Service, with a GVWR 
of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle 
weight of 5,500 pounds or less that is manufactured 
on or after September 1, 1995 and before September 
1, 1996, shall comply with the requirements of 
S4. 1.2.1, S4.1.2.2, or S4. 1.2.3 (as specified for passen- 
ger cars). A vehicle shall not be deemed to be in 
noncompliance with this standard if its manufac- 
turer establishes that it did not have reason to know 
in the exercise of due care that such vehicle is not in 
conformity with the requirement of this standard. 

54.2.5.2.2 Subject to S4.2.5.5, the amount of 
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
specified in S4.2.5.2.1 complying with S4. 1.2.1 (as 
specified for passenger cars) shall be not less than 50 
percent of: 

(a) The average annual production of trucks, 
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less manufactured 
on or after September 1, 1992, and before September 
1, 1995, by each manufacturer that produced such 
vehicles during each of those annual production 
periods, or 

(b) The manufacturer's total production of trucks, 
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less during the 



PART 585-PRE 40 



period specified in S4.2.5.2.1. 

54. 2.5.3 Trucks, buses, and multipurpose pas- 
senger vehicles with a G VWR of 8,500 pounds or 
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 
pounds or less manufactured on or after Sep- 
tember 1, 1996 and before September 1, 1997. 

54. 2.5. 3.1 Subject to S4.2.5.3.2 and S4.2.5.5 and 
except as provided in S4.2.4, each truck, bus, and 
multipurpose passenger vehicle, other than walk-in 
van-type trucks and vehicles designed to be exclu- 
sively sold to the U.S. Postal Service, with a GVWR 
of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle 
weight of 5,500 pounds or less that is manufactured 
on or after September 1, 1996 and before September 
1, 1997, shall comply with the requirements of 
S4. 1.2.1, S4. 1.2.2, or S4.1.2.3 (as specified for passen- 
ger cars). A vehicle shall not be deemed to be in 
noncompliance with this standard if its manufac- 
turer establishes that it did not have reason to know 
in the exercise of due care that such vehicle is not in 
conformity with the requirement of this standard. 

54.2.5.3.2 Subject to S4.2.5.5, the amount of 
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
specified in S4.2.5.3.1 complying with S4. 1.2.1 (as 
specified for passenger cars) shall be not less than 90 
percent of: 

(a) The average annual production of trucks, 
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less manufactured 
on or after September 1, 1993, and before September 
1, 1996, by each manufacturer that produced such 
vehicles during each of those annual production 
periods, or 

(b) The manufacturer's total production of trucks, 
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less during the 
period specified in S4.2.5.3.1. 

54.2.5.4 Alternative phase-in schedule. A man- 
ufacturer may, at its option, comply with the require- 
ments of this section instead of complying with the 
requirements set forth in S4.2.5.1, S4.2.5.2, and 
S4.2.5.3. 

(a) Except as provided in S4.2.4, each truck, bus, 
and multipurpose passenger vehicle, other than 
walk-in van-type trucks and vehicles designed to be 
exclusively sold to the U.S. Postal Service, with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less that is man- 
ufactured on or after September 1, 1994 and before 
September 1, 1995, shall comply with the require- 
ments of S4. 1.2.1, S4. 1.2.2, or S4.1.2.3 (as specified 
for passenger cars). 

(h) Except as provided in S4.2.4, each truck, bus, 
and multipurpose passenger vehicle, other than 
walk-in van-type trucks and vehicles designed to be 



exclusively sold to the U.S. Postal Service, with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less that is man- 
ufactured on or after September 1, 1995 shall comply 
with the requirements of S4. 1.2.1 (as specified for 
passenger cars) of this standard. A vehicle shall not 
be deemed to be in noncompliance with this Stand- 
ard if its manufacturer establishes that it did not 
have reason to know in the exercise of due care that 
such vehicle is not in conformity with the require- 
ment of this standard. 

(c) Each truck, bus, and multipurpose passenger 
vehicle with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1995, but 
before September 1, 1998, whose driver's seating 
position complies with the requirements of 
S4. 1.2. 1(a) of this standard by means not including 
any type of seat belt and whose right front passen- 
ger's seating position is equipped with a manual 
Type 2 seat belt that complies with S5.1 of this 
standard, with the seat belt assembly adjusted in 
accordance with S7.4.2, shall be counted as a vehicle 
complying with S4. 1.2.1. 

S4.2.5.5 Calculation of complying trucks, 
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less. 

(a) For the purposes of the calculations required in 
S4. 2.5. 1.2, S4.2.5.2.2, and S4. 2.5. 3.2 of the number 
of trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehi- 
cles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less that 
comply with S4. 1.2.1 (as specified for passenger 
cars): 

(1) Each truck, bus, and multipurpose passenger 
vehicle with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less 
whose driver's seating position complies with the 
requirements of S4. 1.2. 1(a) by means not including 
any type of seat belt and whose front right seating 
position complies with the requirements of 
S4. 1.2. 1(a) by any means is counted as 1.5 vehicles, 
and 

(2) Each truck, bus, and multipurpose passenger 
vehicle with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less 
whose driver's seating position complies with the 
requirements of 84. 1.2. 1(a) by means not including 
any type of seat belt and whose right front passen- 
ger's seating position is equipped with a manual 
Type 2 seat belt that complies with S5.1 of this 
Standard, with the seat belt assembly adjusted in 
accordance with S7.4.2, is counted as one vehicle. 

(3) Each truck, bus, and multipurpose passenger 
vehicle with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less that 



PART 585-PRE 41 



is manufactured in two or more stages or that is 
altered (within the meaning of § 567.7 of this chap- 
ter) after having previously been certified in accor- 
dance with Part 567 of this chapter is not subject to 
the requirements of S4.2.5.1.2, S4.2.5.2.2, and 
S4.2.5.3.2. Such vehicles may be excluded from all 
calculations of compliance with S4.2.5.1.2, S4.2.5.2.2, 
and S4.2.5.3.2. 

(b) For the purposes of complying with S4.2.5.1.2, 
a truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger vehicle with 
a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less may be 
counted if it: 

(1) Is manufactured on or after September 1, 1992, 
but before September 1, 1994, and 

(2) Is certified as complying with S4. 1.2.1 (as 
specified for passenger cars). 

(c) For the purposes of complying with S4.2.5.2.2, a 
truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less may be 
counted if it: 

(1) Is manufactured on or after September 1, 1992, 
but before September 1, 1995, 

(2) Is certified as complying with S4. 1.2.1 (as 
specified for passenger cars), and 

(3) Is not counted towards compliance with 
S4. 2.5. 1.2. 

(d) For the purposes of complying with S4.2.5.3.2, 
a truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger vehicle with 
a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less may be 
counted if it: 

(1) Is manufactured on or after September 1, 1992, 
but before September 1, 1996, 

(2) Is certified as complying with S4. 1.2.1 (as 
specified for passenger cars), and 

(3) Is not counted towards compliance with 
S4.2.5.1.2 or S4.2.5.2.2. 

S4.2.5.6 Trucks, buses, and multipurpose pas- 
senger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or 
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 
pounds or less produced by more than one 
manufacturer. 

S4.2.5.6.1 For the purposes of calculating average 
annual production for each manufacturer and the 
amount of vehicles manufactured by each manufac- 
turer under S4. 2.5. 1.2, S4. 2.5. 2.2, "or S4.2.5.3.2, a 
truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less produced by 
more than one manufacturer shall be attributed to a 
single manufacturer as follows, subject to S4.2.5.6.2: 

(a) A vehicle that is imported shall be attributed to 
the importer. 

(b) A vehicle that is manufactured in the United 
States by more than one manufacturer, one of which 



also markets the vehicle, shall be attributed to the 
manufacturer that markets the vehicle. 

S4.2.5.6.2 A truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger 
vehicle with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less 
produced by more than one manufacturer shall be 
attributed to any one of the vehicle's manufacturers 
specified in an express written contract, reported to 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
under 49 CFR Part 585, between the manufacturer 
so specified and the manufacturer to which the 
vehicle would otherwise be attributed under 
S4.2.5.4.1. 

84. 2. 6 Trucks, buses, and multipurpose pas- 
senger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or 
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 
pounds or less manufactured on or after Sep- 
tember 1, 1997. Except as provided in S4.2.4, each 
truck, bus, and multipurpose passenger vehicle with 
a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less manufactured 
on or after September 1, 1997 shall comply with the 
requirements of S4. 1.2.1 (as specified for passenger 
cars) of this standard, except that walk-in van-type 
trucks and vehicles designed to be exclusively sold to 
the U.S. Postal Service may instead meet the re- 
quirements of S4. 2. 1.1 or S4.2.1.2. Each truck, bus, 
and multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR 
of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle 
weight of 5,500 pounds or less manufactured on or 
after September 1, 1997, but before September 1, 
1998, whose driver's seating position complies with 
the requirements of S4. 1.2. 1(a) of this Standard by 
means not including any type of seat belt and whose 
right front passenger's seating position is equipped 
with a manual Type 2 seat belt that complies with 
S5.1 of this Standard, with the seat belt assembly 
adjusted in accordance with S7.4.2, shall be counted 
as a vehicle complying with S4. 1.2.1. A vehicle shall 
not be deemed to be in noncompliance with this 
Standard if its manufacturer establishes that it did 
not have reason to know in the exercise of due care 
that such vehicle is not in conformity with the 
requirement of this standard. 



3. A new S4.4.4 
read as follows: 
S4.4 Buses. 



idded to Standard No 208, to 



S4.4.4 Buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or 
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 
pounds or less manufactured on or after Sep- 
tember 1, 1994. Each bus with a GVWR of 8,500 
pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 
5,500 pounds or less manufactured on or after Sep- 
tember 1, 1994 shall comply with the requirements 



PART 585-PRE 42 



of S4.2.5 and S4.2.6 of this standard, as applicable, 
for front seating positions, and with the require- 
ments of S4.4.3.2 or S4.4.3.3 of this standard, as 
applicable, for all rear seating positions. 



4. S8.1.1(b) of Standard No. 208 
s follows: 
S8. Test conditions. 



revised to read 



S8.1.1 Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this 
section, the vehicle, including test devices and in- 
strumentation, is loaded as follows: 

***** 

(b) Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, 
and buses. A multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, 
or bus is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight plus 300 
pounds or its rated cargo and luggage capacity weight, 
whichever is less, secured in the load carrying area 
and distributed as nearly as possible in proportion to 
its gross axle weight ratings, plus the weight of the 
necessary anthropomorphic test devices. For the pur- 
poses of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does not 
include the weight of work-performing accessories. 
Vehicles are tested to a maximum unloaded vehicle 
weight of 5,500 pounds. 



PART 585-[AMENDED] 

5. The authority citation for Part 585 continues to 
read as follows: 

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

6. Section 585.1 is revised to read as follows: 
This part establishes requirements for manufac- 
turers of trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) 
of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle 
weight of 5,500 pounds or less to submit reports, and 
to maintain records related to the reports, concern- 
ing the number of such vehicles equipped with 
automatic crash protection in compliance with the 
requirements of S4.2.5 of Standard No. 208, Occu- 
pant Crash Protection (49 CFR § 571.208). 

7. Section 585.2 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 585.2 Purpose. 

The purpose of these reporting requirements is to 
aid the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminis- 
tration in determining whether a manufacturer of 
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less has 
complied with the requirements of Standard No. 208, 
Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR §571.208) to 
install automatic crash protection in specified per- 
centages of the manufacturer's annual production of 



those vehicles. 

8. Section 585.3 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 585.3 Applicability. 

This part applies to manufacturers of trucks, 
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less. However, this 
part does not apply to any such manufacturers 
whose production consists exclusively of: 

(a) vehicles manufactured in two or more stages; 

(b) walk-in van-type trucks; 

(c) vehicles designed to be exclusively sold to the 
U.S. Postal Service; 

(d) Vehicles that are altered after previously hav- 
ing been certified in accordance with part 567 of this 
chapter. 

7. Section 585.4 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 585.4 Definitions. 

(a) All terms defined in section 102 of the National 
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391) 
are used in their statutory meaning. 

(b) Bus, gross vehicle weight rating or GVWR, 
multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, and unloaded 
vehicle weight are used as defined in § 571.3 of this 
chapter. 

(c) Production year means the 12-month period 
between September 1 of the prior year and August 
31 of the year in question, inclusive. 

8. Section 585.5 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 585.5 Reporting requirements. 

(a) General reporting requirements. 

(1) Within 60 days after the end of the production 
years ending August 31, 1995, August 31, 1996, and 
August 31, 1997, each manufacturer that manufac- 
tured any trucks, buses, and multipurpose passen- 
ger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less 
and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or 
less during the production year (other than walk-in 
van-type trucks, vehicles designed to be exclusively 
sold to the U.S. Postal Service, vehicles manufac- 
tured in two or more stages, or vehicles that were 
altered after previously having been certified in 
accordance with part 567 of this chapter) shall 
submit a report to the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration concerning its compliance 
with the requirements of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 
571.208) for installation of automatic crash protec- 
tion in such vehicles manufactured during that 
production year 

(2) Each report submitted in compliance with 
paragraph (aXD of this section shall: 

(i) Identify the manufacturer; 
(ii) State the full name, title, and address of the 
official responsible for preparing the report; 



PART 585-PRE 43 



(iii) Identify the production year for which the 
report is filed; 

(iv) Contain a statement regarding the extent to 
which the manufacturer has complied with the re- 
quirements of S4.2.5 of Standard No. 208 (§ 571.208 
of this chapter); 

(v) Provide the information specified in paragraph 
(b) of this section; 

(vi) Be written in the English language; and 

(vii) Be submitted to: Administrator, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. 

(b) Report content. 

(1) Basis for phase-in production goals. Each man- 
ufacturer shall report the number of trucks, buses, 
and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR 
of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle 
weight of 5,500 pounds or less that it manufactured 
for sale in the United States for each of the three 
preceding production years or, at the manufacturer's 
option, for the production year for which the report is 
filed. A manufacturer that did not manufacture any 
trucks, buses, or multipurpose passenger vehicles 
with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less 
during each of the three preceding production years 
must report the number of trucks, buses, and multi- 
purpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR or 8,500 
pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 
5,500 pounds or less manufactured during the pro- 
duction year for which the report is filed. 

(2) Production. Each manufacturer shall report for 
the production year for which the report is filed, and 
for each preceding production year, to the extent that 
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
produced during the preceding production years are 
treated under §571.208 of this chapter as having 
been produced during the production period for 
which the report is filed, the information specified in 
paragraphs (bX2Xi) through (bX2Xiii) of this section, 
inclusive, with respect to its trucks, buses, and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 
8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight 
of 5,500 pounds or less. 

(i) The number of those vehicles certified as com- 
plying with S4. 1.2.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant 
Crash Protection (49 CFR §571.208) because they 
are equipped with automatic seat belts and the 



seating positions at which those belts are installed; 

(ii) The number of those vehicles certified as 
complying with S4. 1.2.1 of Standard No. 208, Occu- 
pant Crash Protection (49 CFR §571.208) because 
they are equipped with air bags and the seating 
positions at which those air bags are installed; and 

(iii) The number of those vehicles certified as 
complying with S4. 1.2.1 of Standard No. 208, Occu- 
pant Crash Protection (49 CFR § 571.208) because 
they are equipped with other forms of automatic 
crash protection, which forms of automatic crash 
protection shall be described, and the seating posi- 
tions at which those forms of automatic crash pro- 
tection are installed. 

(3) Vehicles produced by more than one manufac- 
turer Each manufacturer whose reporting of infor- 
mation is affected by one or more of the express 
written contracts permitted by section S4.2.5.6.2 of 
§ 571.208 of this chapter shall: 

(i) Report the existence of each such contract, 
including the names of all parties to each such 
contract, and explain how the contract affects the 
report being filed; and 

(ii) Report the number of vehicles covered by each 
such contract. 

11. Section 585.6 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 585.6 Records. 

Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the 
vehicle identification number and type of automatic 
crash protection for each vehicle for which informa- 
tion was reported under § 585.5(bX2), until Decem- 
ber 31, 1999. 



Issued on March 20, 



Jerry Ralph Curry 
Administrator 

56 F.R. 12472 
March 26, 1991 



PART 585-PRE 44 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 585 

Automatic Restraint Phase-In Reporting Requirements 
(Docket No. 74-14; Notice 43) 



51. Scope. I This part establishes requirements 
for manufacturers of trucks, buses, and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating 
(GVWR) of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehi- 
cle weight of 5,500 pounds or less to submit reports, 
and to maintain records related to the reports, concern- 
ing the number of such vehicles equipped with auto- 
matic crash protection in compliance with the 
requirements of S4.2.5 of Standard No. 208, Occupant 
Crash Protection (49 CFR § 571.208). 

52. Purpose. [ The purpose of these reporting re- 
quirements is to aid the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration in determining whether a 
manufacturer of trucks, buses, and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or 
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds 
or less has complied with the requirements of Standard 
No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection U9 CFR 
S 571.208) to install automatic crash protection in speci- 
fied percentages of the manufacturer's annual produc- 
tion of those vehicles. 

53. Applicability. [ This part applies to manufac- 
turers of trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger ve- 
hicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less. 
However, this part does not apply to any such manufac- 
turers whose production consists exclusively of: 

(a) Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages; 

(b) Walk-in van-type trucks; 

(c) Vehicles designed to be exclusively sold to the 
U.S. Postal Service; and/or 

(d) Vehicles that are altered after previously having 
been certified in accordance with Part 567 of this 
chapter. 

S.4 Definitions. [ (a) All terms defined in section 
102 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 
Act (15 U.S.C 1391) are used in their statutory 
meaning. 

(b) 5ws, gross vehicle weight rating or GVWR, multi- 
purpose passenger vehicle, truck, and unloaded vehicle 
are used as defined in § 571.3 of this chapter. 



(c) Production year means the 12-month period be- 
tween September 1 of the prior year and August 31 
of the year in question, inclusive. 

S5. Reporting requirements. 

(a) General reporting requirements. 

t (1) Within 60 days after the end of the production 
years ending August 31, 1995, August 31, 1996, and 
August 31, 1997, each manufacturer that manufac- 
tured any trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less during 
the production year (other than walk-in van-type 
trucks, vehicles designed to be exclusively sold to the 
U.S. Postal Service, vehicles manufactured in two or 
more stages, or vehicles that were altered after previ- 
ously having been certified in accordance with Part 567 
of this chapter) shall submit a report to the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning its 
compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 208 
(49 CFR § 571.208) for installation of automatic crash 
protection in such vehicles manufactured during that 
production year. 

(2) Each report submitted in compliance with para- 
graph (a)(1) of this section shall: 

(i) Identify the manufacturer; 

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

(iii) Identify the production year for which the 
report is filed; 

(iv) Contain a statement regarding the extent to 
which the manufacturer has complied with the require- 
ments of S4.2.5 of Standard No. 208 (§ 571.208 of this 
chapter); 

(v) Provide the information specified in paragraph 
(b) of this section; 

(vi) Be written in the English language; and 

(vii) Be submitted to: Administrator, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. 

(b) Report content 

(1) Basis for phase-in production goals. Each 
manufacturer shall report the number of trucks, buses, 



3/26/91) 



PART 585-1 



and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 
8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight 
of 5,500 pounds or less that it manufactured for sale 
in the United States for each of the three preceding 
production years or, at the manufacturer's option, for 
the production year for which the report is filed. A 
manufacturer that did not manufacture any trucks, 
buses, or multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehi- 
cle weight of 5,500 pounds or less during each of the 
three preceding production years must report the num- 
ber of trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger ve- 
hicles with a GVWR or 8,500 pounds or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less 
manufactured during the production year for which the 
report is filed. 

(2) Production. Each manufacturer shall report for 
the production year for which the report is filed, and 
for each preceding production year, to the extent that 
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
produced during the preceding production years are 
treated under § 571.208 of this chapter as having been 
produced during the production period for which the 
report is filed, the information specified in paragraphs 
(b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(iii) of this section, inclusive, with 
respect to its trucks, buses, and multipurpose pas- 
senger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less 
and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less. 

(i) The number of those vehicles certified as comply- 
ing with S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash 
Protection (49 CFR §571.208) because they are 
equipped with automatic seat belts and the seating 
positions at which those belts are installed; 

(ii) The number of those vehicles certified as com- 
plying with S4. 1.2.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant 
Crash Protection (49 CFR § 571.208) because they are 
equipped wath air bags and the seating positions at 
which those air bags are installed; and 



(iii) The number of those vehicles certified as com- 
plying with S4. 1.2.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant 
Crash Protection (49 CFR § 571.208) because they are 
equipped with other forms of automatic crash protec- 
tion, which forms of automatic crash protection shall 
be described, and the seating positions at which those 
forms of automatic crash protection are installed. 

(3) Vehicles produced by more than one manu- 
facturer. Each manufacturer whose reporting of infor- 
mation is affected by one or more of the express 
written contracts permitted by section S4.2.5.6.2 of 
§ 571.208 of this chapter shall: 

(i) Report the existence of each such contract, includ- 
ing the names of all parties to each such contract, and 
explain how the contract affects the report being filed; 
and 

(ii) Report the number of vehicles covered by each 
such contract. 



S6. Records. [ Each manufacturer shall maintain 
records of the vehicle identification number and type 
of automatic crash protection for each vehicle for which 
information was reported under § 585.5(bX2), until 
December 31, 1999. (56 F.R. 12472— March 26, 1991. 
Effective: September 23, 1991)1 



Issued on March 20 1991. 



51 F.R. 9801 
March 21, 1986 



56 F.R. 12472 
March 26, 1991 



PART 585-2 



PART 586-SIDE IMPACT PHASE-IN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 



§ 586.1 Scope. This section establishes re- 
quirements for passenger car manufacturers to 
submit a report, and maintain records related to 
the report, concerning the number of passenger 
cars manufactured that meet the dynamic test pro- 
cedures and performance requirements of 
Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection (49 CFR 
Part 571.214). 

§ 586.2 Purpose. The purpose of the reporting 
requirements is to aid the National Highway Traf- 
fic Safety Administration in determining whether 
a passenger car manufacturer has complied with 
the requirements of Standard No. 214 of this 
Chapter (49 CFR 571.214) concerning dynamic 
test procedures and performance requirements 
concerning side impact protection. 

§586.3 Applicability. This part applies to 
manufacturers of passenger cars. 

§ 586.4 Definitions, (a) All terms defined in sec- 
tion 102 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391) are used in their 
statutory meaning. 

(b) Passenger car is used as defined in 49 CFR 
Part 571.3. 

(c) Production year means the 12-month-period 
between September 1 of one year and August 31 of 
the following year, inclusive. 

§ 586.5 Reporting requirements. 

(a) General reporting requirements. Within 60 
days after the end of each of the production years 
ending August 31, 1994, August 31, 1995, and 
August 31, 1996, each manufacturer shall submit a 
report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Ad- 
ministration concerning its compliance with the re- 
quierments of S3(c) of Standard No. 214 for its 
passenger cars produced in that year. Each report 
shall- 

(1) Identify the manufacturer. 

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

PART 



(3) Identify the production year being 
reported on; 

(4) Contain a statement regarding whether or 
not the manufacturer complied with the dynamic 
testing and performance requirements of the 
amended Standard No. 214 for the period 
covered by the report and the basis for that 
statement; 

(5) Provide the information specified in 
§ 586.5(b), except that this information need not 
be submitted with the report due 60 days after 
August 31, 1994 if the manufacturer chooses the 
compliance option specified in S3(d) of 49 CFR 
571.214; 

(6) Be written in the English language; and 

(7) Be submitted to: Administrator, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. 

(b) Report content— 

(1) Basis for phase-in production goals. Each 
manufacturer shall provide the number of 
passenger cars manufactured for sale in the 
United States for each of the three previous pro- 
duction years, or, at the manufacturer's option, 
for the current production year. A new manufac- 
turer that is, for the first time, manufacturing 
passenger cars for sale in the United States must 
report the number of passenger cars manufac- 
tured during the current production year. 

(2) Production. 

Each manufacturer shall report for the produc- 
tion year being reported on, and each preceding 
year, to the extent that cars produced during the 
preceding years are treated under Standard No. 
214 as having been produced during the produc- 
tion year being reported on, information on the 
number of passenger cars that meet the dynamic 
test procedure and performance requirements of 
S5 and S6 of Standard No. 214. 

(3) Passenger cars produced by more than one 
manufacturer. 

Each manufacturer whose reporting of infor- 
mation is affected by one or more of the express 



586-1 



written contracts permitted by S8.4.2. of 
Standard No. 214 shall: 

(i) Report the existence of each contract, in- 
cluding the names of all parties to the contract, 
and explain how the contract affects the report 
being submitted. 

(ii) Report the actual number of passenger 
cars covered by each contract. 

§ 586.6 Records. 

Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the 
Vehicle Identification Number for each passenger 
car for which information is reported under 
§ 586.5(b)(2) until December 31, 1998. 



§ 586.7 Petition to extend period to file report. 

A petition for extension of the time to submit a 
report must be received not later than 15 days 
before expiration of the time stated in § 586.5(a). 
The petition must be submitted to: Administrator, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20590. The filing of a petition does not 
automatically extend the time for filing a report. A 
petition will be granted only if the petitioner shows 
good cause for the extension and if the extension is 
consistent with the public interest. 

55 F.R. 45768 
October 30, 1990 



PART 586-2 



PART 587— SIDE IMPACT MOVING DEFORMABLE BARRIER 



§ 587.1 Scope. This part describes the moving 
deformable barrier that is to be used for testing 
compliance of motor vehicles with motor vehicle 
safety standards. 

§ 587.2 Purpose. The design and performance 
criteria specified in this part are intended to 
describe measuring tools with sufficient precision 
to give repetitive and correlative results under 
similar test conditions and to reflect adequately 
the protective performance of a motor vehicle or 
item of motor vehicle equipment with respect to 
human occupants. 

§ 587.3 Applicability. This part does not in itself 
impose duties or liabilities on any person. It is a 
description of tools that measure the performance 
of occupant protection systems required by the 
safety standards that incorporate it. It is designed 
to be referenced by, and become a part of, the test 
procedures specified in motor vehicle safety 
standards, such as Standard No. 214, Side Impact 
Protection. 

§ 587.4 Definitions, (a) All terms defined in sec- 
tion 102 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391) are used in their 
statutory meaning. 

§ 587.5 Incorporated materials. 

(a) The drawings and specifications referred to 
in this regulation that are not set forth in full are 
hereby incorporated in this part by reference. 
These materials are thereby made part of this 
regulation. The Director of the Federal Register 
has approved the materials incorporated by 
reference. For materials subject to change, only 
the specific version approved by the Director of the 
Federal Register and specified in the regulation 
are incorporated. A notice of any change will be 
published in the Federal Register. As a conve- 
nience to the reader, the materials incorporated by 
reference are listed in the Finding Aid Table found 
at the end of this volume of the Code of Federal 



(b) The drawings and specifications incor- 
porated in this part by reference are available for 
examination in the general reference section of 
Docket 79-04, Docket Section, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. 
Copies may be obtained from Rowley-Scher 
Reprographics, Inc., 1111 14th Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20005, telephone (202) 628-6667 
or (202) 408-8789. The drawings and specification 
are also on file in the reference library of the Office 
of the Federal Register, National Archives and 
Records Administration, Washington, D.C. 

§ 587.6 General description. 

(a) The moving deformable barrier consists of 
component parts and component assemblies which 
are described in drawings and specifications that 
are set forth in this Part 587.6 of this Chapter. 

(b) The moving deformable barrier specifica- 
tions are provided in the drawings shown in 
DSL-1278 through DSL-1287, except DSL-1282. 

(1) The specifications for the final assembly of 
the moving deformable barrier are provided in 
the drawings shown in DSL-1278. 

(2) The specifications for the frame assemble 
of the moving deformable barrier are provided in 
the drawings shown in DSL-1281, 

(3) The specifications for the face of the mov- 
ing deformable barrier are provided in the draw- 
ings shown in DSL-1285 and DSL 1286. 

(4) The specifications for the ballast installa- 
tion and details concerning the ballast plate are 
provided in drawings shown in DSL- 1279 and 
DSL-1280. 

(5) The specifications for the hub assembly and 
details concerning the brake are provided in 
drawings shown in DSL-1283. 

(6) The specifications for the rear guide 
assembly are provided in drawings shown in 
DSL-1284. 

(7) The specifications for the research axle 
assembly are provided in drawings shown in 
DSL-1287. 



PART 587-1 



(c) In configuration 2 (with two cameras and (e) The moving deformable barrier has the 
camera mounts, a hght trap vane, and ballast following moment of inertia: 

reduced), the moving deformable barrier, including pj^gh = 1669 ft -lb -sec 2 

the impact surface, supporting structure, and car- RqU ^ 375 ft -lb -sec'^ 

riage, weighs 3,015 pounds, has a track width of 74 Yaw = 1897 ft -lb -sec 2 

inches in the crabbed configuration when the 

wheels are straight, and has a wheelbase of 102 cc c d >.=•»-,« 

inches. !f '^•"- *"^° 

, „ , ,. October 30, 1990 

(d) In configuration 2, the moving deformable 
barrier has the following center of gravity: 

X =44.2 inches rear of front axle 

Y =0.3 inches left of longitudinal center 

line 
Z =19.7 inches from ground. 



PART 587-2 



bumper standards (but it does conform with all 
applicable Federal Theft prevention standards) but 
the importer is eligible to import it because (s)he: 
(IXi) Is a member of the personnel of a foreign 
government on assignment in the United States, or 
a member of the Secretariat of a public international 
organization so designated under the International 
Organization Immunities Act, and within the class 
of persons for whom free entry of motor vehicles 
has been authorized by the Department of State: 

(ii) Is importing the motor vehicle on a tem- 
porary basis for the personal use of the importer, 
and will register it through the Office of Foreign 
Missions of the Department of State; 

(iii) Will not sell the vehicle to any person in 
the United States, other than a person eligible to 
import a vehicle under this paragraph; and 

(iv) Will obtain from the Office of Foreign 
Missions of the Department of State, before depart- 
ing the United States at the conclusion of a tour of 
duty, an ownership title to the vehicle good for 
export only; or 

(2)(i) Is a member of the armed forces of a 
foreign country on assignment in the United States; 

(ii) Is importing the vehicle on a temporary 
basis, and for the personal use of the importer; 

(iii) Will not sell the vehicle to any person in 
the United States, other than to a person eligible to 
import a vehicle under this subsection; and 

(iv) Will export the vehicle upon departing the 
United States at the conclusion of a tour of duty. F.R. 
3742— February 5, 1990. Effective: February 5, 1990)] 
(iXl) The vehicle was manufactured before January 
1, 1968, or if a motorcycle, before January 1, 1969; or 
(2) The equipment item was manufactured on a 
date when no applicable safety or theft prevention 
standards were in effect. 

(j) The vehicle or equipment item does not conform 
with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, 
standards, but is being imported solely for the 
purpose of: 

(1) research; 

(2) investigations; 

(3) studies; 

(4) demonstrations or training; or 

[(5) competitive racing events, and will not be 
licensed for use on the public roads. (55 F.R. 
3742— February 5, 1990. Effective: February 5, 1990)1 

S591.6 Documents accompanying declarations. 

Declarations of eligibility for importation made 
pursuant to paragraph 591.5 must be accompanied 
by the following certification and documents, where 
applicable. 



(a) A declaration made pursuant to paragraph 
591.5(a) shall be accompanied by a statement substan- 
tiating that the vehicle was not manufactured for use 
on the public roads, or that the e